Umesh Dutta Tripathi And 9 Others vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 7782 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14325 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Umesh Dutta Tripathi And 9 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Piyush Shukla, learned Standing Counsel.

This petition has been preferred by the petitioners who claim to be members of the general body of the society Sri Ganesh Shankar Vidhyarthi Smarak Shikha Samiti. They assail the order passed by the respondent finalizing the list of members of the general body, declaration of an election program and declaration of results thereof. Those proceedings were undertaken pursuant to the direction issued by a learned Judge of the Court in Writ C No.42472 of 2019 requiring the Deputy Registrar to hold elections under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

The petitioners here who claimed to be members of the general body sought to participate in the elections which were announced. The respondents have rejected that claim on the ground that they had failed to obtain any relief from the Court in Special Appeal Defective No.454 of 2020. It becomes pertinent to note that the petitioner no.1 was admittedly a respondent in Writ C No.42472 of 2019. Learned counsel for the petitioner is presently unable to disclose or state whether all other petitioners here were also respondents or had participated in the proceedings taken on that writ petition which has come to be disposed of. However, from the record it is manifest that at least the petitioner no.1 had challenged the order rendered by the learned Judge by way of Special Appeal Defective No.454 of 2020 which came to be dismissed. In view thereof it is evident that at least the first petitioner was aware of the proceedings taken on the earlier petition and had also challenged the judgment rendered therein.

In order to appreciate the issue which arises, it would be relevant to note the following observations in the decision rendered by the learned Judge in Writ C No.42472 of 2019:

"Shri Ganesh Shanker Vidyarthi Smarak Shiksha Samiti, Kanpur Nagar is a society registered under the provisions of Society Registration Act, 1860. The bye-laws of the society are on record according to which periodical elections are required to be conducted for managing the society after every three years. It is admitted on record that last elections were held to constitute the managing committee of the society in the year 2014 in which the petitioners were the members. One Suparasnath Jain was the president while petitioner No.2 was elected as the Secretary. The exact date of the election is not on record but it is admitted that the last elections were held in 2014 and the list of office bearers was also registered. Fresh elections were required to be conducted in the year 2017. According to the private respondents the second petitioner resigned from the membership of society and the managing committee on 01.09.2017 and his resignation was also accepted on the same day. Thereafter fresh elections are said to have been conducted on 24.09.2017 and the list of office bearers consequent upon such election came to be registered by the Deputy Registrar on 10.07.2018.

An objection appears to have been filed by the petitioners stating that respondent No.4 is a complete stranger and the proceedings have been cooked up by them to dislodge petitioner No.2 from the membership and complete strangers have grabbed the society, which is running an educational institution. It is this objection which has been rejected by the Deputy Registrar vide order impugned. Pleadings have been exchanged in the matter and with the consent of the parties this petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.

I have heard Sri Rohan Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. K. Singh, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Anurag Shukla, Advocate for respondent No.4. Learned standing counsel has been heard for the State authorities.

It is not in issue that petitioners were the dully elected office bearers of the committee of management of the society pursuant to an election held in the year 2014 and their names were also recorded as office bearers. Respondent No.4 appears to have submitted certain documents before the Deputy Registrar on 20.02.2018 which included an alleged meeting held on 12.07.2017 wherein a total number of 13 new members were inducted in the society. This proceeding of induction of new members is seriously disputed and it is submitted that no such proceeding ever came to be conducted for enrolling new members. The proceedings of 12.07.2017 is annexed as Annexure No. 9 to the writ petition. As per the proceedings dated 12.07.2017 a meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the society's president Suparasnath Jain on 12.07.2017 and 13 members were enrolled. This proceeding is absolutely silent with regard to total number of members who participated in it. It is alleged that Suparasnath Jain had already died prior to 12.07.2017.

The fact that Suparasnath Jain had died prior to 12.07.2017 is admitted to respondents. It is sought to be contended by them that a different person was shown to be Suparasnath Jain by the petitioners from the one who was actually the president. The defence taken by the respondents in that regard is absolutely devoid of substance, inasmuch as it cannot be conceived that large numbers of individuals did not know who Suparasnath Jain was in fact. Once it is admitted on record that Suparasnath Jain had already died prior to 12.07.2017 the plea of induction of 13 members cannot be accepted. It is otherwise not shown as to who were the members present in such meeting. The consequential plea of election held on 24.09.2017 also cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the persons enrolled on 12.07.2017 have not only participated but have also been elected as office bearers. From the materials placed on record, this Court finds substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners that a complete set of strangers have attempted to take over the society who have otherwise no concern with it. The Deputy Registrar has failed to examine such aspects though it was placed before him. The records otherwise reveal that upon alleged resignation of petitioner no.2 no notice was issued under Section 4(1) of the Society Registration Act by the Deputy Registrar and the plea of resignation was accepted without complying with the statutory requirement. Proceedings of meeting in which members are shown to be inducted. once are found to be presided over by a dead person, this Court has no doubt that such proceedings cannot be allowed to stand. Consequently the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits dated 12.09.2019 stands quashed.

It is admitted case of the parties that no fresh elections have been conducted by the petitioners or anyone else and since the term of elected office bearers has expired as such it is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction by the Deputy Registrar in terms of Section 25(2) of the Society Registration Act. The Deputy Registrar shall act accordingly. It is clarify that only those members who existed and had participated in the last elections of the year 2014 would be allowed to participate in such election. This direction is warranted as the only other persons who have claimed membership are the one who have been inducted on 12.07.2017 and such proceedings have been found to be fraudulent. The Deputy Registrar shall ensure new constitution of the managing committee of the society in terms of the bye-laws with a period of two months, in light of the above directions."

The aforesaid decision was upheld by the Division Bench considering the Special Appeal preferred by the first writ petitioner with the following observations:-

By the judgement report, the learned Single Bench, while disposing of the writ petition, directed the Deputy Registrar to invoke his authority in terms of section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Learned Single Bench also clarified that only those Members, who existed and had participated in the last elections of the year 2014, would be allowed to participate in the fresh elections. The participation of the appellant is denied by the learned Single Bench by arriving at the conclusion that the resolution of his membership is obtained fraudulently as Shri Suparasnath Jain, who was said to be presiding the meeting of 12.07.2017, already died on 05.02.2017. In appeal another resolution is placed on record to substantiate that the meeting, as a matter of fact, was not presided by Shri Suparasnath Jain, but by the Vice President of the Society.

A clear looking of the resolution discloses that in this meeting too, Shri Suparasnath Jain is shown present and therefore, no different view can be taken to the view taken by the learned Single Bench.

At the cost of repetition, it is stated that admittedly, Shri Suparasnath Jain died on 05.02.2017, i.e., prior to 12.07.2017, the date on which the resolutions, referred in the preceding paragraphs, were said to be undertaken.

The appeal, for the reasons given above, is dismissed.

From the above, it is manifest that the first petitioner had failed to establish that he had been validly inducted as a member of the general body of the society. The findings in that respect recorded by the learned Judge were affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court.

That then takes the Court to the question of whether the remaining petitioners were entitled to participate in the elections which were held pursuant to the directions of this Court. Despite repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioners was unable to draw the attention of the Court to any material which may have established that these petitioners had participated in the elections which were held in 2014. This aspect assumes significance since the learned Judge while disposing of the writ petition and directing that elections be held under Section 25(2) of the Act had clearly provided that only those members who existed and had participated in the last elections of 2014, would be allowed to participate in the elections. None of the petitioners here have been able to establish that they fulfilled the condition imposed by the aforesaid decision of the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners however has drawn the attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraph 21 of the writ petition to state that proceedings of the elections of 2014 are not available in the office of the Deputy Registrar. That averment is clearly false and incorrect since the judgment of the learned Judge rendered in the earlier writ petition had clearly held that the last elections which were held in 2014 had been duly registered under the Act.

For all the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

Order Date :- 12.7.2021

Vivek Kr.