Allahabad High Court
C/M Sri Aawanti Bai Smark Samiti vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others on 26 July, 2023
Bench: Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:148524
RESERVED
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 70229 of 2011
Petitioner :- C/M Sri Aawanti Bai Smark Samiti
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ratnesh Kumar Pandey,Shiv Shankar Yadav
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Aklank Kumar Jain,R.B.Trivedi,Raghvendra Yadav,T.D. Verma
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
1. Heard Mr. Ratnesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Raghvendra Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents and learned Standing Counsel
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 09.11.2011 passed by respondent no.2.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a society registered under the provision of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (herein after referred to as ' the Act'), which was established in 1986 with aim to impart education in the rural areas to all sections of society. The said society was registered with the District, Etawah but after establishment of a new district, Auraiya, the society is situated within the limits of the aforesaid newly established district. The society runs a Junior High School in the name and style of Sri Aawanti Bai Smark Samiti, Yakubpur, Tehsi Vidhuna, District- Auraiya (hereinafter referred to as 'School') and to run and manage the society, bye-laws have been framed from time to time. The Society Registration has been renewed from time to time, which provides the tenure of the Society of Management is three educational sessions. The elections up to 2007 were held undisputed. The last election of Management of the Society was held on 25.5.2008 in which Shri Beche Lal Rajpoot was elected as President of the Management of the Society and one Shri Ram Prasad was elected as Manager of the Management of Society along with other office bearers. As averred in the petition, the election of the Management of the Society was held on 25.5.2008; whereas the meeting of the general body was held on 23.11.2008. On the basis of election held on 25.5.2008, all required papers were sent by the then Manager of the Society Sri Ram Prasad Verma to the respondent no.2 for filing the list of office bearers and members of the society for years 2008-09 along with other requisite documents. The said papers were received in the office of respondent no.2 on 1.12.2008. The respondent no.2 by his order passed on 10.12.2008 approved the list of the office bearers and members of society. Subsequently, complaint was filed by one Sangeeta Rajpoot on 17.3.2009. Another compliant was filed on 6.7.2009 that on 10.11.2009 & 28.1.2010, Shri Krishna Verma moved applications supported by an affidavit and stated that he did not make any complaint. Thereafter, another complaint was filed by Shri Daya Ram Verma and on the said complaint, a notice was issued, which was duly replied. Thereafter, a compromise took place and on which basis, the complaints were disposed off. In pursuance of the compromise, meeting of the society was held on 3.6.2010, one Anil Kumar was elected as Manager of Society, however Shri Ram Prasad Verma was elected as Secretary and the petitioner by his letter dated 9.6.2010 sent all relevant papers relating to his election as Manager of Management of the Society to the respondent no.2 for filing it in his record for the years 2010-11 as provided under the Act and the order was passed. Thereafter, Daya Ram Verma claiming himself to be Manager, moved a complaint and submitted their list and the impugned order has been passed, hence the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once in pursuance of the compromise, election was held and the relevant documents along with the list of members and the Committee of Management was sent, which was approved by the respondent no.2, then he has no jurisdiction to entertain and pass an order on the list of members submitted by respondent no.3, therefore, he could only refer the matter to the competent authority. He further submits that when two rival committees have submitted their independent list instead of deciding the matter by respondent no.2., the matter should have been referred to the competent authority while not being so, he has committed illegality and prays for allowing the present writ petition.
4. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court passed in the case of Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti and another Vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and another; [(1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242] in which it has been held that as per Section 25 of the Act provides that whenever any doubt or dispute is raised regarding the election of members of a managing body of a Society, the Registrar should refer such doubt or dispute to the Prescribed authority for his decision.
5. Per contra, counsel for the respondent no.3 supports the impugned order and submits that the petitioner was not recognised and authorised as he was not elected and therefore, the respondent no.3 has rightly filed the list and submits that the order has rightly been passed.
6. Learned Standing Counsel supports the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the present writ petition.
7. From perusal of the record, it is evidently clear that there is a dispute with regard to the election of members of managing body of the Society as two contradictory lists have been submitted one by the petitioner and one by the respondent no.3. As per Section 25 of the Act, respondent no.2 ought to have referred the matter to the competent authority for its decision instead of doing so, committed an error in deciding the issue himself. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, the elections were held and the list of members of the committee was filed regularly, which has been accepted without any rider. Once, the election has continuously been held, in the interest of justice, that should not be disturbed. When the order passed by respondent no.3 instead of referring the matter to the competent authority as prescribed under Section 25, the order cannot sustain and is accordingly, the order impugned is quashed.
8. The petition is accordingly, allowed.
Date :- 26 .7.2023
Pravesh Mishra
