C/M Pratibha Shikshan Samiti Thru ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7725 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No.21 A.F.R.
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1007259 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- C/M Pratibha Shikshan Samiti Thru Manager Shri Indra Kumar And
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance And Audit Andor
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Verma
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Adit Mishra,G.M. Kamil,Manish Vaish,Rakesh Chandra Tewari
 

 
Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for opposite parties 1 and 2 as also Mr. Anil Tewari, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. R.C. Tewari, learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 23.9.2013, passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms, societies & Chits, Faizabad Region, Faizabad, respondent No.2.

A further writ of mandamus has been prayed directing respondent No.2 not to give effect to the impugned order dated 23.9.2013 and not to disturb the functioning of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner No.1 is registered society, petitioner No.2 is the founder Manager and respondent No.3 was the founder President along with other office bearers. In the meeting held on 28.7.2008, a decision was taken for getting registered list of executive committee of management under section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short, Act) for the year 2008-09. List of 39 members of the general body was approved in the resolution dated 15.6.2008. The Deputy Registrar vide order dated 22.10.2008 passed order for registration of the list for the year 2008-09. On 30.11.2008, a resolution was passed for getting renewal of the registration as well as membership of 35 new members of general body. The resolution was accepted and sanctioned strength of general body became 74.

On 9.12.2008, a letter was submitted before the respondent No.2 along with documents for renewal of society. Vide order dated 20.12.2008, the society was renewed and the renewal certificate was issued by respondent No.2 for further five years. On 21.12.2008, the resolution was passed of the society for holding election. Programme of the election was notified and separate agenda was issued for the election dated 18.1.2009. List of 74 members of general body was also published. The meeting was presided by respondent No.3 as President. On 18.1.2009, election of the committee of management was held in which the petitioner No.2 was again elected as Manager and respondent No.3 was elected as President. This meeting dated 18.1.2009 was confirmed in the meeting dated 8.9.2009. On 10.2.2009, the resolution dated 21.12.2008, 18.1.2009, 3.2.2009 and list of the office bearers along with the list of the members of the general body was submitted before the respondent No.2 along with other documents duly signed by respondent No.3 and the petitioner.

A letter dated 6.11.2012 was sent for registration of the office bearers as per election dated 18.1.2009. The same was duly registered by the respondent No.2. The respondent No.3 after enjoying the status of president of the society for more than four years of election moved an application for declaration of the society time barred by concocting story, to which a detailed reply dated 16.5.2013 was filed by the petitioner against notice sent by respondent No.2. On 6.1.2012, a first information report was lodged against respondent No.3 under sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420 I.P.C. at police station Dewan. The respondent No.2 by the impugned order dated 23.9.2013, has declared the society time barred holding that the election of the society ought to have been concluded by 20.12.2008 which has not been conducted and on this ground has declared the committee of management of the society time barred w.e.f. 20.12.2008, with a further direction to hold election of the time barred committee of management from 12 members of the general body.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is not disputed that the election of the committee of management of the society was held from the list of 74 members which was recognised by the respondent No.2 himself by registering list of office bearers of the society by passing order dated 6.11.2012, contained in Annexure no.17 to the writ petition. Hence the election dated 18.1.2009 was recognised and was in knowledge of respondent No.2.

It is submitted that from a joint reading of the provisions of section 25(2) and (3) of the Act, it is evident that till the Deputy Registrar does not pass order under section 25(2) of the Act, the society will not be defunct and the outgoing committee of management has all the powers and authority to hold the election accordingly. He has relied on judgment of this Court in Committee of Management, Vidyawati Higher Secondary School, Shahpur, Sarain, Azamgarh and another versus Asstt. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh and others 2005(3)UPLBEC 2410 (relevant paras 6, 7 and 8). He has also relied on judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Vinod Kumar Varsnay versus State of U.P. and others (D.B.) 2017 (3) E.S.C. 1529 (relevant paras 17, 18 and 19).

5. Learned Addl. Chief Standing Tiwari and Mr. Rakesh Tewari, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent No.3 have opposed the petition.

6. It is not disputed that the election of the society was held in the year 2008. List of office bearers of the society was registered for the year 2008-09 by the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 22.10.2008. The term of the committee of management came to an end on 20.12.2008. It is also not disputed that no orders were passed after expiry of the term of the committee of management by the Deputy Registrar under section 25(2) of the Act. The law in this regard has been settled by this Court in the aforesaid referred cases. For convenience paras 6, 7 and 8 of Committee of Management and another versus Asstt. Registrar, Firm Societies and others (supra) are reproduced below :

"6. For appreciating the controversy raised in the present writ petition it would be relevant to refer to Sections 25(2) and (3) of the Societies Registration Act, 1960, which are quoted below:

"25. Disputes regarding election of office bearers-(1) ??????..

(2) Where an order made under sub-section (1), an election is set aside or an office-bearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of office bearers of a society has not been held within the time specified in the rules of that society/ he may call meeting of the general body of such society for electing such office-bearer or office-bearers, and such meeting shall be presided over and be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorized by him in this behalf, and the provisions in the rules of the society relating to meetings and elections shall apply to such meeting and election with necessary modifications.

(3) Where a meeting is called by the Registrar under sub-section (2), no other meeting shall be called for the purpose of election by any other authority or by any person claiming to be an office-bearer of the society.

Explanation For the purposes of this section, the expression 'prescribed authority' means an office or Court authorized in this behalf by the State Government by notification published in the Official Gazette." 7. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would establish that the right to convene a meeting for the purposes of holding elections of the office-bearers of the society.

Explanation For the purposes of this section, the expression 'prescribed authority' means an office or Court authorized in this behalf by the State Government by notification published in the Official Gazette."

7. A bare reading of the aforesaid section would establish that the right to convene a meeting for the purposes of holding elections of the office-bearers of the outgoing Committee of Management and after expiry of the term of the office bearers the society is lost only when the Registrar passes order under Section 25(2) of the Act for convening a meeting of the general body of the society for the purposes of holding fresh election of the Committee of Management. It is at t stage only that outgoing office bearers are debarred from convening any meeting for the said purpose.

8. In the facts of the present case it is admitted position that no such order was passed by the Registrar under Section 25(2). Thus the power to convene a meeting of General Body for holding fresh elections was not lost and there is no bar either in the byelaws of the society or under the Societies Registration Act in holding of fresh elections by the outgoing office-bearers. In such circumstances the clections which have been held on 2.3.2003, even after expiry of the term of the office- bearers of the society, cannot be said to be illegal or invalid in any manner and the objections raised in that regard canot be legally sustained.?

Paras 17, 18, and 19 of Vinod Kumar Varshney?s case (supra) is reproduced below :

17. Having given our thoughtful consideration in the matter and upon considering the language of Section 25(2) and 25(3) of the Act and upon a conjoint reading of Section 25(2) and 25(3) of the Act, it is apparently clear that the Registrar has the power and jurisdiction to call a meeting for the purpose of holding an election if he is satisfied that the election has not been held within the time specified in the rules of the society. However, Section 25(3) of the Act recognises that a meeting for the purpose of holding an election can be convened by any other authority or by any other person claiming to be an office bearer of the society, meaning thereby that if the term of the Committee of Management expires, the Committee of Management can still convene a meeting and hold an election unless an order is passed by the Registrar under Section 25(2) of the Act for holding an election.

18. We are of the view that upon a conjoint reading of Section 25(2) and Section 25(3) of the Act, the power of the Committee of Management to convene a meeting for the purpose of holding an election gets eclipsed only when the Registrar has assumed jurisdiction and has taken steps to convene a meeting under Section 25(2) of the Act. We make it further clear that so long as an order for convening a meeting and for holding an election is not passed by the Registrar under Section 25(2) of the Act, the power to convene a meeting for the purpose of holding an election continues with the Committee of Management, even after the expiry of its terms unless it is specifically prohibited in the Rules of that society. In this regard, our view is fortified by a decision of a Full Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Dadar Ashram Trust Society and others Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi and others, 2017 (1) ADJ 1, wherein the Full Bench held:-

"As would be evident from a reading of sub-section (3), the power and jurisdiction of any other authority or person to call a meeting for the purpose of elections stands eclipsed only in a situation where a meeting has already been called by the Registrar under sub-section (2). In fact sub-section (3) recognises that a meeting for the purposes of elections may in fact be convened by any other authority or by any other person. The power of that other authority or person to convene such a meeting stands taken away only if the Registrar has assumed jurisdiction and steps under sub-section (2) to convene a meeting."

19. In the light of the aforesaid, the answer to question no.1 is, that the Committee of Management even after the expiry of its term can convene a meeting for the purpose of holding an election unless it is specifically barred under the Rules of its society. Such right continues till such time the Registrar passes an order under Section 25(2) of the Act after which no further meeting could be convened thereafter by the Committee of Management in view of sub-Section (3) of Section 25 of the Act. ?

7. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments passed by this Court makes it evident that the committee of management even after expiry of its term can convene a meeting for the purpose of holding election unless it is specifically barred under the rules of the society. This right continues till such time the Registrar passes an order under section 25(2) of the Act after which no other meeting can be convened by the committee of management in view of sub section (3) of Section 25 of the Act.

8. In the case in hand, admittedly, no order was passed after expiry of the term of the committee of management in the year 2008, hence election convened by the outgoing committee of management on 18.1.2009 was perfectly legal. The committee of management for this reason does not become time barred also as no order under section 25(2) of the Act was passed by the Registrar. Hence, for this reason, the impugned order is unsustainable.

9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order dated 23.9.2013 (supra) is set aside.

Order Date :- 17.3.2023

kkb/