Allahabad High Court
Sri Shyam Singh vs State Of Up And 23 Others on 5 February, 2024
Author: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:19461-DB
Court No. - 40
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 30 of 2024
Appellant :- Sri Shyam Singh
Respondent :- State Of Up And 23 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Namit Srivastava,Parul Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sankalp Narain
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.
In re: Civil Misc Delay Condonation Application
1. The delay in filing the special appeal has been explained to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay condonation application is allowed. Delay condoned.
2. The appeal is treated to be filed in time.
3. Office shall allot regular number to the appeal.
Order on appeal
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. There exist a society in the name of Dr. Ambedkar Bal Sudhar Shiksha Samiti Tejgarhi Road, which is functioning in accordance with its bye-laws. In terms of the bye-laws last election apparently were held on 10.4.2016. The present appellant was elected as the Manager, whereas the father of the contesting respondent was the President. The President of the Society in between died in the year 2017 and according to respondents, he was co-opted in his place to continue for the remaining term. A claim of fresh election dated 30th April, 2021 was submitted by the respondents. In this election also the appellant has been elected as Manager. The appellant however submits that no such election proceedings were conducted and the elections are infact a farce. The Assistant Registrar by his order under challenge has returned a finding that the election of 30th April, 2021 was not conducted as per law. This order of the Assistant Registrar has been set aside by the learned Single Judge after observing that once a doubt or dispute with regard to election had been raised, the appropriate course for resolution of such dispute was to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority in terms of the Section 25(1) of the Society Registration Act. So far as the list of members of the society are concerned, this issue also has been left open to be examined by the Prescribed Authority.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in interfering with the order of the Assistant Registrar, inasmuch as no finding can be culled out from the order of the Assistant Registrar with regard to existence of a bonafide dispute and in its absence any reference to the Prescribed Authority was unwarranted. In support of such plea, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of Division Bench in Shailendra Singh & others Vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in 2017(6) ADJ 602.
4. Per contra, on behalf of the respondents, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of learned Single Judge in Sri Vidhur Sewa Ashram & others Vs. State of U.P. & others, reported in (2019) 1 UPLBBC 520 and also the judgment of the Division Bench in Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul Almin & Others Vs. State of U.P., reported in 2014(1) ADJ 44.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material on record.
6. So far as the election of 10th May, 2016 is concerned, there does not appear to be any issue in that regard. It is also undisputed that the previous President has died whereafter the respondent claims to have been elected as the President. The dispute before the learned Single Judge was with respect to the election of 30th April, 2021. In this election the appellant has been elected as Manager. According to appellant, the elections infact have not been held on 30th April, 2021. Once the appellant concedes the factual plea as per which no elections were held on 30th April, 2021, a doubt / dispute has come into effect which was required to be referred to the Prescribed Authority.
7. We find absolutely no reasons for the appellant to be aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge inasmuch as the legality of the elections of 30th April, 2021 alone has been referred for adjudication to the Prescribed Authority. We find force in the contention of the respondents that there had arisen a dispute with regard to the election of 30th April, 2021 and the proper course for the Assistant Registrar was to have referred it to the Prescribed Authority. Learned Single Judge having done so we find no good ground to interfere in the present appeal. Even the question of membership is also left open to be considered by the Prescribed Authority. It is always open for the appellant to place its case and it goes without saying that all such pleas shall be dealt with by the Prescribed Authority while adjudicating the matter. The Prescribed Authority is directed to conclude the proceedings within a period of three months.
8. The special appeal is consequently consigned to record on above terms.
Order Date :- 5.2.2024
Arif
