Shri Prakash And Ors. vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi And Ors. [Cw ...
2006 Latest Caselaw 806 Del

JUDGMENT

Vikramajit Sen, J.

CW Nos. 10189-93/2005

1. Five Petitioners in this batch of Writ Petitions allege that it has become a practice for rival factions to declare elections in conflict with the other. Attention has been drawn to the Order of J.B. Goel, J. in Shri Sanatan Dharam Sabha v. Shri Naresh Chand Aggarwal, bearing Suit No. 1269/1994. It appears that two factions of the said Society, namely, Shri Laxmi Narain on the one side and Shri Ganga Prasad on the other are already in litigation on this very subject. Those proceedings are presently pending before Shri Babu Lal, ADJ.

2. The present Petitioners seek a direction to the Registrar of Societies to hold Elections. The statute only envisages that after the holding of elections Annual Returns should be filed. It casts no obligation on the Registrar of Societies. It has been observed by the Division Bench of this Court in Sarvadeshi Arya Pratinidhi Sabha v. The Registrar of Societies in CWP No. 2369/1995 that the Registrar of Societies has no role to play in the adjudication or determination of internal disputes. This would include questions pertaining to which faction or party is legitimate.

3. Assuming that the Petitioners are not aligned with either of the groups, at best they may have a right for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 in the ongoing litigation. They will certainly have the unfettered right to file a Suit, if they are so advised.

4. An alternative remedy exists. No grounds for interference made out even otherwise. In these circumstances the Writ Petition is dismissed.

CW Nos. 15854-55/2004

1. The facts of the case are in a narrow compass and I, therefore, propose to decide the Writ Petition at this stage. It appears that elections of the Gurdwara Shri Guru Singh Sabha, Pandav Nagar, Patparganj Road, Delhi were held on 25.1.2004. By letter dated 25.1.2004, delivered to the Respondent/Registrar of Societies on 6.2.2004, a List was filed in that Office.

2. By letter dated 25.2.2004 the Petitioner had prayed for the furnishing of duly attested copies of the Annual List of Managing Body, as envisaged by Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. After almost two months of this request the Registrar of Societies issued a letter dated 8.4.2004 calling upon the Petitioner to furnish information which is relevant for the registration of society. The President of the Society thereafter appeared before the Registrar and reminded them that the Society had already been registered. Thereafter, the impugned letter dated 10.9.2004 was passed stating that Shri Dhami had not appeared. All that has been asseverated in the Counter Affidavit is that there are two rival groups claiming control of the Society.

3. There is no excuse whatsoever for the Registrar of Societies not to have delivered certified copies of the Reports/List of Managing Committee Members pursuant to the Petitioner's application made in February, 2004. In the Counter Affidavit it has been stated that another group had filed another List of Governing Body Members on 31.8.2004. An inference that can be drawn is that the Registrar of Societies was waiting for the Second List to be filed. Had the certified copies been supplied to the Petitioner, within a reasonable time, which ought not to be more than thirty days from the date of the application, this controversy would not have arisen. In any event since the Registrar of Societies is not vested with any power to determine or decide or adjudicate upon which of the factions truly represents the Society concerned, but is merely to certify the availability of a particular document on the records, the impugned Order cannot be sustained.

4. In these circumstances the Writ Petition is allowed. The Respondents are directed to furnish a certified copy of the List forwarded to it by the Petitioner under cover of letter dated 25.1.2004. Needful be done within thirty days from today.

5. Parties to bear their respective costs.