Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Sanghvi vs Registrar Firms And Societies on 21 April, 2025
Author: Subodh Abhyankar
Bench: Subodh Abhyankar, Prem Narayan Singh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
W.P. No.27769 of 2023
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT I N D O R E
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE PREM NARAYAN SINGH
WRIT PETITION No. 27769 of 2023
ANIL SANGHVI AND OTHERS
Versus
REGISTRAR FIRMS AND SOCIETIES AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Munshi - Senior Advocate with Shri Rahul Maheshwari -
Advocate for petitioners.
Shri Bhuwan Deshmukh - Government Advocate for State.
Shri Sumeet Samvatsar - Advocate for the Respondent no.4 Astha
Foundation.
Shri Siddharth R. Gupta, Shri Piyush Parashar and Ms. Priyal Jain -
Advocate for Intervenors - Respondent No.5 - Poonam Chouksey,
Respondent No.6 Poojashri Chouksey; Respondent No.7 Ashish Jaiswal;
Respondent No.8 Sunil Chouksey; Respondent No.9 Shobha Chouksey;
Respondent No.10 Mohit Pandya; Respondent No.11 Pawan Chouksey;
Respondent No.12 Upendra Tomar; Respondent No.13 Uzma Khan;
Respondent No.14 B.L. Rai; Respondent No.15 Birendra Kumar Rai;
Respondent No.16 Jagdish Prasad Sharma; Respondent No.17
Rameshwar Chouksey; Respondent No. 18 Shweta Chouksey;
Respondent No.19 Rakesh Singh Dhakre, Respondent No.20 - Anupam
Chouksey and Respondent No.21 Dharmendra Gupta.
Shri Gaurav Shrivastava - Advocate for Intervenor - Rajesh Jain.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PANKAJ
PANDEY
Signing time: 21-04-2025
18:29:21
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
W.P. No.27769 of 2023
2
Shri Hitesh Sharma - Advocate and Shri Umang Bansal - Advocate
for intervenors - Shakuntla Badlani and Jay Narayan Chouksey.
Shri Kuldeep Pathak - Advocate for Intervenors - Vijaylaxmi
Khatwani, Manish Khatwani and Bharati Nawlani.
Shri V.V.S. Murthy - Senior Advocate with Shri Ritesh Inani -
Advocate for intervenor - Ramesh Badlani.
Reserved on : 11.03.2025
Pronounced on : 21.04.2025
This writ petition having been heard and reserved for order, coming
on for pronouncement this day, the court passed the following:
ORDER
Per: Justice Subodh Abhyankar
Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
1] This petition has been filed by the petitioners Anil Sanghvi and
Chandan Sanghvi w/o. Anil Sanghvi, under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, seeking election of Shri Astha Foundation for Education
(hereinafter referred to as the Society), a society registered under the
Madhya Pradesh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter
referred to as the Adhiniyma of 1973).
2] Before we proceed further, looking to the chequered history of this
case, it would be necessary to take note of the fact that this is the third
round of hearing of this petition after it has been remanded back to this
Court by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1249/2025 vide its order
dated 04.02.2025, what transpired until now can be very well ascertained
by the aforesaid order passed by the Supreme Court itself, which, we find
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
expedient to reproduce herein as certain guidelines have also been issued
by the Supreme Court for us to keep in mind while passing the order.
3] The order dated 04.02.2025, passed by the Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.1249/2025 reads as under:-
"The submissions were heard on the earlier date. The issue involved is
very simple. A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
Indore by judgment and order dated 23rd April, 2024 in Writ Petition
No.27769 of 2023 dealt with the issue of conduct of election of the
governing body of a Society registered under the Madhya Pradesh
Societies Registration Act, 1973 which is known as "Shri Astha
Foundation for Education". Following is the operative part of the order
passed by the High Court.
"14. Resultantly, this petition stands finally disposed off with the
following directions:
"1.The Registrar, Firms and Societies is directed to perform the statutory
duty and act upon the representation made by the petitioners and conduct
free and fair election of the society as per the list of members and
governing body of the last election dated 30.01.2016 in accordance with
law, forthwith.
2. It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that the documents
and funds of the society are mismanaged and, therefore, in the
considered opinion of this Court, till the new elected body is in
place/assumes charge, both the parties are restrained from operating bank
accounts or from taking any financial or other decisions related to the
society in question.
3.The Registrar, Finns and Societies after the election is conducted shall
handover the charge,
papers as well as properties/institutions to the newly elected governing
body in accordance with law forthwith.
4. The Registry is directed to communicate this
order to the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Indore immediately."
(Underline supplied)
This judgment and order was challenged by some of the aggrieved parties
by preferring Civil Appeal No.6448 of 2024. By a judgment and order dated
15th May, 2024 in Civil Appeal No.6448 of 2024, this Court passed the
following order:
"Applications seeking permission to file the Special Leave Petitions are
allowed.
Leave granted.
Perused the impugned judgment and order and the operative directions in
paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment and order. We find that the High
Court is right in holding that free and fair elections of the Society must
be held. However, the direction of the High Court is to conduct the
elections on the basis of the list of members/voters as existed on 30th
January, 2016. Obviously, elections which will be held in 2024 cannot be
on the basis of the list of members/voters as prevailing on 30th January,
2016. That part of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court
cannot be confirmed.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
As far as clause (2) of paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment and order
is concerned, the direction appears to be that the bank accounts of Astha
Foundation For Education Society shall not be operated. We find no
reason to disturb the said direction. However, if money is required for
running of any of the educational institutions run by the said Society, we
permit the parties to apply to the High Court for seeking limited
modification.
Accordingly, we dispose of the Appeals by passing the following
order:
i. The directions issued in terms of paragraph 14 of the impugned
judgment and order are hereby confirmed subject to modification
that elections shall not be held on the basis of the list of
members/voters as on 30th January, 2016. The direction to hold
election on the basis of the list of members/voters as on 30th January,
2016 is set aside. The Writ Petition is remanded to the High Court
only for limited purpose of deciding the issue of list of voters on the
basis of which election should be held;
ii. Considering the fact that the elections as directed must be held at the
earliest, we request the High Court to hear the parties and pass
appropriate order regarding
preparation of a fresh list of members/voters eligible to vote in the
elections to be conducted in terms of clause(1) of paragraph 14 of the
impugned judgment and order. Needless to add that the High Court will
consider applicable laws/rules/bye-laws while determining the issue;
iii. As regards clause (2) of paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment and
order, in the event it is necessary to release the amounts in the bank
accounts of Astha Foundation For Education Society for the purposes of
running the colleges/educational institutions, the parties are free to apply
to the High Court by making appropriate applications for limited
modification of the said direction. The High Court will consider the same
on its own merits;
iv. Subject to modification made above and limited order of remand, the
impugned judgment and order is confirmed.
v. The Appeals are partly allowed on the above terms. We make it clear
that though some of the appellants are not parties before the High Court,
this order shall not be construed to mean that they are entitled to
participate in the proceedings before the High Court. It is for the them to
make appropriate applications in that behalf before the High Court."
(Underlines supplied)
The judgment and order of this Court dated 15th May, 2024 specifically
directed that the election shall not be held on the basis of the list of the
members/voters as on 30th January, 2016. Therefore, the direction of the
High Court to hold elections on the basis of the list of members/voters as
on 30th January, 2016 was set aside. The writ petition was remanded to the
High Court by this Court only for a limited purpose of deciding the issue of
list of voters on the basis of which election should be held.After remand,
the High Court disposed of the restored writ petition by the impugned
judgment and order. Paragraph 74 of the impugned judgment reads thus:
"74. Before we arrive at our final decision, we must highlight that
we are mindful of the specific direction given by the Hon'ble
Apex Court that election shall not be held on the basis of list of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
members/voters as on 30.01.2016. However, considering the
manner in which the parties pursued litigation in the first round, it
is to be noted that such direction was given based on incomplete
material placed on record before the Hon'ble Apex Court. While
we acknowledge this instruction with all respect and humility at
our command, though at the same time, we also wish to inform
the Hon'ble Apex Court that upon re-examination of the matter,
we encountered a substantial array of new pleadings leading this
Court in a position of divergence from that specific direction for
reasons mentioned above. On appreciation of pleadings brought
on record on remand and examining the material placed on record
from 2016 till date, i.e., 2024, the actions undertaken by the
parties appear to fall short of the expectations outlined in the
order of remand. After carefully reviewing the records, along with
the Registrar's report, we are of the firm opinion that the annual
list dated January 30, 2016 is the only valid and legally
constituted list of the Society's governing body in accordance with
the 2007 bye- laws till date. All (lie subsequent annual lists as
brought on record lack conformity with the 2007 bye-laws and do
not provide sufficient evidence to establish their legitimacy."
(Underline supplied)
To say the least, what is observed in paragraph 74 is shocking. The High
Court has virtually set at naught the order of this Court. Normally, we
restrain ourselves from criticizing the orders of the High Courts and other
Courts in a strong language. In this case, the mandate of this Court was that
election shall not be held on the basis of list of members/voters as on 30th
January, 2016. As can be seen from the operative part of the impugned
judgment and what is held in paragraph 74, the High Court directed the
Registrar, Firms and Societies, Madhya Pradesh to conduct free and fair
election of the society as per the list of members/voters dated 30th January,
2016. Therefore, the High Court has passed an order which is completely
contrary to order of this Court. When this Court in so many words held that
election shall not be held on the basis of list of members/voters as on 30th
January, 2016, the High Court has specifically directed that election shall be
held on the basis of list of members/voters dated 30th January, 2016. We do
not wish to offer any further comments about what is held in paragraph 74.
With some justification, it can be said that the order of the High Court is an
act of judicial impropriety.
Therefore, we have no option but to set aside the impugned judgment and
order dated 4th October, 2024 passed in Writ Petition No.27769 of 2023.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and order and restore the
Writ Petition No.27769 of 2023 to the file of the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh Bench at Indore.
The impugned order was passed on 4th October, 2024.The election
process on the basis of the impugned judgment and order was immediately
conducted on 8th October, 2024. An election was purportedly held on the
basis of the impugned judgment and order of the High Court which is
patently illegal. Therefore, even the election held consequent to the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
impugned judgment and order will have to be set aside and is hereby set
aside.
The Society is running a large number of educational institutions. From
the record, it appears that there are two or three groups of individuals who
are interested in managing the affairs of the society. In their fight, the
students who are taking the education in large number of educational
institutions should not be made to suffer. Therefore, only appropriate
solution is to appoint ad hoc Committee headed by a retired Judge of the
High Court to manage the affairs of the society till proper elections are
conducted.
Therefore, we propose to appoint a Committee headed by Hon'ble Shri
Shantanu Sharadchandra Kemkar, a former Judge of the Madhya Pradesh
and Bombay High Court. The Committee shall include apart from Hon'ble
Shri Shantanu Sharadchandra Kemkar (a) a retired judge of the High Court
or a retired Principal District Judge; (b) a Chartered Accountant of repute;
(c) an experienced person in the field of education who has either worked as
a Vice Chancellor of a University or headed a larger educational institution;
and (d) a retired civil servant or retired officer of the rank of Deputy
Collector.
Hence, we pass following order:
(a) The impugned judgment and order dated 4th October, 2024 is hereby set
aside and Writ Petition No.27769 of 2023 is restored to the file of the High
Court.
(b) We request the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of Madhya Pradesh High Court
to assign the writ petition to a Bench of which the learned Judges who
passed the impugned judgment and order are not parties. The High Court
shall dispose of the writ petition in terms of our earlier judgment and order
dated 15th May, 2024 in C.A. No.6448 of 2024 in accordance with law. We
request the High Court to give necessary priority to the disposal of the writ
petition.
(c) A copy of this order shall be forwarded by the Registry to Registrar
(Judicial) of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore who shall
seek necessary directions from the Hon'ble Chief Justice of High Court of
Madhya Pradesh on the administrative side and shall ensure that the restored
writ petition is placed before the assigned Bench on 28th February, 2025 in
the morning. The parties who are represented today shall be under an
obligation to appear before the High Court and no further notice shall be
served upon the parties who are represented today by the High Court.
(d) We appoint ad hoc Committee headed by Hon'ble Shri Shantanu
Sharadchandra Kemkar, a former Judge of Madhya Pradesh and Bombay
High Court to manage the affairs of the Society. We request the learned
retired judge to suggest names of (a) a retired Judge of the High Court or a
retired Principal District Judge (b) an eminent Chartered Accountant (c) an
experienced person in the filed of education who has been either a Vice
Chancellor of a University or head of a reputed educational institution; (d) a
retired Civil Servant or a retired Officer of the cadre of Deputy Collector,
who can be made the members of the Ad hoc committee.
(e) We request Hon'ble Shri Shantanu Sharadchandra Kemkar to submit a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
report to this Court within two weeks from today so that an appropriate
order can be passed for fully constituting the ad hoc Committee and for
issuing other directions such as remuneration payable to the members of the
Committee.
(f) After Committee is fully constituted, appropriate mechanism can be laid
down by this Court including a procedure to be followed for monetary
transactions. However, for the time being, we direct that in case any
immediate expenditure is required to be incurred for running of the
educational institutions, Hon'ble Shri Shantanu Sharadchandra Kemkar may
authorize incurring of the said expenditure.
The appeals are allowed on above terms.
A copy of this order shall be immediately forwarded by the Registry to
Registrar (Judicial) of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore
who shall forward a copy to Hon'ble Shri Shantanu Sharadchandra Kemkar
a retired Judge of the Madhya Pradesh and Bombay High Court. We request
the Hon'ble Judge to submit a report in a sealed cover to the Registrar
(Judicial) of this Court by 21st February, 2025 which can be considered on
24th February, 2025 when these appeals shall be listed for directions. He
may forward the report through the Registrar (Judicial) of the Madhya
Pradesh High Court.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
4] In the light of the aforesaid backdrop/order, now we proceed to
decide the matter on merits.
5] The petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking the following
reliefs:-
"(A) Be pleased to direct Respondent No.1 (Registrar, Firms and
Society) to perform his statutory duty and act upon the representation
made by the Petitioners and conduct free and fair elections of the
society as per the list of members and governing body dated
30/01/2016 within a period of 7 days from the date of order. The list of
members/governing body dated 30/01/2016 are enumerated below-
I. Dr. Ramesh Badlani S/o Mr. Prabhudayal Badlani (President)
II. Mr. Anil Sanghvi S/o Mr. Shantilal Sanghvi (Secretary)
III. Mr. Manish Khatwani S/o Mr. Mohan Khatwani (treasurer)
IV. Mrs. Shakuntala Badlani W/o Dr. Ramesh Badlani
V. Mrs. Vijay Laxmi Khatwani W/o Mr. Manish Khatwani
VI. Mrs. Chandan Sanghvi W/o Mr. Anil Sanghvi
VII. Mrs. Bharti Navlani W/o Mr. Rajesh Navlani
VII Mr. Rajat Sanghvi S/o Mr. Anil Sanghvi
IX Mr. Rahil Saghvi S/o Mr. Anil Sanghvi
X Mr. Anup Sanghvi S/o Mr. Shantilal Sanghvi
XI. Mrs. Sandhya Sanghvi W/o Mr. Anup Sanghvi
XII. Mr. Aditya Sanghvi S/o Mr. Anup Sanghvi
XI. Mrs. Aashi Sanghvi W/o Aditya Sanghvi
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
XIV. Amber Sanghvi S/o Anup Sanghvi
XV. Rajesh Jain S/o Kantilal Jain
XVI. Ashok Soni S/o Radheshyam Soni
XVII. Dr. Tripti Murat S/o Mr. Ashok Murat
XVIII. Mrs. Hemlata Maloo W/o Dr. B.K. Maloo
XIX. Mrs. Pushpa Chelawat W/o Mr. Pradip Chelawat
XX. Dr. V.K. Maloo S/o R.C. Maloo
XXI. Dr. Rabul Maloo S/o V. K. Maloo
(B) Be Pleased to direct, Respondent No.1 (Registrar, firms and
society) to Ensure that the newly elected body is in-charge of the
society and the newly elected post holders are appointed as authorised
signatories of the society for carrying out day to day functioning of the
society
(C) Be pleased to direct the Respondent No.1 (Registrar) to set aside
the Illegal induction of persons as members of the governing body of
the society subsequent to list dated 30/01/2016
(D) Be pleased to set aside any list filed under section 27 of the said
act filed subsequent to 30/01/2016 having illegally inducted members
of the society And further any amendments carried out by the said
illegally inducted members in the by- laws of the society be set aside;
(E) Be pleased to direct Respondents to hand over Physical Possession
and Charge of society to elected Governing body and members of the
society as per the above list immediately after elections.
(F) Be pleased to direct Respondent No.2 -(Police Commissioner,
Indore) to provide necessary support to Registrar, Firms and Society to
conduct elections of Society and Handing over physical possession and
charge of society to newly elected governing body and members.
(G) Be Pleased to restrain the illegally inducted members from abusing
the process of law by frivolous petitions before any court/authority
challenging the membership of the Petitioners.
(H) Be pleased to direct that the huge amount of loan taken by the
illegally inducted members in the name of society shall be repaid by
the said persons.
(I) Be pleased to direct the Respondent No.4 (NMC) to conduct an -
independent inquiry pertaining to the affiliation of LNCT Medical
College, Indore obtained by illegally inducted members of the
society."
6] Thus, the petitioners are aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the
respondent No.1/Registrar, Societies to conduct the election of Shri Astha
Foundation for Education Society established in the year 2006, on the
basis of the voter list as on 30.01.2016. Currently the society is having
many educational institutes including a medical college known as LNTC
Medical College, Indore.
7] Shorn of details, the case of the petitioners is that the aforesaid
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
society i.e., Shri Astha Foundation for Education Society, (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Society') was registered on 13.09.2006, by the Assistant
Registrar, Firms and Societies, Department, Govt. of M.P. under the
provisions of Madhya Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1973'). The case of the petitioners is
that in the year 2014-2015, the management of the society was transferred
to Dr. Ramesh Badlani (the then President of the society), and his group by
inducting new members in the society. Whereas the petitioner no.1 was
appointed as the Secretary, whereas the President was Dr. Ramesh Badlani
and the Treasurer was Mr. Manish Khatwani. These appointments are also
reflected in the minutes of the meeting dated 04.01.2016. Subsequently,
the erstwhile Secretary also gave the entire charge of the society to the
petitioner no.1, and he was appointed as authorized Secretary for all the
bank accounts of the society.
8] It is further the case of the petitioners that for conducting the annual
general meeting on 30.01.2016, a notice dated 21.01.2016 was published
by the society wherein Mr. Ramesh Badlani had also affixed his signature.
The agenda of the meeting was also mentioned that the annual general
meeting and election of the society was to be conducted on 30.01.2016
itself. In the annual general meeting, 14 other members of the petitioners'
group were inducted in the society on 30.01.2016 by following the due
procedure as prescribed under the law. On 30.01.2016, during the annual
general meeting the election of the office bearers of the society were also
conducted as per the bye-laws of the society, and as per the results, the
petitioners' group who were in majority, elected the petitioner no.1 as
secretary, Dr. Ramesh Badlani was appointed as the President whereas
Manish Khatwani was appointed as the Treasurer of the society.
9] The petitioners' contention is that the aforesaid list of 30.01.2016
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
was also submitted before the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies,
Indore, as per section 27 of the Adhiniyam of 1973, and pursuant to the
said meeting, the petitioner No.1 was also appointed as the authorized
signatory in all the bank accounts operated by the Society.
10] It is further the case of the petitioners that a dispute arose between
the petitioner No.1 and Dr. Ramesh Badlani, which resulted in Dr. Ramesh
Badlani filing a police complaint on 10.05.2016, against the petitioner
No.1 and other persons alleging fraud, contending that the petitioner No.1
had forged the minutes of the meeting and election dated 30.01.2016 along
with list dated 30.01.2016 wherein the members of the petitioners' group
were inducted, and pursuant to the election, the petitioner No.1 was also
appointed as the Secretary in the Society. Thus, the complaint was against
the petitioner No.1 and the other members of the petitioners' group. It is
further contention of the petitioners that after lodging the aforesaid
complaint, Dr. Ramesh Badlani also wrote a letter to the Registrar, Firms
and Societies, Indore informing that an offence has been committed by the
petitioners and it was requested that 14 members inducted by the petitioner
no.1 and his wife be removed from the society. The aforesaid request,
according to the petitioners has remained unanswered, and the petitioners
and the persons of his group were not removed from the society.
11] The further contention of the petitioners is that on the basis of the
aforesaid false complaint against the petitioners, on 28.05.2016, the then
President of the society- Dr. Ramesh Badlani also submitted a list of new
members of the Society under Rule 11 Of The Rules Of Madhya Pradesh
Society Registrikaran Niyam, 1998 Under M. P. Society Registrikaran
Adhiniyam, 1973 before the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Indore. The
complaint lodged by Dr. Ramesh Badlani, finally culminated into an FIR
dated 01.12.2016 at Crime No.224/2016 under Section 420, 467, 468, 471
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
and 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the petitioner No.1 and his
wife/petitioner No.2.
12] It is further the case of the petitioners that pursuant to lodging of the
aforesaid FIR, on 14.12.2016, Dr. Ramesh Badlani again submitted a new
list of unrelated members/governing body under Section 27 of the
Adhiniyam of 1973, before the Registrar, Firms and Societies, on the sole
basis of pendency of the aforesaid FIR against the petitioner No.1 and
petitioner No.2 stating that the list dated 30.01.2016 was forged, and is not
relevant. Pursuant to the aforesaid FIR, Dr. Ramesh Badlani also filed W.P.
No.20077/2017 before this Court seeking arrest of the petitioners and for
proper investigation. However, in the aforesaid petition the State informed
the Court that the police is already filing a closure report, and hence, vide
order dated 30.01.2018, this Court disposed of the petition with a liberty to
the petitioner therein Dr. Ramesh Badlani to contest the closure/Khatma
report, and the Magistrate, before whom the closure report was filed, also
affirmed the same vide order dated 30.08.2018, rejecting Dr. Ramesh
Badlani's objections.
13] In para 21 of the petition, the petitioners have also specifically
pleaded that the unrelated members prepared two list of the same date i.e.,
14.01.2021, with some different members and submitted the same before
the Registrar, Firms and Societies, which clearly shows that one of the said
list was forged/fabricated for an ulterior purpose by the said unrelated and
illegally inducted members.
14] The further case of the petitioners is that being aggrieved of the
order passed by the Judicial Magistrate dated 30.8.2018, Dr. Ramesh
Badlani also filed Criminal Revision No.453/2018 before the Additional
Sessions Judge, Indore which was also dismissed by the Sessions Court
vide its order dated 27.02.2021. The petitioners' contention is that the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
Sessions Court in the aforesaid criminal revision has clearly held that the
list of members/governing body dated 30.01.2016 is a valid list of elected
members of the governing body of the said society, and the same has been
declared by the Registrar also in his report dated 12.08.2024.
15] It is further the case of the petitioners that looking to the fraud
committed by Dr. Ramesh Badlani, and 41 other members in filing two
lists, the petitioners also filed an application under Section 37(2) of the Act
of 1973 seeking permission to initiate appropriate criminal action against
Dr. Badlani, Agrawal and Chouksey. The aforesaid application was
rejected by the Registrar, Firms and Societies on 15.09.2021 against which
an appeal was filed by the petitioners under Section 40 of the Act of 1973,
which was allowed on 23.12.2021, and on the basis of which, an FIR at
Crime No.181/2022 dated 22.2.2022 has been lodged at police station
Kanadiya, Indore against the illegally inducted members for the offences
punishable under Section 420,467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC.
Pursuant to which, Dr. Ramesh Badlani was also arrested. The order
passed by the Registrar was also challenged by the unrelated members
before the Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries, Govt. of
Madhya Pradesh, but the aforesaid appeal is still pending.
16] The further case of the petitioners is that Dr. Ramesh Badlani, being
aggrieved of the aforesaid order dated 27.02.2021,
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Indore preferred a petition
M.Cr.C. No.2866 of 2022, under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. before this
Court. However, the aforesaid petition
also came to be dismissed by the order passed by this Court on 15.09.2022
has affirmed the validity of the proceedings dated 30.01.2016 that 21
members had passed the resolution and forensic consultants have also
verified their signatures. The aforesaid order passed by this Court on
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
15.09.2022 was also challenged by Dr. Ramesh Badlani in Special Leave
to Appeal (Diary No.41085 of 2022) before the Supreme Court. However,
the aforesaid petition was also dismissed by the Supreme Court on
27.01.2023.
17] Thus, the petitioners contention is that the criminal proceedings
initiated against the petitioners by the complainant have culminated in
favour of the petitioners by the Supreme Court also, and since, on the
basis of such false complaint the other group was able to submit a new list
and induct new members in the society, the culmination of the criminal
proceedings in favour of the petitioners would have the effect of
legitimizing the governing body, which was constituted on 30.01.2016, as
valid, and subsequent induction of persons in the society and any
amendment carried out by them in bye-laws of the society after 30.01.2016
are void-ab-initio.
18] The petitioners' contention is that despite the list of governing body
dated 30.01.2016 being declared as valid list by the Registrar, Firms and
Societies, in its report dated 12.08.2024, the Registrar has failed to
perform its statutory duty by accepting the new list of illegally inducted
members. It is further the contention of the petitioners that after the
favorable order was passed by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid Special
Leave to Appeal (Diary No.41085/2022) dated 27.01.2023, the Registrar
Firms and Societies ought to have conducted the fresh election of the
society on the basis of the list dated 30.01.2016, however, the Registrar
has not taken any action in respect of the same and the election have not
been conducted, which has led the petitioners to file this petition.
19] Pursuant to the filing of this petition, lengthy replies, additional
replies, affidavits etc., have also been filed by the parties, traversing the
contentions of the petitioners. Whereas, the petitioners have also filed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
detailed rejoinder and affidavit, and then, the following observations were
made in respect of the aforesaid voter list dated 30.01.2016, specifically
directing that the election shall not be held on the basis of the said list of
the members/voters.
20] Thus, in this backdrop, it is to be seen as to how the contentions of
the petitioners regarding the validity of the voter list as it existed on
30.01.2016 has to be dealt with.
21] In this regard, reference may again be had to the relevant excerpts of
the order passed by the Supreme Court on 04.02.2025, which is already
reproduced hereinabove. The same read as under:-
Accordingly, we dispose of the Appeals by passing the following order:
i. The directions issued in terms of paragraph 14 of the impugned
judgment and order are hereby confirmed subject to modification
that elections shall not be held on the basis of the list of
members/voters as on 30th January, 2016. The direction to hold
election on the basis of the list of members/voters as on 30th January,
2016 is set aside. The Writ Petition is remanded to the High Court
only for limited purpose of deciding the issue of list of voters on the
basis of which election should be held;
ii. Considering the fact that the elections as directed must be held at the
earliest, we request the High Court to hear the parties and pass
appropriate order regarding preparation of a fresh list of members/voters
eligible to vote in the elections to be conducted in terms of clause(1) of
paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment and order. Needless to add that
the High Court will consider applicable laws/rules/bye-laws while
determining the issue;
iii. As regards clause (2) of paragraph 14 of the impugned judgment and
order, in the event it is necessary to release the amounts in the bank
accounts of Astha Foundation For Education Society for the purposes of
running the colleges/educational institutions, the parties are free to apply
to the High Court by making appropriate applications for limited
modification of the said direction. The High Court will consider the same
on its own merits;
iv. Subject to modification made above and limited order of remand, the
impugned judgment and order is confirmed.
v. The Appeals are partly allowed on the above terms. We make it clear
that though some of the appellants are not parties before the High Court,
this order shall not be construed to mean that they are entitled to
participate in the proceedings before the High Court. It is for the them to
make appropriate applications in that behalf before the High Court."
(Underlines supplied)
PETITIONERS' SUBMISSSIONS.
22] Shri Manoj Munshi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
petitioners has vehemently argued before this Court that the Supreme
Court has not set aside the list dated 30.01.2016, but has only set aside the
direction with respect to the conduction of the election on the basis of the
list of 30.01.2016. It is also submitted that the Supreme Court has not
disturbed the list of members dated 30.01.2016, which has already become
sacrosanct because in the earlier order passed by this Court, on 31.07.2024,
this court had directed the Registrar Firms & Society to submit a report on
various issues concerning calling and convening of meetings and induction
of new members, and pursuant to which a report dated 12.08.2024 has also
been prepared by the Registrar, wherein the list of members as on
30.01.2016 has been found to be the only valid list. It is submitted that the
aforesaid order has already been affirmed by the Supreme Court vide its
order dated 30.08.2024 passed in Special Leave Petition (C) Diary
No.36732 of 2024. Thus, it is submitted that the report submitted by the
Registrar cannot be ignored and has to be relied upon to decide the valid
members of the society, who are eligible to vote.
23] It is also submitted that otherwise also the aforesaid report dated
12.08.2024 submitted by the Registrar has not been rebutted by the
respondents till date and is binding on the parties. It is also submitted that
the Registrar vide its letter dated 15.03.2016 (Annexure- P/6(Colly)
Additional Affidavit by petitioners/ Annexure C/16, Volume-II,
convenience compilation of document) has already held that there are 21
members in the society and the resolution was passed by only 4 members
without quorum and the objection of Registrar has also not been rebutted
by the respondents over the last 8 years, which amounts to admission of
list of 7 members without any rebuttal.
24] It is also submitted that the respondents have never taken any action
or passed any resolution for cessation or ousting of these 14 members, and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
no objection has ever been raised regarding the aforesaid list, and once the
list is filed with the Registrar and is acknowledged by him, it is conclusive
evidence unless interfered by any legal process. It is also submitted that as
per clause 9 of the bye-laws of the Society, any membership of any
member can be terminated on the 5 grounds given in this clause, namely,
on death, on becoming insane, on resignation, non-payment of fees and
expulsion, and since there is no resolution passed until now for ousting or
cessation of members of the society, their membership continues till date.
It is also submitted that even in the replies filed by the respondents, it is
not clear as to how the other members have been ousted, and in such
circumstances, the members, who are initially lawfully inducted are still
the lawful members of the society.
25] It is also submitted that the amendment in the bye-laws or induction
of new members without any notice to these 14 members with 2 petitioners
is no-nest and void ab initio, and, hence, the members who were appointed
after 30.01.2016 without notice to the 16 members is illegal, and any
decision taken by the new members is also a nullity.
26] It is also submitted that the expulsion of the petitioners by the
respondents in their meeting dated 07.05.2016 was never communicated or
informed by any means to the petitioners, and thus, the petitioners had no
knowledge of their expulsion, and did not seek any relief in this regard,
and even on a specific query by this Court, the respondents could not
inform the date and mode as to how the respondents had informed the
petitioners about their expulsion.
27] It is also submitted that the Register of the society and other
membership related documents, which were supposed to be with the
society has never been filed by the Society before this Court. It is also
submitted that the minutes of the meetings were also not signed by all the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
members, and thus, except these 14 members and two petitioners, total 16
members, there is no other lawfully inducted member as on date and,
hence, the 16 members constitute a list of voters as on date, and all the
members, who have been inducted subsequently are not lawfully appointed
members, and cannot be allowed to vote.
28] Counsel has also submitted a detailed chart of the members, who
have been appointed/expelled, and have resigned until now to substantiate
his point. It is also submitted that the tenure of the elected governing body
of 30.01.2016 was three years, and without that election being challenged,
fraudulently new elections are shown to have been conducted, hence the
same are non-est in law in terms of the order dated 23.04.2024 passed by
this Court, which has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court vide its
order dated 15.05.2024, and the respondents/intervenors have also not
sought modification of the order passed by the Supreme Court on
15.05.2024.
29] So far as the delay in filing the petition is concerned, the petitioners'
contention is that the entire basis of the dispute was the FIR registered
against the petitioners alleging forgery of list dated 30.01.2016, which
finally culminated in favour of the petitioners in January 2023, and soon
thereafter, the petitioners approached the Registrar to conduct elections,
and the said finding is also not disturbed by the Supreme Court, and the
issue of delay also cannot be gone into at this stage, after the matter is
remanded back from this Court.
30] It is also submitted that even otherwise if the respondents dispute the
election which took place on 30.01.2016, to be bad in law, in that case, all
the subsequent elections and actions taken by the respondents are also bad
in law and would be treated as null and void.
31] Thus, it is submitted that the election of the society may be directed
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
to be held on the basis of the members existed as on today and that would
be 14 members, who were inducted on 20th of January 2016, who have
never been ceased to be the members of the society in terms of clause 9 of
bye-laws. Similarly, the petitioners have been illegally expelled on
07.05.2016, and hence, continue to be the members as on date. Thus,
presently, the 16 members are the voters, who can cast their votes in the
election and the other persons, who have been inducted after 30.01.2016
without complete quorum and without notice to these members, were
appointed illegally, and cannot be treated as members, and, hence,
excluding the members, who have resigned or not challenged their ousting,
there are as on date, only 14+2 members, who are eligible to vote, and
thus, fresh election may kindly be directed on the basis of list of aforesaid
16 members.
RESPONDENTS' SUBMISSIONS.
32] Whereas, counsel for the respondents have vehemently opposed the
prayer, and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out, as
admittedly, the meeting which took place on 30.01.2016, cannot be treated
as valid, as, admittedly, while submitting the minutes of the meeting to the
Registrar, no fees was submitted as prescribed, which is also apparent from
the document (Annexure-P/5) (Annexure C/11 Volume-II, convenience
compilation of document) in which there is no reference of the fees nor the
mode of payment, and in such circumstances, the names of the members as
informed to the Registrar under Section 27 of the Adhiniyam of 1973
cannot be treated as valid members. It is also submitted that a new life
member can be inducted only after completing the following formalities,
as per Clause 6 of the Astha Society's bye-laws as existing in 2015 - 2016,
the same read as under:
"a. A written application in the writing accompanied with the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
membership fees of the Society (Rs.1100);
b. Proof of the payment along with the receipt evidencing the proof of
payment of membership for.
c. Forwarding of the said application to the Governing Body for
consideration of induction of the new members and a resolution in
respect thereof for their induction."
33] It is also submitted that, admittedly, there is no document on record
to suggest that the 14 members, which the petitioners are claiming to be
the valid members ever paid the membership fees of the society, and in
such circumstances, they cannot be treated as the valid members. It is also
submitted that in the absence of the formal appearance entered by all the
14 members stated to have been inducted on 30.01.2016, no lawyer can
represent them in Court without a formal engagement on their behalf. It is
also submitted that since the 14 persons were never inducted in the society
as the bye-laws and mandatory procedures were not followed, there is no
question of their expulsion.
34] It is also submitted that after the meeting dated 30.01.2016, in the
last 8 to 9 years, none of these 14 members have anywhere participated or
shown their existence in any of the meetings or affairs of the Society, and
they have also not conducted any parallel meeting if they considered
themselves to be the valid members of the society.
35] It is further the contention of the respondents that the petitioners
were expelled from the society on 07.05.2016 and were not included in the
subsequently list of life members of 28.05.2016, and they have not
challenged the expulsion order, nor the list dated 28.05.2016. Counsel has
also drawn the attention of this Court to the resolution dated 07.05.2016
whereby the petitioners were expelled from the society. It is also submitted
that even according to the petitioners, they became aware of the said
expulsion in the year 2022 from the resolution filed along with the appeal
filed on behalf of the interveners before the Registrar Firms and Society.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
In such circumstances, in the absence of any challenge to their expulsion,
even after coming to know about the same, it has rendered the petitioners
status as non-members.
36] Counsel have also drawn the attention of this Court to the order
passed by the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition - Diary No.36732
of 2024 dated 30.08.2024, which was filed against the order passed by this
Court on 31.07.2024 wherein this Court had directed the Registrar to
submit the report. Counsel has submitted that even the Supreme Court has
clearly directed that all the issues in respect of the preparation of fresh list
of voters shall remain open, and even the report of the Registrar is subject
to further orders, which may be passed by the Court. It is also submitted
that in the said order dated 30.08.2024, the Supreme Court has also held
that as there is no final adjudication made by the High Court regarding
preparation of the fresh list of the voters, who will be eligible to vote in the
election, hence, at this stage, no interference is called for with the
impugned order. Thus, it is submitted that the election be held on the basis
of the subsequent list, which has been presented to the Registrar under s.27
of the Adhiniyam of 1973.
37] It is further submitted that the majority of the currently servings
members as per the list of 15.03.2024 were inducted in the meeting dated
14.01.2021, and its intimation was also duly sent to the Registrar, Firms
and Society under Section 27 of the Adhiniyam of 1973 through a list
prepared in the prescribed format on 14/01/2021. Thus, it is submitted that
the list of the aforesaid 18 members, whose names are contained in the list
dated 15.03.2024 are the currently existing members entitled to participate
and vote in any elections of the Astha Society, and except those members,
no other person is entitled to vote in the election.
38] It is also submitted that in the meeting of the members of the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
Society, which took place on 31.10.2021, and as per the amended bye-laws
of the Society dated 27.10.2021, the strength of the Governing Body was
fixed at 7 members, through this amending process of the existing bye-
laws, and the elections were also held on 31.10.2021 through which one
new member was inducted as a life member as per the amended
regulations, which are valid till 30.10.2024. It is also submitted that around
35-36 person also took members of the society, and have resigned from the
same in the intervening period from May, 2016 till October, 2021, when
the last elections were convened, and none of these 35-36 members, who
joined the society in the intervening 8 years have taken interest in
participating in the affairs of the Society.
39] It has been strongly submitted by the counsel for the respondents
that the elections must be held on the basis of a list submitted under
Section 27 of the Adhiniyam of 1973, which was submitted on 15.03.2024,
prior to passing of the first order on 23.04.2024, which is the final list of
life members, eligible to vote and participate in the elections as on date,
inducted as per the latest bye-laws, amended last in 2021, with due
approval of Registrar, Firms and Society, who has approved the
amendment to the bye-laws, and resultantly the amended bye-laws under
Section 10 of the M.P. Societies Act, 1973 have also come into force as
communicated on 08.10.2021 (Reference Annexure C/65, page - 291,
Volume -II of convenience compilation).
40] It is submitted that the amended bye-laws have also not been
challenged, and thus, they have also attained the finality. It is also
submitted that the meetings, resolutions and decisions of the Astha Society
from May, 2016 to February, 2022 also cannot be challenged in the writ
petition for the first time, and this Court is required to look into the
intimation made by the Society under Section 27 of the Adhiniyam of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
1973.
41] It is also submitted that the meetings convened subsequent to
30.01.2016 are not illegal for want of minimum notice of 14 days as per
bye-laws. It is submitted that even the petitioners were inducted on the
basis of the short notices issued of around 10 to 11 days only, which can
also demonstrated by (Annexure C/6, page No.28, Convenience Volume -
II ), and thus, if the petitioners' contention is accepted, then their own
membership, at that time, was also without following the due procedure.
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS.
42] Heard. Before we advert to the pleadings of the parties, it would be
necessary for us to decide if the report 12.08.2024 prepared by the
Registrar, Firms and Societies is binding on us, as has been strenuously
submitted by learned sr. counsel for the petitioners.
43] It is true that this court, vide its order dated 31.07.2024 had directed
the Registrar, firms and societies respondent No.1 to prepare the report on
or before 20.08.2024, taking 30.01.2016 as the starting point. The relevant
excerpts of the order dated 31.07.2024 passed by this court read as under:-
11. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate to direct Respondent
No. 1, Registrar, Firms and Societies, to examine the common
convenience compilation consisting of all the pleadings and documents
filed by the parties in accordance with byelaws prevailing in 2016 and
henceforth, furnish a report on the legality of the events for the period
subsequent to 30.01.2016 till the date of receipt of this order, in
particular -
1. The induction, expulsion and resignation of members having
voting rights, if any, made in the Society;
2. The elections, if any, conducted in the Society.
3. The amendments, if any, made in the bye-laws of the
Society.
12. The report as directed shall be furnished on or before 20.08.2024
with a copy to the other side
(Emphasis supplied)
44] The aforesaid order was challenged by the respondent No.21
Dharmendra Gupta before the Supreme Court in Special Leave petition
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
(Civil) Diary No. 36732/2024, which passed the final order on 30.08.2024,
making the following observations: -
The impugned order does not issue any final direction
regarding preparation of a fresh list of voters eligible to vote in the
elections to be conducted in terms clause (i) as mentioned above. All
issues in that behalf still remain open. Even the report of the Registrar
is subject to further orders which may be passed by the Court. As there
is no final adjudication made by the High Court regarding preparation
of a fresh list of voters who will be eligible to vote in the elections, at
this stage, no interference is called for with the impugned order. The
Special Leave Petitions are accordingly dismissed. All contentions of
the parties are left open which shall be considered by the High Court.
(Emphasis supplied)
45] Thus, it is apparent from the order of the Supreme Court that the
said report is not binding on this Court, and it is for this Court only to
decide about the admissibility of the same.
46] Even otherwise, this Court is of the considered opinion that when
none of the actions of the Society over the past decade have been
challenged, and even if challenged, not taken to its logical conclusion, it is
not open for any authority or even the courts to critically examine the
legality of each and every action of the Society, which have gone
unchallenged, to arrive at a conclusion regarding its present day voter list.
If this approach is to be adopted, then why take 30.01.2016 as the cut-off
date, why not take the date of inception of the society in the year 2006
because the election which took place at that time have also not been
challenged by any of the parties, whereas, the respondents have contended
that even the petitioners' induction in the Society on 30.01.2016 is also not
in accordance with the bye-laws and the Adhiniyam of 1973.
47] We are also of the considered opinion that the Adhiniyam of 1973
prescribes various time frames for certain compliances, and also the
consequences of non-compliances, which are only to ensure that after a
certain period of time, the Society is precluded from changing its stance
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
and also that any other party is also precluded from challenging the non-
compliance after a certain period of time, and thus, to give a quietus to an
issue. Otherwise, there would be no end to the litigation, and if a party is
allowed to raise any non-compliance of any provision under the
Adhiniyma of 1973, or for that reasons, by-laws of the Society, for the first
time in the High Court, by circumventing the provisions of the Adhiniyma
of 1973, that too after around a decade/8-9 years, the very object and the
provisions of the Adhiniyam would be rendered redundant.
48] Thus, we are of the firm view that the report submitted by the
Registrar dated 12.08.2024 is good only for future references, i.e., to
ensure proper working of the Society in accordance with law and by-laws,
but it cannot be used to arrive at a conclusion regarding the status of the
present members of the society. In this context, it is also surprising to note
that Section 32 of the Adhiniyam of 1973 provides for inquiry and
settlement of the dispute, which also arms the Registrar to hold an inquiry
suo motu, into the constitution, working and financial conditions of the
society, in addition to the application filed in this regard by the persons as
prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Adhiniyam, 1973, but
apparently the Registrar has never acted against any action of the society,
nor any application has been filed in this regard by the persons as
prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 32 of the Adhiniyam of 1973.
Thus, on one hand, a report has been submitted by the Registrar holding
that the entire proceedings of the society were vitiated on account of non-
compliance of the bye-laws, and on the other hand, it has never cared to
hold any inquiry under Section 32.
49] On merits, this Court finds that the entire petition revolves around
the petitioners' exoneration in criminal case registered against them at
Crime No.224 of 2016, which was lodged at the instance of Dr. Ramesh
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
Badlani, the respondent No. 4 herein. In connection with the aforesaid FIR,
this Court in W.P. No.20077 of 2017, vide its order dated 30.01.2018
directed Dr. Ramesh Badlani to raise objection before the J.M.F.C., where
the closure report (Khatma) was to be filed, and thus, after the closure
report was filed, the objections filed by Dr. Ramesh Badlani were rejected
by the JMFC, which order was challenged by Dr. Badlani in a Criminal
Revision in the Sessions Court, which was also dismissed, and against the
said order, the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., M.Cr.C. No. 2866 of
2022 filed before this Court was also dismissed on 15.09.2022, and the
order passed by this Court has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court in
Special Leave Petition (criminal) Diary No. 41085 of 2022 on 27.01.2023.
Thus, according to the petitioners, after all the proceedings in relation to
the aforesaid criminal case came to an end, he approached the Registrar,
Firms and Societies for conducting of election on 23.05.2023. Admittedly,
these proceedings lasted from 01.12.2016, i.e., the date of lodging of FIR
till 27.01.2023, when the SLP was also dismissed.
50] However, this Court is of the considered opinion that the aforesaid
criminal proceedings cannot be taken into account while deciding the
rights of the parties under the provisions M.P. Society Registrikaran
Adhiniyam, 1973 as the criminal proceedings and the proceedings under
the Adhiniyam of 1973 are two different aspects of the matter, and the
finding recorded in the criminal cases, cannot be taken into consideration
while deciding the rights of the parties under the Adhiniyam of 1973. In
this regard, reference may also be had to the decision rendered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja,
reported as (2021) 1 SCC 414., wherein, it is held that the findings
recorded by the criminal Courts are not binding on the Civil Court.
Relevant Para of the same reads as under:-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
"159. It was further held that a decision in a criminal case is not binding in a civil
case. In para 15, the following was laid down : (Ramdayal Jat case [Ramdayal
Jat v. Laxmi Prasad, (2009) 11 SCC 545 : (2009) 4 SCC (Civ) 560] , SCC pp. 551-
52)
"15. A civil proceeding as also a criminal proceeding may go on
simultaneously. No statute puts an embargo in relation thereto. A
decision in a criminal case is not binding on a civil court. In M.S.
Sheriff v. State of Madras [M.S. Sheriff v. State of Madras, AIR 1954 SC
397 : 1954 Cri LJ 1019] , a Constitution Bench of this Court was seized
with a question as to whether a civil suit or a criminal case should be
stayed in the event both are pending. It was opined that the criminal
matter should be given precedence. In regard to the possibility of conflict
in decisions, it was held that the law envisages such an eventuality when
it expressly refrains from making the decision of one court binding on the
other, or even relevant, except for certain limited purposes, such as
sentence or damages. It was held that the only relevant consideration was
the likelihood of embarrassment."
(Emphasis supplied)
51] Thus, we are of the considered view that the findings recorded in the
criminal proceedings are inconsequential and cannot be taken into
consideration to decide the rights of the parties, which have accrued to
them under the provision of the Adhiniyam of 1973. Thus, the contention
of Shri Munshi, that the findings recorded by the criminal Courts regarding
the validity of the list of members as on 30.01.2016 is hereby rejected.
52] This Court also finds that the no register as required to be
maintained by the Society under Section 16 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 has
been produced by any of the parties, however, in its absence, this Court can
rely upon the documents, which have been submitted to the Registrar by
the President or Secretary of the Society together with such fee as may be
prescribed as per Section 27 of the Adhiniyam of 1973. This is also for the
reasons that the register of a society can be easily manipulated by the
office bearers of the Society, but the intimation under Section 27 of the
Adhiniyam of 1973, cannot. At this juncture, it would also be relevant to
refer to Section 27 of the Adhiniyam of 1973, which reads as under:-
"[27. Annual list of governing body to be filed - Once in every year,
or before the forty-fifth day on which according to the regulations of
the society the annual general meeting of the society is held or if the
regulation do not provide for an annual general meeting, then within
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
forty five days of the 31st day of January a list of the full names,
permanent addresses and chief occupations and other if any, with
signature of the governing body shall be filed with the Registrar by the
President or Secretary in such form with such documents together with
such fee as may be prescribed :-
Provided that the Registrar may, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
grant further time not exceeding fifteen days for compliance :-
Provided further that if the Society fails to file the list within the
prescribed time limit or within the extended time, it may file the same
within thirty days from the last day of the prescribed time or extended
time, as the case may be, with such late fee as may be prescribed.]"
(Emphasis supplied)
53] It is found that after the meeting of the Shri Astha foundation for
education Society on 30.01.2016, when the other members were inducted,
a list was submitted to the Registrar of firm and Society on 11.02.2016
under Section 27 of the Adhiniyam of 1973 together with the requisite
fees, which is also demonstrated by the document No 2673/2016 but there
is no mention of any prescribed fee ever paid by newly inducted members.
Thus, the authenticity of the said list of members cannot be pressed into
service by the petitioners. However, even assuming the same to be correct
and reliable, it is also an admitted position that except one, none of such
communications submitted under Section 27 of the Adhiniyam of 1973 by
any of the parties, have ever been challenged by any of the parties,
although the aforesaid documents were in public domain only.
54] It is also found that the petitioner No.1 Anil Sanghavi had preferred
an appeal under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1973 before the Registrar,
Firms and Societies against the communication dated 28.06.2016,
regarding the Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) dated 28.05.2016,
wherein the Registrar was informed that the term of the executive body
was coming to an end on 30.05.2016, and since it is not possible to get the
elections conducted, hence, the tenure of the executive body, which did not
have the names of the petitioners and other members of their group, and
included other members not of the petitioners' group, is extended up to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
30.11.2016, and the communication was also sent to the Registrar under
Section 27 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 along with the requisite fees of
Rs.1,000/- submitted through a challan dated 02.06.2016. The aforesaid
appeal was dismissed by the Registrar vide its order dated 01.09.2017 on
the ground of delay, and also on technical ground that the copy of the order
was obtained under the Right to Information Act, which is not the certified
copy. The aforesaid order passed by the Registrar dated 01.09.2017 has not
been challenged by the petitioners in any further appeal before the State
Government as provided under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam of 1973,
meaning thereby, the communication made by the society to the Registrar
as on 28.05.2016 had become final, and on the basis of the same, and in
absence of any challenge to the same, petitioners cannot be allowed to
reopen the dispute after so many years.
55] Similarly, all such acts or omissions of the Society which the
petitioners have alleged for the first time before this court, without
challenging the same at the appropriate time and before the appropriate
forum, cannot be allowed to be raised at this juncture before this court, as
the same would amount to opening of the pandora box.
56] It is also found that bye-laws have also been amended by the
respondents, which have also been approved by the Registrar from time to
time, the last one is dated 27.10.2021, through (Annexure R-4/1)
(Annexure C/66 Volume-II, convenience compilation of document) filed
by respondent no.4, which have also not been assailed under the
Adhiniyam of 1973, hence, in such circumstances, the petitioners cannot
be allowed to challenge the bye-laws in this writ petition.
57] So far as the contention of Shri Munshi regarding the two lists of the
members dated 14.01.2021 is concerned, which were submitted under
Section 27 before the Registrar, it is found that the petitioner had already
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
taken this objection initially before the Assistant Registrar, Firms and
Societies, Indore under Section 37 of the Act of 1973 to file a criminal
complaint, which was rejected on 15.09.2021 by the Assistant Registrar,
against which order the petitioner also preferred an appeal before the
Registrar, Firms and Societies, Bhopal, who vide its order dated
23.12.2021, allowed the appeal and authorized the petitioner to file the
complaint under Section 37(2) of the Act of 1973. However, the aforesaid
order was challenged by some of the members before the State
Government under Section 40 of the Act of 1973, and simultaneously other
members also preferred a writ petition at Principal Seat, Jabalpur, W.P.
No.15266/2022, which was decided by this Court on 29.11.2022 on the
ground that they were not given any opportunity of hearing, and this Court
vide its order dated 29.11.2022 allowed the petition, and while quashing
the order passed by the Registrar dated 23.12.2021, remanded the matter
back to the Registrar, Firms and Societies, Bhopal to hear the matter
afresh, after giving due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.
As per the record, the aforesaid appeal is still pending before the Registrar,
and thus, there is no final adjudication of the petitioner's application. In
such circumstances, the petitioner's contention regarding the two lists is
also of no avail and is hereby rejected.
58] This Court is of the considered opinion that all such
communications, which were submitted on behalf of the Society under
Section 27 of the Adhiniyam, 1973 were open for challenge by the
petitioners, and in the absence of the same, the list so submitted by the
Society has to be considered as the final list, and consequently, the final
communication to the Registrar dated 15.03.2024 by the Society, filed as
(Annexure R-4/3) (Annexure/C87 Volume-II, convenience compilation of
document) has to be treated as the final list of life members available to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
vote in the election, as the same is also accompanied by the requisite fees.
59] Accordingly, we hold that the list of members as on 15.03.2024,
which is communicated on 03.04.2024 (Annexure-R-4/3) (Annexure/C87
Volume-II, convenience compilation of document) through
President/Secretary of Astha Foundation for Education Society together
with the requisite fees would be the valid and current list of the members,
which includes the names of (1) Jay Narayan Chouksey; (2) Anupam
Chouksey; (3) Poonam Chouksey; (4) Shweta Chouksey; (5) Poojashri
Chouksey; (6) Dharmendra Gupta; (7) Ashish Jaiswal; (8) Rakesh
Dhakre; (9) B.L Rai; (10) Virendra Kumar Rai; (11) Mohit Pandya; (12)
Pawan Chouksey; (13) Upendra Singh Tomar; (14) Smt. Uzma Khan; (15)
Rameshwar Chouksey; (16) Shobha Chouksey; (17) Sunil Chouksey; and
(18) J.P. Sharma shall be the members, who can cast vote in the election
of the Society.
60] Resultantly, the Registrar, Firms and Society is directed to conduct
the election of Astha Foundation for Education Society, within a further
period of four weeks from today.
61] Although, this Court has liberally allowed all the intervenors, to be
made parties to this petition, as observed by the Supreme Court in Civil
Appeal No.6451 of 2024 dated 15.05.2024, and the arguments have also
been advanced on their behalf, based on their respective applications for
intervention. However, this Court is of the considered opinion that all such
intervenors, who have already ceased to be the members of the society,
either on their resignation or ouster, and have never challenged their ouster
by sitting idle for years together, have been ill advised to intervene, as they
were not the necessary parties to the lis, and this court was also not going
to make any adverse remarks against them without hearing them. Such
interveners appear to have filed their intervention applications only with a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:9790
view to derive undue advantage/settle personal scores out of this litigation
between the petitioners and the present members of the society. Such
opportunistic approach of the said intervenors is not appreciated, who have
only wasted the valuable time of this Court.
62] Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of.
(SUBODH ABHYANKAR) (PREM NARAYAN SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE
Reena/Pankaj
