Orissa High Court
(Through Hybrid Mode) vs Collector-Cum-Dm on 1 November, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.20849 of 2022
(Through Hybrid mode)
Guru Nanak Public School, .... Petitioners
Sundargarh and another
Mr. Pradipta Kumar Mohanty, Advocate
-Versus-
Collector-Cum-DM, Sundrgarh and .... Opposite Parties
others
Mr. Manas Ranjan Dhal, Advocate
Mr. Sourendra Kumar Kanungo, Advocate
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
Order No. 01.11.2022
05. 1. Mr. Mohanty, learned senior advocate appears on
behalf of petitioners and submits, impugned is order dated 26th
July, 2021 made by Additional District Magistrate,
Sundargarh in purporting to adjudicate grievance referred by
the writ Court on order dated 16th April, 2021 in WP(C)
no.13192 of 2021. He submits, thereafter on 21st May, 2021
State amendment by insertion of section in 11A in Societies
Registration Act, 1860 was notified. Under the amended
provision, in event of any dispute arising among members of
the society, any member of the society may file a petition in
the Court of Senior Civil Judge having jurisdiction over the
place, at which office of the society is situated. This provision
removed authority of the Additional District Magistrate, to
adjudicate. Hence, impugned order should be set aside and
quashed.
2. He refers to judgment dated 6th January, 2020 passed
by coordinate Bench in WP(C) no.8886 of 2019 (Sri Guru
Singh Sabha v. Additional Registrar of Societies-cum-
Additional District Magistrate and others). He
demonstrates from paragraph-13 therein that his client was
found to have been unanimously agreed to be continued as
President of the Sabha for period 2017 to 2020, by Annual
General Body held on 27th April, 2017. The judgment
referred, inter alia, to clause 30(a) of the bye-laws providing
that a President of the Sabha would be ex-officio President of
the Society, running the school. He then draws attention to
letter dated 19th September, 2020 addressed by petitioner no.2
to the Additional District Magistrate-cum-Additional
Registrar of Societies informing that Managing Committee of
the Sabha for further period of three years till 10th May, 2023
had been nominated with said petitioner as its President.
3. Mr. Dhal, learned advocate appears on behalf of
opposite party no.5. He submits, petitioner no.2 has purported
to perpetrate control over the Sabha, Society and the school.
There has been no election held. This was essentially the
dispute referred by order dated 16th April, 2021 made in said
writ petition and dealt with by impugned order. Therefore, it
was made with due authority of direction made by this Court.
4. He submits further, by the judgment there was reference
of the question formulated therein, to larger Bench. There is
status quo order of the larger Bench subsisting. In the
circumstances this writ petition cannot be proceeded with and
should be adjourned to be dealt with after decision in the
larger Bench case.
5. Mr. Kanungo, learned advocate appears on behalf of
opposite party no.6 and submits, his client made impugned
order. Copy of the writ petition was not served.
6. Opposite party no.6 need have no apprehension for
being required to answer. Since said opposite party made
impugned order, it is best that justification of it by said
opposite party is avoided.
7. Direction made on aforesaid order dated 16th April,
2021 in WP(C) no.13192 of 2021 filed by petitioner no.2, was
in a situation of absence of any provision regarding the
authority or Court to decide such a dispute. Said order was
made after said judgment dated 6th January, 2020, by which
coordinate Bench had referred the question regarding whether
the Additional District Magistrate/Additional Registrar of
Societies could adjudicate on such a dispute. However, by
said notification dated 21st May, 2021, published prior to
impugned order, substantial provision by State amendment
was inserted into the Act. In the circumstances, the law now
provides that Court of Senior Civil Judge having jurisdiction
over the place, at which office of the Society is situated, shall
after making necessary enquiry pass such order as it may
deem fit.
8. The only ground of challenge urged against impugned
order is operation of the amended provision of law. It does not
touch on any other aspect of the adjudication, let alone the
merits. In the circumstances, status quo as on date will be
maintained, as is being maintained under order of status quo
passed in the reference to larger Bench, till 30th November,
2022. Within that time opposite party no.5 and any other
person will be at liberty to approach the Court of Senior Civil
Judge having jurisdiction with their grievance.
9. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
RKS
