Punjab-Haryana High Court
Raghvendra Singh And Anr vs Ahir College Society, Rewari And ... on 12 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(1) LPA-749-2018 (O&M)
Raghvendra Singh & another ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Ahir College Society, Rewari & others ......Respondent(s)
(2) LPA-1023-2018 (O&M)
Ahir College Society, Rewari ......Appellant(s)
Versus
State of Haryana & others ......Respondent(s)
Reserved on : 15.03.2023
Pronounced on : 12.04.03.2023
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN
Present:- Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Sr.Advocate
with Mr.M.K.Mittal, Advocate
for the appellants in LPA-749-2018
and for respondent Nos.5 & 6 in LPA-1023-2018.
Mr.RBS Chahal, Advocate
and Mr.G.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate
for the appellants in LPA-1023-2018
and for respondent No.1 in LPA-749-2018.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. AG, Haryana with
Mr. Saurabh Mago, AAG, Haryana
with Mr.Ishwar Singh, District Registrar of Societies, Rewari
Mr.Mahesh Kumar, Assistant Director, DR Office, Rewari
Mr.Sandeep Yadav, Dealing Clerk, DR Office, Rewari.
****
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.:-
The present set of 2 cross-appeals, bearing LPA-749 & 1023-
2018 have been filed against the judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge in the writ petition bearing CWP-15651-2017 filed by the Ahir
1 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
College Society, Rewari, who is also appellant in LPA-1023-2018. The
argument that the Ahir College Society and The Governing Body of
College were a single entity was repelled and it was held that they were
two different bodies. However, regarding the induction of two members in
the Ahir College Society, it was held that the appropriate authority should
decide the matter within a period of two months and thereafter, conduct
the elections of both the governing body as well as the Ahir College
Society within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the
certified copy of the order.
2. In LPA-1023-2018, the objection is thus regarding the finding
that they are two separate bodies and accordingly, Mr.R.B.S.Chahal,
Advocate in the said appeal has sought modification of the order of the
learned Single Judge to that extent.
3. Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate who has put in
appearance before the learned Single Judge for respondent Nos.5 & 6,
namely, Rao Inderjeet Singh and Raghvendra Singh who are appellants in
LPA-749-2018 has questioned the directions issued by the learned Single
Judge whereby the appropriate authority had been asked to decide the
matter regarding the induction of the two members in the body of the Ahir
College Society within a period of 2 months. The finding which was
recorded by the learned Single Judge was on the ground that the Ahir
College Society is governed by the Haryana Registration and Regulation
of Societies Act, 2012 (for short the 'HRRS Act') whereas the governing
body of the College is governed by the University Calendar/Rules.
4. Accordingly, it was held that the writ petitioner which was
represented by Rao Yadavendra Singh who was the President of the
Governing Body of the College and not of the Society. He had earlier
2 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
filed CWP-25041-2015 titled Rao Yadavendra Singh Vs. District Registrar
Firms & Societies & others, challenging the show cause notice dated
03.11.2015 (Annexure P-12) which had been dismissed as withdrawn on
16.02.2016, to avail of the appropriate remedy against the said order, if
any, which was to be passed by the District Registrar, Firms & Societies,
in pursuance to the show cause notice issued. Thereafter, he had filed
another writ petition bearing CWP-5134-2016 titled Ahir College Society,
Rewari Vs. State of Haryana & others wherein he had challenged the order
dated 08.03.2016 (Annexure P-13) which had been issued by the Assistant
Registrar of the MDU University. CWP-2834-2017 titled Ahir College
Society, Rewari Vs. State of Haryana & others had been decided on
17.02.2017 wherein permission was given to raise all the pleas with regard
to Society being one or not before the Registrar who was seized of the
matter. Resultantly, the appointment of the Administrator which had been
proposed in the letter dated 08.03.2016 by the MDU University was
directed to be kept in abeyance and directions were issued to the Deputy
Registrar/Registrar to decide the objections which had been filed by Rao
Inderjeet Singh as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period
of 2 months.
5. Accordingly, it was noticed that vide letter dated 11.05.2017
(Annexure P-16), the District Registrar had recommended the matter for
election of the governing body of the Ahir College Society to the State
Registrar Societies under the HRRS Act and the election of the governing
body was to be held at the earliest possible by appointment of Ad-hoc
Committee/Administrator in continuation of the earlier order dated
22.03.2016. It was noticed that on 06/16.06.2017 (Annexure P-17), vide
the impugned order, the Government had appointed the Addl.Deputy
3 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
Commissioner as the Administrator for a period of 6 months or till the
election was conducted and thus, a finding was recorded that the
Governing Body of the College and the Ahir College Society are two
separate entities both being governed by different statutes and having
different functions.
6. The concern of the governing body was held limited only to
the college affairs and its functions of the College Society. The election of
the governing body had been held in the presence of the University
Observer on 16.01.2012 but due to getting equal number of votes for the
post of President and General Secretary, the result could not be declared.
Thereafter, the election had again been held on 26.08.2012 and the
petitioner had been elected the President and Rawat Kumar as Joint
Secretary of the Governing Body whose term had already expired in
August, 2015. It was noticed that due to frequent litigation and interim
orders, the election could not take place. It was also noticed that the
petitioner-Rao Yadavendra Singh had himself filed two separate
nominations both for the post of the President of the governing body of the
Ahir College Society, Rewari and for the corresponding post in the Ahir
College Society which would show that both the bodies were separate
entities. It was accordingly, held that the assignment was given to the
University for conducting the elections of the Governing Body of the
College and regarding the Ahir College Society, it had been given to the
District Registrar.
7. It was held that an appeal was filed under Section 79 of the
HRRS Act and without waiting for the decision of that, the present petition
had been filed and the issue was being raised that the Governing Body and
the Society were one and single entity. Resultantly, it was noticed that
4 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
though the term of both the Society and the governing body had expired
but it was only on account of vacant post of the two members the election
could not be held. Therefore, once he himself had filed nomination for the
Governing Body of the College as well as for the Ahir College Society
thus, he could not contend to the contrary. Resultantly, the said
contention was rejected.
8. Mr.Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate, appearing for Rao Inderjeet
Singh and Raghvendra Singh submits that the learned Single Judge did not
refer to the order dated 24.05.2016 (Annexure R-5/6) wherein the issue of
inducting two members was finally decided and the said order has never
been subject matter of challenge. The same was out of a reference which
was made as per the provisions contained under Section 67 of the HRRS
Act and the induction of the two members namely Ms.Bharti Rao,
daughter of Rao Inderjeet Singh and Smt.Usha, wife of Gajraj Singh as
valid members of the Society on 16.01.2012 had been made and upheld. In
the absence of any challenge being made to the speaking order passed by
the Government, the learned Single Judge was not correct in directing that
the appropriate authority should decide the matter with regard to the two
members within a period of two months. It was further pointed out that on
13.08.2017 also, during the pendency of the writ petition, elections had
also been held for the Ahir College Society and Rao Inderjeet Singh had
been elected as President for the period from 2017-2020. The same was
subject to the final decision of the writ petition since vide interim order
dated 03.08.2017, it had been held that proceedings which took place in
the meanwhile shall be subject to final decision of the case. It was pointed
out that there was only one nomination received against the posts which
were to be filled up of the President, Vice-President, General Secretary,
5 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
Treasurer and three Executive Members and since they were valid
nominations, they had been duly elected.
9. It is submitted that in view of the interim order passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench during the pendency of the present appeal on
13.08.2018, status quo was being maintained and elections were due
again. It was further argued that Mr.Chahal could not explain why two
nominations had been filed for the two posts of the Society and the
Governing Body and how the argument was being raised and rather it was
misconceived and there was no basis to contend as the governing body and
the Ahir College Society was a different entity which was to be controlled
as per the statute of the MDU University which had not been made party.
The larger body was the Ahir College Society which had been set up and
registered since 11.10.1972 and founded by the founder, Rao Birender
Singh, father of Rao Inderjeet Singh and Rao Yadvendra Singh and on
account of his death in 2010, the dispute has thus arisen.
10. Mr.Chahal in his usual manner tried to thicken the smoke
screen and submitted that there was an admission which had to be noted
since his client, Rao Yadvendra Singh's brother, Rao Inderjeet Singh
himself had filed CWP-16302-2012 titled Rao Inderjeet Singh Vs.
M.D.University & others in which he had averred that he had been elected
President of the Governing Body of the Ahir College Society in the
elections held on 16.01.2012. Resultantly, he had prayed that he should be
elected as he has secured 6 valid votes against 5 valid votes secured by
Rao Yadvendra Singh. He referred to the Memorandum of Association of
the Ahir College Society, Rewari to submit that the membership of the
Society was identical as that of the Governing Body and the affairs of the
Society were to be vested in the Governing Body. Accordingly, reference
6 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
was made to various documents attached with the said writ petition to
submit that there was an election held on 16.01.2012 which was of the
Governing Body of the Ahir College and that was the case of Rao
Inderjeet Singh himself and now he cannot turn around and contend to the
contrary as Clause 4 of the Society Act provided that the membership of
the Society was to be identical of the Governing Body.
11. Reliance was also placed upon the affidavit filed by the
Deputy Commissioner, Rewari in the said case that the election had
already been held on 16.01.2012 of the Ahir College Society and the
tabulation of the ballot papers was drawn on 12.08.2012 which went on to
show that they were one and the same body. The report of the Returning
Officer, H.S.Yadav was referred to that the election had been held of the
governing body of Ahir College Society on 16.01.2012 and the fact that
there was a tie and both the brothers had secured equal number of votes
which was 6. The certificate (Annexure P-7) in the said writ petition
bearing CWP-16302-2012 showed that election had been held of the office
bearers of the Society and the Governing Body of Ahir College and 15
ballot papers had been allotted to the Returning Officer on 16.01.2012 at
10 am. Accordingly, reliance was placed upon the agenda circulated on
30.11.2011 that meeting was to be held on 16.12.2011 to decide the date
of election of the Ahir College Society and the appointment of the
Returning Officer. The minutes of the meeting would go on to show that
the date of election was fixed as 16.01.2012 and it had been agreed that
Professor H.S.Yadav would be the Returning Officer for the said election.
12. It was contended that on 26.08.2012 elections had been held
and Rao Yadvendra Singh had been elected as President as per the result
declared on 30.09.2012. His brother Rao Inderjeet Singh had prayed on
7 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
11.10.2012 for setting aside the meeting which had been acted upon on
15.10.2012 (Annexure P-4) by the District Registrar, Firms & Societies,
Rewari wherein the issue of filling up of two vacant posts in the
membership of the Society had been put on hold by the District Registrar.
Reliance was placed upon the communication dated 24.05.2013
(Annexure P-6) that there was no direction for conducting enquiry
received from the office of the District Registrar, Firms & Societies,
Rewari and therefore, no action could be taken.
13. It is submitted that the State had misused its powers by
issuing instructions dated 07.06.2013 wherein directions had been issued
that there was a distinction between the Governing Body of the Society
and the governing body of an Institute running it and it was only to
overcome the fact that in the case of the Ahir College Society, they were
identical. Reliance was accordingly placed upon the communication dated
27.08.2015 (Annexure P-8) that the date of election of the Society had to
be decided in a meeting which was to be held on 11.09.2015 and again
directions had been issued by the District Registrar not to hold the meeting
on 10.09.2015 (Annexure P-9). The same was on a complaint made by
Raghvendra Singh that the meeting was being convened by the Ex-officio
Secretary whereas he was the Secretary of the Ahir College Society. It was
accordingly the case of Mr.Chahal that the State was interfering in the
running of the Society and therefore, reliance was placed upon the
communication dated 03.11.2015 (Annexure P-12) to submit that findings
had been recorded as elections had been held on 26.08.2012 of the
governing body of the Ahir College and that he had been declared elected
as the President on 30.09.2012. Resultantly, he prayed for declaration of
status quo and relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Executive
8 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shamli & others Vs. Lakshmi
Narain & others, AIR 1976 SC 888 and prayed for restoration of status
quo as on 26.08.2012 being the President of the Society.
Findings:
14. In our considered opinion, the argument raised by Mr.Chahal
is totally misconceived and a desperate attempt to confuse the issue that
the Governing Body of the Society and the Governing Body of the College
are one and the same entity. The Memorandum of Association of the Ahir
College Society, Rewari (Annexure P-2) in the writ petition filed by Rao
Inderjeet Singh bearing CWP-16302-2012 would go on to show that the
Society was registered on 11.10.1972. It was established to administer,
develop and maintain the educational institution called the Ahir College at
Rewari, as per Clause 3. As per Clause 4, the membership of the Society
shall be identical with that of the Governing Body and the affairs of the
Society shall be vested in and administered by the Governing Body. As
per Rule 2, the members of the Governing Body at that time was of 15
persons and it was to be the Chief Executive authority of the College
having the control and the power to administer the property and funds of
the College which were to be placed at the disposal of the College. As per
Rule 4, the members of the Governing Body were not to be more than 15
and were not to be less than 7. If any vacancy occurred in the Governing
Body, it was to be filled up by the remaining members by majority of
votes, as per Rule 5. The Principal was to be the Ex-officio member of the
Governing Body in addition to the above members, as per Rule 6. The
quorum of the meeting of the Governing Body was to be 5 members, as
per Rule 10 and there were supposed to be office bearers and the tenure
9 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
was to be of 3 years as per Clauses 11 & 12. Relevant clauses read as
under:
"MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE AHIR
COLLEGE SOCIETY, REWARI.
Xxxx
3. The objects for which the Society is established are:-
To administer, develop and maintain the educational institution
called the Ahir College at Rewari and to manage, supervise and
administer its affairs.
4. The membership of the Society shall be identical with that of
the Governing Body, the affairs of the Society shall be vested in
and administered by the Governing Body.
Xxxx
RULES OF THE AHIR COLLEGE SOCIETY REWARI
Xxxx
2. The Governing Body shall be the chief Executive authority of
the College. It shall hold, control and administer the property and
funds of the college as well as other funds placed at the disposal of
the college for any special purpose.
Xxxx
4. The members of the Governing body shall not be less than
seven or more than fifteen.
5. If any vacancy occurs in the membership of the Governing body
it may be filled in by the remaining members by a majority of
votes.
6. The principal shall be ex-officio member of the Governing
Body in addition to the above members.
Xxxx
10. The quorum for every meeting of the governing body shall be
five members.
11. The following shall be office bearers of the Governing Body
(i) President
(ii) Vice President
(iii) Secretary
12. The office bearers shall held office for a period of three years
and shall be eligible for re-election."
10 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
15. The stand of the State was specific that the petitioner was
trying to mis-match the two separate entities which were governed by
different rules as noticed by the learned Single Judge. The Ahir College
Society was to be governed by 2012 Act and the Governing Body was to
be governed by the University Calendar and rules.
16. Similarly, the stand of respondent Nos.5 & 6 in the writ
petition, namely, Rao Inderjeet Singh and Rao Raghvendra Singh was also
the same and rather they appended the nomination forms whereby Rao
Yadvendra Singh had filled up the said forms both for the post of election
to the office of the Governing Body of the Ahir College as President and
also for the same post in Ahir College Society on 05.01.2012. The said
nomination papers were signed by Rawat Kumar who was voter No.6 in
the members of the Society of Ahir College and also Yadvendra Singh
was voter No.9. Apparently, on 30.11.2011, it had been proposed that a
meeting of the Ahir College Society will be held on 16.12.2011 and one of
the agendas was to decide the date of the election of the said Society and
the appointment of the Returning Officer for the same and for the
appointment of the MDU observer, which would be clear from Annexure
P-1. On account of the fact that the founder father, Rao Birender Singh
had expired on 30.09.2008, two minutes silence was also observed
whereas both the brothers along with other members were present and they
were 8 members. Resultantly, vide the said meeting, the minutes of the
last meeting of the Society was confirmed and the activities of the Society
for the past one year and the accounts of the Society was also approved by
the 8 members. The date of the election was fixed for 16.01.2012 and the
communication was to be given to all the members of the Society and the
MD University was asked for appointment of Observer whereas Professor
11 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
H.S.Yadav was to be the Returning Officer for the said election.
Apparently, on the said date, only 12 members participated and voted in
the election and Smt.Mamta Yadav was not present. Resultantly, there
was a tie for the post of President and the General Secretary. Apparently,
the Returning Officer, on account of no unanimity amongst the candidates
for the toss, referred the matter on 16.01.2012 to the University/
Government for necessary action while noting that election of two
representatives of Teachers, one representative of non-teaching staff and
for Vice President of the Governing Body, no voting had been held and
they had been elected unanimously. Arti Singh Rao had been elected as
Treasurer having secured 7 votes against 5 which would be clear from the
declaration of the result which was signed also by Professor Naresh
Kumar and Professor S.C.Sharma who were the University and the
Government nominees respectively which specifically were for the
Governing Body of the College. It was mentioned that for the posts of
President and General Secretary, no-one was declared elected.
17. Resultantly, Rao Inderjeet Singh had filed the said writ
petition wherein he referred to Statute of the MD University, Rohtak
which provided that every college has to have a Governing Body
consisting of not more than 21 members and not less than 11 members and
the Governing Body of the College was to be consisting of first 4 members
of the Society, members of the College with Principal as the Ex-officio
Principal Secretary. The other members were to be nominated by the
President, one by University, one by the State Government and three were
to represent the staff. In cases where the Governing Body was of less than
21 members, the number falling in each categories were to be determined
on proportionate basis, the representation of the University and the
12 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
Government remaining invariable. The life of the Governing Body was
also be of 3 years and election was to be held after every 3 years. The
supervision was to be done by the Observer and the University was
competent to constitute the new Governing Body in case the elections are
not held and the same was to be subject to the approval of the University.
The relevant statute reads as under:
"38.25 Each College shall have managing committee known as
governing body consisting of not more than 21 and not less than
11 members, the president, Vice-president, treasurer, general
secretary and secretary shall be the office bearers of the governing
body. The first four shall be elected by the general body of
members of the society/ trust running the college. The principal
shall be the ex-officio member-secretary of the governing body.
Of the remaining sixteen members 11 shall be nominated by the
president, one by University, one by the State Govt. and three
shall represent the staff. In cases where the governing body
consists of less than 21 members, the number falling in each of the
above categories will be determined on a proportionate basis, the
representation of the University and the Govt, remaining
invariable. As soon as the governing body is constituted, the
names of the members will be communicated to the University
and the director of higher education Haryana by the secretary.
The life of the governing body shall be three years and fresh
election shall be held after every three. The election shall be held
under the supervision of an observer to be appointed by the
University who shall certify that the election has been held
properly and according to rules. In case the election are not held
at the end of the period stipulated above, the University shall be
competent to constitute a new governing body. The constitution,
election and personal of the governing body shall be subject to the
approval of the University. The change in the constitution on the
above lines shall be a pre-condition for the release of maintenance
and other grants. Applications for grants accompanied with
certificates that the salaries of the employees have been paid and
all other conditions relating to affiliation and such grants have
been complied with shall be routed through the University.
13 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
If in inquiry, it is found that a recognized non-govt. college is not
being properly administered, the Executive Council, may authorise
the Vice-Chancellor to appoint additional representatives or
representatives of the University on the managing body of the
college for such period as may be prescribed by the Executive
Council, if the representative of the university are not invited to a
meeting of the managing body and or/ a meeting of the governing
body is held without the presence of the University representative,
the proceedings of that meeting shall be regarded as invalid. In
case, the University representative does not attend a meeting even
after having confirmed his presence in writing the proceedings of
such meeting shall be valid. There must be at least three meetings
of the governing body in a year i.e. one per term.
T.A. and D.A. of University representatives shall be paid by the
college concerned."
18. It was, thus, the case of respondent No.5 that on account of
equal number of votes polled, he had sought approval for election as
President being the Vice-President and on account of the death of his
father and was entitled to exercise the powers as per Rule 13 and was
entitled to conduct and regulate all meetings and appoint any committee
and his ruling of all kind of order shall be final and conclusive.
Apparently, the University had not approved the said claim for
Presidentship for the Governing Body and resultantly, vide Annexure P-9
with the said writ petition, his claim for the post of Presidentship was
rejected and it was directed that fresh elections be held for the posts of
President and General Secretary. He had also raised objection that there
was an additional ballot paper which had been torn and the vote of his
brother, Rao Yadvendra Singh should be declared invalid and resultantly,
challenge had been raised to the holding of the second election in the writ
petition in August, 2012. Notice of motion was issued on 24.08.2012 in
the said case wherein it was directed that the election process should go on
14 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
but the result should not be declared. The reply filed by the then Deputy
Commissioner would go on to show that the ballot papers were opened in
the presence of Rao Yadvendra Singh on 28.08.2012 in the D.C. Court
Hall. The Deputy Commissioner in the presence of the CJM opened the
ballot papers and made an inventory of all ballot papers lying sealed
therein. The inventory was to indicate the number of ballot papers
retrieved their condition and the votes which had been cast in favour of
different candidates, in a tabulated form. It was found that there was 6
ballot papers in favour of both the brothers for the post of President and
similarly for the post of Joint Secretary, it was also 6 ballot papers
whereas for the post of Treasurer, namely, Ms.Arti Singh Rao had
obtained 7 votes. However, the fresh election process was going on but the
result was not declared since apparently the writ petition had been filed
and a fresh election had been fixed for 26.08.2012. The writ petition was
eventually withdrawn on 10.09.2012.
19. On 26.08.2012 (Annexure R-5/5), Rao Yadvendra Singh
stood elected to the post of President and Rawat Kumar was elected as
Joint Secretary to the Governing Body of the Ahir College without contest
which would be clear when the result of the office bearers of the
Governing Body of the Ahir College in the presence of the University
Observer and the Government nominees declared as a non-contested
election. The said factor was also noticed on 30.09.2012 wherein meeting
was held of the Ahir College Society to constitute the Governing Body of
the College under the Presidentship of Rao Yadvendra Singh himself.
Resultantly, 19 persons were nominated as the Governing Body members
which included the two teaching staff representative, the Principal and one
non-teaching staff representative apart from the two nominees who were
15 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
to be appointed by the University and the Government. It was specifically
mentioned that the 3 years' tenure of the Governing Body of the College
was for the year 2012-2015. Thereafter, on 08.10.2017, election was held
of the office bearers of the Governing Body of the Ahir College under the
supervision of the University Observer and the Vice Chancellor nominated
Rao Inderjeet Singh as President along with three office bearers and two
teaching staff representatives, one non-teaching staff representative and
four nominated members which included the daughter of the President,
namely Bharti Singh Rao. The Vice Chancellor of the Indira Gandhi
University, Meerpur, Rewari also appointed Dr.Raj Kumar Yadav as
Univeristy nominee for 3 years w.e.f. 08.10.2017.
20. Mr.Lakhanpal also pointed out that he has placed on record
subsequent election which was held for the year 2017-2020 for the Ahir
College Society in which, Rao Inderjeet Singh was elected as President by
the Administrator and Smt.Asha Yadav was elected as the Vice-President.
The said result was subject to the final decision of CWP-15651-2017 out
of which the present appeals are arising since on 03.08.2017, the learned
Single Judge had directed that proceedings could take place in the
meanwhile but subject to the final decision of the case. It is pertinent to
notice that the challenge had been raised to the order dated 06/16.06.2017
(Annexure P-17) in the writ petition wherein the Government while noting
that the Ahir College Society which is the present body was in receipt of
Grant-in-Aid for its educational institutes and being an Aided Society, the
Administrator could be appointed under Section 68 and which is clear
from Section 68(1)(iv) of the 2012 Act, which is on account of failure to
hold election of the Governing Body of the Society. It had been noticed
that the earlier tenure was expiring in the year 2015 and therefore, the
16 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
Addl.Deputy Commissioner had been appointed as Administrator for a
period of 6 months to manage the affairs of the Society and exercise the
powers and functions in the Governing Body under Sub-sections 2 & 3 of
Section 68 for managing the affairs of the same and to hold the elections.
Thus, apparently, the said order was duly complied with and this fact has
not been mentioned by the learned Single Judge that elections had taken
place also on 13.08.2017. Resultantly, while disposing of the writ
petition, the learned Single Judge had not referred to the said fact. The
said factum was also recognized by the Registrar under Section 33 (4) of
the 2012 Act which was filed with the District Registrar on 17.08.2017.
We had also asked the State Counsel to confirm these facts and with the
assistance of Mr.Ishwar Singh, District Registrar of Societies, Rewari said
facts were got confirmed and also the fact that they are separate legal
entities.
21. A perusal of the notification dated 11.10.2012 would also go
on to show that on account of re-election held on 26.08.2012, result of
which was declared on 30.09.2012, Rao Yadvendra Singh was elected as
the President of the Governing Body of the College along with the two
teaching staff representatives and one non-teaching staff representative
which had not been opposed at that point of time as also noticed earlier.
Apparently, the State also on 07.06.2013 had issued necessary instructions
that there is a distinction between the Governing Body of the Society and
the Governing Body of the Institutes running it and the Society could have
more than one Institute like a college, school or hospital whereas the
Institute should have a separate Governing Body for the running of that
particular Institute. The judgment which has also been relied upon by
Mr.Chahal in Executive Committee of Vaish Degree College, Shyamli
17 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
(supra) rather clarifies this aspect that registration under the Societies Act
would not give any statutory recognition and that is what has happened in
the present case that where there is a larger Governing Body of the Ahir
College Society, it would not mean that the Governing Body of the
College which consists of different members including the representatives
of the teaching staff and the non-teaching faculties of the University
nominees would have also a role in govering the Society in question. The
University was trying to exercise its powers to ensure that the Governing
Body of the College was in place and the effect of not having the
Governing Body in place would be giving a right to the M.D.University
and its successor University to impose various conditions. Affiliation
granted to the said Institute is one thing whereas the statutory duties were
to be controlled by the Registrar of Firms & Societies and would not be
over the Governing Body of the College but would only be over the
Governing Body of the Ahir College Society. It was in such
circumstances, the Administrator had been appointed of the Society which
is distinct and different entity and therefore, we do not find any plausible
reason to accept the argument which has been raised by Mr.Chahal
whereby he seeks restoration of status quo as on 26.08.2012 as apparently,
in the election held thereafter, Rao Inderjeet Singh was elected as
President of the Society and also of the Governing Body of the College on
08.10.2017.
22. It is, thus, the case of Rao Inderjeet Singh in the written
statement that the election of Ahir College Society had not taken place and
the petitioner was preventing the holding of the said election. It is the
specific case that Rao Yadvendra Singh was the President of the
Governing Body of the Ahir College at one point of time and not of the
18 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
Ahir College Society. Rather the categorical case is that the order dated
06.02.2012 whereby approval was given to the members who had been
inducted in the Society has not been challenged. On 16.01.2012, in a
meeting held after there was a tie for the post of President, the two lady
members had been inducted against the vacancies of the Society which
had accordingly been approved. The objection had been raised apparently
to the filling up of the two vacancies also and the department had enquired
into the same and taken opinion from the Advocate General, Haryana who
had opined that the quorum was complete and resolution could be passed
in the said meeting whereby two members had been inducted. Resultantly,
it was held that the induction in the meeting held on 16.01.2012 was by
the majority of the members present. The said order dated 24.05.2016
(Annexure R-5/6) has also not been challenged by the petitioner,
Yadvendra Singh though the writ petition was filed in the year 2017 and
neither any replication has been filed to controvert the stand taken by the
private-respondents.
23. A perusal of the order dated 11.05.2017 (Annexure P-16)
passed by the District Registrar, Firm & Societies would also go on to
show that a finding was specifically recorded that the election held on
26.08.2012 was an election of the Governing Body of the Ahir College
and not of the Society and in pursuance of the same, the result of which
was declared on 30.09.2012 and notification dated 11.10.2012 had been
issued by the M.D.University of the Governing Body of the Ahir College
and both of the two were separate entities. Accordingly, Rawat Kumar
was noticed to be the Joint Secretary of the Ahir College whereas Rao
Raghvendra Singh was the General Secretary of the Ahir College Society
which was registered with the Registrar and rather the election had to be
19 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
held of Ahir College Society and was to be held at the earliest by
appointing an Adminsitrator. Apparently, in pursuance of the said order,
the Government has passed the impugned order dated 06/16.06.2017
whereby as noticed the elections were duly held on 13.08.2017 of the Ahir
College Socieyt and Rao Inderjeet Singh was elected as President.
24. Thus, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single
Judge was justified to hold that the Ahir College Society and the
Governing Body of the Ahir College Society were two different entities
and governed by different statutes and the role and responsibilities were
different. Thus, the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge do not
suffer from any infirmity and resultantly, LPA-1023-2018 is dismissed.
However, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the Government is
to decide regarding induction of the two members of the Ahir College
Society was not justified and LPA-749-2018 is allowed, since the
Government had also taken a call on the said issue on 24.05.2016
(Annexure R-5/6) which decision has never been challenge by Rao
Yadvendra Singh at any point of time. Resultantly, the said appeal is
allowed and the order of the learned Single Judge, is modified, to that
extent.
25. However, the State shall take steps to hold elections of the
office bearers of both the Society and the Governing Body within the next
three months.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
JUDGE
12th April, 2023 (HARPREET KAUR JEEWAN)
Sailesh JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : Yes
20 of 21
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2023:PHHC:047845 -DB
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:047845-DB
21 of 21
