Uttarakhand High Court
Nitin Dev And Another ... vs Registrar Firm Societies And ... on 15 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
JUSTICE SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE
15th SEPTEMBER, 2022
Special Appeal No.317 of 2022
Nitin Dev and Another ......Appellants
Vs.
Registrar Firm Societies and Chits and Others
...... Respondents
Presence: -
Mr. Dushyant Mainali, learned counsel for the appellants.
Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State.
Mr. Pankaj Miglani, learned counsel for the intervener.
JUDGMENT: (Per Shri Vipin Sanghi, Chief Justice)
Issue notice.
2. Mr. Miglani appears for the intervener, who
had intervened in the writ-proceedings, he accepts
notice.
3. We have heard learned counsels and proceed
to dispose of the present appeal.
4. The present appeal is directed against the
order dated 31.08.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge in WPMS No.2059 of 2022. By the impugned
order the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ-
petition preferred by the appellants with cost of
Rs.5,000/-.
5. The appellants, are aggrieved by the
guidelines dated 04.08.2022 issued by respondent no.2
i.e. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, New
Tehri, District Tehri Garhwal whereby he has sought to
declare as to who all would be entitled to vote in the
elections to be held for the constitution of the Managing
Committee of the Deecon Residents Welfare Society.
6. The said association is a registered society
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as amended
by the Uttarakhand Act No.4 of 2019.
7. The dispute arose since the appellants were
held to be not entitled to participate in the election
process by virtue of the impugned order dated
04.08.2022 passed by respondent no.2 on the ground
that they were not the owners of the flats in the Deecon
Valley.
8. The objectives of the society as contained in
the by-laws of the societies are as follows:-
"पूवर् (Charitable) प्रयोजन के �लये कायर् कर�गी।
(क) स�म�त के सदस्य� हेतु �बजल�-पानी क� मूलभूत सु�वधाय� उपलब्ध करवाना।
(ख) स�म�त के सदस्य� के फ्लैट्स के रख-रखाव हेतु उ�चत व्यवस्था करना।
(ग) स�म�त के फ्लैट्स क� सुर�ा व्यवस्था हेतु �सक्या�रट� गाड्र्स �नयुक्त करना।
(घ) स�म�त के अन्तगर्त आने वाले फ्लैट्स क� चारद�वार� के अन्दर बाग -बगीचा
लगवाना ।
(ङ) स�म�त के सदस्य� के सहयोग से �व�भन्न सांस्कृ�तक कायर्क्रम संचा�लत
करना।"
9. The aforesaid objectives clearly show that it is
the actual residents of the colony, who are concerned
with the achievements of the aforesaid objectives. The
residents of the colony may or may not be the owners
of the flats. In case, the owners are residents
themselves of their flats, then, obviously, they would
have a stake in the achievement of the aforesaid
objectives and they would be entitled to participate in
the process of election of the Managing Committee.
However, it is possible that the registered owner of the
flat may not be a resident in the colony and he or she
2
may have leased or licensed his or her flat to a third-
party, who may be residing in the flat. In such a
situation, to say that only the registered owner would
have the right to vote would defeat the purpose of the
constitution of the society, which is to promote and
protect the interests of the residents. In case the owner
of the registered flat is not a resident, he would not
have any stake in ensuring the achievements of the
objectives of the society.
10. The situation that the residents, whose
interests are sought to be protected by the society by
having the objectives as aforesaid, would not have the
saying in the management of the society, would be
paradoxical.
11. Therefore, the clear intendment of the
formation of the society with the aforesaid objectives
was to have participation of the residents in the process
of election of the Managing Committee whose duty
could be to achieve the aforesaid stated objectives.
12. We, therefore, direct that in case the
registered flat owners are themselves residents of the
colony, then the registered flat owner would have right
to participate in and vote in the election process to elect
the Managing Committee of the society.
13. In case, the registered flat owner is not
residing in his flat/ her flat and the same has been
either leased or licensed out to a third-party, then the
resident of the flat would have the right to participate in
the aforesaid election process.
14. Mr. Miglani has pointed out that the
3
appellants are claiming right to vote in the forthcoming
elections despite the fact that the registered flat
owners, who are the parents and wife of the two
appellants respectively, are also residents in their
respective flats.
15. In our view, the flat owners/ residents are
entitled to equal representation and it cannot be that in
respect of a single flat there are more than one
representatives casting their vote in the election
process. This cannot be permitted, because it would
completely destroy the democratic character of the
society, as one flat owner / resident may get several
persons enrolled as members of the society and, by use
of money power, would be able to take over the control
of the society by having multiple votes.
16. We, therefore, make it clear that there would
be only one vote per flat-whether it is that of the owner
- in case the owner is residing in the flat, or of the
resident -- in case the owner is not residing in the flat
and the resident is a lessee or a licensee of the
registered owner.
17. With the aforesaid directions, we dispose of
the present appeal.
18. The cost imposed upon the appellants stands
waived.
________________
VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.
________________________
RAMESH CHANDRA KHULBE, J.
Dated: 15th September, 2022
BS/SS
