V.K.Shukla, J. - (1.) THE Allahabad High School Society, Allahabad through its Secretary C.V. Innes, has approached this Court, questioning the validity of the decision dated 24.7.2010 taken by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad Region, Allahabad, proceeding to annul the resolution dated 28.5.2007.
(2.) BRIEF background of the case, as is reflected from the record, is that there is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in the name and style of "Allahabad High School Society, Allahabad'. The society in question was registered on 9.2.1988 with Registration No. 1-12/1888 with Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. In the year 1952 certain amendments were affected. Thereafter, in the year 1975, Societies Registration Act, 1860 was amended qua its applicability to the State of U.P. by making provision for periodical renewal of registration certificate of the society. Such renewals were originally visualized for a period of two years, but in the year 1984 further amendment was made providing such renewal for a period of five years. Petitioners have claimed that an application was moved for renewal of registration of the society in question on 6.5.1977, but no orders were passed on the said renewal application. Thereafter, as on 24.5.1997 further application was filed, on the basis of which renewal of society was granted for the periods 1977-79,1979-81,1981-83,1983-85,1985-90,1990-95,1995- 2000. On 17.8.2003 renewal had been accorded for a period of five years with effect from 10.10.2000. The petitioners have come up with the case that on 9.11.2004 agenda notice was issued for convening annual general meeting on 27.11.2004, and in the said meeting, decision was taken to appoint two member sub-committee to consider the amendments to the bye-laws for streamlining the administration of the society. Petitioners have stated that on 10.9.2005 two member sub-committee submitted its report for consideration to the Chairman, and after considering such report, by agenda notice dated 8.11.2005 annual general meeting was convened for 28.11.2005. Petitioners have further stated that as per the aforesaid agenda notice, report of two member sub-committee was considered in the annual general meeting dated 28.11.2005, and the Governing Body constituted a six member Amendment Committee to finalise the amendments to the bye-laws. Petitioners have stated that the Amendment Committee conducted the proceedings between 26.12.2005 and 25.11.2006 and finally suggested amendments to the bye-laws. Thereafter, petitioners claim that agenda notice dated 16.11.2006 was sent and meeting was convened on 23.11.2006, and therein a resolution was passed for convening special meeting of the general body. In between on 9.5.2007, application was moved seeking further renewal, for the period of five years starting with effect from 10.10.2005 and said application for renewal remained pending. Such special meeting of the general body was convened for 28.5.2007 by agenda notice dated 9.5.2007 and said agenda notice was served upon the members either through peon or through post. Thereafter special meeting was convened on 28.5.2007, in which suggested amendments to the bye-laws were accepted. Petitioners have claimed that thereafter aforesaid amendments were given to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad on 29.5.2007 and the said communication accompanied amendments to the bye-laws. Petitioners have stated that on 30.5.2007 an affidavit of the deponent was also filed before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. Petitioners have stated that amendment as intimated was duly made part of the file and the Assistant Registrar issued certified copy of the amended bye-laws on being asked for. Pending application for renewal dated 9.5.2007 was allowed on 29.9.2007. Petitioners have stated that in September, 2009 one Morris E. Dan stood elected as Bishop of Lucknow Diocese and shortly after such election public statement was made by him that educational institution are part of Diocesan Education Board, and consequently property of church of North India. Petitioners have stated that on such claim being set up clarification notice was issued by him in local newspaper on 24.9.2009. Till the year 2009 no dispute, whatsoever, had been raised qua the amendments made, but thereafter complaints were made before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, complaining therein the way and manner in which amendments had been carried out On the said complaint being made, the Assistant Registrar issued notices to the petitioners dated 1.10.2009,21.10.2009,30.11.2009,16.12.2009,2.2.2010,11.2.2010and 21.4.2010. Petitioners also submitted their reply to the said notices vide communication dated 31.10.2009,21.12.2009,2.6.2010,8.6.2010 and 21.6.2010. Petitioners, it is reflected from record, approached this Court questioning the validity of notices dated 2.2.2010 and 11.2.2010 by preferring writ petition No. 9598 of 2010, requesting therein that a writ of certiorari be issued for quashing of notices issued by the Assistant Registrar, and further a writ in the nature of prohibition be issued restraining the respondents not to initiate any proceedings in pursuance of the notices impugned. This Court considered arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioners at great length, and thereafter vide judgment dated 16.4.2010 proceeded to take a view that in view of Section 12 of the Act the Assistant Registrar has got full authority to see regarding validity of amendments by further observing that if an authority has power to register a society on the basis of Rules and Regulations of the bye-laws, then in case some amendment is made in the bye-laws, the Assistant Registrar has full power to take into consideration the said fact Against the said order dated 16.4.2010, Special Appeal No. 615 of 2010 was preferred by the petitioners and various arguments had been advanced by the petitioners before Special Appeal Bench. The Special Appeal Bench called for original records and after hearing the counsel for the parties, proceeded to dismiss the Special Appeal vibe judgment dated 20.5.2010. Aggrieved against the said judgment of appellate Court, Special Leave Petition No. 16919 of 2010 was preferred before Honourable Apex Court, which was taken by Apex Court on 15.6.2010, and on the said date, the Apex Court passed following order: "Pursuant to the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court under the heading ' Conclusion' we have been given to understand that Assistant Registrar under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is seized of the matter. We have been informed that today arguments have been heard and matter is reserved for orders. In this view of the matter we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed either by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench. However, we only want to clarify that Assistant Registrar would pass the order on merits including the question of jurisdiction in accordance with law, without being influenced in any manner whatsoever by any of the observations either made by the learned Single Judge or by the Division Bench. If any adverse order is passed against the petitioner then they shall be at liberty to approach the proper forum on the question of jurisdiction in accordance with law. However, bot the parties shall be at liberty to address the Assistant Registrar further. The special leave petition is disposed of accordingly."
(3.) AFTER the aforesaid order had been passed by Apex Court, record in question reflects that representations were made from the side of the Bishop on 19.6.2010 and from the side of the petitioners on 21.6.2010. The Assistant Registrar, thereafter has proceeded to pass the order impugned, and therein resolution of amendment so passed has been annulled and further directives have been issued for convening meeting of general body to consider the amendments so moved. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed. Counter affidavit has been filed on of the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits as well as on behalf of the Bishop of Lucknow. Entire emphasis is that the amendments made are an outcome of fraud and manipulation by the Principal in order to perpetuate himself and he is not even primary member of the General Body of society. To the said counter-affidavits, rejoinder affidavits have been filed, disputing the averments mentioned therein and reiterating the averments mentioned in writ petition.;