- (1.) These two writ petitions can be decided together by a common judgment. The District Inspector of Schools has by his order dated 15-10-1990 recognised the election of the Committee of Management headed by the Respondent No. 2 and also held that Sri Alakh Narain Shukla, Petitioner, is not elected as Manager of the institution. This order is impugned in writ Petition No. 28734 of 1990. In writ petition No. 6347 of 1991 the impugned order of single operation dated 26-2-1991 and the Office Memo dated 11-3-1991 are challenged. Prayer is made for issuance of directions against the Respondent No. 1 to cooperate and counter-sign the bills and vouchers presented by the petitioner to the Bank.
(2.) In the first writ petition No. 28734 of 1990 the petitioner's case is that in an election held on 4-12-1983 he was elected as Manager and one Mathura Prasad as President. It is also stated that there is a society known as Sarvodaya Shikaha Niketan, Prayag. This society consists of Sarvodaya Samiti. The society is to be controlled by the Board of Directors consisting of eleven members, Out of them one becomes the President and another becomes the Secretary. The term of the Board of Directors is three years. Thereafter fresh election is held. The procedure for holding fresh election is that after expiry of the term of the Board of Directors the Secretary calls a meeting of the Board of Directors for approval of the President. The Board of Directors thereafter approves the list of members of the society. The membership of the society is also for three years. The membership can, however, be renewed after expiry of the period of three years on payment of Rs. 5. After the list of members of the society is approved fresh election is held of the Board of Directors as also of the Committee of Management of the College. The two bodies are separate--one manages the society and the other manages the affairs of the college. After the expiry of the term, election could not be held in time, therefore, the Secretary of the society sent a letter of request to the President of the society to grant permission to hold meeting of the Board of Directors for approval of the list of members of the society to enable it to hold fresh election. The President granted his approval on 17-11-1987 and requested the Secretary of the society to call a meeting of the Board of Directors. It is stated that on 20-12-1987 was fixed for holding election. However, no election was held on that date because no member attended the meeting. The petitioner was informed about this fact on 28-12-1987. The members requested the Respondent No. 4 to immediately call a meeting of the Board of Directors as directed by the President. Fresh meeting was consequently to be held on 17-1-1988.
(3.) It is contended that the Respondent No. 4 fraudulently fabricated the election on 20-12-1987 when actually no meeting had taken place. The members were informed by the Respondent No. 4 through his letter dated 24-12-1987 about this fast. The Respondent No. 4 is said to have become the manager of the college. The petitioner was also informed on 24-12-1987 about this fact. He is said to have informed the District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 8-1-1988 that no election had taken place in pursuance of any meeting, as no meeting was held on 20-12-1987. The respondent No. 1, District Inspector of Schools, did not recognise the committee of management in pursuance of the petitioner's letter dated 8-1-1988. The Respondent No. 4 is said to have informed the Assistant Registrar, Societies, Firms and Chit about the election dated 20-12-1987. This information was contained in a letter dated 2-1-1988. The Assistant Registrar raised some objections about the election and its validity. The petitioner is said to have continued as Manager and his signatures were attested. He is said to have effective control over the affairs of the college and its funds. Assistant Registrar also was informed about the correct facts that no election had taken place on 20-12-1987. The Assistant Registrar is said to have issued notice to the Respondents No. 3 and 4 on 24-11-1988 because in his opinion a dispute had arisen about the office bearers of the society and the Committee of Management. The Respondent No. 3 replied to the notice on 7-9-1989. The matter thereafter remained pending for consideration. The Respondent No. 4 is said to have filed a civil suit also praying for a declaration that the Committee of management elected on 20-12-1987 was a validly elected committee which suit is also pending. No interim order was obtained in the civil suit. In view of this, the Respondent No. 4 is said to has approached the Assistant Registrar to revive the matter, which has remained pending before him. The matter was referred by the Assistant Registrar to the prescribed authority for decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act.;