- (1.) A.K.Banerji
(2.) BY means of this writ petition the petitioners, Khapraha Educational Society, Jaunpur, has challenged the impugned order dated 6th August, 1992 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Chits and Societies, Varanasi Region, Varanasi (respondent no. 1) by which in purported exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act (as amended) the said respondent had accepted the list of office bearers submitted by the respondent no. 2 and rejected the list submitted by the petitioner no. 1 through the petitioner no 2. The respondent no. 2 had filed a caveat in this Court end had also filed a counter affidavit to which rejoinder was filed by the petitioners The matter had come up before a Single Judge of this Court for admission The said learned Single Judge, however, felt that in view of the fact that an earlier writ petition pertaining to the same society had keen dismissed by me on 28th April, 1992 as not maintainable, there might be repercussion of the said decision on the present petition and, therefore, the matter may be beared by me. It is thus that this matter has come up before me. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length at the admission stage itself and with the consent of learned counsel the writ petition is being finally disposed of at the admission stage In brief, the relevent facts are that the petitioner's society was registered in the year 1962 with the object of running an educational institution which is presently known as Janta Intermediate College, Khapraha, Jaunpur. The Society has a General Body, which is the parent body of the institution, which constitutes a 'Committee of Management of the college and the Committee looks after the affairs of the society. The society has its bye laws by which it is governed. According to the petitioners, last election of the petitioners society was held on 11-6-1989 and again fresh elections were held after about 3 years on 28-5-1992. It has been, alleged that the petitioner no. 2!, Brij Raj Singh, was re-elected as the Secretary of the Society in the said election. It is further alleged that the relevant papers regarding the election proceedings were sent to the respondent no. 1 by the petitioner no. 2 along with a list of the new officebearers. It appears that one Ram Siromani Tiwari respondent no. 2, moved an application before the respondent no 1 along with a list of another set of persons alleging that the general body in its meeting held on 5-10-1991 bad removed the petitioner no. 2 from the membership of the Society and thereafter the general body of the Society proceeded to hold elections of the office bearers of the society on 135-12-1991 in which the said Ram Siromani Tiwari was elected as the Manager and one Satya Narain Tiwari as President of the Committee of Management of the Society It was prayed by the respondent no. 2 that the list of office-bearers submitted by him regarding the elections dated 15-12-1991 be recorded by respondent no. 1. A notice was issued by the respondent no 1 to the petitioner no. 2 on the application given by the respondent no. 2 to file his objection, if any, by 18-5-1992, to the application given by the respondent no. 2. A reply to the notice given by the respondent no 1 was submitted by the petitioner no 2 which is Annexure '7' to the writ petition. After considering the reply of the petitioner no. 2 the respondent no. 1 passed the impugned order by which the list of office-bearers submitted by the respondent no.1 was accepted and the list of office-bearers submitted by the petitioner no. 1 was rejected Aggrieved the petitioners have filed the present writ petition challenging the aforesaid order dated 6-8-92 passed by the respondent no. 1.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners has challenged the aforesaid order dated 6-8-1992 mainly on two grounds. Firstly, it has been contended that the impugned order is totally without jurisdiction inasmuch as the Assistant Registrar has no authority under the law to decide a dispute with regards to continuance of an officebearer of the society and it was mandatory to have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. Secondly, it has been contended that even on merits the Assistant Registrar has recorded totally incorrect and illegal findings which are against the bye laws of the society and impugned order cannot be legally sustained. Elaborating his first submission learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the facts on the record clearly reveal that the dispute before the respondent no 1 was with regard to continuance of the petitioner no. 2 as the Secretary of the society and the office-bearer of the committee. In his objection before the respondent no.1 the petitionees had challenged the locus standi of the respondent no 2 to convene or hold any meeting of the society and further that the said respondent had no authority under the law to conduct any meeting of the society and remove the petitioner no 2 from the membership and any resolution passed in the said alleged meeting was illegal and null and void. According to the learned counsel the dispute was an election dispute of the society between the parties and, therefore, the provisions of Section 25 (1) of the Societis Registration Act were attracted and the respondent no. 1 had no jurisdiction to decide such a dispute. He ought to have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. In support of his submission learned counsel has cited a number of decisions of this Court in which it has been held that if there is any doubt or dispute regarding the election of any society the Registrar himself has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the same and, therefore, any decision given by him in this regard will be wholly without Jurisdiction. He is in 'aw bound to refer any such dispute to the Prescribed Authority. In the case of Vijai Narain Singh v. Registrar, Firms, Societies, Chits and Registration, U. P. Lucknow 1981 UP LB EC 308, a Division Bench of this Court has held that it was apparent that the Registrar himself had no jurisdiction to hear and decide any doubt or dispute in respect of an election or continuance in office of an office bearer of such a society. Therefore, any decision given by him in this regard will be wholly without jurisdiction. He is in law bound to refer any such dispute to the prescribed Authority. In the facts of the said vase the petitioner was alleging that he was elected a Manager/Secretary of the society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The respondent no. 5, who was the erstwhile Manager/Secretary, moved a complaint before the Registrar that the renewal had been obtained by fraudulent elections and the petitioner was never elected as Manager/Secretary. The Registrar called upon the petitioner as well as the respondent to produce evidence in support of their respective case and ultimately held respondent no. 5 to be duly elected Manager/Secretary. The said order was challenged before this Court and this Court held that the order was without jurisdiction as the Registrar was bound to refer the matter to the prescribed Authority instead of deciding it himself. Similar view has been taken in the case of Committee of Management v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, 1987 UP LB EC 333 and in the case of Purva Bazar Educational Society,, Gorakhpur v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Chits and Units, Gorakhpur, 1988 UP LB EC 5i5 similar view has been taken by another Division Bench of this Court in the case of All India Council v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, AIR 1988 Alld. 236 In a recent case of Muslims Welfare Society Machhlisbahr, district Jaunpur v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi, 1991 AWC 1311, a learned Single Judge relying upon the decision of the Division Bench in the case of All India Council and another (Supra) has taken a similar view. In the last case also there was a dispute between two elected executive bodies in respect of one society. List of members of the executive body was submitted to the Assistant Registrar as required under the provisions of Section 4 of the Act by the disputing parties. The Assistant Registrar in the exercise of the powers under Section 4 of the Act gave opportunity to both the rival claimants and after necessary material was brought on record held that the existing (executive body be given recognition and upheld the proceedings conducted in the meeting in which the said committee was elected. The Court held that the matter could not be considered by the Assistant Registrar in exercise of the powers under section 4 of the Act. The parties had brought a dispute chiming existence of two rival executive bodies of the society ;and in that view of the matter the proviso to Section 4 of the Act would not be applicable and it is Section 25(1) of the Act which specifically dealt with such contingencies providing for effective adjudication by the Prescribed Authority. It was further held that the provisions of Section 25 (1) which exclusively and specifically provided for this purpose can not be nullified by the proviso to Section 4 (1) of the Act the scope of which is very limited in deciding the objections of the dispute in which old office bearers did not countersign the list.;