- (1.) ARUN Tandon, J. Heard Sri H. K. Singh on behalf of the petitioner, Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Sri P. N. Saxena, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Umesh Vats on behalf of Respondent No. 3. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent No. 4 despite notice having been issued by this Court.
(2.) SMT. Buchai Devi widow of late Chadra Dev Singh, claiming herself to be the Manager of the Committee of Management Mahanth Vishwanath Yati Madhyamik Vidyalaya Chogra, Ballia has filed this petition against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 17th March, 2004, whereby the Prescribed Authority has held that the petitioner is not even a member of the general body which constitute the electoral college for electing the office bearers of the society and further it has been held that the elections set up by the Respondent No. 3, which are unopposed and supported by other, members of the general body, are legal and valid. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority to the effect that the Treasurer alone is competent to accept membership fee is illegal and runs contrary to the registered bye laws of the society, which empowers the Manager also to accept the membership fee. It is further stated that if the fee deposited by the petitioner and other four persons have not been transmitted by the Manager to the bank account or to the account maintained in the post office, the petitioner cannot be said to have committed any fault nor it can be a basis for holding that the petitioner is not valid member of the general body. It is further contended that the Prescribed Authority has not considered the issue as to whether elections set up by the Respondent No. 3 were held in accordance with the registered bye laws/approved scheme of administration or not. Consequently, the order passed by the Prescribed Authority cannot be sustained. On behalf of the respondent it is contended that since the petitioner has been held not to be valid member of the general body by the Prescribed Authority, the only remedy available to petitioner, in such circumstances, is by way of civil suit and this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot interfere with the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. In that regard reliance has been placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in 1995 (2) UPLBEC 1242.
(3.) SO far as the issue with regards to maintainability of the present writ petition is concerned, it is true that the Division Bench of this Court has held that if an order has been passed by the Prescribed Authority after recording reasons and applying his mind to the fact and all relevant material on record with regards to present member of the general body, the aggrieved person can only seek remedy before the civil Court of law. However, the said judgment does not lay down as proposition of law that even in the cases where the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority is perverse and is based on misleading of the provisions of the registered bye laws, no writ petition can be maintained. In the opinion of the Court, Prescribed Authority is statutory authority and is under legal obligation to decide all issues after taking into account whether the dispute between the parties is genuine or not. If any order is passed by the Prescribed Authority, which is perverse and based on misreading of the provisions of registered bye laws, this Court can always interfere with such a finding. Accordingly, it is held that in case the order passed by the Prescribed Authority is perverse, the present writ petition as filed by the petitioner cannot be said to be not maintainable.;