MAHADEV SINGH AND ORS. Vs. UP-ZILADHIKARI/PRESCRIBED AUTH. AND ORS.
LAWS(ALL)-2015-4-19
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on April 02,2015

Mahadev Singh And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
Up -Ziladhikari/Prescribed Auth. And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This petition (one of the many which come before this Court and crowd its otherwise overburdened roster) lays challenge to an order dated 02.12.2014 in terms of which the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chunar, District Mirzapur has finalized the electoral college of 15 members to be utilized for holding the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society in question.
(2.) From the facts brought on record and in respect of which there is no dispute it is apparent that the last elections of the Society are said to have been held in the year 1986. Three rival claims were set up in the course of the elections and ultimately, the dispute itself was decided on 17.10.1988. This fact has been duly noticed by the Court while deciding Writ Petition No. 10747 of 2012 by its judgement and order dated 26.03.2012. This Court noticed that after 1980, no elections whatsoever had been held and accordingly proceeded to direct the Sub Divisional Magistrate of the area to take further steps in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act 1860. This judgement required the Sub Divisional Magistrate to determine the electoral college after inviting objections and upon such determination to hold elections within two months thereafter. It is pursuant to the above directions of this Court that the impugned order has been made by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Chunar, District Mirzapur.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to assail this order on various grounds. It has been submitted that the inclusion of the name of Badri Prasad Chaudhry on the basis of documents executed in 1962 was illegal. It was further contended that the co-option of two members was only for three years and therefore came to an end in 1989 itself. Learned Counsel further submits that the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 are family members and could not become the office bearers. He further refers to the pleadings taken in paras 52, 53 and 54 of the writ petition to contend that various members have been enrolled in 1983 and thereafter under the forged signatures of one Lallan Ram Singh.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.