B.Amit Sthalekar, J. - (1.) THIS is a writ petition by the petitioners seeking quashing of the order dated 6.1.2005 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh.
(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that there is a Society by the name of Devbadi Prachar Samiti Mahari, Nagra registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said Society is running an educational Institution known as Paramhansh Uchhattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Mahari Bharuali, District Ballia. For the purposes of the present case it is not necessary to go into the history of the case regarding the various elections held from time to time from 1981 onwards. Suffice to say that in 1984 one Ram Avadh Yadav came to be elected as the Manager of the Society and was granted recognition as such for a period of 5 years. Subsequently, there was some dispute with regard to the office bearers of the Society which was resolved and by an order dated 15.2.2000 the Committee headed by Ram Avadh Yadav was given recognition for a period of 5 years w.e.f. 7.6.1999. Ram Avadh Yadav again moved an application on 17.8.2004 for renewal which was granted by order dated 18.8.2004 w.e.f. 7.6.2004 for a period of 5 years. Again an application was moved by Ram Avadh Yadav on 14.7.2009 and by an order of the same date renewal was granted from 7.6.2009 for a period of 5 years. Ram Avadh Yadav died on 5.8.2013 and thereafter an application was moved by one Goverdhan Yadav claiming to be the son of Ram Avadh Yadav on 18.9.2013. It was stated that in the meeting of the general body held on 25.8.2013 a condolence resolution was passed in respect of the deceased Ram Avadh Yadav and thereafter Goverdhan Yadav was elected as the Manager. A list of 29 members was submitted for the grant of approval. This was registered by order dated 8.10.2013. In the meantime a complainat was filed by one Virendra Yadav on 5.11.2013 which contained the signatures of Udai Pratap Yadav, Brahma Shanker Chaudhary, Veernayak Chaudhay, Virendra Yadav and Satyendra Yadav as life members and Shri Krishna Yadav, the principal of the College alleging that no meeting of the Society was held on 2.10.2012 and that Goverdhan Yadav alongwith the 10 alleged members were never included as members of the Society, that no meeting of the Society was held on 25.8.2013 and that no steps were taken for filling up the post of Manager arising out of the death of the incumbent Manager Ram Avadh Yadav and that the list of members of the Society for the year 2013 -14 was registered by practising fraud inasmuch as no such elections have been held of the Society nor any such list was prepared in the year 2013 -14. The petitioner no. 2 was therefore required to submit his objection/reply by 16.4.2014 by office letter no. 4862 dated 22.3.2014. He was also required to produce his evidence as well as submit his written statement. Govardhan Yadav submitted his objection on 29.5.2014 alleging that the notice dated 22.3.2014 had been issued upon a fraudulent complaint. The matter was heard by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. He has noted in the impugned order that neither of the parties produced the original documents before him. The petitioner no. 2 is also stated to have submitted a letter dated 29.5.2014 alongwith the affidavits of 3 persons in support of his claim. A typed copy of the alleged meeting and resolution held on 2.10.2012 submitted by late Ram Avadh Yadav through his letter dated 18.1.2013 was also placed on record. In this meeting Chandrama Yadav has been shown as President of the general body which is stated to have met on 2.10.2012. In the alleged meeting of the general body of 2.10.2012 it has been noted that under proposal no. 2 it has been mentioned that the name of the persons mentioned below have been added and thereafter names of 10 persons have been shown. At sl. no. 5 the name of Goverdhan Yadav has been shown as present in the meeting of 2.10.2012. The impugned order further shows that in response to the notice dated 22.3.2014 hearing was held on 14.11.2014 but no original records were produced by the petitioner no. 2 Goverdhan Yadav. It has also been noted in the impugned order that neither information nor communication of the alleged meeting to be held on 2.10.2012 has been disclosed nor presence of the members nor has any documentary evidence been produced to show deposit of membership fee in the account of the Society. The Assistant Registrar has therefore held that the fact that the alleged resolution of 2.10.2012 has been produced by Goverdhan Yadav -petitioner no.2 in typed copy and does not show the name of persons as members nor any endorsement of holding of the meeting or communication to the concerned parties or payment of Society fee or documentary evidence of deposit of membership in the account of the Society and the fact that the original documents on which the petitioner is relying were never produced before the competent authority has led the competent authority to seriously doubt the veracity of the claim of the petitioner that any meeting of the Society was held on 2.10.2012 presided over by him and any resolution was passed, as alleged by him. So far as the meeting of the Society on 25.8.2013 is concerned, it has been noted that the petitioner has submitted the typed copy of the proceedings of the meeting alleged to have been held vide his letter dated 18.9.2013. In the resolution Shri Chandrama Yadav has been shown to have presided over the meeting of the general body as President and in proposal no. 2 the death of Ram Avadh Yadav has been condoled and further it is mentioned that for the rest of the term Shri Goverdhan Yadav has been shown as member of the Society. It has also been noted that since there is nothing else on the agenda and in the absence of anything else on the agenda the further deliberations of the meeting have been postponed for future. The Assistant Registrar has noted that just as the alleged meeting held on 2.10.2012, with regard to the alleged meeting held on 25.8.2013 also there is neither any information of the said meeting being held on that date nor is there anything on record to show the communication of the notice to the members and no evidence has been produced that who were present in the meeting. The original records were never produced. In the typed copy the attendance of the members has not been noted and in view of the objections on affidavits filed by some of the members from the list of members submitted by Goverdhan Yadav, the meeting alleged to have been held on 25.8.2013 itself appears to be suspicious and doubtful and in the circumstances of the case not acceptable.
(3.) IN response to the allegations levelled by the complainant, Shri Goverdhan Yadav in his written submission dated 27.11.2014 has submitted that in the past whenever new members were elected late Ram Avadh Yadav has made entries of the names in the Register. A meeting was held on 2.10.2012 in which 10 new members were elected and Goverdhan Yadav was elected as the Manager. Shri Goverdhan Yadav has also alleged that two members from the list who have raised objection did not have the right to question the elections held on 1.11.2009 and 28.10.2012 since they were elected in the year 2013. Rejecting this contention the Assistant Registrar had noted that in the list of members submitted by late Ram Avadh Yadav through his letter dated 3.4.2012 a list of 31 members has been submitted which contains the names of Shri Satyendra Yadav and Dhirendra Yadav, the complainants and which shows that they were elected as members in the meeting of the Society held on 2.10.2011 and therefore the allegation of the petitioner that these two persons were elected after 2012 cannot be accepted. Shri Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner then submitted that since earlier recognition had been granted to the list of the members containing 30 names for the year 2013 -14 by order dated 12.7.2013 the Assistant Registrar could not review his own order as the said power did not vest in him. Reliance has been placed upon a decision of a learned Single Judge passed in civil misc. writ petition no. 10052 of 2011(Khachchan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others). No doubt in the said case the Court has relying upon several decisions and held that an administrative authority has no power to review his own order as no such power is conferred under the statute itself and such a power is not conferred upon the Dy. Registrar under the Societies Registration Act. The Court has however held that an exception has been carved out by the various authorities of this court and the apex court that such authorities also can review their orders provided there is an element of mistake, fraud or misrepresentation.;