- (1.) Muslim Association Kanpur Nagar through its Secretary Abdul Haseeb is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 18th February, 2016 passed by learned Single Judge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.7380 of 2016 (Muslim Association, Kanpur Nagar and another v. State of U.P. and others) , wherein learned Single Judge has proceeded to allow the writ petition in question and quashed the order dated 28th August, 2015 passed by Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Kanpur opposite party no.2, wherein directives have been issued to consider the objections preferred by petitioner afresh after giving an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party no.3 namely Muslim Association, Kanpur Nagar through its Secretary Abdul Haseeb.
(2.) Muslim Association, Kanpur Nagar is a registered society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). Earlier in reference of elections of Managing Committee of Society, three sets of elections came forward and the Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Kanpur referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 29.05.2013. Said order has been subjected to challenge in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.47416 of 2013, by Shafeeq Ahmad claiming himself to be Secretary. Said writ petition was dismissed on 05.09.2013, but with direction to the Prescribed Authority to decide the dispute. Special Appeal preferred against the same has also been dismissed on 10.09.2013 wherein this fact has also been noted that earlier elections were held in the year 2012 and list of office bearers was also registered and subsequently 12 members resigned and 12 members were replaced, in this background dispute raised was genuine/bona fide dispute in between three set of claimants. Prescribed Authority in his wisdom on 09.02.2015 has decided the dispute. Against the said order passed by Prescribed Authority, writ petition has been filed with no.10347 of 2015 (Muslim Association v. State of U.P. and others) . Not only this, Khursheet Alam and others have also been before this Court, assailing the validity of elections dated 11.02.2012 and 12.02.2012 of the Executive Committee of Muslim Association along with various other prayers and the said writ petition no.31141 of 2012 has been taken up on 11.08.2015 and on the said date following order has been passed: "In assailing the aforesaid elections the submission of Sri Nayyar is twofold. The first is that the term of the previous elected committee of management of the society had expired on 30.05.2011 and thereafter no elections were held. The committee of management of the society in office became time barred and therefore, it was only upon the Registrar/Dy. Registrar to hold the elections of the society in accordance with the provisions of Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Secondly, the petitioners have been deprived of their valuable right as members of the society as they have been removed orally from it. The elections which were held on 11.02.2012 and 12.02.2012 are totally fake and were never held. The committee of management of the society which was time barred had no authority in law to conduct any elections. The Registrar also acted without jurisdiction in registering the lists as submitted inasmuch as none of the lists were signed by the previous office bearers as contemplated under the Act. Notwithstanding the respective contentions raised by the parties, the dispute is regarding the validity of the elections of the society held on 11.02.2012 and 12.02.2012. On the basis of the said elections, the list of the members, members of the committee of management and its office bearers were registered on 28.02.2012 by the Registrar/Dy. Registrar. The aforesaid order of the Registrar/Dy. Registrar registering the list pursuant to the elections dated 11.02.2012 and 12.02.2012 has not been assailed by the petitioners in this writ petition or in any other forum.The validity of the registration of the lists is not the subject matter in dispute. Therefore, if the registration stands there is reason to allow any challenge to the elections which forms the basis of registration of the lists. Secondly, the dispute of aforesaid elections was referred to the prescribed authority under section 25(1) of the Act. It was adjudicated by the prescribed authority on 09.02.2015 and the elections were held to be valid. The aforesaid order of the prescribed authority has also not been challenged by the petitioners either in this petition or by means of any other petition or before any other forum. Once the said order is final and conclusive there is no occasion to challenge those elections directly though this petition. It has also come on record that as the term of committee of management of the society is three years on its expiry fresh elections of the society were held on 26.02.2015 and the names of the members of the committee of management and its office bearers so elected have been registered on 14.07.2015 by the Registrar/Dy. Registrar. This order is also final and conclusive and is not in dispute in any forum. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as the petitioners have failed to challenge the order of the Registrar/Dy. Registrar dated 28.02.2012 registering the list of the members of committee of management and its office bearers elected on 11.02.2012 and 12.02.2012, the order of the prescribed authority dated 09.02.2015 by which the validity of the above elections was upheld and the subsequent elections dated 26.02.2015 and the registration of the list of the members of committee of management in pursuance thereof, the petitioners are not entitle to any effective relief in this petition. This apart the bye-laws of the society provides that a petition or any case on behalf of the society can be instituted and pursued by the General Secretary of the society. The petitioners therefore, cannot espouse the cause of the society. Even if the petition is treated to be one by the petitioners in their individual capacity they cannot possibly challenge the elections of society dated 11.02.2012 and 12.02.2012 as it would amount to dislodging the decision of the majority of members by the members in minority. The grievance of the petitioners about their membership of the society is dependent upon facts for which the proper course available to the petitioners is to take action and get their rights adjudicated by the civil court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioners in exercising of writ jurisdiction in this petition and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. "
(3.) The writ petition no. 10347 of 2015 preferred by the opposite party no.4 was against the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 9.2.2015, whereby the Prescribed Authority had adjudicated upon the validity of the election held in the year 2012. The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 11.8.2015 with the following clarification:- "After some arguments, he submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition provided its dismissal does not come in his way in getting the validity of the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society dated 26.2.2015 challenged before the civil court. The adjudication of any dispute about the elections of a Society by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act is by way of summary proceedings and is always subject to decision by the competent court of civil jurisdiction. In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to petitioner to challenge the said elections before the civil court where the dispute shall be decided on its merit without being influenced by the decision of Prescribed Authority or this order of the Court ".;