S.S. Chauhan, J. - (1.) THE six ousted members pleading the cause of ouster of 267 members have come up before this Court challenging the orders of the Prescribed Authority dated 6.7.2007 and 24.8.2007 contained in Annexures 1 and 2 respectively to the writ petition.
(2.) THE dispute in the present petition relates to the election of the Uttar Pradesh Council for Child Welfare, Moti Mahal, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to 1 as the 'Council' for short). The Council in question is headed by His Excellency, the Governor as Chairman. The Council from the date of its inception i.e. 1953 has been continuing and acting in furtherance of its aims and objects. The Council was registered on 26.8.1953. The registration of the Council was lastly renewed on 10.10.2005 for a period of five years. The Council has its own registered bye-laws and these bye-laws prescribe the constitution and election of members of the office bearers of the Council and the Executive Committee. The election of the Executive Committee of the Council was held on 21.8.2001, in which the office bearers were elected. The Standing Committee of the Council constituted Screening Committee on 16.10.2001, which recommended the enrollment of the petitioners as life members of the Council vide resolution dated 30.7.2003 and 1.8.2003. The said membership was approved and petitioners and others were enrolled as life members of the Council in view of the recommendation made by the Screening Committee. It is stated that the petitioners attended the meeting of the Executive Committee under the Chairmanship of His Excellency the Governor on 30.1.2004. The term of the Executive Committee was for three years and hence the Committee which was constituted vide election dated 21.8.2001 was to be reconstituted and with this view a fresh election was held on 30.9.2004. The election dated 30.9.2004 was challenged by opposite parties No. 3 and 4 through Writ Petition No. 4650 (MS) of 2004. The Registrar vide order dated 20.10.2004 appointed the Dy. Registrar to perform the duties of the Council as there was dispute in the election. The said order was made the subject matter of challenge by the office bearers of the Council through its Secretary. These petitions were clubbed and decided by a common judgment and order dated 27.5.2005. Writ Petition No. 4650 (MS) of 2004 filed by opposite parties No. 3 and 4 was dismissed and Writ Petition No. 4903 (MS) of 2004 filed by the Council was allowed and the order of the Registrar dated 20.10.2004 was quashed. The validity of the order dated 27.5.2005 was challenged by filing Special Appeal No. 361 of 2005 and the same was allowed and the judgment and order of Hon'ble Single Judge passed in Writ Petition No. 4650 (MS) of 2004 was set aside vide judgment and order dated 11.11.2005. The Council challenged the validity of the aforesaid judgment and order of the Division Bench by Special Leave to Appeal No. (C) 25489 of 2005 in the Supreme Court, in which interim order was passed staying the orders of this Court in special appeal. The said matter was converted into Civil Appeal No. 2525 of 2006. Before the Supreme Court opposite parties No. 3 and 4, after the matter was heard at length, prayed to withdraw the petition itself filed by them before the Hon'ble Single Judge and took leave from the Supreme Court to raise an election dispute under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act' for short). With the aforesaid observations, the civil appeal was disposed of as withdrawn on 5.5.2006. The opposite parties No. 3 and 4 thereafter moved a motion under Section 25(1) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority on 1.6.2006. Objections were taken to the maintainability of the said petition/application before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 24.8.2007 declared the elections held on 30.9.2004 as invalid and vide order dated 6.7.2007 rejected the objections regarding non-maintainability of the petition/application before the Prescribed Authority. The orders dated 24.8.2007 and 6.7.2007 were challenged by filing Writ Petition No. 4653 (MS) of 2007 by opposite party No. 5. Writ Petition No. 4607 (MB) of 2007 was also filed by two persons namely, Naresh Chandra Bhargava and Mahabir Singh. This Court while considering the matter passed an order on 7.9.2007 that till the question of membership is decided, the opposite parties may not hold election till the next date of listing. The said order was made the subject matter of challenge in Special Appeal No. 796 of 2007 and in the special appeal the two petitioners who filed the writ petition and the opposite parties of that writ petition consented for an order for holding of the elections by the Registrar and it was also agreed that the President of the Council, His Excellency the Governor be requested to make an alternative arrangement for performing day-to-day affairs of the Council. The Division Bench in the order dated 28.9.2007 noted the fact that the term of the Committee of Management was coming to an end on 30.9.2007 and there was an order of the Prescribed Authority holding the present Committee as illegal, against which order a petition has been filed by the present Committee. The other writ petition was filed for holding the election and had challenged the inaction part of the Registrar. In the order passed on the agreement between the parties i.e. the two members and the opposite parties, the Registrar was directed to hold the election of the Committee of Management expeditiously, say, within a maximum period of two months. It was further directed that the President be requested to make alternative arrangement forthwith for running of the Council as both the counsel also agreed for such an arrangement during interregnum period of this election. It was also found that both the Writ Petitions No. 4604 (MS) of 2007 and 4653 (MS) of 2007 have lost their significance and so they were also disposed of accordingly. The parties were given liberty to challenge the election, which may be held in pursuance to the direction in special appeal, in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Dy. Registrar passed an order on 22.10.2007, notifying the schedule for holding of the election of Executive Council. Tentative list of the members was declared on 25.10.2007, showing the names of 204 members. Shiv Mohan Singh and others filed objections against the said tentative list, stating therein that the names of the petitioners and others were not included in the tentative list of members. The Dy. Registrar while considering some of the objections passed an order on 8.11.2007. The objections filed by Shiv Mohan Singh and others were not considered and neither any opportunity of hearing was given to them. Aggrieved with the order passed by Dy. Registrar dated 8.11.2007 Shiv Mohan Singh and others filed Writ Petition No. 6101 (MS) of 2007 and while hearing the said writ petition, the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 22.11.2007 directed that the claim of membership of the Council while determining the valid membership of the Council for holding election may be held afresh in accordance with the rules of the Council and only then the Registrar should proceed with the election with valid members of the Council. It was also provided that the Registrar is empowered to consider the representation of all concerned and affected persons. It is submitted that Shiv Mohan Singh and others from and are connected with 267 members who have been ousted at the behest of the order of the Prescribed Authority and are ousted members. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.11.2007 was subjected to challenge through Special Appeal No. 964 of 2007 and in the special appeal again an order was passed that another set of persons/members of that very Council cannot maintain another writ petition and also that the order of the Prescribed Authority passed under Section 25(1) of the Act had not been challenged in the said writ petition. It was also observed that the liberty has been given by the Court in the earlier special appeal to challenge the election in appropriate forum on the basis of a consented order and order under Section 25(1) of the Act is summary in nature and can be challenged in Civil Court for required declaration after the election. The petitioners are the other set of members apart from the elected office bearers and other members who were ousted at the behest of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 24.8.2007 and the subsequent Writ Petition No. 6101 (MS) of 2007 filed by Shiv Mohan Singh and others never challenged the order of the Prescribed Authority. It is on these reasoning that the petitioners have come forward before this Court for the cause of 267 members and pleading their ouster to be illegal.
(3.) HEARD Shri Umesh Chandra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Vikas Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Shri Prashant Chandra, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Shishir Jain, learned counsel for opposite party No. 4. The submission of Shri Umesh Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that initially the election held on 30.9.2004 was challenged by the elected office bearers and the said writ petition was dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge. Thereafter, the matter was taken up in special appeal and the special appeal was allowed, against which Special Leave to Appeal was preferred and before the Supreme Court the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 prayed to withdraw the writ petition filed before the Hon'ble Single Judge with liberty to approach the prescribed authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. Their prayer was acceded to by the Supreme Court. Thereafter, the opposite parties No. 3 and 4 challenged the election before the Prescribed Authority and the Tribunal has adjudicated upon the membership of the petitioners whereas the election dispute was required to be adjudicated by the Prescribed Authority. It is also submitted that the language employed under Section 25(1) of the Act empowers the Registrar to decide the election dispute in regard to office bearers. He has also submitted that the various heads under which and on the basis of which the election can be challenged have been mentioned in Section 25(1) of the Act and no part of the section contemplates or empowers the Registrar to decide the question of membership. Hence, the order of the Prescribed Authority is without jurisdiction.;