- (1.) In the course of hearing arguments on intervenor Prakash Chand Gupta's application bearing CM No. 6519 of 2011 for vacation of stay order dated 9.11.2010 which was made absolute on 4.4.2011 by this court when the matter was admitted for regular hearing, the parties by consent agreed that the main matter be itself disposed of on merits. That is how the matter was taken on board for final disposal and parties heard. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the impugned order dated 2.11.2010 (Annexure P-6) passed by the District Registrar of Societies, Hisar (for short 'DRS, Hisar')-respondent No. 3, holding that the election to the Shri Vaish Sabha, Hansi (for short 'the Sabha'), a registered society, held on 6.10.2010 allegedly in pursuance to an interim order dated 29.9.2010 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Civil Court is invalid. Consequently, the impugned direction has been issued by the DRS, Hisar that the election of the Sabha be conducted as per the list of members upto 1.1.2010.
(2.) It would be necessary to notice the mile-stone facts of the present case. In the general body elections conducted in 2006, one Dev Raj Lohia was elected President of the Sabha. He died in harness on 2.6.2010. In terms of the bye-laws, the Vice President is deemed to be the President of the Sabha, on the death of the elected President. One Krishan Kumar Garg, Senior Vice President, became the Acting President of the Sabha. In that election 7 other office bearers were also elected apart from 12 members of the Executive Committee. The petitioner Luxmi Kant Goyal pleads that one Prakash Chand Gupta (intervenor), in order to wrest control of the Sabha, got himself unlawfully declared as Acting President of the Sabha on 12.6.2010 following the death of Dev Raj Lohia in a meeting convened for the purpose by him. It is stated that a meeting was also held on 21.8.2010 under the chairmanship of Krishan Kumar Garg and a decision was taken by the managing committee that the bogus President Prakash Chand Gupta be immediately removed from the Sabha and accordingly, a resolution was passed. It appears that Krishan Kumar Garg an Prakash Chand Gupta are at loggerheads. To return to the narration of facts, in the life time of Dev Raj Lohia, a civil suit came to be instituted in the learned trial court at Hansi, titled Naresh Kumar and 3 others v. Shri Vaish Sabha Regd., Hansi, challenging various resolutions of the Sabha, removal of members etc. This civil suit was numbered as 162-C of 2009. On the death of Dev Raj Lohia, a war of succession started. In that suit three separate applications were moved by Jai Kumar Mittal, Krishan Kumar Garg and Prakash Chand Gupta, claiming themselves to be representatives of the Sabha and sought impleadment in place of late Dev Raj Lohia. All these three applications were heard on 28.9.2010 by the learned trial Court and it was held that Krishan Kumar Garg, Senior Vice President of the Sabha, by virtue of holding the office of Senior Vice President, would be entitled to exercise all powers of the President after the death of the President of the Sabha. Clause 13 of the constitution of the Sabha was relied upon by the learned trial Court in reaching the conclusion. Krishan Kumar Garg, however, by order, was not entitled to operate bank accounts. The claims of Jai Kumar Mittal and Prakash Chand Gupta were rejected. The order of learned trial Court is placed as Annexure P-1.
(3.) Aggrieved by the order dated 28.9.2010 of the learned trial Court, Prakash Chand Gupta (intervenor in the present case) filed Civil Revision No. 6637 of 2010 before this Court. The challenge in the suit was that Krishan Kumar Garg was improperly allowed to represent the Sabha in the suit filed by Naresh Kumar and others. In the suit, resolutions dated 31.8.2007, 3.6.2007 and 15.11.2006 were impugned. The order passed by this Court is extracted as follows :- The learned trial Court disposed of all the three applications. While dismissing the three applications moved by the petitioners, accepted the application moved by Sh. Krishan Kumar Garg for substitution of his name in place of Sh. Devraj Lohia. Mr. Pankaj Maini, learned counsel for the petitioner, challenged the order passed by the learned trial Court by placing reliance on the meeting of the executive committee on 12.6.2010 in which the petitioner was said to have been elected as acting President. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that resolution (Annexure P-2) was passed by the executive committee to appoint Sh. Parkash Chand Gupta so that the financial powers of the Sabha could be exercised by him. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was, that in view of the election of the petitioner as acting President of the Sabha, it was the petitioner alone who could represent the Sabha as per the Constitution and not Krishan Kumar Garg, as ordered by the learned trial Court. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The learned trial Court rightly rejected the resolution dated 12.6.2010 to be not in consonance with the Constitution of the Sabha. It is not in dispute, that as per the Constitution of respondent No. 1, in absence of the President the powers of the President are to be exercised by the Senior Vice-President, therefore, it was only Krishan Kumar Garg, who could represent the Sabha. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that in the meeting dated 12.6.2010, petitioner was appointed as acting President, was also rightly rejected. It is not in dispute that as per the Constitution of the Sabha, the powers to convene the meeting of the executive committee vest with the President and in his absence with the Senior Vice-President or Secretary of the Sabha. The meeting dated 12.6.2010 was called by the Vice-Secretary, who had no such power to convene any meeting of the executive committee. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that as Krishan Kumar Garg also signed the resolution passed in the said meeting, therefore, the resolution is required to be upheld, is again mis-conceived. The meeting, which is not convened by a competent person cannot be held to be valid merely because the Senior Vice-President also participated in the said meeting, though a specific stand contrary to the said resolution was taken in the Court to the effect that it was Sh. Krishan Kumar Garg being elected Senior Vice-President, who was to represent the Sabha. The finding of the learned trial Court, therefore, is based on correct appreciation of facts and the provisions of the Constitution of the Sabha, which does not call for any interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. No merit. Dismissed. This order dated 11.10.2010 has attained finality.;