- (1.) The first petitioner is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act and it has filed the petition through the Secretary and three of its members . The Society is aggrieved with the impugned order holding that the voluntary resignation of the 4th respondent Virender Singh as President was interfered with on a finding that he had not so resigned from his office and he continued to be the member. The impugned proceedings themselves came to be passed by the authorities constituted under the Haryana Societies Registration Act on a petition filed under Section 21 of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Society Act, 2012. The authorities accepted the contention raised by the 4th respondent that the letter of resignation said to have been given by him on 10.7.2102 was a fabrication and the alleged acceptance by the society on 8.8.2012 was at a meeting that was not duly convened. At the same meeting alleged to have been called under the Chairmanship of the Secretary, 4 persons namely Santosh Devi wife of the 2nd petitioner, Kanta Devi wife of the 3rd petitioner , Pushpa Devi wife of the 4th petitioner and Ravi Raj son of the 3rd petitioner were reported to have been admitted to membership of the society. This was also held to be invalid.
(2.) The case was decided on the following facts: The 4th respondent was reported to have issued a notice to the Registrar Kaithal with the copy marked to the Society that he was resigning from membership as well as his post as President of the Society through a letter dated 15.02.2011. The copies had been appended with affidavit duly notorized affirming his decision as voluntary. The fact of the resignation had been referred to in the notice by the 3rd petitioner through counsel to the 4th respondent casting imputations of mismanagement of the society and calling for submission of accounts. There were also allegations that the 4th respondent had been running the affairs of the Society and the college established by it on a pretension that he was the chairman of the college and urging him to desist from such postures. While the 4th respondent denied that he had ever tendered resignation, the petitioners would refer to issuance of the notice and the fact that there was no response to this notice as betraying the falsity of the 4th respondent's contention. They would state that such a false contention was brought for the first time only when pressures had been built for serious action against defalcation of funds against the 4th respondent. The District Registrar passed an order on 01.03.2013 holding that the 4th respondent's resignation was not established. While so holding, the District Registrar had accepted the 4th respondent's contention that a fabricated letter of resignation had been prepared by using the signature of the 4th respondent in his blank letter head that had been kept in the office for use during his temporary absence out of station. The Registrar made an issue of the fact that the notice of meeting dated 08.08.2012 had not been sent to any member and even the original notice for calling the meeting had not been produced. The District Registrar made reference to the fact that the Vice President appeared before him and he stated that he was not intimated regarding the meeting dated 08.08.2012 nor was his consent obtained or agenda circulated to him. The Registrar observed that in the absence of President it was only the Vice President who was competent to preside the meeting and the meeting which was admittedly not held under the Chairmanship of the Vice President could not be taken to be valid to uphold the alleged acceptance of the resignation by the society.
(3.) As regards the induction of members, the District Registrar had observed that no request letter from any of the new members for admission to membership in Form 'X' had been produced. Admission fee was not approved by the governing body. The Form XV circulated with reference to the newly inducted members had been signed by the Secretary as officiating President when the Secretary was not competent. The subsequent election alleged to have taken place on 03.09.2012 itself, the District Registrar observed was incompetent and the list of governing body in Form XVII had not been submitted by the Secretary or the President in the office of the District Registrar.;