CHAUHAN, J. - (1.) THIS appeal arises cut of the order dated 26. 8. 2006, passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track), No. 4, Bharatpur, whereby the learned Judge has rejected the application of the appellant for appointment of Receiver/administrator for managing the affairs of Guru Nanak Senior Secondary School and Guru Harkishan Public School.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 5, the Guru Singh Sabha Shiksha Samiti (henceforth to be referred to as `the Society', for short), is a registered society under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958, having Registration No. 81/78-79 and has its Head Office at Bharatpur. According to the Constitution of the Society, the object of the Society is to impart education to children, to teach them discipline, to encourage feeling of nationalism amongst them, to teach them about the Punjabi language, etc. For this purpose, the Society runs two schools in Bharatpur, namely the Guru Nanak Senior Secondary School and the Guru Harkishan Public School. Both these schools are known as the two of the finest schools of the city. Furthermore, according to the Constitution of the Society, the Society is to be run by a Managing Committee in accordance with rules and regulations of the Education Department of the Government. THE Managing Committee would consist maximum of fifteen members, out of which the members of the Society would elect eight persons who shall be the lifetime members of the Society. THErefore, the Managing Committee has to be elected and not nominated by the Society. THE Managing Committee so elected would have tenure of three years. It is the case of the appellant that on 25. 4. 2004, an election of the Managing Committee was held. In the said election, Mr. Gurudeep Singh, respondent No. 6, was elected as the President, Mr. Mahendra Singh Maggo as the Secretary Mr. Mahendra Singh Cheema as the Vice-President and Mr. Surjeet Singh Chhabra as the Treasure. The tenure of the said Managing Committee was till 25. 4. 2007. Although the said Committee started working shortly after the election, but Mr. Avatar Singh, the respondent No. 1 started interfering with the working of the Committee. Subsequently, the respondent No. 6, Dr. Gurudeep Singh, the President, filed a suit. However, later on he withdrew the said suit allegedly under the pressure of the respondent No. 1. Thereupon the respondent No. 1 Mr. Avatar Singh declared himself to be the President, the respondent No. 2, Mr. Gurunam Singh as the Vice-president, the respondent No. 3, Mr. Gulshan Singh Maggo as the Secretary, and Mr. Balbeer Singh Virk as the treasurer. Although the said newly formed Managing Committee henceforth to be referred to as "the new Managing Committee", for short) was not an elected committee, but nonetheless, it started functioning. It is the functioning of this Committee, which the appellant challenged by filing a declaratory suit along with an application for injunction. The respondent No. 1 and 4 filed their written statement and denied that any election had taken place on 25. 4. 2004. According to them, the Sikh Community in Bharatpur constituted the Shri Guru Singh Sabha (henceforth to be referred to as `the Sabha', for short ). The Sabha is also known as the Gurudwara Bharatpur. In order to promote education amongst the sikh children in Bharatpur, the Sabha got the Society registered in the name of Shri Guru Singh Sabha Shiksha Samiti. While the Shiksha Samiti was to run the schools, but the ultimate control was that of the Sabha. From the very beginning, the members of the Managing Committee were nominated by the Sabha and were not elected as envisaged in the Constitution. The Sabha had nominated respondent No. 6m, Dr. Gurudeep Singh, as the President. However, vide resolution dated 5. 9. 2004, the Managing Committee under him was dissolved. Thereafter, the Sabha has appointed the new Managing Committee. Hence, the new Managing Committee is a legitimately constituted one. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have also filed their replies. But, they have supported the case of the appellant. According to them, the new Managing Committee has not been constituted in conformity with the Constitution of the Society. They also claimed that it is essential that the Managing Committee should be an elected body in accordance with the Constitution. They have also questioned the bona fides of the new Managing Committee, especially in the financial arena. After hearing all the parties, vide order dated 26. 8. 2006, the learned Judge has dismissed the application for temporary injunction for appointment of Receiver/administrator. Hence, this appeal before this Court. Mr. D. G. Chaturvedi, the learned counsel for the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the locus standi of the appellant. According to him, the respondent No. 6 had filed a suit challenging the functioning of the new Managing Committee. Subsequently, he had withdrawn the said suit. The appellant happens to be his son. Therefore, the entire suit has been filed with an ulterior motive. Hence, the appellant has no locus standi to file the suit.
(3.) ON the other hand, Mr. Virendra Yadav, the learned counsel for the appellant, has argued that the respondent No. 6 is a life- member of the Society. Therefore, he has a right to raise the issue of the welfare of the society. In case the new Managing Committee is permitted to act in an arbitrary fashion, it would damage, if not destroy, the reputation of the schools. It is the children who shall be the ultimate sufferers. Hence, he is competent to file the suit and the present appeal. A society registered under the Rajasthan Societies Registration Act, 1958 is nothing but a microcosm of a democratic institution. In democracy each individual has an interest in the efficient running of an institution. Therefore, every member-life member, or otherwise-equally has a right and interest in the welfare of the society. In case the society is not being run in accordance with its Constitution, the member would have a right to insist that the Society be managed in conformity with its Constitution. Therefore, the appellant has a locus standi to file this appeal. Hence, the preliminary objection raised by the learned counsel for the respondents has no force. Mr. Yadav has raised various contentions before this court: firstly, once the Constitution of the Society has been adopted, the Society has to be run in accordance with the said Constitution. Merely because members of the Managing Committee have not been elected, but have been nominated by the Sabha, would not make the constitution of the new Managing Committee a valid one. Even if a practice has been followed, but contrary to the Constitution, the said practice does not acquire legitimacy or legality. Secondly, since the new Managing Committee has not been constituted in accordance with the Constitution, the same is an illegally constituted committee. It cannot be allowed to function and to run the schools. For, both according to the appellant and according to the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the new Managing Committee is mismanaging the schools. There are allegations of financial mismanagement. Therefore, it is imperative that during the pendency of the suit, a Receiver be appointed. Thirdly, because of the two reasons mentioned above, according to the learned counsel, the appellant has a strong prima facie case in his favour. The balance of convenience is also on the side of the appellant. Lastly, in case a Receiver is not appointed, the schools and the students would suffer an irreparable loss. ;