SHIKSHA PARISHAD NAGWA Vs. DEPUTY REGISTAR FIRMS SOCIETIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special appeal has been filed against the judgment/order dated 7.12.1995 passed in Civil Misc. writ petition No. 29192 of 1995, Siksha Parishad Nagwa, Ballia and another v. Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad Division, Faizabad and another, connected with Civil Misc. writ petition No. 26515 of 1995, Shiksha Parishad Nagwa, District Bollia and another v. Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh and another. the controversy relates to renewal of certificate of registration of the society known as Shiksha Parishad Nagwa, Ballia. The order dated 4. 4. 1995 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Finns, Societies and Chits, Faizabad Division, Faizabad was subject-matter of impugnment in Civil Misc. writ petition No. 29192 of 1995. The said order dated 4.4.1995 although set aside in appeal by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad vide order dated 23.8.1995 which order was impugned in Civil Misc. writ petition No. 26515 of 1995, the writ petition No. 29192 came to be filed due to the reason that the appeal against the order dated 4. 4. 1995 was not maintainable and the order dated 23. 8. 1995 was challenged on th.it ground in Civil Misc. writ petition No. 26515 of 1995. Concededly the appeal preferred against the order dated 4.4.1995 was not maintainable and this was the main ground of challenge to the order dated 23.8.1995 impugned in Civil Misc. writ petition No. 26515 of 1995. In fact it was so admitted by the Counsel appearing for Sri Amar Nath Mishra before the learned single Judge and the same has not been disputed before us by Sri R.C. Srivastava, senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashok Bhushan for the appellants. In this view of the matter the judgment/order under appeal quashing the order dated 23. 8. 1995 passed by the Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad in purported exercise of powers under Section 12-D of the Societies Registration Act, I860 (in short the Act') is unexceptionable.

(2.) Sri R.C. Srivastava, learned senior Advocate appearing for the appellants confined his argument only to the legality of the order dated 4. 4. 1995 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits. Faizabad Division, Faizabad insofar as it holds Sri Nagendra Kumar Pathak entitled to prosecute the proceeding for renewal of certificate of registration under Section 3-A of the Act. Learned counsel for the appellants urged that since the membership of Sri Nagendra Kumar Pathak to the society in question was disputed, the Deputy Registrar. Firms, Societies and Chits ought to have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority for decision in accordance with Section 25 of the Act. There is no denying the fact that "any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office bearer" of a society is to be decided by the Prescribed Authority in a summary manner on a reference being made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-forth of the members of the concerned society, but the prescribed authority has no jurisdiction to direct registration or renewal of certificate of registration of a society under the provisions of the Act. Such power is vested in the Registrar which terms includes Deputy Registrar and/or Assistant Registrar as well. In the instant case renewal of certificate of registration applied for the Nagendra Kumar Pathak on behalf of the concerned society was sought to be opposed on the ground that Nagendra Kumar Pathak was not even the member of the society and had no right to apply or prosecute the proceeding for renewal of the certificate of registration of the society. Sri Amar Nath Mishra who claims himself to be the president of the society wanted that the proceeding for renewal of certificate of registration be allowed to be prosecuted by him. The Deputy Registrar by his order dated 4. 4. 1995 held Nagendra Kumar Pathak entitled to prosecute the proceeding initiated for renewal of certificate of registration on the ground that original documents pertaining to the society were filed by him and not by Sri Amar Nath Mishra who claims himself to be the president of the society. Sri Nagendra Kumar Pathak, it may be worthwhile to note, had applied for renewal of certificate of registration claiming himself to be the Secretary of the society. Section 3-A of the Act which provide for renewal of the certificate of registration of a society has nothing to do with the resolution of any dispute or doubt in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of the society. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that while holding Nagendra Kumar Pathak entitled to prosecute the proceeding for renewal of certificate of registration on the premises that ft was he who had filed original documents penaining to the society, the Deputy Registrar cannot be said to have arrogated to himself a jurisdiction conferred upon the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act and learned single Judge, therefore, cannot be said to have committed any illegality in upholding the order dated 4. 4. 1995 of the Deputy Registrar.

(3.) In Kranti Kumar Chaturvedi and others District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur and others, 1995 (3) ESC 166 (All), a Division Bench of this Court has clearly ruled that Section 25 of the Act would be attracted if "there is dispute between two rival parties each of whom is claiming to be validity elected body" and that the section "is also attracted when a party challenges the legality or otherwise of the election of particular set of office bearers of the society on the grounds enumerated in Section 25 of the Act." Division Bench has clearly ruled that Section 25 would be attracted to a dispute of the nature aforestated "only when there is no dispute in respect of registration of society or its renewal of certificate of registration." In Shambhu Kumar Tripathi v. Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits. AIR 1994 All 209, one of us (S. R. Singh, J.) has held as under : 'The submissions made by Sri Yogesh Agrawal have no merit also on the ground that the Asstt. Registrar while exercising the power of renewal of the certificate of registration conferred upon him by Section 3-A of the Act, could incidentally examine whether the list of members of the managing body submitted alongwith application for renewal of the certificate of registration as required by sub-section (4) was genuine or not. Exercise of such incidental or ancillary power may. in a given case, be considered necessary for effectuating jurisdiction vested in the Asstt. Registrar under Section 3-A of the Act. It cannot be said that the question as to the genuineness of the list of members of the managing body submitted alongwith the application for renewal of the certificate of registration, has in the present case, actually gone into any dispute or controversy specially visualised by Section 25 of the Act. It is evident from Section 3-A that renewal of the certificate of registration of a society is within the exclusive jurisdiction/domain of the Registrar which term includes Asstt. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits. The power to renew a certificate of registration being expressly and exclusively conferred upon the Registrar, the Registrar would be deemed to possess all incidental and ancillary powers as may be considered necessary for an effective exercise of the power under Section 3-A of the Act."