AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—This petition questions the correctness of the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the Prescribed Authority u/s 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
The background of the case is that the Deputy Registrar had passed an order on 25th February, 2010 against the Petitioner which was assailed by the Petitioner in a writ petition which came to be dismissed on 29th April, 2010. The Petitioner filed a Special Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge which was allowed on 2nd August, 2010 by the following order:
1.Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
In our opinion the dispute raised is as to who are the office bearers. In these circumstances, the jurisdiction was with the Prescribed Authority but the Deputy Registrar had decided the controversy by his order dated 25.2.2010. To that extent the order dated 25.2.2010 has to be set aside. Accordingly the judgment impugned dated 29.4.2010 and the order dated 25.2.2010 are set aside.
The Deputy Registrar is directed to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority within 15 days from today. The Prescribed Authority shall decide the matter after giving opportunity of hearing to the respective parties within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before him.
A copy of this order shall be served on the Deputy Registrar by the Appellant personally.
The special appeal is accordingly disposed of.
The matter was accordingly referred to the Prescribed Authority in terms of the judgment of the Division Bench where after the impugned order has been passed.
The Petitioner submitted her objections in relation to the claim that was set up by Sri Ram Raksh Pal Singh alleging himself to be the manager of the institution on the basis of proceedings dated 30th June, 2009. The said objections were replied to by the Petitioner and one of the contentions raised in paragraph-8 of the objections filed by the Petitioner was clearly to the effect that Ram Raksh Pal Singh was not even a member of the General Body, inasmuch as, neither his membership fee has been deposited nor has he been enrolled as a member and, therefore, he could not have been elected as a manager of the institution.
It is further submitted by Sri Irshad Ali, learned Counsel for the Petitioners that the contesting Respondent set up his claim on the strength of papers that were submitted for the first time on 20th October, 2010 and no such claim had been set up prior to that and, therefore, it appears that all documents were manipulated later on. He contends that the alleged removal of the Petitioner and the reconstitution of the Committee of Management as alleged by the contesting Respondent is all erroneous and without any basis and is founded on the strength of manipulated documents.
The matter was adjourned on three occasions to enable the learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 to assist the Court on these contentions that had been raised on behalf of the Petitioner and an order passed on 14.2.2011 calling upon him to assist the Court on these issues.
The matter has thereafter been heard today at length and the learned Standing Counsel has been heard on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Learned Counsel for the Respondents do not propose to file any counter affidavit at this stage, therefore, the matter is being disposed of finally with the consent of parties.
Learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 4 Sri R.K. Singh Rajpoot submits that as a matter of fact, the Petitioner has manipulated documents to suit her own purpose and that the list of office bearers as submitted by her are in contradiction to the bye laws and are not supported by any valid resolution. He submits that the proceedings after 30th June, 2009 are all valid and the reconstitution of the Committee of Management did not suffer from any infirmity as such the Prescribed Authority was perfectly justified in arriving at the conclusions that have been drawn.
After having heard learned Counsel for the parties, one of the basic issues that was raised by the Petitioner was the membership of the Respondent No. 4. It is the categorical case of the Petitioner that the Respondent No. 4 is not a validly enrolled member of the society and, therefore, he could not have been elected as the manager of the institution. The correctness of the resolution dated 30th June, 2009 has also been seriously disputed and it has been contended that the prescribed Authority has recorded perverse findings against the weight of the evidence on record.
The issue relating to the membership of the Respondent No. 4 has not been touched by the Prescribed Authority at all. This is evident from a bare perusal of the impugned order which does not record any such finding in spite of the fact that the objections raised by the Petitioner have been noted. In the absence of any such finding in the opinion of the Court, the impugned order 22.1.2011 is vitiated as the issue goes to the root of the matter and accordingly the same is hereby set aside.
The writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the Prescribed Authority to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.