C/M Seth Gaya Deen Vikas Shiksha Samiti and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—The petitioners claim themselves to the committee of management, President and manager of a registered society in the name of Seth Gaya Deen Vikas Shiksha Samiti, Gram Mailaha, Post Baharia Bazar, Tehsil Phulpur, Allahabad. They have approached this Court questioning the validity of an order dated 4.11.2015 passed by Assistant Registrar, whereby the elections set up by the petitioners dated 9.8.2015 from a general body comprising of 15 members have been discarded, whereas the elections set up by the third respondent dated 2.8.2015 have been held to be valid and consequently, direction has been issued for registering the list of office bearers for the year 2015-16 on the basis of the elections dated 2.8.2015. The Assistant Registrar has further reiterated the correctness of the decision taken on 29.5.2015 in regard to the registration of amendments in the bye-laws of the society consequent to alleged meeting held in that regard on 15.9.2013.

Before this Court, basically three issues have been raised. The first is regarding validity of an alleged meeting of the general body and committee of management held on 6.5.2003, in which, inter alia, (I) certain amendments were carried out in the bye-laws of the society; (ii) elections of the governing body was held and (iii) certain members had allegedly tendered resignation from the primary membership/offices being held by them. The second basic issue is regarding the validity of an alleged meeting held on 15.9.2013, wherein certain amendments were again carried out in the bye-laws of the society, whereby the constitution of the governing body has been varied and certain powers of the President have been taken away. The third basic issue is regarding the validity of the election proceedings dated 9.8.2015 and 2.8.2015 set up by the rival claimants.

Sri R.K. Ojha, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri H.N. Pandey appearing on behalf of the petitioners pointed out that the amendments carried out in the meeting dated 6.5.2003 as well as the election held in the same meeting were duly registered by the Assistant Registrar. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the copy of the amended bye-laws duly approved by the Assistant Registrar and brought on record as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. He pointed out that at the time of considering the application for renewal of the registration certificate, the list of office bearers as well as the list of persons who had tendered resignation in the meeting dated 6.5.2003, was also duly registered. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the document annexed as Annexures-4 and 5 to the writ petition. He contended that there was no dispute between the parties, nor even by those persons who had allegedly tendered resignations, with regard to their having actually resigned from the membership of the society. It is pointed out that in all these proceedings Swami Nath Maurya (alleged manager of the third respondent) himself participated. It is submitted that Shiv Charan Lal, who had allegedly presided over the meetings dated 15.9.2013, had never been the Vice-President, nor could have presided over such a meeting. It is contended that the aforesaid meeting, in which 63 members had allegedly participated out of 75 members, is ex-facie illegal, as in his submission, the strength of the general body had gone down consequent to various resignations, which were never challenged. It is further submitted that Shiv Charan Lal had died on 27.3.2014 and after his death, for the first time these proceedings were filed before the Assistant Registrar setting up a case that certain amendments had been carried out, which according to him, is a result of fraud and fabrication. It is pointed out that under the amended bye-laws, no person can be inducted as member of the general body without the approval of the President. He further submitted that even receipts relating to the deposit of subscription by a newly inducted member, cannot be issued without the concurrence of the President of the society. This, according to him, is in view of the fact that the founder President Seth Gaya Deen, in whose name the society was founded, had reserved such powers in his own favour, while constituting the society. It is further contended that at the time when renewal was granted in the year 2011 on the application submitted by Swami Nath Maurya, who now claims himself to be alleged manager of the newly elected committee, the same list of office bearers and general body was submitted by him, which was in consonance with the resolution passed on 6.5.2003. Thus, according to him, he had acquiesced in the proceedings dated 6.5.2003 and is estopped from challenging the same. It is further pointed out that the finding relating to certain persons having not tendered their resignations, is illegal and perverse, inasmuch as there were on record the resignation letters of various persons who had resigned. It is further submitted that these persons had not raised any grievance for last more than ten years and now they are estopped from contending that the proceeding dated 6.5.2003 does not bear their signatures or they had not tendered resignations. It is submitted that these contentions specifically raised, have not been dealt with by the Assistant Registrar, while passing the impugned order. It is further submitted by him that in the impugned order, a finding has been recorded in favour of the petitioners regarding the amendments having been duly carried out in the meeting dated 6.5.2003. Consequently, all subsequent proceedings were required to be held in accordance with the amended bye-laws. It is urged that thereunder, it is only the President who can convene the meeting and preside over it, whereas the meeting dated 1.9.2013 was presided over by Shiv Charan Lal as Vice-President, and thus, on the face of it, these meetings were contrary to the provisions of the bye-laws. It is urged that these aspects have also not been adverted to by the Assistant Registrar.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri H.N. Pandey appearing on behalf of the third respondent submitted that the finding recorded by the Assistant Registrar regarding the validity of the amendment having been carried out in the meeting dated 6.5.2003, is itself illegal. He pointed out that an adjourned meeting of the general body for lack of quorum could only be held after 15 days, whereas in the instant case, the proceeding demonstrates that the meeting was held after one hour. It is further pointed out that even in the meeting held on 6.5.2003 after one hour, the quorum was not complete and thus, on the face of it, all decisions taken in the said meeting were wholly illegal. He submitted that the Assistant Registrar had failed to consider the said aspect and thus, the finding recorded in the impugned order regarding the validity of the amendments carried out in the meeting dated 6.5.2003, is not in accordance with law. On the other hand, he supported the other findings recorded in the impugned order. It is pointed out that in fact only two resignation letters were submitted and both of which are dated 7.5.2003 i.e. after the holding of the meeting dated 6.5.2003. He therefore contended that the Assistant Registrar was justified in disbelieving the proceedings dated 6.5.2003 in so far as it related to submission of the resignation.

From the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, one thing which is clear is that both the parties contend that while deciding the dispute, various aspects and relevant evidence filed by the parties, had not duly been taken into consideration. After initial attempt by both the sides to demonstrate that certain part of the order is liable to be upheld and the other part liable to be struck down, they ultimately agreed that the entire order be set aside and the matter be remitted back for reconsideration, keeping in mind the specific pleas raised by the parties. They also agree that the Assistant Registrar be directed to record specific finding on the following issues:--

"(a) Whether the proceedings dated 6.5.2003 were validly held in accordance with the approved bye-laws of the society?

(b) Whether any person had tendered resignation as recorded in the meeting dated 6.5.2003 and what would be the effect of not raising such a dispute for quite a long period and would it operate as estoppel and acquiescence?

(c) Whether or not the meetings dated 1.9.2013 and 15.9.2013 were validly convened and held and presided over by person duly authorised as per the bye-laws?

(d) Whether induction of 38 members on 1.9.2013 was validly done or was contrary to the provisions of the bye-laws?

(e) Whether election dated 2.8.2015 and 9.8.2015 set up by the parties raises a bonafide election dispute and the said aspect requires to be referred to the presiding authority?"

Learned Standing Counsel also has no objection, in case such a course is adopted.

In view of the aforesaid consensus between the parties, the writ petition is disposed of in following terms:--

"(i) The impugned order dated 4.11.2015 passed by Assistant Registrar is quashed.

(ii) The matter is remitted back to the Assistant Registrar for recording specific findings on the issues framed above.

(iii) In case, the Assistant Registrar, while deciding issue No. (e) comes to the conclusion that there is a bonafide election dispute between the parties, it shall be open to him to refer that part of the controversy to the prescribed authority for adjudication.

(iv) The Assistant Registrar shall decide the dispute within 2 month from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him, by any of the parties.

(v) All subsequent action shall abide by the adjudication that would be made in pursuance of this order."