Committee of Management, Adarsh Shiksha Samitee and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Devi Prasad Singh, J.—Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners and Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents as well as learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.

By the impugned order dated 15.4.2008, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits in pursuance to power conferred by Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, in short, Act recognised the Committee of Management of which the private respondents are office bearers.

According to the respondents, the election of the Committee of Management was held on 13.1.2008 and after holding election in accordance with rules, documents were submitted to the Registrar for renewal keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 4-A of the Act.

Objections were filed by the petitioners before the Assistant Registrar, initially with the assertion that the election of the Committee of Management was held in the year 2004 for a period of five years and accordingly, the term of the Committee of Management was to continue up to 2009. It appears that the petitioners have later on changed their stand and taken a plea that fresh election was held and the petitioner No. 1 Rajmani Pandey has been elected as General Secretary with different structure of Committee of Management. The Assistant Registrar while accepting the application moved by the respondents had recorded a finding that the petitioners have fabricated certain documents and the plea raised by the petitioner Rajmani Pandey on 13.3.2008 and 10.4.2008 are contradictory to each other. Feeling aggrieved with the order passed by the Assistant Registrar, present writ petition has been preferred.

This Court, by an interim order dated 24.4.2008 had directed the parties to maintain status quo and also provided that the Committee of Management which is in effective control on the date when the interim order was passed (i.e. 24.4.2008) shall continue to discharge duty.

It has been submitted by the respondents'' counsel that the signature of the respondent office bearers was attested by the Registrar. A perusal of the impugned order indicates that the parties had advanced their claim with the plea that other side has fabricated documents and cooked up a case in their interest. However, the Registrar has believed the contention of the respondents.

The material on record seems to involve disputed question of facts and it cannot be adjudicated by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No finding may be recorded to the plea raised by the parties with regard to fabrication of records or documents. However, admittedly, the term of the committee of Management elected in January 2008 has been expired.

The submission of the respondents'' counsel is that a fresh election was held on 4.1.2009. Accordingly, present writ petition loses its efficacy. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the respondents seems to be not sustainable keeping in view the interim order dated 24.4.2008. The operative portion of the interim order is reproduced as under :

Status-quo as on today shall be maintained by the parties i.e. to say Committee of Management, which is functioning and is in effective control today shall continue to manage the institution in the meantime till the order is vacated or modified earlier.

In case the contention of the respondents is accepted, then it shall amount to violation of the interim order passed by this Court. In case this Court has categorically directed that the Committee of Management which was holding office on 24.4.2008 to function till the next date of listing or should function till the order is modified or vacated and in case the respondents were of the view that they are entitled to hold election, then appropriate application should have been moved in this Court for clarification/modification of the interim order dated 24.4.2008. Any action taken in violation of the judgment or interim order of this Court shall be nullity in law and will be void ab initio. Accordingly, there appears to be no good ground for this Court to dismiss the writ petition as infructuous on the ground that the alleged fresh election was held on 4.1.2009.

Since the period of Committee of Management has been expired and that too in the month of January, 2009, in view of settled provisions of law, it shall be appropriate that the Registrar should hold a fresh election keeping in view the bye-laws of the society in pursuance to power conferred by Sub Section (2) of Section 25 of the Act.

So far as the disputed questions of fact are concerned, in case still the parties have any grievance, they may prefer a regular suit.

Subject to above, it is provided that the Registrar concerned shall hold the election of the Committee of Management in pursuance to the power conferred by Sub Section (2) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act keeping in view the bye-laws of the society in question. He shall prepare the voters'' list after inviting objections from the parties and display the voter list much before the scheduled date of election. The Registrar concerned is directed to hold election expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It is further provided that till the election is held in accordance with law, the society in question shall be managed by the receiver nominated by the District Magistrate concerned. The District Magistrate is directed to appoint the receiver to discharge routine duty with regard to the present society, forthwith .

Subject to the aforesaid direction, the writ petition is disposed of finally.