Committee of Management and others vs State of U.P.and others

Devi Prasad Singh,J.

Heard Dr. L.P.Mishra learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P.C.Agarwal learned counsel for the respondents.

A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is not maintainable against the impugned order contained in Annexure1 to the writ petition by which the society in question managed by the respondents have been renewed by the Registrar.

From the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it borne out that the election of the committee of management was held on 14.12.2003 and thereafter on 17.12.2006. Two rival factions namely Dr. Rajendra Prasad Mishra and Shri Madhusudan Shukla had installed their claim on the basis of election held in the year 2003 and 2006. Dispute with regard to election was referred to the prescribed authority on the complaint of petitioner. It appears that before prescribed authority the claim was dismissed for nonprosecution on 20.7.2006 and thereafter the restoration application was moved by the petitioner which is still pending. Accordingly, so far as controversy in question with regard to validity of committee of management elected for the society is concerned is still has not been adjudicated by the prescribed authority. Admittedly the restoration application has not been allowed till date.

Learned counsel for the respondents invited attention towards a Division Bench judgement of this Court reported in (1998) 1 UPLBEC 399, Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Allahabad and another Vs. Registrar, Societies, Chits and Firms, U.P. Lucknow and others where Division Bench of this Court held that once the registration of the society renewed then such order can not be impugned before this court and option before the aggrieved party is to approach before the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act or file a regular suit.

Para 13 of the judgment is reproduced as under:

"The question now left is as to what relief may be given to the petitioners in the facts and circumstances of the case. In our opinion, in cases where both the sides were seeking renewal of registration of the same society, they cannot be said to be aggrieved party, if the renewal of the registration is granted by the authority concerned. The renewal is of the registration of the society and it is for benefit of all the members and office bearers of the society. There may be a situation that two rival factions of the same society may apply for renewal separately and the renewal may be granted at the instance of one of them but the ultimate beneficiary shall be the society as a whole and not the individuals alone seeking renewal. In such a situation after renewal of the registration of the society, the dispute about renewal must be taken to have come to an end. The issue left between the parties shall be in substance a dispute with regard to the membership of the society or offices claimed by them which cannot be decided by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 under the provisions of the Act. For that the parties should approach either the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act or may file suit in Civil Court. While granting or refusing renewal of registration if any finding is recorded by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, that while be only a tentative or prima facie view taken on the basis of the material on record for purposes of renewal only. Obviously such a finding of an administrative authority cannot have any binding effect o the parties, while contesting the issue before the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Act or in a suit before Civil Court, which shall be quasijudicial and judicial proceedings respectively."

However, Dr. L.P.Mishra while assailing the impugned order submits that the Registrar while deciding the controversy had exceeded his jurisdiction. He should not have recorded finding on merit with regard to validity of election held between the parties.

On the other hand Shri P.C.Agarwal learned counsel for the respondents submits that in pursuance to order dated 10.7.2008 as contained in Annexure3 to the writ petition, fresh election was held on 27.8.2008.

From the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it is evident at the face of record that there is serious dispute between two rival committee of management with regard to election held in the year 2006 or in the year 2008. So far as the election of 2008 is concerned it was held in pursuance to order contained in Annexure3 to the writ petition.

I am of the view that the controversy involved disputed question of fact and it may only be adjudicated by the prescribed authority in pursuance to power conferred by subsection 1 of section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. The finding of fact with regard to election in question can not be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, parties have got option either to approach prescribed authority or file a regular suit before the court of competent jurisdiction. Accordingly, no case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is made out. However, it is provided that in case, any application for restoration has been moved of the earlier dispute then prescribed authority shall decide the same in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the present order. In case, pending matter is restored then the prescribed authority shall adjudicate the same in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties.

It is further provided that in case, petitioner moves an application under SubSection 1 of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act to the Deputy Registrar challenging the alleged election held on 27.8.2008 for reference to prescribed authority then Deputy Registrar shall decide the application in accordance to law after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of two months and in case the matter is referred to prescribed authority, he shall adjudicate the same in accordance to law after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months.

While deciding the controversy the prescribed authority shall not be influenced by the observation made by the Deputy Registrar while passing the impugned order under Section 3 A read with Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act.

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