AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Bhartiya Vidyalaya Nitanandpur, Post Mohanpur, Ratanpur, District Kannauj (hereinafter referred to as the Society) was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 4.1.1982. The registration of the society has been renewed from time to time and it runs an educational institution namely, Bhartiya Inter College Nitanandpur Post office Mohanpur, District Kannauj which is a recognized institution up to Intermediate which imparts education from class 6 to class 12 and is not on the grant-in-aid list of the State Government.
It is averred in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that in the year 1987-88 a list of members of the general body of the society was prepared by the then Management of the College under the signatures of the then Manager, Sri Peshkar Singh, respondent No. 5, the then President late Raghuveer Sahai Dwivedi and late Raj Kumar who was its treasurer. It is also stated that petitioner No. 2 Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav is also included in the aforesaid list and 4 members of the general body namely, Sri Raghuveer Sahai, Raj Kumar, Raj Kumar Mishra and Virendra Singh passed away in 1990, 2002, 1991 and 2006 respectively. Two members namely, Mohan Lal and Babu Ram Pal have been removed from the membership of the society in 1989. On account of non-deposit of their membership fee and only the members whose names are mentioned in paragaph 6 of the writ petition are alive and valid members.
It is claimed that the last undisputed election of the Committee of Management of the college was held on 20.4.2004 in which Sri Babu Ram was elected as its President and Sri Peshkar Singh, respondent No. 5 was elected as its Manager; and that the next election of the Committee of Management of the college fell due in the month of April, 2007. After the elections were held on 8.4.2007 and thereafter a meeting of the general body of the society was held on the same day in the college for electing 6 office bearers and 7 members of the Committee of Management of the college in which Sri Babu Ram was elected as President of the college and Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav as its Manager.
The entire records/documents relating to the election dated 8.4.2007 including the list of newly elected office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the college are said to have been submitted by the President, Sri Babu Ram before the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur, respondent No. 3 on 17.4.2007 along with a covering letter and with his own notary affidavit dated 13.4.2007.
It is further claimed that at the time of submitting the list of the members of newly elected Committee of Management on 17.4.2007 before the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies & Chits, Kanpur, respondent No. 3, there was no other rival Committee of Management of the college before him. However, in view of the fact that the list of office bearers of the Committee of Management submitted by the newly elected President Sri Babu Ram did not bear counter signatures of 4 office bearers of the earlier Committee of Management of the college, hence the notice dated 8.5.2007 was issued inviting objections but no objections were filed within time by the aforesaid 4 office bearers of the earlier Committee of Management therefore the Deputy Registrar, respondent No. 3 has accepted and registered the list of office bearers and members of the Committee of Management submitted by the newly elected President Sri Babu Ram.
According to the Counsel for the petitioners Sri Peshkar Singh, respondent No. 5 also staked his claim for Manager of the Committee of Management of the college on the basis of time barred, forged and fabricated election proceedings alleged to have been held on 13.5.2007. On the basis of a forged list of members of the general body of the society containing 21 members in total and in the said total 21 members only 7 genuine members of the general body of the society whose names figured in the list of members of general body of the society of the year 1987-88 were included. It is stated that in so far as the remaining 14 members illegally included in the said list are concerned, they are relatives of Sri Peshkar Singh, respondent No. 5 whose names are mentioned in paragraph 17 of the writ petition.
It is also urged that Sri Peshkar Singh, respondent No. 5 in his list members of general body of the society has included, accommodated and inducted members of his family by simply causing disappearance of names of other members of the general body without removing them as per the bye-laws of the society which is apparent from the list of the general body of the society for the year 2006-07.
It is then urged that Bhanu Prakash Singh son of Sri Peshkar Singh and his daughter-in-law Smt. Manoj Kumari wife of Niwas Chandra were not members of the general body but in his list of members of general body of the society for the year 2007-08, but their names have been included in the aforesaid list of 2006-07 of the members of general body.
It is lastly submitted that Sri Peshkar Singh, respondent No. 5 submitted a forged, frivolous and vexatious objection dated 6.6.2007 before the Deputy Registrar, respondent No. 3 raising an objection interalia that petitioner No. 2 is not a member of the general body of the society, hence registration of his Committee of Management may be cancelled and the Committee of Management of respondent No. 5 may be registered. Petitioner No. 2 filed his reply on 14.8.2007 refuting the allegations made by Sri Peshkar Singh in the aforesaid objection dated 6.6.2007.
It is averred in paragraph 23 of the writ petition that the Deputy Registrar, respondent No. 3 passed an order dated 21.8.2007 rejecting the objection filed by Sri Peshkar Singh and feeling aggrieved by the same, the alleged Committee of Management headed by Sri Peshkar Singh himself challenged in C.M.W.P. No. 43384 of 2007 which was decided by this Court by judgment and order dated 12.9.2007 which is appended as Annexure-6-B to the writ petition. The relevant portion of the judgment and order dated 12.9.2007 is as under:
Once fraud and manipulation was being alleged and the affidavits had been filed, then it was bounden duty of the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to examine all these aspects of the matter but all these facts have been ignored. In this background, there is complete failure on the part of the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits in deciding the matter in its correct perspective. Sri G.K. Singh, Advocate, has agreed the impugned order being quashed and matter being remitted back to Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits to be decided afresh.
Consequently, writ petition is allowed. Order dated 21.8.2007 passed by Deputy Registar, Firms, Societies and Chits is hereby quashed; matter is remitted back to said authority for being decided afresh. It is made clear that Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits shall examine as to whether Mahendrra Singh is Yadav is primary member of the general body of the society or not and also shall record prima facie satisfaction on following three aspects:- (i) persons who convened meeting for holding election had authority to do so; (ii) persons who participated in the election were valid members entitled to participate in the election; and (iii) elections were held as per provisions as contained in the bye7 laws of the society, and in case Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits finds that there is bonafide genuine dispute, then in that event after recording reasons, he may refer the mater to the Prescribed Authority.
No order as to costs.
The aforesaid judgment dated 12.9.2007 was challenged by Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav in Special Appeal No. 1298 of 2007, Mahendra Singh Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors. which was dismissed vide judgment dated 27.9.2007 in view of the fact that the judgment dated 12.9.2007 was a remand order. Thereafter, Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Kanpur, respondent No. 3 has proceeded to decide the matter afresh. The Deputy Registrar, respondent No. 3 has passed the impugned order on 1.5.2008 which is assailed by the petitioners on the ground that he has failed to appreciate the correct facts the circumstances of the case as well as the legal questions involved therein and has passed the order impugned under utter misconception of facts and law and in the teeth of the judgment and order of this Court dated 12.9.2007 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43384 of 2007. By the impugned order the Prescribed Authority on the basis of evidence, affidavits and the original documents filed before it has come to the conclusion that.
Contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that by passing the impugned order dated 1.5.2008 the Deputy Registrar, respondent No. 3 has wrongly and illegally has held that the election proceedings of petitioner No. 2 dated 8.4.2007 are invalid and election proceedings of Sri Peshkar Singh dated 13.5.2007 are valid. According to the petitioner, the aforesaid order is based upon misinterpretation and misreading of bye-laws of the society and that he has failed to appreciate that the alleged election proceedings of Sri Peshkar Singh dated 13.5.2007 were time barred and is bad, forged and fabricated list of 21 members of the general body of the society which contained the names of only 7 members of the society and most of the remaining illegal 15 members of his list included the relatives and the family members of Sri Peshkar Singh, respondent No. 5 which cannot be sustained.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the following rulings in support of his aforesaid contention.
All India Council and Another Vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and Another, and
1981 UPLBEC 308 Vijai Narain Singh v. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Registration, U.P. Lucknow and Ors.
In All India Council (supra) it has been held that if a dispute is raised with regard to the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, the same has to be decided only by the Prescribed Authority u/s 25(1) and not by the Registrar, save, of course, to the decision of the Prescribed Authority being subject to the result of a civil suit. If such a dispute is raised before or is brought to the notice of the Registrar, he should refer the same for adjudication to the Prescribed Authority and he cannot claim to decide that dispute himself.
In Vijay Narain Singh (supra) it has been held that the Registrar himself has no jurisdiction to hear and decide any doubt or dispute in respect of an election or continuance in office of an officer of society. Therefore any decision given by him in this regard will be wholly without jurisdiction. He is in law bound to refer any such dispute to the Prescribed Authority.
From perusal of the impugned order it appears that respondent No. 3 has based his conclusion upon the original documents, affidavits and oral evidence etc. produced by the parties. He has also considered the evidence which is on the record in shape of affidavits etc. and has thereafter come to the conclusion that the election of the society of the petitioner was illegal and in fact it was never held as such it is based upon forged and fabricated documents by committing fraud. These are discussed in details in the conclusions arrived at by Deputy Registrar, respondent No. 3 quoted above in this judgment.
The society was registered on 4.1.1982 which has been renewed from time to time every 5 years by Sri Peshkar Singh who has produced the original renewal certificates as well as papers/registers regarding elections held regularly as well as other papers for the periods 4.1.82 to 21.6.2006 but the name of Sri,Mahendra Singh Yadav is not recorded as Manager in the original records such as memberships list and election papers of the society; that Sri Mahendra Singh has staked his claim for the first time on 17.4.2007, on basis of membership list of 2007-2008, entries made in Income-expenditure Register as well as proceedings of election officer for holding elections dated 8.4.2007.
The authority in its order has noted various contradictions and irregularities in the claim of Mahendra Singh Yadav such as that agenda for election as well as elections dated 8.4.2007 have been held under the President ship of Sri Babu Ram. He has stated that election papers of petitioner Mahendra Singh to be ''Farzi'' and has filed 18 affidavits of the members with their photograph out of 21 members, in support of his case whereas Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav is said to have submitted 10 affidavits out of 30 members of his general body in support of his election held on 8.4.2007.
The authority has also noted that agenda has not been confirmed in any later meeting but on the same day i.e. 8.4.2007 showing that in election proceedings dated 8.4.2007 the name pf Deputy Manager was proposed by Sri Yadunath Yadav who on the other hand, has been shown to be absent. It was therefore, concluded by the authority that the proceedings of Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav are incorrect and they do not verify the fact that an election was held by him on 8.4.2007; that from perusal of the membership Register and membership fee receipt book produced by Sri Mahendra Singh it appears that from 1.1.2007 to 12.3.2007 26 members have been made. Sri Mahendra Singh was not the Manager of the society on the aforesaid dates, hence he has no right or authority to make a member of the society. Besides this, Sri Peshkar Singh, Sri Ram Hitas Verma, Sri Mahesh Chandra and Radhey Shyam have been made members of the society inspite of non-payment of membership fee by them. The Income-Expenditure Register has begun from 2006-07, page 1 of the cash register has been verified by Sri Mahendra Singh as Manager of the society and from page Nos. 2 to 15 (1.4.06 to 31.3.2007) have also been verified by Sri Mahendra Singh whereas according to the proceedings produced by him it appears that he has been elected as Manager of the society for the first time on 8.4.2007. Thus, it is apparent from the Membership register as well as Income-Expenditure register that most of the signatures of Sri Mahendra Singh are not correct.
The authority has further noted that Sri Babu Ram Yadav, Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav, Prof. Naubat Singh, Sri Sarvesh Kumar, Sri Kanhaiya Lal and Sri Baba Vishwanath Tyagi have been shown to be general members each having paid Rs. 36/-as membership fee whereas the membership fee paid by Sri Rajvir Singh has been shown to be Rs. 36/- on 9.2.2007The aforesaid six persons have after six months again been shown as new members of the society whereas in the registered bye-laws of the society Rs. 11/- is the yearly subscription and Rs. 1/- as monthly subscription. Thus it appears that the Membership Register is not correct.
According to the President of the registered society the Mantri has power to call a meeting of the members as well as to preside over the meeting, fix a date of the meeting and for stay of the meeting proceedings; that from the Agenda Register produced by Sri Mahendra Singh it appears that the agenda has been shown to have been issued by the President whereas he himself has refuted this fact by means of his affidavit filed before the authority; that according to the agenda produced by Sri Peshkar Singh it appears that it has been issued by the Mantri which has also been signed by the President as well as by the Manager of the society.
Thus due to wrong papers relating to membership and elections Sri Mehendra Singh Yadav has not been found founder member of the society and those members have right to participate in the election who are the members of the society.
There is no provision in the registered bye-laws regarding annual subscription of membership Rs. 36/- nor it is established from the documents produced by Sri Peshkar Singh. The photocopies of receipts of Rs. 36/- has been produced by Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav from which it appears that the signatures of Sri Peshkar Singh are ''fargi''. It appears that Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav in order to prove his claim got the documents prepared on previous dates.
It appears from perusal of the impugned order that the authority has come to a definite conclusion on basis of pleadings, documents and oral evidence that elections dated 8.4.2007 held by the petitioner were not conducted by Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav according to the provisions of the registered bye-laws of the society and that the President had no power or authority to can a meeting of the society in accordance with the registered bye-laws of the society. The authority has also come to the conclusion that Sri Mahendra Singh Yadav has failed to prove his claim that the election proceedings were held in accordance with the registered bye-laws of the society and has found the claim of Sri Peshkar Singh to be correct directing the authority to proceed in the matter further.
Admittedly, respondent No. 3 in pursuance of remand order in Writ Petition No. 43384 of 2007 has come to a factual conclusion from the documents and evidence on record submitted before him that the list of members submitted by the petitioner are not genuine and the election said to have been held by him is based on forged and manufactured papers. He has not decided any dispute regarding election and continuance of office bearers of the society. Even u/s 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 regarding any dispute of election or continuance of office bearers of the society the matter can be agitated before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits and even if the dispute is not referred by the Assistant Registrar the matter can be agitated by 1/4 the members of the society and can be decided in a summary manner by the Prescribed Authority. The matter being summary in nature the petitioner has an efficacious and alternative remedy by way of filing civil suit before the Civil Court.
For the aforesaid reasons I am not inclined to interfere in the matter in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of efficacious and alternative remedy. No order as to costs.