Committee of Management, Kishan Lal Ram Kumar Higher Secondary School and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Dilip Gupta, J.—The Committee of Management of Kishan Lal Ram Kumar Higher Secondary, School, Bareilly and Someshwar Dayal Sharma claiming himself to be its Manager have filed this petition for quashing the order dated 28th February, 2009 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as the ''Assistant Registrar'') u/s 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') and the proceedings initiated thereunder. The petitioners have also sought the quashing of the order dated 8th March, 2010 by which the Assistant Registrar has finalised the list of members of the General Body for holding the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society and has also issued the election programme.

The petitioners had earlier also filed Writ Petition No. 24748 of 2009 for setting aside the order dated 28th February, 2009 passed by the Assistant Registrar. This petition was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 12th May, 2009 and the relevant portion of the order is:

The petitioner claims that election of the Society has been held, in which the petitioner has been elected as President. By means of the impugned order dated 28.2.2009, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits refused to accept the list of office bearers submitted by the petitioner.

Categorical finding of fact has been recorded that the last list of office bearers submitted in the year 1979-80 was registered on 25.6.1979. Thereafter no election of Committee of Management has taken place. As such, the Committee of Management of the Society has been declared to be time barred and notice has been issued for holding a meeting of the general body. Dispute questions of fact are involved in this petition which cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. In case if the petitioner has held the election of Committee of Management, it shall have to be proved on the basis of evidence, which can only be done in a regular civil suit. Writ would not be the appropriate remedy.

The writ petition is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.

After the dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition, the Assistant Registrar proceeded to finalise the list of members of the General Body so that the elections could be held u/s 25(2) of the Act. Smt. Mithilesh Kumari Sharma-respondent No. 3 submitted a list of 46 members of the General Body of the Society on 6th May, 2009 while Someshwar Dayal Sharma-petitioner No. 2 submitted a list of 34 members of the General Body of the Society. Both the parties filed objections to the lists filed by the other side and after considering the objections, the Assistant Registrar found that only 34 members out of the 46 members in the list dated 2nd June, 1979 were alive and, therefore, determined the list of 34 members of the General Body. The Assistant Registrar also published the election programme for the election to be held on 10th April, 2010.

Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that since the election of the petitioner-Committee of Management had been held on 7th June, 2006, proceedings u/s 25(2) of the Act could not have been initiated even if the said election was held beyond the period prescribed under the Bye-Laws of the Society. According to him, elections u/s 25(2) of the Act can be held only in a case where the term of the Committee of Management has expired and fresh elections have not been held. It is his submission that despite the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 24748 of 2009 by the judgment and order dated 12th May, 2009, the Court can still examine whether the proceedings could have been validly initiated by the Assistant Registrar u/s 25(2) of the Act. Learned Senior Counsel has also raised submissions that the list of the members of the General Body finalised by the Assistant Registrar on 8th March, 2010 is not correct.

Learned Standing Counsel has made submissions on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 while Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Counsel has made submissions on behalf of respondent No. 3. They have submitted that the writ petition that had been filed by the petitioners for assailing the order dated 28th February, 2009 had been dismissed on 12th May, 2009 and, therefore, it is not open for the petitioners to challenge the same in this petition or challenge the proceedings that have been taken pursuant to the said order. They have further submitted that the petitioner can challenge the validity of the list prepared by the Assistant Registrar on 8th March, 2010 after the elections are held and the result is declared particularly when the election programme had been notified.

I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties.

The submissions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the proceedings could not have been initiated u/s 25(2) of the Act by the Assistant Registrar by the order dated 28th February, 2009 cannot be examined in this writ petition. This order dated 28th February, 2009 had been assailed by the petitioners in the earlier Writ Petition No. 24748 of 2009. The Court dismissed the petition holding that disputed questions of fact were involved and if the petitioner had actually held the election, then it shall have to be proved on the basis of the evidence which can only be done in a regular civil suit. The petitioners have again filed this writ petition for assailing the proceedings initiated u/s 25(2) of the Act. As noticed above, it is by the order dated 28th February, 2009 that proceedings for holding of election u/s 25(2) of the Act had been initiated. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has stated that the petitioners had not filed any civil suit. This contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, therefore, cannot be accepted.

The petitioners have also assailed the validity of the list of members of the General Body of the Society prepared by the Assistant Registrar on 8th March, 2010.

The preliminary objection raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents is that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not interfere with the orders passed at different stages in the holding of the elections of the Committee of Management.

A Division Bench of this Court in Basant Prasad Srivastava and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, examined this issue and observed as follows:

The election process having started, it must come to its logical conclusion. Once it comes to its logical conclusion by declaration of result of the election the aggrieved person may challenge the election by filing election petition or civil suit in accordance with law. In such a proceeding the election may not be set aside if the alleged illegality or irregularity has not materially affected the result of the election. Approach to Court at intermediate stage in the election is bound to result in an office either remaining vacant or being occupied by a person whose entitlement to hold the office has ceased. Neither is a happy situation. It is, therefore, desirable that the election process should end as early as possible and the declaration of result should not be deferred through repeated interim orders passed from time to time.

Another Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management Sri Radha Krishna Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur and Ors. 1950 (4) AIEC 155 also made the following observations:

In this State there are large number of educational institution and the functioning of such institutions are controlled and managed by a Committee of Management. Such Committee is constituted under the rules, regulations or certain Administrative Schemes. The term of such Committee of Management is limited by time. The election process inter alia involves the determination of the members who can vote and participate in the election, nomination, preparation and publication of programme, scrutiny and declaration of result. In case, at the intermediate stage of the elections process the High Court entertains petitions under Article 226 of the constitution it will further delay the election process. Secondly, the disputed question of fact as to who are the members and other related matters cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. A person who has any grievance can take recourse to the remedy provided under the Statute, Rules or Regulations or by filing suit in the competent court of law.

These two judgments were relied upon and followed by a Division Bench of this Court in Gulab Dhar Pandey v. State of U.P. and Ors. 2009 (3) ESC 1640 and it was observed:

This Court has consistently held that once the election process has been started this Court should not interfere. If any party has any grievance about the finalization of the voter list or about the voter list, it is always open to such person to challenge the same in the appropriate proceedings namely under the Statute, Rules or Regulations or by filing suit in the Competent Court of law....

Thus, though submissions have been advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioners for setting aside the list of members of the General Body of the Society prepared by the Assistant Registrar, but it will not be appropriate for this Court to entertain this petition at this stage, in view of the aforesaid decisions rendered by the Division Benches of this Court.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed subject to the observations made above.