Ram Surat Pandey vs The Assistant Registrar, Firms and Others

Sibghat Ullah Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition was earlier dismissed on9.5.2005 by the following order;

Matter is called out. Even in the revised call none appears on behalf of the Petitioner. Besides that the connected writ petition No. 3301 of 1999 has already been dismissed by a reasoned order of date passed on that petition and, therefore, this petition also stands dismissed.

Against the said order special appeal No. 829 of 2005 was filed which was also dismissed on 11.7.2005. Thereafter the Petitioner approached the Hon''ble Supreme Court through SLP which was converted into civil appeal No. 4500 of 2006 and allowed on 16.10.2006. The Supreme Court in its judgment observed as follows;

Learned Counsel for the Appellant, however, submits that the Appellant had neither any concern with the writ petition No. 3301 of 1999 nor in his case there was any finding about the genuineness of the membership. In the aforesaid view, we feel that it would be expedient to set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and that of the single Judge and remit the Writ Petition No. 8740 of 1999 for its fresh decision by a learned single Judge after granting opportunity of hearing to counsel for all the parties.

This writ petition is directed against order dated 8.1.1999 passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Varanasi, copy of which is Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The matter related to membership dispute of the Society known by the name of Janta Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Panwara, District Jaunpur which runs a Junior high school by the same name. The impugned order was passed pursuant to the directions issued in that regard on 17.1.1997 by this Court while finally disposing of the writ petition No. 11280 of 1985 filed by the school through R.K. Tiwari (Annexure-II). The rival claimants to the management were/are Triloki Nath Yadav and Radhakrishna Tewari. Both claim to be managers of Committee of management/Executive Committee of the Society. In the impugned order it is mentioned that both of them were provided due opportunity of hearing and in pursuance thereof they filed their objections and documents and written arguments in support of their cases. Through the impugned order it was held that Shri Radha Krishna Tewari was not even a valid member as on his receipt of membership forged (farji) registration number was mentioned and printing of Rs. 501/- as membership fees on the said receipt was against the registered rules/bye�laws and there was difference between the signatures also. Thereafter, it was directed that fresh election should be held u/s 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act and only those members should be taken to be valid members who were made by the signatures of previous Manager Shri Triloki Nath Yadav before 25.11.1983 when the dispute arose. The said list contained 32 members whose names are mentioned in the impugned order. Name of the Petitioner is not there. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner the Petitioner was enrolled as member in the year 1983 by Shri Radha Krishna Tewari who was manager at that time. The order dated 8.1.1999 which has been challenged by this writ petition was also challenged by Shri Radha Krishna Tewari through writ petition No. 3301 of 1999. The said writ petition was dismissed on 9.5.2005. Last two paragraphs of the said judgments are quoted below;

In the instant case, the Assistant Registrar has recorded a categorical finding that the primary membership of the Petitioner is not genuine and, therefore, the appropriate remedy for the Petitioner is to challenge the same by filing a suit and the writ petition is not the appropriate remedy. The writ petition, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed with the liberty to the Petitioner to file suit, if so advised, before the competent Court." (In the said writ petition Radha Krishna Tewari was Petitioner No. 2 who stated himself to be Manager of Petitioner No. 1 - Janata Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti Machlishahar).

Shri Radha Krishna Tewari thereafter filed Original suit No. 333 of 2005. Copy of the plaint of the said suit was supplied when this writ petition was heard.

Petitioner was not party before the Assistant Registrar in the proceedings which culminated in the impugned order dated 8.1.1999. He claims to have been made member by Radha Krishna Tewari or during the period when allegedly Radha Krishna Tewari was Manager of Committee of management. Through the impugned order it has been held that Radha Krishna Tewari himself was not a member of the Society. In view of this Petitioner cannot claim any right independently except through Radha Krishna Tewari. It is preposterous to suggest that he would have contested the proceedings before the Assistant Registrar mainly for the benefit of Radha Krishna Tewari more appropriately than Radha Krishna Tewari himself.

Accordingly, in my opinion those persons who were alleged to have been enrolled by Radha Krishna Tewari or during the period when Radha Krishna Tewari claimed to be the Manager of the executive body of the society cannot independently challenge the impugned order passed by the Assistant Registrar. From the perusal of the impugned order it is clear that Radha Krishna Tewari did not show any laxity in contesting the proceedings.

Accordingly, the statement of learned Counsel for the Petitioner before the Supreme Court that "nor in his case there was any finding about the genuineness of the membership" was not 100% correct. Assistant Registrar through the impugned order held that Shri Radha Krishan Tewari himself was not valid member hence all those members who were stated to have been enrolled by him or under his signatures were not valid members.

Accordingly I hold that firstly, Petitioner does not have an independent right to challenge the impugned order independent of Radha Krishna Tewari and secondly, as a suit has already been filed by Radha Krishna Tewari hence this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

Petitioner if so advised may seek impleadment in the suit (O.S. No. 333 of 1985). If such an application is filed then it must independently be decided by the trial court including its maintainability irrespective of the permission which is being granted through this judgment. Ordered accordingly.