AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard Sri M.A. Qadeer, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Shamim Ahmad, learned Counsel for the Petitioners and Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Udayan Nandan, learned Counsel for the Respondent.
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 28.8.2010, passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh (Annexure-19 to the writ petition) as well as order dated 18.9.2010, passed by the Respondent No. 3 (Annexure-20 to the writ petition). Further, a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the District Minority Welfare Officer, Mau, to continue disbursing the salary of Teachers of the Madarsa.
It appears that Petitioner No. 1-Anjuman Madarsa Arabia Khairul Madaris is an Institution registered under the Societies Registration Act governed by the registered bye laws. The Madarsa is run by the Committee of Management elected by the General Body of the Society. The Committee of Management is recognized by the Respondent No. 3. It is also in the list of grant-in-aid and the aid is disbursed through District Minority Welfare Officer. According to Petitioners, there were 378 members of the General Body. In the meeting of General Body held, Shamshul Huda was elected as President and Abul Hasan was elected as General Secretary/Manager, in which 85 members had taken part. Admittedly, the last election was held on 6.1.2005, in which Shamshul Huda was elected as President and Abul Hasan was elected as Secretary. The Secretary has issued a list of 378 members of the General Body. On the basis of aforesaid list, the last election was held under the president-ship of Shamshul Huda, in which various office bearers were elected. A meeting dated 6.1.2005 of the General Body was held, in which 350 members had participated. The meeting was presided by one Haji Shamshuddin and Khaliq Ahmad was elected as President and Zameer Ahmad as Secretary. According to Petitioners, the term of the Committee of Management is five years. When the term was going to expire a meeting was held and it was decided to hold the election. A list of 378 members were issued in the signature of Khaliq Ahmad. The election agenda was issued and the election was held on 7.3.2010, in which one Ziaul Hasan was elected as President and Petitioner No. 3 was elected as Manager/Secretary and the papers were sent to the Assistant Registrar for passing appropriate orders.
According to Petitioners, when Zameer Ahmad lost the said election held on 7.3.2010, he fabricated some resolution and election was alleged to be held on 21.4.2008. The minutes of same were filed before the Assistant Registrar. In the meantime, it appears that a writ petition was filed before this Court as Writ Petition No. 38216 of 2010. The same was decided on 7.7.2010 by quashing the order of Assistant Registrar as well as the District Minority Welfare Officer and the Assistant Registrar was directed to proceed to decide the matter expeditiously.
According to Petitioners, the election was held and papers were submitted and the District Minority Welfare Officer has attested the same and the Petitioners-Committee of Management was working, but at that time Respondents have not put their claim and in 2010 they have manipulated the documents and come with a case that the last election was held in 2008, therefore, any election held by the Petitioners cannot be held to be valid and all the papers are forged. Sri M.A. Qadeer, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioners has submitted that in paragraph 14 a specific averment has been made that when Zameer Ahmad lost the said election held on 7.3.2010, he fabricated some resolution and election was alleged to be held on 21.4.2008 and on 17.3.2010 he sent a letter to the Assistant Registrar along with minutes of forged meeting dated 21.4.2008, in which Khaliq Ahmad was again elected as President and Zameer Ahmad as Manager/Secretary. According to Respondents, election dated 21.4.2008 was alleged to be held amongst the list of 34 members. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that as there was a real dispute between two Committee of Management and rival claims are there, therefore, the Assistant Registrar was having no jurisdiction and he has to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority to decide the same. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance upon Paras 5 and 6 of the judgment reported in 1987 UPLBEC 989, Committee of Management, Cramothan Shiksha Parishad Gramothan Junior High School Barwala, Distt., Muzaffarnagar and Anr. v. Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Muzaffarnagar and Anr. which are being quoted below:
The dispute between the parties is which election is valid the one held on 10-2-1986 at which Respondent Santosh Kumar has been elected as Manager or the one held on 23-2-1986, at which the Petitioner was elected as Manager. The provisions contained in Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) cover disputes regarding the elections before the Assistant Registrar and in such circumstances it was incumbent upon the Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute between the parties to the Prescribed Authority u/s 25(1) of the Act. Instead of doing what he was required to do under the law, the Assistant Registrar has in his order dated 22/24-5-1986 observed that it was open to the Petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority alongwith 1/4th member of the Society u/s 25(1) of the Act. This approach of the Assistant Registrar was obviously not proper and this is well proved by the series of litigations referred to above.
Accordingly, on consideration we set aside the order dated 22/24-5-1986 of the Assistant Registrar (Annexure-1 to writ petition No. 8727 of 1986). In order to bring this vexatious litigation to a close at an early date, we direct the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Meerut to make a reference of the dispute between the parties regarding the elections according to law to the Prescribed Authority within fifteen days from the date the certified copy of this order is produced before him, forwarding along with the reference a copy of this order. We further direct the concerned Prescribed Authority to decide the dispute according to law within four months from the date of receipt of the reference from the Assistant Registrar after due notice to both sides and hearing time. Till the decision of the Prescribed Authority the College shall be managed by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Muzaffarnagar or his nominee who shall not be either Petitioner Nawab Singh or Respondent Santosh Kumar. All orders relating to attestation and recognition passed from time to time by the Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari which from the subject-matter of these writ petitions shall abide the result of the decision of the Prescribed Authority, while deciding the dispute the Prescribed Authority shall not be influenced in any manner by any observation of this Court in any of these writ petitions.
Further, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has placed reliance upon Para 2 of the judgment reported in 1981 UPLBEC 308, Vijai Narain Singh v. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits Registration, U.P. Lucknow and Ors. which reads as under:
Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in substance the dispute was whether the Petitioner or Respondent No. 5 was the duly elected Manger-cum-Secretary. This was an election dispute. u/s 25(1) of the U.P. Societies Registration Act as amended in 1975, it was liable to be decided only by the Prescribed Authority. The Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain or decide such a dispute. The point has substance. Section 25(1) aforesaid reads:
Disputes regarding election of office bearers.-(1) The Prescribed Authority may on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society registered in U.P., hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit.
It is, thus, apparent that the Registrar himself had no jurisdiction to hear and decide any doubt or dispute in respect of an election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such a society. His decision that the Respondent No. 5 continues to be the Manger-cum-Secretary or that the Petitioner was not duly elected was wholly without jurisdiction. He was in law bound to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority.
Lastly, reliance has been placed upon Paras 24 & 25 of the judgment reported in 1988 UPLBEC 515, Urwa Bazar Educational Society, Urwa Bazar, Gorakhpur and Anr. v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Units, Division Gorakhpur and Ors. which are being reproduced below:
From the above it is clear that the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur while passing the impugned order dated 17-4-1986 acted without jurisdiction and manifestly erred in law and the order dated 17-4-1986 deserves to be quashed.
In the other writ petition No. 8764 of 1986 filed by Urwa Bazar Educational Society Gorakhpur the order dated 16-4-1986 passed by the Assistant Registrar has been challenged by which the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits U.P. Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Registrar) renewed the registration of the Society with Khirodhi Singh as the Secretary/Manager and it has been urged on behalf of Urwa Bazar Society by its learned Counsel Sri G. N. Verma that the Assistant Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the impugned order dated 16-4-1986.
Taking support of the aforesaid judgments, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that Division Bench of this Court has held that in case of some dispute like such the Assistant Registrar is having no jurisdiction and he has to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority for decision, but without referring the dispute he himself has decided the same, therefore, the order is without jurisdiction and is liable to be quashed.
On the other hand, Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent submits that there is no dispute to this effect that if a dispute like such, as submitted by the Petitioners, is there then the matter has to be referred to the Prescribed Authority u/s 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 but if the total proceeding and claim is based on forged documents and there is no bona fide dispute regarding the rival Committee of Management and election, then the Assistant Registrar has a power to decide the same. It is clear that a cogent finding on the basis of record has been recorded that in case the claim of the Petitioners, as setup, is accepted in spite of that it clearly appears that the claim is based on a wrong footing. A finding has been recorded that the Petitioners have put up a claim of 378 members. From the record it was proved that 20 members have already expired and 22 members are living abroad, therefore, 42 members admittedly were absent. There is no document to show that how they have been given notice. Further, if the contention of the Petitioners is accepted out of 378 only 336 members remain and according to Petitioners 365 members have taken part, therefore, it clearly establish that the case setup by the Petitioners was not based on a bona fide consideration.
From the record, it appears that the last election was held in 2008 in which Respondent-Committee of Management was recognized. The term of the Committee of Management is three years, therefore, the next election is due in 2011, but in the meantime, Petitioners alleged to have enrolled various members and a list of 378 members were produced and it was alleged that election in the month of March 2010 was held. There is no dispute in law that if there is a bona fide dispute between two rival Committee of Management then it has to be referred to the Prescribed Authority u/s 25(1) of the Act, but it has to be established that it is a bona fide dispute. Unless and until from the record it is established that it is a bona fide dispute then the Assistant Registrar is not obliged to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority. From the finding recorded by the Assistant Registrar it is clear that the case setup by the Petitioners appears to be based on forged documents. It is clear from the record that the last election, held in 2008 of the Committee of Management of the Society, was recognized and term of the Committee of Management is three years, in such circumstances, the Assistant Registrar was of the view that there is no bona fide dispute, therefore, it is not necessary to refer the same.
From the perusal of the judgment, I am also of the opinion that unless and until it is established that there is a bona fide dispute, there is no obligation on the part of the Assistant Registrar to refer the same. He can decide himself and finding recorded by the Assistant Registrar is based on evidence after consideration of relevant records, therefore, I am of the opinion that Petitioners does not deserve any relief by this Court.
The writ petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. It is, however, open to the Petitioners to approach the Civil Court for their grievances.