AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Ojha learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri U.N. Sharma learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri C.B. Gupta learned counsel for the respondent No. 4., Sri Neeraj Tiwari learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are valid office bearers of the Society. The respondent No. 4 had surreptitiously got a society registered in 1965 about which complaints were made in 1995 and the said society of the respondent No. 4 was not renewed. The Society has established three institutions namely Anglo Sanskrit High School, Anglo Sanskrit Intermediate College and Anglo Sanskrit Degree College which has been renamed as Mahatma Gandhi Degree College, Shanti Nagar, Fatehpur.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioner''s committee for the college has been recognised by the Vice-Chancellor of Chatrapati Sahu Ji Maharaj University on 14.12.2007. The petitioners claim to be in effective control of the same and also claims to have held fresh elections on 21.4.2012 which is pending consideration before the Vice-Chancellor. It is in this back ground that the present dispute relating to the society of the respondent No. 4 has arisen.
Respondent No. 4 appears to have resolved on 23.9.2012 in a meeting that the name of the society be altered and amended and a copy of the said resolution has been filed at Page 49 of the Paper book of the writ petition. This resolution appears to have been tendered before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits who on the very next day appears to have hurriedly issued letter dated 24.9.2012 indicating that the claim can be considered upon a compliance of clause 18 of the said letter. Renewal was granted to the society simultaneously. The petitioners claim to have filed objections on coming to know of the same on the ground that neither the respondent No. 4 was entitled to claim renewal nor entitled to change the name of the society so as to add the words ''Degree College''. It is the said objection which has been rejected by the impugned order dated 10.10.2012 Annexure 15 to the writ petition.
Sri Ojha learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order is cryptic and does not contain any reason and is also without jurisdiction. He contends that the entire claim of the respondent No. 4 is unfounded on facts and law. Therefore the impugned order may be quashed.
Learned counsel for all the respondents and the learned standing counsel contend that the aforesaid contention of the petitioner is incorrect inasmuch as reasons have been recorded on the file while deciding the matter on 9.10.2012. So far as the resolution of the Society is concerned it is very much with the jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar.
Learned standing counsel has also adopted the same arguments.
On these limited submissions learned counsel for the respondents state that they do not propose to file any counter-affidavit at this stage and the matter be decided finally by this Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties the nature of the dispute pertaining to the renewal of the society, in my opinion has to be referred for determination u/s 3-B of the Societies Registration Act which is reproduced herein below:
3-B. Reference to the State Government.--If any question arises whether any society is entitled to get itself registered in accordance with Section 3 or to get its certificate of registration renewed in accordance with Section 3-A, the matter shall be referred to the State Government, and the decision of the State Government thereon shall be final.
The request for accepting an amendment by the Assistant Registrar can be considered only thereafter.
Sri U.N. Sharma learned senior counsel contends that renewal had already been made in favour of the answering respondent on 24.9.2012 and it was only the amendment part for which the matter was left over.
I am not able to agree with the aforesaid contention. The Assistant Registrar has malafidely proceeded to pass the order of renewal on the very next day i.e. on 24.9.2012 without examining the records that he himself refers to in the impugned order that the society of the petitioner already stands registered and renewed from 10.10.2010 to 10.10.2015. In view of the aforesaid fact the ground of renewal to a society of the same name in favour of different persons was totally beyond jurisdiction as he ought to have referred the matter to the State Government u/s 3-B of the Societies Registration Act 1860.
Accordingly neither the grant of renewal dated 24.9.2012 can be sustained nor the decision as recorded on 9.10.2012 can be upheld.
The impugned orders dated 24.9.2012, 9.10.2012 and the impugned communication dated 10.10.2012 are hereby quashed with a direction to the Assistant Registrar to remit the entire records to the State Government for decision in accordance with the observations made herein above u/s 3-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The State Government shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties within 2 months.
The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.