AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioners have rushed to this Court questioning the validity of the order passed by Assistant Registrar Firm Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region Gorakhpur wherein orders have been passed to hold the election of the Committee of Management of the society u/s 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
Record in question reflects that the petitioners have come with the case that elections have been held on 14.098.2009 wherein 17 incumbents have been elected, in this background and the petitioners claim that once valid elections have been held, in such a situation and in this background, by no stretch of imagination Assistant Registrar Firm Societies and Chits was competent to go into the validity of the elections and further direct for holding of the election.
Assistant Registrar Firm Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region Gorakhpur, in the present case on the papers being submitted by the petitioners on 06.01.2011 for renewal and accepting the list of office bearers and members starting from 2005-06 to 2010-11 proceeded to take cognizance and thereafter issued notice to the parties concerned and on the said notice being issued incumbents who have been shown to have been elected as President, Vice President, Treasurer, Auditor as well as members have given affidavit clearly contending therein elections are forged and fictitious. Assistant Registrar Firm Societies and Chits examined the matter and found the proceedings submitted by the petitioners are fake and ingenuine and proceeded to exercise its authority u/s 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act 1860. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
Sri Balwant Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners contended with vehemence that in the present case dispute in question ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority u/s 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, instead of non suiting the elections and exercising authority u/s 25(2) of Societies Registration Act, 1860, as such order passed is totally without jurisdiction.
Countering the said submission learned Standing counsel as well as Sri W.A. Siddiqui, Advocate contended that entire proceedings are forged and fabricated, as such rightful orders have been passed.
After respective arguments have been advanced factual situation which has so emerged that in the present case in respect of election held on 14.08.2009, on 06.01.2011 Iklaq Ahmad proceeded to apply for renewal alongwith original documents and requisite fees and for of the registering the list of Office bearers starting from 2005-06 to 2010-11. On said application being moved notices have been issued and thereafter affidavits have been filed by Hafiz Makabool who has been shown to be elected as President, Taz Mohammad, who has been shown to be elected as Vice President, Muzibullah, who has been shown to have been elected Treasurer and Nurul Hasan, who has been shown to be elected Auditor alongwith Iklaq Ahmad, Abdul Hai, Yaar Mohammad, Abu Sufiyana, and Hidayat-ullaha who have been shown to have been elected as Members have come with specific case that proceedings are forged and they have never participated in the said proceedings. The Assistant Registrar Firm Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region Gorakhpur after satisfying himself that entire proceedings are forged, has proceeded to pass order for holding of fresh election in exercise of authority vested u/s 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 for the reasons that fake and ingenuine elections merely on papers are as good as no elections being there.
Assistant Registrar Firm Societies and Chits in the present case has not at all decided the dispute in respect of election rather he has come to the conclusion that documents have been forged and fabricated to show election on papers and the persons who have been show to have participated have clearly disowned the same.
Petitioners have placed heavy reliance on the case of Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti Junior High School Sikandra District Manpur Dehat and another Vs. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow and others reported in 2010 (3) UPLBEC 2522, and have been insisting that in the facts of the case matter ought to have been referred to Prescribed Authority in stead of Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region Gorakhpur himself deciding the matter.
In the facts of the case ratio of the aforesaid judgment will not come to the rescue of the petitioner for the simple reason that Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region Gorakhpur has found that entire proceedings being forged, fabricated and manipulated. Dispute which is to be referred to the Prescribed Authority has to be genuine dispute and not fake and fanciful dispute.
Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Committee of Management of Rashtriya Junior High School (Society) Vs. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Babhaniayaon Shiksha Samiti and Birendra Kumar Shukla alleged Manager of the Committee of Management of Rashtriya Junior High School, has clearly taken the view that only genuine existence of dispute might give rise of reference to Prescribed Authority through Registrar and incumbent who claims reference has to support his claim of rival body with sufficient clarity. Petitioners have miserably failed on this score.
This Court in the case of Sri Babu Ram Shiksha Prasar Samiti Vs. Deputy Registrar 2007 (9) ADJ 262, has taken the view that renewal and registration of list of office bearers and members is the exclusive domain of Registrar and ingenuine dispute is not be referred. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Adarsh Krishak Junior High School Vs. State of U.P. 200 (9) ADJ 270 has taken the view that Registrar while exercising authority u/s 4A of the Act or granting renewal to the society does not act as a mere post office, and he is not duty bound to refer any and every dispute to Prescribed Authority u/s 25 of the Act. Only a bonafide and genuine dispute could be subject matter of reference and not otherwise. View to the similar effect has again been reiterated in the case reported in 2010 (4) ADJ, the Field Council of Norwegain Evanegical Mission Vs. State of U.P. In the facts of case on the parameters noted above, reference was not at all required.
Consequently, present writ petition as it has been framed and drawn is dismissed.
No order as to cost.