Committee of Management, Sarvodaya Mandal and Others vs Asstt. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and Others

M. Katju, J.—Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the writ petition as well as counter-affidavit. It appears that an election of the office bearers of the society was held on 18.5.1995 in which the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were elected for 3 years and an intimation was sent to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad, who recognised the same. Subsequently, it is alleged in paragraph 4 of the writ petition that a meeting was convened on 29.9.95 of the general body in which the decision was taken to dissolve the existing committee of management, and a new committee of management was constituted on the same date with the Petitioner No. 2 as the president, Sri. Manni Lal as the Vice-President. Sri. Madho Lal as the Secretary and Sri. Buddan as the Treasurer. It is surprising that on the same date, i.e. 29.9.1995, the existing office bearers were alleged to have been removed and a new committee of management were alleged to have been elected. In my opinion, this is manifestly illegal because for any election a date has to be fixed for filing of nomination, a date for voting and for counting etc. It is simply not possible that on the very same date on which the existing office bearers were allegedly removed, i.e., 29.9.1995, a fresh election was held without even announcing any election schedule, including the date of nomination, date of voting and counting, etc. Thus, the Petitioners appear to have no case.

Sri. Ashok Khare learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad, had no jurisdiction to decide the matter himself and he should have referred the matter u/s 25 of the Societies Registration Act to the prescribed authority. In my opinion, it is only when there is some genuine dispute about the office bearers of the society that reference has to be made to the prescribed authority, and not when there is a frivolous dispute. In my opinion, the Petitioners are raising only a frivolous dispute. Hence, there is no force in this petition and it is dismisssed.