Dinesh Chandra Sati vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

The petitioner before this Court stood for elections of Chairman, Vyapar Mandal, Pirumdara in District Nainital. Admittedly, the petitioner was defeated in the said elections and he has not been elected as the Chairman of Vyapar Mandal, Pirumdara. For that he raised a dispute before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who is the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (as applicable in the State of Uttarakhand). The Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act, inter alia, decides the disputes of the office bearers of the society. The matter was put before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramnagar by the petitioner. However, instead of deciding the dispute himself, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate has referred the matter to the Sub-Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, who in turn has referred the matter to "Prantiya Udyog Vyapar Pratinidhi Mandal".

Admittedly there is shifting of responsibility by each of these officers. The authority which has been mandated by law to decide such disputes is the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, which in the present case would be the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Ramnagar.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also takes strength from a decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Jai Prakash Agarwal vs. Prescribed Authority/S.D.M., reported in 1998 (4) AWC 10 and relies upon paragraph no. 6 of the said judgment, which reads as under:-

"6. Considering the object and reasons mentioned above and from the close look of the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Act, the legislative intent is clear that it was to provide a forum for deciding the dispute in respect of election or continuance in office of office-bearers of a society. Section provides grounds on which the election of office-bearers can be set aside by the prescribed authority. Explanations I and II provide when a person shall be deemed to have committed corrupt practices. Explanation III confers authority on the State Government to prescribe the procedure for hearing and decision of doubts or disputes in respect of such elections and make provisions in respect of any other matter relating to such elections for which insufficient provision exists in the Act or in the rules of the society. Explanation to Section 25 further provides that for the purpose of this section, the expression 'prescribed authority' means an officer or Court authorised in this behalf by the State Government by notification published in the official Gazette. Thus, if authorised by the State Government by notification published in the official Gazette, the officer or the Court shall be prescribed authority for purpose of the Act. The State Government by notification dated October, 28, 1975, published in U.P. Gazette. Extra, dated 28th October, 1975 has authorised the Sub-Divisional Magistrate as prescribed authority. The notification reads as under:-

"In exercise of the powers under the Explanation to Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act No.21 of 1860), as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh by the Societies Registration (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 1975 (U.P. Act No. 52 of 1975), the Governor is pleased to authorize the Sub-Divisional Magistrates within their respective jurisdiction to act as the 'prescribed authority' for the purposes of the said section of the said Act."

Admittedly, this notification is still applicable in the State of Uttarakhand after it was carved out from the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh.

In view thereof, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 11.03.2019 and 20.04.2019 are hereby set aside. A mandamus is hereby issued to the Prescribed Authority to decide the dispute under the provisions of Section 25 of the Act, as expeditiously as possible.