AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri D. P. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
In the instant writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 1452008 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Faizabad, on the complaint of opposite party No. 3Mohd. Kalam Khan and the order dated 10102008, passed by opposite party No. 1 whereby the dispute has been referred under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act to the Prescribed Authority.
In short the facts of the case as averred in the writ petition are that petitioner No. 1Ittahadul Muslemeen Maktab Islami School Society is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and it was renewed from time to time. The petitioner No. 2, who is the founder member of the society, is said to be the Manager of the Society. The affairs of the Society as well as the schools run and managed by the said Society are governed by the Byelaws which are duly registered. During the period 922003 to 922008, Fazlul Haque was the President and Farid Ahmad was the Manager of the Society. On 28122005, Farid Ahmad expired.
According to the byelaws of the Society, the membership of a member ceased to exists after his death. Thus, after the death of Farid Ahmad, his membership was ceased to exist and according to the procedure as laid down in the byelaws, Shri Badrul Hasan, the Assistant Manager, was given the Charge of the Manager for the residual term of the Committee of Management. On 512008, election for electing the office bearers of the Committee of Management was held in which, Fazlul Haque was elected as Manager and Abrar Hussain as President. Thereafter, an application for renewal of registration of the Society was submitted to the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U. P., Lucknow through its Manager Fazlul Haque, to which no objection was filed by any person and as such, the petitioner''s society was renewed on 1822008 for a period of five years from 922008 to 922013 by the Registrar. Subsequently, on 1032008, the opposite party No. 3 made a complaint to the Deputy Registrar, to which, reply along with the relevant documents were filed by the petitioner on 1142008.
According to the petitioners, while the petitioner No. 2 was on the way to Sultanpur on 2512008, his bag was lost, in which there were several documents along with the registration certificate. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar, vide order dated 1452008, decided the complaint of the opposite party No. 3, observing therein that the registration granted on an application of the petitioner, and the renewal was granted on the basis of election held on 1522006 by opposite party No. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners made a complaint under Section 24 of the Societies Registration Act against the opposite parties Nos. 2 and 3 before the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow on 2862008, to which, notices were issued and both the parties have filed their respective reply as well as documentary evidence. The Registrar, after perusing all the documents, which were placed on record and after hearing both the parties, decided the complaint of the petitioner on 10102008, wherein the Registrar has observed that Fazlul Haque Khan has never been ousted from the Society and the dispute in the present matter is related to the post of Manager of the Society and as such, directed the UpZiladhiakari to decide the dispute under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act as the matter is related to election of the Manager. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have preferred the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the dispute in the matter regarding the existence of Registration of the Society, but it does not involve any dispute regarding election to the post of Manager and as such, the order passed by the Registrar to the extent that the matter involve election of the Manager is against the facts and law. He has submitted that, at the time of submitting the application for renewal of registration, the name of Badrul Hasan Khan and late Mueed Ahmad Khan was not there and in their place, the name of Sri Haleem Khan and Sri Lallan Khan was there but after the society was registered for the period of five years i.e. from the years 1988 to 1993, both persons, namely, Haleem Khan and Lallan Khan resigned from the membership of the society and in their place, Sri Badrul Hasan Khan and late Mueed Ahmad were inducted as the members of the Society. Thus, both the above persons were the members of the Society since the incorporation of the society.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that due to inadvertent error, the name of Badrul Hasan Khan and late Mueed Ahmad Khan has been got written as founder member of the Society.
On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner''s society was registered in the year 198788 but the list of office bearers as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the writ petition showing them as founder members is not correct. Sri Badrul Hasan Khan has been shown as Assistant Manager, whereas in the memorandum which was submitted at the time of registration, the name of Shri Haleem Khan finds place as Deputy manager. Similarly, at serial No. 7, the name of Shri Muid Ahmad Khan is mentioned as treasurer whereas in the memorandum, which was submitted at the time of registration, the name of Shri Kalian Khan finds place as treasurer.
The Act requires that a Society is to be formed by a memorandum of association and registration by at least seven persons associated with the society. The memorandum of association is to contain the name of the society, the objects of the society, and the names, addresses and occupations of governors, council, directors committee, or other governing body to whom, by the rules of the society the management of its affairs is entrusted. A copy of the rules and regulations of the governing body, is to be filed with the memorandum of association. When such memorandum and certified copy of the rules with the required particulars are presented by the Secretary of the Society before the Registrar, he shall certify under his hand that the society is registered under this Act. A registration fee is to be paid for this purpose. Section 3A of this Act speaks of renewal of certificate of registration. Once a society is registered and a certificate of registration is issued, it would remain in force for a period of five years from the date of issue. If any question arises whether any society is entitled to get itself registered in accordance with Section 3 or to get the certificate of registration renewed, the matter shall be referred to the State Government, as provided in Section 3B of the Act. Section 4 of the Act requires that once in every year, on or before the fourteenth day succeeding the day which, according to the rules of the society, the annual general meeting of the Society is to be held, or if the rules do not provide for an annual general meeting in the month of January, a list of members shall be filed with the Registrar giving the names, addresses and occupations of the governor''s council, directions committee or other governing body then entrusted with the management of the affairs of the Society.
It would also be useful to reproduce Section 25 of the Act, which is relevant in the present controversy and it reads as under:
"25. 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 Uttar Pradesh, 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:
Provided that the election of an office bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied
(a) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office bearers; or
(b) that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected; or
(c) that the result of the election in so far it concerns such office bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the improper reception of any vote which is void or by any non compliance with the provisions of any rules of the society.
Explanation I A person shall be deemed to have committed a corrupt practice who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person
(i) induces, or attempts to induce, by fraud, intentional misrepresentation, coercion or threat of injury, any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at the election;
(ii) with a view to inducing any elector to vie or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or to inducing any person to stand or not to stand, as or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being, a candidate at the election, offers or gives any money, or valuable consideration, or any place or employment, or holds out any promise of individual advantage or profit to any person;
(iii) abets (within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code) the doing of any of the acts specified in Clauses (i) and (ii)
(iv) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure;
(v) canvasses on grounds of caste, community, sect or religion;
(vi) commits such other practice as the State Government may prescribe to be a corrupt practice,
Explanation IIA "promise of individual advantage or profit to a person" includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself, or of any one in whom he is interested.
Explanation IIIThe State Government may prescribe the procedure for hearing and decision of doubts or disputes in respect of such elections and make provision in respect of any other matter relating to such elections for which insufficient provision exists in this Act or in the rules of the society.
(2) Where by an order made under subsection (1), an election is set aside or an officebearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of officebearers of a society has been not held within the time specified in the rules of that society, he may call a meeting of the general body of such society for electing such officebearer or office bearers, and such meeting shall be presided over and be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorized by him in this behalf, and the provisions in the rules of the society relating to meetings and elections shall apply to such meeting and election with necessary modifications.
(3) Where a meeting is called by the Registrar under sub section (2), no other meeting shall be called for the purpose of election by any others authority or by any person claiming to be an office bearer of the society.
ExplanationFor the purposes of this section, the expression "prescribed authority" means an officer or court authorized in this behalf by the State Government by notification published in the official Gazette."
The provisions of Section 25 of the Act as is amended by the State Legislature provides comprehensive code and creates designated forum or the Tribunal for adjudication in a summary manner of all disputes or doubts in respect to the election or continuance in office of the office bearers of the Society, (e.s.) There is no other provision, express or otherwise, providing for determination of such disputes specifically. It is settled law that where, as here, the legislature creates a specific forum and lays an exhaustive procedure for determination of a particular class of disputes in respect of matters covered by the statute. Such disputes can be determined only in that forum and in the manner prescribed thereunder and not otherwise. If, therefore, a dispute is raised with regard to the election or continuance in office of an officebearer of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, the same, has to be decided only by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1).
It is important to add that if a dispute of the nature covered by Section 25 is raised before the Registrar in connection with the submission of annual list under Section 4 (1) of the Act, the same must, in view of the Legislative mandate embodied in Section 25(1), be referred by him to the Prescribed Authority.
In view of the above settled legal position, the submissions of the petitioner that the Registrar has erred in referring the matter to the prescribed Authority under the impression that dispute involves the election for the post of manager whereas the dispute related to the renewal of the society has no force. In the present case both Fazlul Haque and Kalam are claiming themselves to be the validly elected Manager of the Institution and have filed certain affidavits in this regard. As averred above, a forum has been provided for adjudication in a summary manner of all disputes or doubts in respect to the election or continuance in office of the office bearers of the Society.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. However, it is provided that the Prescribed Authority shall decide the matters so referred to him, expeditiously, within a period of three months strictly in accordance with law and after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties and considering the documentary evidence to be produced by the parties.