Madarsa Rijviya and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—The Petitioner Committee which manages a Madarsa through Aash Mohammad claiming himself to be the Manager has questioned the communication dated 18.1.2011 issued by the Respondent No. 2 the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits on the ground that it erroneously justifies that there is no dispute with regard to the office bearers of the Society except the post of President, and that there are no objections relating thereto.

Sri Sudhir Dixit who has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent No. 5 and the learned Standing Counsel for the rest of the Respondents submit that they do not propose to file any counter affidavit to the writ petition and therefore the matter may be disposed of finally at this stage on the submissions raised by the learned Counsel for the parties.

The dispute relates to the continuance of office bearers of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. One Jalaluddin was the President of the Society who died on 11.3.2010. Upon his death the contesting parties raised objections that gained different dimensions. The first objection was in relation to the successor on the post of President upon the death of Jalaluddin. The second objection was in relation to the termination of the membership of the Respondent No. 5 by the rival parties and the third dimension was with regard to reconstitution of the Committee as set up by Mohd. Ali and the Petitioner Aash Mohammad claiming himself to be an elected as the Secretary. This multi dimension dispute relating to membership and the office bearers of the Society was noticed by the Deputy Registrar and he proceeded to make an attempt to resolve the controversy by issuing a communication dated 30.9.2010 upon noticing the same.

The Assistant Registrar passed an order dated 30.11.2010 against the Respondent No. 5 holding that the proceedings set up by him were not acceptable which came to be challenged by the said Respondent in Writ Petition No. 73885 of 2010. The writ petition was contested by the present Petitioner where after the parties agreed for decision of the matter by directing the Prescribed Authority under Sub-Section 1 of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act to enter into upon the dispute and decide the same. Accordingly the order dated 30.11.10 was quashed and the Prescribed Authority was directed to decide the entire dispute vide order dated 21.12.2010.

The Prescribed Authority instead of deciding the dispute, passed an order dated 17.1.2011 for reconstituting the Committee of Management and for holding fresh elections. This order was again challenged by the Respondent No. 5 in Writ Petition No. 4065 of 2011 and the said writ petition was allowed quashing the order dated 17.1.2011 with a direction to the Prescribed Authority for compliance of the judgment dated 21.12.2010. The matter is still engaging the attention of the Prescribed Authority and no decision has been taken as yet.

In between it appears that on 18.1.2011 the impugned communication was issued by the Deputy Registrar on a query made by the Registrar, Madarsas that there does not exist any dispute with regard to other office bearers or members and it is confined only to the post of President. The communication further recites that there is no other objection by any other party in relation to the other office bearers.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the aforesaid opinion of the Deputy Registrar is in teeth of the aforesaid two judgments dated 21.12.2010 and 21.1.2011 and it fails to take notice of the multi dimension dispute as noted hereinabove. He further submits that this entire dispute has been referred to the Prescribed Authority and therefore the impugned communication is founded on admittedly incorrect facts and it gives a wrong dimension to the dispute. He therefore contends that the Deputy Registrar has misinformed the Respondent No. 3 namely the Registrar, Madarsas and hence the said communication deserves to be quashed.

Sri Sudhir Dixit learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 5 submits that in view the directions already issued by this Court this dispute is pending consideration before the Prescribed Authority and therefore the impugned communication will have to abide by the ultimate decision of the Prescribed Authority.

Learned standing counsel contends that an appropriate direction can be made keeping in view of the fact that the matter is pending before the Prescribed Authority.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and in view of the position that emerges on the submissions raised it is evident that the entire dispute is pending before the Prescribed Authority. The same relates to not only to the post of President but also relates to the claim of the Petitioner to have been elected as Secretary of the Society and also the reconstitution of the Committee of Management as contended by the objectors before the Deputy Registrar which is evident from a recital as contained in the earlier order of the Deputy Registrar dated 30.9.2010. The impugned communication dated 18.11.2011 therefore is contrary to records and cannot be sustained. It is hereby quashed with a direction to the Respondent No. 2 to give the correct information to the Registrar, Madarsas about the pendency of the dispute before the Prescribed Authority. As and when such a decision is taken by the Prescribed Authority the same shall be communicated to the officer concerned.

The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs.