High CourtsSingle Bench(2019) 12 UK CK 0021

Namita Gupta vs Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies And Chits, Udham Singh Nagar & Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 5 December 2019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 2910 (M/S) Of 2016

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 1,035 words

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J

1.

The petitioner before this Court is a Secretary of the educational society known as S. Jagir Singh Educational Society. The society runs a school i.e. Delhi Public School at Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2.

On a complaint made by the petitioner, the matter went to the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Udham Singh Nagar, who ultimately referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 who has to take a decision, as it was incorporated/amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh and presently applicable in the State of Uttarakhand, which 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-bearer; 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, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of any rules of the society.

Explanation 1.- 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 or 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 elections.

(ii) with a view to inducing any elector to give 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 Clause (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 cast, community, sect or religion.

(vi) commits such other practice as the State Government may prescribe to be a corrupt practice.

Explanation II. A "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 III.- The State Government may prescribe the procedure for hearing and decision of doubts or dispute 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 sub-section (1), an election is set aside or an office-bearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of office-bearers of a society has not been 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 office-bearer or office-bearers, and such meeting shall be presided over and be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorised 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 other authority or by any person claiming to be an office-bearer of the society.

Explanation.- For the purposes 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."

3.

Wide powers have been given to the Prescribed Authority, who has to decide a reference made by the Deputy Registrar (as it has been done in the present case) in a summary manner as to the elections or continuation of the officer-bearer of the society, inter alia, continuation of the officer bearer of the society. All that Prescribed Authority has to decide is that whether the continuation or non continuation of the petitioner as a Secretary of the S. Jagir Singh Educational Society is valid or not.

4.

The Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 28.09.2015 passed an order holding that the matter is not covered under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

5.

The Deputy Registrar thereafter referring to the various allegations made by the petitioner and the judicial proceedings and other proceedings initiated by the petitioner and office-bearers of the society recorded a finding that since there are various litigations going on between the petitioner and the respondents, which are pending before various courts, therefore, it cannot decide the issue before it.

6.

The conclusion arrived at by the authority on the basis of the facts that a number of cases are pending is totally a wrong finding. The pendency of the various litigations is not an issue before the Prescribed Authority. He has limited jurisdiction in the present case which is whether the petitioner continuation or non-continuation as Secretary of the Society is valid or not.

7.

Consequently, the writ petition stands disposed.