Ram Pratap Yadav and Another vs Asstt. Registrar Firms Societies and Chits and Others

Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.—The petition questions the correctness and legality of the impugned order dated 22.12.2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Varanasi, rejecting the dispute set up by the Petitioner in relation to the list of office bearers and the constitution of the Committee of Management entitled to manage the affairs of a society, namely, Chaudhary Charan Singh Shiksha Samiti registered under the 1860 Act.

It is undisputed that the said society has established a Junior High School which is now upgraded as a Higher Secondary School and recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The institution is, therefore, governed by the provisions of the 1921 Act and the Scheme of Administration framed thereunder.

Sri D.S.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the Assistant Registrar has passed the order which is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, once there was a dispute relating to the elections and continuance of office bearers then in view of the law laid down by a Division Bench in the Case of Surandra Singh and Ors. v. State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Finance, U.P. Lucknow and others in Special Appeal No. 1254 of 2010 and the judgment of a learned Single Judge in the case of Ram Niwas and Ors. v. Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Mandal Azamgarh and others in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39870 of 2008 the dispute should have been referred to the Prescribed Authority for decision under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the 1860 Act.

The second submission of Sri Singh is that the Assistant Registrar has failed to advert the documents relating to membership as relied upon by the Petitioners and no valid reason has been given for either accepting or rejecting the same. The finding which has been recorded by the Assistant Registrar in relation to the membership list, has been done without putting any of the members to notice. He, therefore, submits that the original records has been surreptitiously removed by Sri Vishwanath Yadav for which an application was moved by the Petitioners to the Station House Officer of the Police Station concerned and the list relied upon by the Petitioners was signed none else than by the erstwhile undisputed manager Jainath Yadav.

Apart from this, the list of office bearers as submitted by the contesting Respondent also indicates the name of the Petitioner Ram Pratap Yadav and other office bearers, who have given it in writing through affidavits that no such election took place as projected by Sri Vishwanath Yadav nor any committee was constituted. In such circumstances, the Assistant Registrar ought to have considered the claim of the Petitioners in respect of the elections that have been held through the advertisement dated 1.10.2009 annexure No. 6 to the writ petition.

Replying to the aforesaid submissions, Sri Yatindra, learned Counsel for the contesting Respondent submits that the dispute has been raised by the Petitioners after the death of Sri Jainath Yadav, who died on 5th July, 2009. He further submits that the dispute raised is an imaginary dispute, inasmuch as, firstly the list relied upon by the Petitioners is a manipulated document forging it through the aid of a photostat machine and that the claim of the answering Respondent has been accepted after perusing all the original documents that have been produced. Not only this, the Petitioners failed to produce any further evidence apart from the alleged manipulated list to substantiate the enrollment of the members, whose names are referred to therein. There is no evidence even enclosed along with this writ petition to establish the enrollment of membership of such members. Last but not the least, he submits that the proceedings appear to be fabricated as raised by the Petitioners in relation to the elections, inasmuch as, the notice and the agenda of the election clearly recites that the elections are of Chaudhary Charan Singh Higher Secondary School which is an institution establish by the society and not of the parent society namely Chaudhary Charan Singh Shiksha Samiti. He contends that these documents which are relied upon by the Petitioners for the purpose of the dispute of the society, do not relate to the society at all and hence the claim set up by the Petitioners is only a device so as to disturb the smooth functioning of the society. He, therefore, submits that in such a situation, where the very claim of the Petitioners is unfounded and not in accordance with the bye laws of the society, there is no reason available so as to compel the Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute for decision u/s 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act.

Learned Standing adopting the same arguments contends that in the absence of any bonafide or genuine dispute having been raised by the Petitioners, the order passed by the Assistant Registrar does not deserve any interference.

Having heard learned Counsel for the parties it remains undisputed that Sri Jainath Yadav was the erstwhile manager. The Petitioner has set up a list of members which he alleges to have been signed by Sri Jainath Yadav and it is further contended that the said list has not been appreciated by the Assistant Registrar in correct prospective for which allegations have been made in paragraph 6 and paragraph 12 of the writ petition. The contention of the Respondents is that that the signatures of Sri Jainath Yadav that were available on some other documents has been pasted below the said list and then another photostat of the document has been prepared to give it a colour of having been authenticated by Sri Jainath Yadav.

From a perusal of the said document, it appears that the same does not bear any date nor does it indicate any detail with regard to the enrollment of such members and the deposit of their fee. It also does not indicate the year for which such a list was prepared except the allegation in the writ petition that it was prepared prior to the death of Sri Jainath Yadav. To believe such a document would, therefore, not be within the realm of the Assistant Registrar as the same would require further proof of actual enrollment of such members, who are disputed. This could have been substantiated either by any resolution of the Committee of Management accepting such members or any counter foil of receipts of membership to demonstrate that they had paid their membership fee. No such material was brought forth before the Assistant Registrar by the Petitioners nor any material has been filed before this Court to establish the same.

Sri Singh submits that the Assistant Registrar should have given an opportunity to the Petitioners to submit such documents and to issue notice to every individual member for the same. This oral submission on behalf of the Petitioners cannot be entertained at this stage, inasmuch as, the Petitioners were knowingly espousing their cause on the basis of such membership that was reflected through a list. A mere list submitted by the Petitioners by itself cannot be an evidence. The list merely mentions the names. The validity of enrollment can only be established by supporting documents like any resolution or any counter foil of receipts. When the Petitioners were claiming the genuineness of such enrollments, then they ought to have produced such documents in support of their claim and it was their obligation to do so. The Assistant Registrar cannot assume the knowledge of existence of such documents by himself without their being any claim set up by the contesting party. The Petitioners themselves could have either produced the documents or during the course of hearing could have requested the Assistant Registrar for the same. There is nothing on record to indicate that any such effort on the part of the Petitioners.

Apart from this, the Assistant Registrar has recorded a clear finding that the original records were produced by the Respondents supporting their stand. It is, therefore, clear that the Respondents were in possession of the original record about which a faint plea was set up by the Petitioners that they had allegedly taken it away for which a complaint was made before the Station House Officer. This leads us nowhere, inasmuch as, the documents were very much in existence and the Petitioners could have countered the same by producing their own evidence which they failed to do.

In such a situation, the recourse adopted by the Assistant Registrar cannot be said to be erroneous or without jurisdiction. However, in the opinion of the Court, the last nail in the coffin is the own claim set up by the Petitioner for their elections in the advertisement annexure No. 6 to the writ petition. The said advertisement does not recite any agenda or notice for elections of the parent society namely Chaudhary Charan Singh Shiksha Samiti. The recital is clearly of the elections of the Committee of Management of the Higher Secondary School and not of the parent society. This, therefore, raises a serious doubt with regard to the claim of the Petitioners and constitution of the management. In such circumstances, the contention raised on behalf of the contesting Respondent has to accepted that the Petitioners have failed to establish their claim in relation to the society.

The aforesaid question, therefore, raises questions of fact which, the Petitioners if they even intend to, can establish it before the appropriate forum or before the civil court by seeking a declaration of the nature of the relief claimed herein. This Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction would not entertain any such dispute keeping in view the highly disputed questions of facts as reflected hereinabove.

The Petitioners have failed to establish a case worth being adjudicated in the exercise of a discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet if the elections or continuance of office bearers are still doubted or can be said to be invalid, then in that view of the matter Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the 1860 Act itself provides for seeking reference through one fourth members of the General Body. Accordingly, this Court refuses to exercise discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of the India leaving it open to one fourth members of the General Body to raise a dispute before the Prescribed Authority in case there is a genuine and bonafide claim to that effect u/s 25 of the Societies Registration Act.

Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed subject to the aforesaid observations.