Swami Devanand Bharat Bhakti Yogashram Trust, Bhupatwala vs Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate & others

Petitioner no. 1 is a trust i.e. Swami Devanand Bharat

Bhakti Yogashram Trust, Haridwar and petitioner no. 2 is the Secretary of the said Trust. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 25.04.2016, which has been passed by respondent no. 1, who is the Prescribed Authority (Sub Divisional Magistrate, Haridwar) under the Societies Registration Act .

From the perusal of the impugned order as well as from the rival submissions of the parties i.e. the petitioners as well as the private respondents, the facts as they emerge before the court are that a Society by the name of Swami Devanand Bharat Bhakti Yogashram Trust, Haridwar was formed and registered with the Registrar, Societies, Chit and Funds in the year 1974 with its Registration No. 508 of 1974-75, way back in the year 1974-75. The objects of the Society are as follows:-

"1. To provide residence for disciples or Swami Devanand who wish to attain Bhakti for the Supreme through the teaching, guidance, and, speeches of Swami Devanand and who wish to dedicate their lives to the service of their fellow human beings.

To provide free of charge basis-education, to the local poor children of India without any caste and creed. 3. To provide facilities for practical and vocational and higher education to poor. 4. To provide charitable clinic for the benefit of the poor. 5. To provide public Health Education to the poor to enable them to help themselves. 6. To do any other work for Public as decided by Society without any distribution or caste and creed."

The purpose of the Ashram has also been stated in the memorandum of the Society, such as, to provide a residence for disciples of Swami Devanand who wish to attain Bhakti, and for teachings, guidance and thoughts of Swami Devanand. It is also for the benefit of those who wish to dedicate their lives to the service of their fellow human beings. The trust provides free of charge basic education, reading, writing and basic arithmetic, to the local poor children of this country, who would otherwise remain illiterate. Further extension of this programme is intended up on availability of funds and staff, etc.

The governing body of the Society will consist of Chairman, Secretary and five Members and the Members can be increased by its Chairman Swami Devanand.

At the time of the registration of the Society, the following were its Chairman and Members:-

"1. Swami Devanand Ji 2. Miss. Esther Friede Disciple of Swami Devanand 3. Miss. Judith Ann Youngs Disciple of Swami Devanand 4.Marjorie Morrison Stoughton Disciple of Swami Devanand 5. Miss. Mary Adelle Gibson Disciple of Swami Devanand 6. Miss. Annie Sosney Disciple of Swami Devanand 7. Mr. Mohan Singh Disciple of Swami Devanand 8. Dr. Bruce Holton Farrington Disciple of Swami Devanand 9. Miss. Dorta Hermine Farrington Disciple of Swami Devanand 10. Mr. Eric Parker Disciple of Swami Devanand 11. Miss. Karen Anne Parker Disciple of Swami Devanand 12. Mr. William Franklin Disciple of Swami Devanand 13. Miss. Shiela Franklin Disciple of Swami Devanand 14. Mrs. Penny Parker Disciple of Swami Devanand."

Another important fact which emerges is that at the time of the registration of the Society, which was done on 01.07.1974, there was no provision for a renewal of the Society. The provisions for renewal were incorporated in the Societies Registration Act later. Evidently, most of the members of the Society are foreigners. Though a foreigner does not have any fundamental right for forming an association or a society under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, as this right is only given to the citizens, yet the settled law is that by permission or approval of the appropriate Government, with certain limitation and conditions it may be done.

The renewal of the Society was not done. It appears that in the year 2010-2011, suddenly the Registrar of the Society was presented with a series of resignation letters pertaining to 20.07.1974 and 21.07.1974. Eight of the members apparently resigned as members of the Society. When eight of the members resigned, a renewal was thereafter granted with certain new members inducted in the Society and its functioning was controlled by petitioner no. 2 as it now appears from the record. This was in the year 2011.

All of a sudden, in the year 2010-2011, civil suits were also filed by some of the new members of the Society, which are alleged to be collusive in nature by the private respondents and it is said that their purpose was to misappropriate the property of the society. When these facts were known to the existing member, such as, Ms. Esther Friede, who was the original Secretary of the Association, she moved an application before the Prescribed Authority, and ultimately, the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act heard both the parties and came to the conclusion that so called resignations of eight members is nothing but a forgery on the part of petitioner no. 2. This is evident from the record, as the same members, who had allegedly resigned, continued to fund the society even after their so called resignations as members of the Society and further the documents, which were presented before the Prescribed Authority show that the present Management of the Society, which had done an audit of the Society from 2001-2007 is again apparently fake inasmuch as till 2001-2007 Uttarakhand was known as Uttaranchal, whereas on records, even during this period of 2001-2007, it is shown as Uttarakhand, meaning thereby that these records are articulated and fabricated. The Prescribed Authority after considering the matter at great length and after evaluating a series of documents has come to a conclusion that in this matter a fraud has been played at the hands of petitioner no. 2. Since fraud vitiates everything, he has held that the resignation of the said members was never there. There was actually no resignation and the induction of the new members later at the hands of the new Management is again illegal and in violation of the Rules of the Society and is void ab initio. Therefore, the Prescribed Authority has passed the following order:-

"Suit of the plaintiffs Marjorie Stoughton, Esther Friede, etc are allowed. In the documents submitted before the Sub-Registrar Office, the list showing the appointments of all the members in the executive management of Swami Devanand Bharat Bhakti Yogashram Trust Samiti, Bhupatwala, Haridwar in 2010- 2011, regarding the appointments of Penny Parker, Bachan Singh Rana, Gokul Chand, Umrao Singh, Dharmanand Semwal, Sri Nand Bhatt, Govind Ram Uniyal, Bharat Lal Pandey on 21.07.1974 and the appointment of Neil Lehman on 08.02.1977 and appointment of Prem Kaluda, Rakesh Bagashi and Mohar Singh Panwar on 23.11.1979 and appointment of Ashok Mittal on 04.11.1982 and appointment of Sardar Ujjagar Singh on 11.11.1984 and appointment of Vidhya Dutt Semwal on 04.02.1997 and appointment of Achu Singh Kaluda, Ravindra Kaluda, Vayu Raj Singh and Manisha Khanduri on 14.04.2005 and appointment of Keshav Joshi on 30.12.2006 and appointment of Kamlesh Uniyal on 25.04.2008 and appointment of Girish Bhatt on 21.03.2009 are hereby quashed and the Society presented before the Society Registrar by the Esther Friede founding member of Swami Devanand Bhakti Yogashram Trust is declared as legal. Present activities of the Society are being done by the Secretary, Esther Friede and presently Swami Devanand Bharat Bhakti Yogashram Trust has possession over the property."

Fraud vitiates all solemn acts. The order of the Prescribed Authority, which is a well considered order, leaves not even an iota of doubt, that in this case the resignations of existing members and the inclusions of other members and thereby the control of the Management of the Society was nothing but an act of fraud.

The case of the petitioners rests on a technicality whether the Prescribed Authority has powers to pass such an order or not. However, in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Skipper Construction and another, reported in (2007) 15 SCC 601, the Hon''ble Apex Court held as under:-

"Technicalities should not stand in the way of courts doing substantive justice, Ultimately, it has to be remembered that justice has no favourite other than truth. Fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law, however high degree of solemnity may be attached to the transactions."

In any case, the contention of the petitioners that the Prescribed Authority has acted beyond its jurisdiction under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act is not tenable inasmuch as, the Prescribed Authority has got powers under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act not only to decide the election dispute but also any dispute in respect of "continuance in office for officer bearers of such Society" and he has, therefore, powers to pass such orders in respect therein which he deems fit. The Prescribed Authority has committed no illegality in the order impugned before this Court. Therefore, no fault can be found with the order dated 25.04.2016 passed by the Prescribed Authority.

In view of the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.