Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3998 of 2010 Petitioner :- Dayanand Vidyapeeth Trust Society Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Petitioner Counsel :- R.K. Ojha,Arun Kr. Tiwari Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
Dayanand Vidyapeeth Trust Society, through its Vice President
Vijay Singh has filed this petition for setting aside the order dated
7th November, 2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms
Societies & Chits Kanpur Region Kanpur (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Deputy Registrar’) as well as the orders dated 7th
December, 2009 and 15th December, 2009 passed by the District
Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat.
It is stated that pursuant to the decision taken by the Regional
Level Committee on 28/29th March, 2008, an Authorized
Controller was appointed to hold fresh elections of the Committee
of Management from amongst the valid members of the General
Body. The Authorized Controller sent a communication to the
Deputy Registrar for providing a valid list of members so that the
elections could be held. The Deputy Registrar, however, by the
order dated 7th November, 2008 registered the list of office
bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society submitted
by respondent No. 5 Committee of Management with its Secretary
Ram Nath Singh Sengar.
Writ Petition No. 61264 of 2008 was filed by the petitioner to
assail this order. This petition was dismissed by the judgment and
order dated 12th December, 2008 with the following
observations:-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The authorised controller is still ceased with the matter of election.
In the meantime he had asked for list of members from the Asstt.
Registrar. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that
the Asstt. Registrar has no jurisdiction to decide about the validity
of the list of members and also decided the validity of the last
elections.
Be that as it may, the order of the Asstt. Registrar in pursuance of
the request of the Authorised Controller is just a step in aid in the
elections. The petitioner will get a cause of action to challenge the
order after the elections are held. At that stage he may also
challenge the order of the Asstt. Registrar. At present it will not be
appropriate for this Court to interfere, when the question of
validity of the members, who form the collegium for election is
being considered by the authority.
The writ petition is premature and dismissed.”
Subsequently elections were held on 7th December, 2009.
It is the case of the petitioners that in the elections held on 7th
December, 2009, the Committee of Management with Suresh
Chandra Gupta as the Manager and Shiv Ram Singh as the
President were elected and the papers were submitted to the
District Inspector of Schools on 8th December, 2009 for attesting
of signatures of Suresh Chandra Gupta as the Manager but before
that, the District Inspector of Schools had attested the signatures of
Ram Nath Singh Sengar as Manager on the basis of papers
submitted by him with respect of the elections held on the same
date i.e. 7th December, 2009.
The petitioners have, therefore, raised two disputes. The first is
about the registration of the list of office bearers of the Committee
of Management of the Society on 7th November, 2008 by the
Deputy Registrar. The second dispute is about the recognition of
the Committee of Management of the Institution which was
elected on 7th December, 2009.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that
the District Inspector of Schools committed an illegality in not
approving the elections of the petitioner-Committee of
Management by the order dated 15th December, 2009 and the
signatures of Ram Nath Singh Sengar should not have been
attested on 7th December, 2008. He has further submitted that the
Deputy Registrar also committed an illegality in registering the list
of office bearers submitted by Ram Nath Singh Sengar by the
order dated 7th November, 2008.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondent-Committee of Management submits that so far as the
order passed by the Deputy Registrar is concerned, the petitioners
can approach the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Act’) in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein and with
respect of the second controversy, the petitioners can approach the
Regional Level Committee for determination as to which of the
two rival Committee of Managements were validly elected on 7th
December, 2009.
The Court, therefore, declines to entertain this petition. It shall,
however, be open to the petitioners to raise the dispute regarding
the order dated 7th November, 2008 passed by the Deputy
Registrar before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of
the Act in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein and
with regard to the validity of the elections of the rival Committee
of Managements held on 7th December, 2009, it shall also be open
to the petitioners to approach the Regional Level Committee. The
Court has no reason to doubt that the Prescribed Authority shall
decide the matter expeditiously, after hearing the parties concerned
preferably within a period of four months. The Regional Level
Committee shall also decide the matter regarding the validity of
the election held on 7th December, 2009 expeditiously after
hearing the parties concerned, preferably within a period of six
weeks. The orders impugned in the petition shall abide by the
decision to be taken by the Authorities.
The petition is, accordingly, dismissed subject to the observations
made above.
Order Date :- 3.2.2010
NSC