Court No. 39
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38756 of 2010
Committee of Management, Maharajpur Shobha Kunwar Shiksha
Sansthan,
Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.,
*********
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
Committee of Management, Maharajpur Shobha Kunwar Shiksha
Sansthan, Karkaura district Bulandshahar (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Society’) and Yogendra Sharma claiming to be its Manager, have filed this
petition for setting aside the order dated 10th June, 2010 passed by the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Meerut (hereinafter referred to as the
‘Deputy Registrar’) by which not only the ‘No Confidence Motion’ passed on
29th November, 2009 and the new Committee of Management with Vinod
Kumar as the Manager has been approved, but the objections filed by
Yogendra Sharma against the order dated 23rd April, 2010 passed by the
Deputy Registrar have also been rejected. The petitioners have also sought the
quashing of the orders dated 19th February, 2010 and 23rd April, 2010 passed by
the Deputy Registrar as also the order dated 27th March, 2010 passed by the
District Basic Education Officer.
It is stated that in the elections of the Committee of Management of the
Society held in 2006, petitioner No.2 Yogendra Sharma was elected as the
Manager. The term of the Committee of Management is five years and,
therefore, it shall continue upto January, 2011. The signatures of petitioner
No.2 Yogendra Sharma were also attested by the District Basic Education
Officer, Bulandshahr since the Society is running a Junior High School. The
Assistant Manager, Sompal Sharma convened a meeting of the General Body
on 29th December, 2009 and in the said meeting, ‘No Confidence Motion’ was
passed against all the office bearers of the Committee of Management except
the Assistant Manager Sompal Sharma and on the same date, fresh Committee
of Management was elected with Vinod Kumar as the Manager. The papers
were submitted before the Deputy Registrar who registered the list of office
bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Society by the
order dated 19th February, 2010. In the meantime, the petitioners filed an
application on 22nd March, 2010 for renewal of the registration of the Society.
2
The Deputy Registrar by the order dated 23rd April, 2010 rejected the
application filed by the petitioners for registration of the renewal of the Society
and also rejected the claim of the petitioners for cancellation of the list of office
bearers and members of the Society registered for the year 2009-10. The
petitioners moved an application before the Deputy Registrar on 4th May, 2010
for cancellation of the order dated 23rd Apri, 2010 as it was passed without
giving any opportunity to them. The petitioners also filed objections on which
notice was issued by the Deputy Registrar to respondent No.4 Vinod Kumar.
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 28352 of 2010 for setting aside
the order dated 23rd April, 2010 but this petition was dismissed by the Court by
the judgment and order dated 19th May, 2010 with the observations that it was
for the petitioners to pursue the matter with the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy
Registrar by the order dated 10th June, 2010 has accepted the case set up by
respondent No.4 Vinod Kumar regarding the passing of ‘No Confidence
Motion’ against the entire office bearers of the Committee of Management of
the Society except the Assistant Manager Sompal Sharma and has also rejected
the application filed by petitioner No.2 Yogendra Sharma for setting aside the
order dated 23rd April, 2010.
Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted
that since notice was not served upon the existing office bearers of the
Committee of Management of the Society against the list of office bearers
submitted by Vinod Kumar, it was not possible for them to file any objection
and, therefore, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 19th February, 2010
for registering the list of new office bearers elected on 29 th November, 2009
should be set aside. It is his submission that in the absence of any provisions in
the Bye-Laws of the Society for passing ‘No Confidence Motion’, one office
bearer namely the Assistant Manager Sompal Sharma was not justified in
convening a meeting for passing of ‘No Confidence Motion’ against all the
remaining office bearers. It is his submission that the Deputy Registrar has
failed to take into consideration the aforesaid facts in his order dated 10 th June,
2010 and, therefore, it deserves to be set aside.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 while
Sri Anil Bhushan, assisted by Sri Neeraj Agarwal have put in appearance on
behalf of respondent No.4. They submitted that it may not be necessary to file
any counter affidavit and the petition may be disposed of at this stage.
3
Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has supported the
impugned order dated 10th June, 2010 and has submitted that it does not call for
any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Deputy Registrar in the impugned order has not considered the
various objections raised by the petitioners. He has failed to advert whether the
meeting was validly convened for 29th November, 2009 after giving proper
notice to the members of the General Body and whether the ‘No Confidence
Motion’ could be passed against all the office bearers of the Committee of
Management of the Society except one. He has also failed to notice as to
whether the notice dated 23rd January, 2010 was actually served upon the office
bearers and whether any proper opportunity was given to them to file a
objections.
In this view of the matter, it is not possible to sustain the order dated 10 th
June, 2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar. It is, accordingly, set aside. The
Deputy Registrar shall now pass a fresh order after hearing the parties
concerned, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date
a certified copy of this order produced by the petitioners before the Deputy
Registrar. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the
case, which shall be considered by the Deputy Registrar in accordance with
law.
Date: 14.7.2010
NSC