High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:37275 Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5190 of 2025 Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Of Vaidik Shiksha Samiti And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. Order on Order Sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to correct the description of respondent no.2 in the array of parties during the course of the day. Order on Writ Petition. 1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 to 3 and Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sharad, learned counsel for respondent no.4. 2. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have assailed the order dated 24.01.2025 passed by the respondent no.3- Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra. 3. Challenge to the impugned order has been laid on the ground that the Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to recognise the Committee of Management of respondent no.4 inasmuch as the dispute is of office bearers of the Society, and therefore, the Deputy Registrar ought to have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. He further submits that impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 4. The facts of the case are that the last election of the Committee of Management of the Society namely 'Vaidik Shiksha Samiti, Nagla Birkhoo, District Aligarh' was held on 10.01.2011 in which, petitioner no.3 was elected as Manager of the Society. It appears that a complaint was lodged against the petitioner no.3 by one Girdhari Lal which complaint was rejected by the Deputy Registrar by order dated 23.05.2013, and further the Deputy Registrar has renewed the Society. 5. According to claim of petitioners, the next election of the Committee of Management of the Society was held by the petitioner, who was the outgoing Committee of Management, on 10.01.2016. It is further stated that respondent no.4 has also set up his election on 07.06.2015. Neither the list of members submitted by the petitioner on the basis of election dated 10.01.2016 was registered nor the list of of members submitted by the respondent no.4 on the basis of election dated 07.06.2015 was registered. 6. It appears that subsequently, petitioner claims that he has held the election of Committee of Management of the Society on 10.01.2021 after completion of five years from 2016, and respondent no.4 also set up another election on 07.06.2020. 7. By the impugned order, the Deputy Registrar has accepted the election of respondent no.4. It has been informed by Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.4 that list of respondent no.4 has been registered by the Deputy Registrar pursuant to the impugned order, and the Society was also renewed. 8. Be that as it may, the record reflects that after 2011, the list of members has not been registered by the Deputy Registrar despite the claim submitted by the rival parties, and the dispute in the present case is also with respect to the election of petitioner held in the year 2021 and of the respondent no.4 of the year 2020. The record further reflects that there is a dispute in the Committee of Management since long, and both the factions are claiming the registration of their list on the basis of election held by them. 9. Though, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner may have some substance in his arguments, but considering the fact that no election of the petitioner has been recognised after the year 2011 and more than ten years have passed, therefore, the term of the election held in the year 2011 was also over. Further, there is nothing on record to indicate that respondent no.4 was ever recognised as Committee of Management of the Society and list of office bearers of respondent no.4 was ever registered. 10. In such view of the fact, this Court in order to end the controversy in the Society for the better administration in the Society, put a solution to the parties that the election shall be held under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 by an independent body. 11. To the aforesaid proposal, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner states that he has no objection if the election is held under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, but his only concern is that it should not be held by respondent no.3-Deputy Registrar and in his place, it should be held by respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Iglas, Alilgarh. 12. To the aforesaid proposal, Sri R.K. Oha, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents submits that he has no objection if the election is held by respondent no.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Iglas Aligarh under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 13. In view of the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and the consent given by learned counsel for the parties, this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directs the respondent no.2-Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Iglas, Aligarh to hold the election of the Committee of Management of the Society under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with law and in accordance with bye-laws of the Society. 14. The impugned order is set aside to the extent it accepts the election of the respondent no.4. However, so far as the renewal of the Society by the impugned order is concerned, the same is affirmed inasmuch as renewal of the Society does not affect the rights of the parties.
Decision
15. The writ petition is disposed off subject to observations made above. There shall be no order as to costs. Order Date :- 17.3.2025 Sattyarth Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad