Committee of Management Shiksha Samiti Sri Nehru Smarak Vidyalaya and another v. State of U.P. and others) relegating the
Case Details
Judgment
1. Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Shri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.4-Committee of Management.
2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated
25.10.2024 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ C
No.30426 of 2024 (Committee of Management Shiksha Samiti Sri Nehru Smarak Vidyalaya and another vs State of U.P. and others) relegating the petitioners-appellants to avail alternative remedy under Section 25(1)(d) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short ‘the Act’).
3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the petitioners- appellants assailing the order dated 12.08.2024 whereby the 2 Prescribed Authority, Aliganj, District Etah, while disposing of proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Act, had accepted the election proceedings dated 07.06.2020, (approved on 29.08.2021) produced by the respondent No. 4 and rejected the election proceedings dated 21.06.2020 produced by the petitioners, terming the same to be contrary to the provisions of the Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants raised a very short submission to the effect that whereas the matter under Section 25(1) of the Act was heard by one Shri Prateek Tripathi (written as Prateek Tiwari in the order of the learned Single Judge), Sub Divisional Magistrate, Aliganj, he was transferred on 31.07.2024 and the new incumbent, namely Shri Jagmohan Gupta took charge of the post, who, without conducting hearing of the matter, passed the order dated 12.08.2024, impugned in the writ petition. Submission is that, infact, the subsequent incumbent signed the order already prepared by his predecessor-in-charge and, therefore, the same was liable to be set aside on this ground alone, however, the learned Single Judge, even after noticing the aforesaid submissions advanced by the petitioners-appellants, relegated them to avail alternative remedy. Reference to ‘Annexure No.7’ to the writ petition has been made which is a photostat copy of the certified copy of the order sheet of the case u/s 25(1).
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that petitioners-appellants were granted ample opportunity to make their submissions before the Prescribed Authority, however, they kept on avoiding the proceedings and did not advance arguments and, therefore, the matter was decided. As regards submission qua transfer of the officer prior to decision and passing of the order by 3 the subsequent incumbent, it is urged that the order sheet dated
07.08.2024 itself indicates that the Sub Divisional Magistrate had again heard the matter and, then, the order dated 12.08.2024 was passed. Various other submissions qua merits of the claim raised by the petitioners-appellants have been made so as to impress the Court that the election proceedings submitted by them were unacceptable and that there is no merit in the appellants’ claim qua office bearership of the Society. Further submissions have been made that pursuant to the order dated 12.08.2024, newly elected office bearers have already taken charge of the affairs of the Society and, hence, no interference is warranted by this Court.
6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that no interference should be made either in the order dated 12.08.2024 or the order of the learned Single Judge who, otherwise, has not closed the chapter for the petitioners-appellants as they have been relegated to avail alternative statutory remedy of appeal.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that grievance of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was, infact, based upon non-conduct of hearing by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who came in charge of the office after the previous officer stood transferred. We may refer to the order sheet of last six dates fixed in the proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Act. The order sheet reads as under:-
01.07.2024 i=koyh izLrqrA iqdkj djk;h x;hA oknh gkftj gSA izfroknh gkftj ugh gS] izfroknh dk vkifRr dk volj vkns’k fn0 10-06-24 ,oa 26-06-24 ds dze esa lekIr fd;k tkrk gS] oknh us cgl izLrqr dj dFku fd;k fd izfroknh }kjk xfBr desVh dwVjfpr <+ax ls cuk;h x;h gS] oknh us bl lEcU/k esa cgl djrs gq;s 4 dFku fd;k fd oknh dk vius nkos ds leFkZu esa lk{; iw.kZ gS] izfroknh }kjk u gh vkifRr nkf[ky dh x;h vkSj u gh dksbZ lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k gS oknh dks lquk okLrs vkns’kkFkZ fn0 08-07-24 dks izLrqr gksA
08.07.24
19.07.24
31.07.24
07.08.24
12.08.24 कኃ┆ दि(cid:26)䁀त। प्ቔावल⹑ आदेश ्ቚशा劻㟛 का䁀(cid:15) म⒳┐ व्䁀स्त, ्ቚशा劻㟛 का䁀(cid:15) म⒳┐ व्䁀स्त। प्ቔावल⹑ आदेश ्ቚ्ቔावल⹑ ्ቚस्तुत । P.O. हेतु दिद劻㟛 19.07.24 प्ቔावल⹑ ्ቚस्तुत। P.O. हेतु दिद劻㟛 31.07.24 दि(cid:26)䁀त। प्ቔवाल⹑ ्ቚस्तुत। P.O. LFkkukUrfjr हुए, प्ቔावल⹑ कኃ┆ दि(cid:26)䁀त। हेतु प्ቔावल⹑ पेश/ वाद⹑ हाजि ॏ᭽ आ䁀े, हेतु दिद劻㟛 12.08.24, 12.08.2024 प्ቔावल⹑ पेश। प्ቔावल⹑ म⒳┐ layXu दिहन्द⹑ टंदिकक आदेश पारिॏ᭽त दिक䁀ा ग䁀ा। आदेश का अ(cid:26)ुपाल(cid:26) हኃ┆। प्ቔावल⹑ वाद आवश्䁀क का䁀(cid:15)वाह⹑ दाखि*ल दफ्तॏ᭽ हኃ┆। पु(cid:26)ख़᭧ बहस सु(cid:26)⹑, कኃ┆ पेश हኃ┆। दिद劻㟛 07.08.24 वास्ते आदेश पु(cid:26)ख़᭧ बहस
8. A bare perusal of the order sheet reflects that arguments of the respondent No.4, who was petitioner before the Prescribed Authority, were heard on 01.07.2024, on which date, the matter was posted for 08.07.2024 for passing orders. On next two dates, i.e. on 08.07.2024 and 19.07.2024, order could not be passed on account of Presiding Officer being busy in administrative work. Then, on 31.07.2024, the officer was transferred and the matter was posted for re-hearing to be conducted on 07.08.2024. In the meantime, a new incumbent took charge and, on 07.08.2024, the matter was posted for passing orders on 12.08.2024.
9. Though, a typed copy of the order sheet has been reproduced hereinabove, its photo-stat copy appended at ‘page 90’ of the paper book indicates that words “ पु(cid:26)ख़᭧ बहस सु(cid:26)⹑,” were added to the order dated 07.08.2024 in a different handwriting and the next date for passing of order, i.e. 12.08.2024, was written twice. The manner in which the order sheet of 07.08.2024 was written creates suspicion in the mind of the Court as to whether hearing at all took place on
07.08.2024 before the officer who took charge after transfer of the previous Magistrate, before whom hearing had been conducted on
01.07.2024. 5
10. In order to examine the above aspect, the Court went through the order dated 12.08.2024, impugned in the writ petition and a very interesting feature is noticed therein, as reflected from internal page No.3 of the order at page No.65 of the paper book. Second paragraph of the said page reads as under:- स⹑劻㟛प⹑劻㟛स⹑劻㟛 पॏ᭽ “iz’uxr 11 vf/koDrkx.kksa vf/koDrkx.kksasa दिद劻㟛 08.04.2024 vf/koDrkx.kksasa ्ቚा्ቕ(cid:15)(cid:26)ा प्ቔ ्ቦ⹑ ॏ᭽ा ेन्⸏ िሺसह दिद劻㟛 04.03.2024 मेॏ᭽े ्ቛाॏ᭽ा दिद劻㟛 17.03.2024 क漞鰋 बहस सु(cid:26)⹑ ग䨍淧 एवं उभ䁀 प㝋㝬 के कኃ┆ उभ䁀 प㝋㝬 के आदेश 7 दि(cid:26)䁀म दिव्ቛा(cid:26) दिव्ቛा(cid:26) ्ቚा्ቕ(cid:15)(cid:26)ा प्ቔ न्䁀ा䁀ाल䁀 ्ቛाॏ᭽ा आदेश उभ䁀 प㝋㝬 के क漞鰋 बहस सु(cid:26)(cid:26)े के उपॏ᭽ान्त कኃ┆ दि(cid:26)ॏ᭽स्त दिक䁀ा ग䁀ा। mDr ्ቛाॏ᭽ा न्䁀ा䁀ाल䁀 म⒳┐ (cid:26)ኃ┆ट दिक䁀ा ग䁀ा है। "
11. The above portion of the order clearly supports the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the order had been prepared by Shri Prateek Tripathi but was delivered by Shri Jagmohan Gupta, inasmuch as, admittedly, Shri Jagmohan Gupta was not posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate on 17.03.2024 or
08.04.2024 when Shri Prateek Tripathi was occupying the said chair and, admittedly, Shri Gupta joined the post after transfer of Shri Tripathi that took place on 31.07.2024.
12. When asked, learned counsel for the respondents could not give any satisfactory response to the above aspect, rather learned counsel for respondent No.4 tried to impress the Court that the appellants had, earlier, avoided arguing the matter on merits and have also not assailed the order dated 12.08.2024 on merits, either before the learned Single Judge or before this Court. 6
13. On perusal of the record of proceedings, we are satisfied that no hearing took place before the officer who had subsequently taken charge of the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate and, therefore, we are of the view that the order which was already prepared by the previous officer, was given the final shape and was signed by the new incumbent. When this aspect was agitated by the appellants before the writ court, the learned Single Judge, by reproducing the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the previous officer, observed that petitioners were given opportunity to file objections but they did not avail the same and the question as to whether there was some typed order already on record which has been delivered as judgement by the respondent No.2, is a question of fact which can be determined on the basis of evidence and other materials produced by the parties. With this observation, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and relegated the petitioners to avail alternative remedy under Section 25(1) (d) of the Act.
14. In view of the above discussion, we find sufficient force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and are of the view that order dated 12.08.2024 should have been set aside by the learned Single Judge for the only reason of non-conduct of hearing by the new officer. The said aspect, not being a disputed question of fact involved in the matter, we are satisfied that it was not a fit case to relegate the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy of appeal as the question did not relate to the merits of the rival claims qua any election, rather the issue before the learned Single Judge was as to whether an order could be passed by an officer who had not heard the matter. 7
15. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and also the order dated 12.08.2024 (impugned in the writ petition) and relegate the matter to the Prescribed Authority to decide the case under Section 25(1) of the Act, after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellants as well as respondent No.4, strictly in accordance with law.
16. Accordingly, the special appeal succeeds and is allowed.
17. The order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 30426 of 2024 (Committee of Management Shiksha Samiti Sri Nehru Smarak Vidyalaya and another vs State of U.P. and others) and also the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority are hereby set aside.
18. The proceedings of Case No.6856 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. T202218210506856) (Pramod Kumar Singh vs. Rajendra Singh) under Section 25(1) of the Act stand revived on the file of the Prescribed Authority. The same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified/ true attested copy of this order before the Prescribed Authority and after providing full opportunity of hearing to the appellants as well as respondent No.4. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
No.30426 of 2024 (Committee of Management Shiksha Samiti Sri Nehru Smarak Vidyalaya and another vs State of U.P. and others) relegating the petitioners-appellants to avail alternative remedy under Section 25(1)(d) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short ‘the Act’).
3. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the petitioners- appellants assailing the order dated 12.08.2024 whereby the 2 Prescribed Authority, Aliganj, District Etah, while disposing of proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Act, had accepted the election proceedings dated 07.06.2020, (approved on 29.08.2021) produced by the respondent No. 4 and rejected the election proceedings dated 21.06.2020 produced by the petitioners, terming the same to be contrary to the provisions of the Act.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants raised a very short submission to the effect that whereas the matter under Section 25(1) of the Act was heard by one Shri Prateek Tripathi (written as Prateek Tiwari in the order of the learned Single Judge), Sub Divisional Magistrate, Aliganj, he was transferred on 31.07.2024 and the new incumbent, namely Shri Jagmohan Gupta took charge of the post, who, without conducting hearing of the matter, passed the order dated 12.08.2024, impugned in the writ petition. Submission is that, infact, the subsequent incumbent signed the order already prepared by his predecessor-in-charge and, therefore, the same was liable to be set aside on this ground alone, however, the learned Single Judge, even after noticing the aforesaid submissions advanced by the petitioners-appellants, relegated them to avail alternative remedy. Reference to ‘Annexure No.7’ to the writ petition has been made which is a photostat copy of the certified copy of the order sheet of the case u/s 25(1).
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 submits that petitioners-appellants were granted ample opportunity to make their submissions before the Prescribed Authority, however, they kept on avoiding the proceedings and did not advance arguments and, therefore, the matter was decided. As regards submission qua transfer of the officer prior to decision and passing of the order by 3 the subsequent incumbent, it is urged that the order sheet dated
07.08.2024 itself indicates that the Sub Divisional Magistrate had again heard the matter and, then, the order dated 12.08.2024 was passed. Various other submissions qua merits of the claim raised by the petitioners-appellants have been made so as to impress the Court that the election proceedings submitted by them were unacceptable and that there is no merit in the appellants’ claim qua office bearership of the Society. Further submissions have been made that pursuant to the order dated 12.08.2024, newly elected office bearers have already taken charge of the affairs of the Society and, hence, no interference is warranted by this Court.
6. Learned Standing Counsel submits that no interference should be made either in the order dated 12.08.2024 or the order of the learned Single Judge who, otherwise, has not closed the chapter for the petitioners-appellants as they have been relegated to avail alternative statutory remedy of appeal.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that grievance of the appellants before the learned Single Judge was, infact, based upon non-conduct of hearing by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who came in charge of the office after the previous officer stood transferred. We may refer to the order sheet of last six dates fixed in the proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Act. The order sheet reads as under:-
01.07.2024 i=koyh izLrqrA iqdkj djk;h x;hA oknh gkftj gSA izfroknh gkftj ugh gS] izfroknh dk vkifRr dk volj vkns’k fn0 10-06-24 ,oa 26-06-24 ds dze esa lekIr fd;k tkrk gS] oknh us cgl izLrqr dj dFku fd;k fd izfroknh }kjk xfBr desVh dwVjfpr <+ax ls cuk;h x;h gS] oknh us bl lEcU/k esa cgl djrs gq;s 4 dFku fd;k fd oknh dk vius nkos ds leFkZu esa lk{; iw.kZ gS] izfroknh }kjk u gh vkifRr nkf[ky dh x;h vkSj u gh dksbZ lk{; izLrqr fd;k x;k gS oknh dks lquk okLrs vkns’kkFkZ fn0 08-07-24 dks izLrqr gksA
08.07.24
19.07.24
31.07.24
07.08.24
12.08.24 कኃ┆ दि(cid:26)䁀त। प्ቔावल⹑ आदेश ्ቚशा劻㟛 का䁀(cid:15) म⒳┐ व्䁀स्त, ्ቚशा劻㟛 का䁀(cid:15) म⒳┐ व्䁀स्त। प्ቔावल⹑ आदेश ्ቚ्ቔावल⹑ ्ቚस्तुत । P.O. हेतु दिद劻㟛 19.07.24 प्ቔावल⹑ ्ቚस्तुत। P.O. हेतु दिद劻㟛 31.07.24 दि(cid:26)䁀त। प्ቔवाल⹑ ्ቚस्तुत। P.O. LFkkukUrfjr हुए, प्ቔावल⹑ कኃ┆ दि(cid:26)䁀त। हेतु प्ቔावल⹑ पेश/ वाद⹑ हाजि ॏ᭽ आ䁀े, हेतु दिद劻㟛 12.08.24, 12.08.2024 प्ቔावल⹑ पेश। प्ቔावल⹑ म⒳┐ layXu दिहन्द⹑ टंदिकक आदेश पारिॏ᭽त दिक䁀ा ग䁀ा। आदेश का अ(cid:26)ुपाल(cid:26) हኃ┆। प्ቔावल⹑ वाद आवश्䁀क का䁀(cid:15)वाह⹑ दाखि*ल दफ्तॏ᭽ हኃ┆। पु(cid:26)ख़᭧ बहस सु(cid:26)⹑, कኃ┆ पेश हኃ┆। दिद劻㟛 07.08.24 वास्ते आदेश पु(cid:26)ख़᭧ बहस
8. A bare perusal of the order sheet reflects that arguments of the respondent No.4, who was petitioner before the Prescribed Authority, were heard on 01.07.2024, on which date, the matter was posted for 08.07.2024 for passing orders. On next two dates, i.e. on 08.07.2024 and 19.07.2024, order could not be passed on account of Presiding Officer being busy in administrative work. Then, on 31.07.2024, the officer was transferred and the matter was posted for re-hearing to be conducted on 07.08.2024. In the meantime, a new incumbent took charge and, on 07.08.2024, the matter was posted for passing orders on 12.08.2024.
9. Though, a typed copy of the order sheet has been reproduced hereinabove, its photo-stat copy appended at ‘page 90’ of the paper book indicates that words “ पु(cid:26)ख़᭧ बहस सु(cid:26)⹑,” were added to the order dated 07.08.2024 in a different handwriting and the next date for passing of order, i.e. 12.08.2024, was written twice. The manner in which the order sheet of 07.08.2024 was written creates suspicion in the mind of the Court as to whether hearing at all took place on
07.08.2024 before the officer who took charge after transfer of the previous Magistrate, before whom hearing had been conducted on
01.07.2024. 5
10. In order to examine the above aspect, the Court went through the order dated 12.08.2024, impugned in the writ petition and a very interesting feature is noticed therein, as reflected from internal page No.3 of the order at page No.65 of the paper book. Second paragraph of the said page reads as under:- स⹑劻㟛प⹑劻㟛स⹑劻㟛 पॏ᭽ “iz’uxr 11 vf/koDrkx.kksa vf/koDrkx.kksasa दिद劻㟛 08.04.2024 vf/koDrkx.kksasa ्ቚा्ቕ(cid:15)(cid:26)ा प्ቔ ्ቦ⹑ ॏ᭽ा ेन्⸏ िሺसह दिद劻㟛 04.03.2024 मेॏ᭽े ्ቛाॏ᭽ा दिद劻㟛 17.03.2024 क漞鰋 बहस सु(cid:26)⹑ ग䨍淧 एवं उभ䁀 प㝋㝬 के कኃ┆ उभ䁀 प㝋㝬 के आदेश 7 दि(cid:26)䁀म दिव्ቛा(cid:26) दिव्ቛा(cid:26) ्ቚा्ቕ(cid:15)(cid:26)ा प्ቔ न्䁀ा䁀ाल䁀 ्ቛाॏ᭽ा आदेश उभ䁀 प㝋㝬 के क漞鰋 बहस सु(cid:26)(cid:26)े के उपॏ᭽ान्त कኃ┆ दि(cid:26)ॏ᭽स्त दिक䁀ा ग䁀ा। mDr ्ቛाॏ᭽ा न्䁀ा䁀ाल䁀 म⒳┐ (cid:26)ኃ┆ट दिक䁀ा ग䁀ा है। "
11. The above portion of the order clearly supports the contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the order had been prepared by Shri Prateek Tripathi but was delivered by Shri Jagmohan Gupta, inasmuch as, admittedly, Shri Jagmohan Gupta was not posted as Sub Divisional Magistrate on 17.03.2024 or
08.04.2024 when Shri Prateek Tripathi was occupying the said chair and, admittedly, Shri Gupta joined the post after transfer of Shri Tripathi that took place on 31.07.2024.
12. When asked, learned counsel for the respondents could not give any satisfactory response to the above aspect, rather learned counsel for respondent No.4 tried to impress the Court that the appellants had, earlier, avoided arguing the matter on merits and have also not assailed the order dated 12.08.2024 on merits, either before the learned Single Judge or before this Court. 6
13. On perusal of the record of proceedings, we are satisfied that no hearing took place before the officer who had subsequently taken charge of the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate and, therefore, we are of the view that the order which was already prepared by the previous officer, was given the final shape and was signed by the new incumbent. When this aspect was agitated by the appellants before the writ court, the learned Single Judge, by reproducing the order dated 26.06.2024 passed by the previous officer, observed that petitioners were given opportunity to file objections but they did not avail the same and the question as to whether there was some typed order already on record which has been delivered as judgement by the respondent No.2, is a question of fact which can be determined on the basis of evidence and other materials produced by the parties. With this observation, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and relegated the petitioners to avail alternative remedy under Section 25(1) (d) of the Act.
14. In view of the above discussion, we find sufficient force in the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and are of the view that order dated 12.08.2024 should have been set aside by the learned Single Judge for the only reason of non-conduct of hearing by the new officer. The said aspect, not being a disputed question of fact involved in the matter, we are satisfied that it was not a fit case to relegate the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy of appeal as the question did not relate to the merits of the rival claims qua any election, rather the issue before the learned Single Judge was as to whether an order could be passed by an officer who had not heard the matter. 7
15. Therefore, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and also the order dated 12.08.2024 (impugned in the writ petition) and relegate the matter to the Prescribed Authority to decide the case under Section 25(1) of the Act, after providing opportunity of hearing to the appellants as well as respondent No.4, strictly in accordance with law.
16. Accordingly, the special appeal succeeds and is allowed.
17. The order dated 25.10.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-C No. 30426 of 2024 (Committee of Management Shiksha Samiti Sri Nehru Smarak Vidyalaya and another vs State of U.P. and others) and also the order dated 12.08.2024 passed by the Prescribed Authority are hereby set aside.
18. The proceedings of Case No.6856 of 2022 (Computerized Case No. T202218210506856) (Pramod Kumar Singh vs. Rajendra Singh) under Section 25(1) of the Act stand revived on the file of the Prescribed Authority. The same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of production of certified/ true attested copy of this order before the Prescribed Authority and after providing full opportunity of hearing to the appellants as well as respondent No.4. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad