Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1996 (ALL)

GAYA PRASAD MISHRA v. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

2006-08-21

AJOY NATH RAY, ASHOK BHUSHAN

body2006
JUDGMENT By the Court—We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Tandon, on the 2nd of August, 2006. 2. By that said order, the appellants have been permitted to challenge the voter list on the basis of which, the elections of the Society are, at long last, due to be held next Monday, i.e., 28.8.2006. 3. His Lordship had directed that if objections to the voter list are put up, then and in that event, the list of office bearers, who might be elected in the ensuing elections of 28.8.2006, shall be registered under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act only after such objections are considered and decided. These membership disputes have been going on for a long time and the years span from 1994. 4. Pursuant to the disputes, which had been raised between the parties, ultimately on or about the 17th of December, 2005 by a long and reasoned order running to about 20 pages, the Prescribed Authority decided substantially in favour of the respondents before us, and turned down the claim of the membership by the appellants. 5. The said decision of the Prescribed Authority was challenged in an earlier writ petition, which resulted in an order dated 5.5.2006, which has become final and binding between the parties. 6. By that said order, the decision of the Prescribed Authority was not set aside. However, the membership dispute was again permitted to be raised and was directed to be decided by the Assistant Registrar. The decision of the Assistant Registrar was given, and challenging that decision, the present writ petition had been filed by the appellants. 7. Only the second appellant appears to have been accepted as a genuine and a valid member of the Society. Even though, even as regards him, there is a finding by the Prescribed Authority that the surname ’Charan’ had been overwritten and the name of Ram Pyare Lal was inserted. 8. Be that as it may, the writ Court is not a proper one for interfering in the disputed questions of fact and finding out who is and who is not a valid member. Even in the earlier order of 5.5.2006, the Civil Court was indicated as the proper authority and tribunal for the purpose of deciding finally all these disputed questions of fact. 9. Even in the earlier order of 5.5.2006, the Civil Court was indicated as the proper authority and tribunal for the purpose of deciding finally all these disputed questions of fact. 9. It is submitted that the Assistant Registrar’s decision dated 30.6.2006, which was the subject matter of the writ petition, should have been scrutinised by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in much greater detail, since the reasons given there are not at all spelt out properly, if those can be said to be existing at all. It is also submitted that if nothing is done to the decision of the Assistant Registrar, then any further challenge to the voter list before him by the appellants will be a useless formality. 10. It seems to us that the principal document by which the appellants have lost their case, at least for the time being, is the decision of the Prescribed Authority. The Assistant Registrar was asked to reconsider, but apparently, he has not found any materials, on the basis of which, he should reconsider. It might be that the materials will be now found by the appellants. If no materials are found and only old objections are repeated, the Assistant Registrar might very well be deciding again in the same line. The writ Court cannot do anything much about these successive administrative decisions going the same way, i.e., against the appellants and in favour of the respondents. There is no jurisdictional error pointed out, nor is it the case that the appellants are not being heard at all by these authorities. 11. In this view of the matter, the only place where the facts might be fully thrashed out at the instance of the appellants, is the Civil Court; if they have good facts, there is no reason why they should not approach that Court; if they do not have good facts, then the writ Court is not a proper place for getting an order only for the purpose of impending elections. 12. Our orders and observations will not in any manner, affect the discretion and jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar in deciding the objections as allowed by the Hon’ble Single Judge. 13. With these observations, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. ———