Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 48 (ALL)

INDRA PAL SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-01-06

RAJES KUMAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajes Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Sri P.N. Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Learned Standing Counsel appears on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioners are challenging the order dated 19.10.2011, passed by the Regional Level Committee by which the Committee has approved the election dated 27th February, 2011 in which Sri Balveer Singh was elected as the Manager of the committee of management and has disapproved the alleged election held by Indrapal Singh, the petitioner, on 27th February, 2011. 3. In the order, the Regional Level Committee has held that the Dhata Intermediate College Shiksha Samiti, Dhata, Fatehpur is a society, which runs an Intermediate College; the registration of the society has been renewed on 26th March, 2011 with effect from 10.10.2010 for five years; the registration has been granted on the basis of the papers presented by the committee of management in which Balveer Singh was the Manager; the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad, by the order dated 21.12.2005, has renewed the registration on the basis of papers submitted by Balveer Singh; these two orders of the Assistant Registrar show that the committee of management of Balveer Singh was in effective control of the society and the dispute raised by Indra Pal Singh has not been accepted; the term of the committee of management is of three years; the election held by the committee of management of Balveer Singh on 20th January, 2008 has been approved by the Regional Level Committee on 19.7.2008. It has also been observed by the Regional Level Committee that earlier when the dispute of the committee of management was raised, the matter was referred to the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter, the matter went to this Court and this Court, vide order, dated 18.8.2007, approved the election held on 11.9.2005 in which Ashok Kumar Singh was elected as the President and Balveer Singh as the Secretary and the election held by Indra Pal Singh on 11.9.2005 has been declared invalid. 4. Thereafter, the matter went to this Court and this Court, vide order, dated 18.8.2007, approved the election held on 11.9.2005 in which Ashok Kumar Singh was elected as the President and Balveer Singh as the Secretary and the election held by Indra Pal Singh on 11.9.2005 has been declared invalid. 4. The Regional Level Committee has held that in view of the above fact, now there is no existence of the committee of management of Indra Pal Singh and Dhanraj Singh and accordingly, the election held by the committee of management of Balveer Singh on 27th February, 2011 has been approved. It has been further held that on 27th February, 2011, the election was held in the College premises in which valid members of the society have participated; the members were informed by publication in two News Papers, namely, “Rashtriya Sahara” and “Amar Ujala” on 19th February, 2011 and the committee of management in which Balveer Singh was elected as the Manager was found in accordance to the scheme of administration. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that after concluding the hearing, certain papers have been allowed to be filed by the Regional Level Committee, which is against the accepted procedure of disposing of the case. He submitted that the case of the petitioners has not been considered and, therefore, the order is bad in law and is liable to be set aside. 6. I do not find any substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners. 7. I do agree with the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that it is not proper procedure to allow the parties to furnish documents/papers after conclusion of the hearing. The documents, which are part of the evidence, should be filed during the course of the hearing and only written submission should be allowed to be filed after conclusion of the hearing, but the Court is of the view that the said technical objection will not invalidate the impugned order. The impugned order is mainly based on the orders of the Assistant Registrar, the earlier order of the Regional Level Committee and the order of this Court, which have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The impugned order is mainly based on the orders of the Assistant Registrar, the earlier order of the Regional Level Committee and the order of this Court, which have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the case of the petitioners as well as the case of the respondents has been considered and thereafter the conclusion has been drawn by the Regional Level Committee. The basis on which the conclusion has been drawn cannot be said to be unjustified. 8. In the facts and circumstances, I do not see any reason to interfere in this matter. In the result, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. ——————