Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 2729 (ALL)

Mahadev Mahila Prabodhani Sabha v. State of U. P.

2013-11-06

P.K.S.BAGHEL

body2013
JUDGMENT Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J. 1. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish Kumar Gupta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajesh Pratap Singh who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no. 5. 2. The essential facts are that Mahadev Mahila Prabodhni Sabha is a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860. The term of the office bearers of the society is five years. The Society has established a Junior High School namely Ram Deyi Balika Junior High School, Murukpur, Tandawa, Azamgarh. The affairs of the society are regulated by its bye-laws. A copy of the bye-laws is on the record as annexure no. 1 to the writ petition. It is stated that on 24.07.2000 the election of office bearers was held wherein Sri Surendra Nath Singh was elected as the Manager. 3. Unfortunately, Sri Surendra Nath Singh, the Manager passed away on 11.02.2002. A dispute arose in respect of office of the Manager as the petitioner no. 2 alleged that a meeting of the general body was held on 05.03.2002, in which he was elected as Manager for the remaining term of the Committee of Management. Thereafter a fresh election was held on 25.06.2005. In the said election one Sri Jagdish Dubey was elected as the President and petitioner no. 2 was elected as the Manager. It is further stated that the last renewal was granted on the application of late Sri Surendra Nath Singh, which was valid up to 25.05.2005. In the meantime one Sunil Kumar Singh moved an application and got the renewal of the registration certificate for five years commencing from 25.05.2005. The petitioner filed his objection before the Assistant Registrar, who cancelled the renewal certificate on 13.11.2006 after affording opportunity to the concerned parties. Pertinently, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari attested signatures of the petitioner no. 2 as Manager on 15.11.2006 pursuant to the election dated 25.06.2005. A copy of the order of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Azamgarh is annexed as annexure no. 6 to the writ petition. 4. Sunil Kumar Singh aggrieved by the order of Assistant Registrar dated 13.11.2006, whereby he had cancelled the renewal of registration granted on the application of Sunil Kumar Singh, filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Azamgarh under Section 12-D of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short, "Act, 1860). 6 to the writ petition. 4. Sunil Kumar Singh aggrieved by the order of Assistant Registrar dated 13.11.2006, whereby he had cancelled the renewal of registration granted on the application of Sunil Kumar Singh, filed an appeal before the Commissioner, Azamgarh under Section 12-D of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short, "Act, 1860). Pending consideration of the appeal, he preferred a writ petition no. 69572 of 2006. The said writ petition was dismissed on 03.01.2007, however this Court directed the Commissioner to decide the appeal filed by Sunil Kumar Singh. A copy of the said order dated 03.01.2007 is brought on record as annexure no. 7 to the writ petition. 5. In compliance of the order of this Court dated 03.01.2007 the Commissioner allowed the appeal on 04.04.2007. Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No. 24217 of 2007. The said writ petition was allowed and the order of Divisional Commissioner dated 04.04.2007 was set aside, and the matter was remitted back to the Commissioner. The Commissioner in his order dated 13.08.2008 referred the matter under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 to Prescribed Authority to decide the dispute of the office bearers. 6. Consequent upon, the Prescribed Authority registered Case No. 9 under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860. In the meantime Sri Sunil Kumar Singh moved an application stating therein that Sri Subedar Singh has been elected as Secretary. The Prescribed Authority has impleaded him vide order dated 06.02.2009. 7. The Prescribed Authority by the impugned order dated 30.09.2013 has rejected the claim of the petitioner no. 2 as also Sunil Kumar Singh as illegal and he recognized the Committee of Management headed by respondent no. 5 as valid committee. 8. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was recognized as Manager by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari and his signatures were attested in the election dated 25.06.2005. After the death of Sri Surendra Nath Singh on 11.02.2002, the general body in its meeting dated 05.03.2002 had elected the petitioner no. 2 as Manager and in the fresh election also which was held on 25.06.2005, was again elected and recognized by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari. However, these material facts have been completely ignored by the Prescribed Authority and a perverse finding has been recorded that Sri Surendra Nath Singh died in the year 2003 and on 28.06.2004 Sri Subedar Singh was elected. 9. However, these material facts have been completely ignored by the Prescribed Authority and a perverse finding has been recorded that Sri Surendra Nath Singh died in the year 2003 and on 28.06.2004 Sri Subedar Singh was elected. 9. Learned Counsel for the respondent no. 5 has very fairly admitted that the dates and year mentioned by the Prescribed Authority in his order in respect of the death of Sri Surendra Nath Singh and the election, have been incorrectly recorded by the Prescribed Authority. 10. From the perusal of order passed by the Prescribed Authority it is evident that he has not assigned any reason for accepting the election of respondent no. 5. He has only recorded his conclusion on the issue. 11. Having considered the aforesaid facts and in view of the consent of both the parties, order of the Prescribed Authority dated 30.09.2013 is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Prescribed Authority to pass a fresh reasoned order after giving the opportunity to concerned parties as expeditiously as possible preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order. 12. It is made clear that any observation made in this order, shall be without any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the respective parties. 13. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. 14. No order as to costs. ………………..