Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3193 (ALL)

Zila Bar Association, Barabanki v. State of U. P.

2015-10-09

RAJAN ROY

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Challenge herein is to three orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad, i.e., orders dated 8.1.2015, 16.6.2015 and 4.7.2015. 2. By the first order dated 8.1.2015, the Deputy Registrar has decided that the amendment of the Bye-laws which was got registered was not signed by the three office bearers of the Governing-body, therefore, the said registration was invalid and not as per law, consequently he has held that the proceedings/meetings held thereafter on 18.9.2014, 3.11.2014 and 26.11.2014 wherein the existing committee of management was elected, were invalid and illegal. Thus, virtually the election of the existing committee of management, which is the petitioner herein has been set aside. 3. By the second order dated 16.6.2015, the Deputy Registrar has declared the committee of management of the society to be time barred with effect from 22.1.1999 on the ground that the election in the year 1999 was not held before expiry of the term of the outgoing committee of management, consequently he has also held that all subsequent elections were time barred and based thereon he has nullified the induction of the members to the said Bar Association/Court annexed body w.e.f. 22.1.1999 and declared a tentative list of members of the General-body comprising of about 88 members only. All these members are those who were the members of the General-body prior to 22.1.1999. Against this tentative list objections were invited. 4. The third order dated 4.7.2015 has been passed finalizing the list of the members of the General-body for the purposes of election ordered by him under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1860'). The final list of members comprises of 67 members. 5. As a consequence of the aforesaid exercise, the membership of the private opposite parties has also been nullified and the elections of the petitioner has been nullified. 6. The final list of members comprises of 67 members. 5. As a consequence of the aforesaid exercise, the membership of the private opposite parties has also been nullified and the elections of the petitioner has been nullified. 6. After hearing the learned counsel for parties and perusing the records the court is of the opinion that while exercising power under Section 25(2) of the Act, 1860, though, the Deputy Registrar has the power to declare the committee of management of a society as time barred, if the elections are not held within stipulated period, but, it is not open for him to declare such committee of management as time barred with retrospective effect as in the present case, i.e., from 22.1.1999 unless there are exceptional circumstances, as has been laid down in the recent judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 4693 (M.S.) of 2015, Gyanodaya Association Sansaripur and another v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 31.8.2015. 7. The effect of the order dated 16.6.2015 and 4.7.2015 is that the Deputy Registrar has virtually declared all elections held w.e.f. 22.1.1999 as invalid and illegal merely because the initial election held in the year 1999 was delayed by six days. This view of the Deputy Registrar is apparently erroneous. If this is permitted it would amount to vesting of power with the Deputy Registrar to determine the validity of the election which has been held in the past long ago whereas the Act does not vest such power with him. As long as the elections held in 1999 and thereafter, have not been disputed as per law on this ground and based thereon the then elected Committee of Management managed the affairs of their association unhindered it is now not open for the Deputy Registrar to declare all these elections from 1999 as time barred and illegal. Any such action should have been taken at the relevant time in the relevant year but the same is impermissible after 15 years. 8. In view of pronouncement referred to hereinabove, this action of the Deputy Registrar cannot be sustained. 9. The other point which has been raised by the respective parties is as regards the validity of the amendment of the Bye-laws. There is consensus at Bar that the Bye-laws were submitted under the signatures of the then existing Treasurer, Secretary and the President. 9. The other point which has been raised by the respective parties is as regards the validity of the amendment of the Bye-laws. There is consensus at Bar that the Bye-laws were submitted under the signatures of the then existing Treasurer, Secretary and the President. This fact is admitted to Sri H.G.S. Parihar, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner as also Sri Narendra Kumar Verma the opposite party No. 6 who is present in person and also his counsel Sri Tung Nath Tewari. Even otherwise the Model Bye-laws have been framed by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh and all the Bar Association/Court annexed bodies have adopted the said Bye-laws and the function of the Association is being carried out as per the said Bye-laws, therefore, based on a mere technicality as mentioned in the impugned order dated 8.1.2015 the court is unable to sustain the said order on this count in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. The court has no hesitation to hold that the said amendment was a valid one and affairs of the society should be carried on as per the said Bye-laws unless the members of the General Body resolve otherwise. 10. Apart from aforesaid two issues, no other issue has been raised by the parties. 11. The question of expiry of recognition and affiliation of the Bar Association with the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh was sought to be raised by the private opposite parties but subsequently it was not pressed in the interest of Association. 12. In view of above discussion this Court finds that the impugned orders are not sustainable. The interest of smooth functioning of the Bar Association requires that the election be held timely and on the basis of valid members of the General-body. There is no reason to exclude all those members who have been validly enrolled as per the Bye-laws w.e.f. 1999 till date. The parties before the court, who are rival parties have consented to get the election of the committee of management of the Bar Association conducted, through a committee constituted by the court, accordingly, it is provided that a Committee comprising of five senior most members of the Bar Association, excluding those who were members of the earlier elders committee shall get the election conducted. However, management of Bar Association till the election of committee of management are conducted, shall be in the hands of the existing committee of management. The reason for excluding the members of earlier elders committee is the direction of the court dated 26.11.2014 in Writ Petition No. 11680 of 2014, the pendency of such inquiry, if any. This shall, however, not prejudice the rights of any such member in any proceeding which may be pending. The petitioners shall provide the seniority list of members as also the names of members who were part of the earlier elder's committee to the Deputy Registrar, Societies who shall constitute the committee as aforesaid for getting the election conducted. 13. In these circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the aforesaid committee to ascertain the valid members of the General-body as per Bye-laws and thereafter, proceed to hold the election of the committee of management of the association as per the Bye-laws of the society. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is disposed of.