Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1634 (ALL)

Badri Narayan Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-04-29

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. The dispute relating to the elections of the Committee of Management of Janhitkarak Shiksha Parishad, Dhobauli, District Gorakhpur, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act,1860 was subject matter of adjudication by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 09.11.2015. The Prescribed Authority recognized the election proceedings dated 21.10.2011 and 10.08.2014 on the basis of which the fourth respondent (Rajendra Singh) claimed to have been elected as Manager. The aforesaid order was challenged in writ petition no.64998 of 2015 by the petitioners and wherein this Court quashed the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 09.11.2015 and remitted the matter back to it for a fresh consideration. In the judgment of this Court dated 30.11.2015 it was observed as under. "A perusal of the impugned order reveals that after noticing the objections preferred by the petitioners and also the contentions made by the fourth respondent, in his written submissions, the Prescribed Authority in penultimate paragraph of the impugned order abruptly concluded by holding that the petitioners having participated in the meeting dated 21.10.2011 and 10.8.2014 and thus the objections preferred by them, can not be sustained. The Prescribed Authority has not gone into the issue whether the fourth respondent was the member of the general body or could be elected as Secretary, nor on the specific plea raised by the petitioners that election proceedings dated 21.10.2011 and 10.8.2014 are a result of fraud and fabrication. 6. Sri B.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of fourth respondent also very fairly admitted that in the impugned order, the Prescribed Authority has failed to advert to the aforesaid aspect of the matter. He, therefore, suggested that instead of keeping the matter pending, the impugned order may be quashed and the matter may be remitted back to the Prescribed Authority for a fresh decision within a specified time." 2. In pursuance of the remand order, the Prescribed Authority has decided the dispute afresh by the impugned order dated 06.04.2016. He has again accepted the proceedings dated 21.10.2011 and 10.08.2014 to have been validly conducted and the objections filed by the petitioners have been rejected. 3. Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the Prescribed Authority has failed to record findings as per the direction given in the remand order. He has again accepted the proceedings dated 21.10.2011 and 10.08.2014 to have been validly conducted and the objections filed by the petitioners have been rejected. 3. Counsel for the petitioners pointed out that the Prescribed Authority has failed to record findings as per the direction given in the remand order. It is urged that there is absolutely no finding recorded by the Prescribed Authority in relation to the validity of the election proceedings dated 21.10.2011 and 10.08.2014. He pointed out that in the impugned order, the Prescribed Authority has in verbatim reproduced the proceedings of those dates as well as the proceedings of certain other dates in which the fourth respondent was initially enrolled as ordinary member and thereafter as a patron member. However, without disclosing as to how these proceedings were validly convened and held, the Prescribed Authority has validated the election set up by the fourth respondent. 4. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the fourth respondent, submitted that in the objection filed by the petitioners, the holding of the meeting on 10.08.2014 was not disputed but the only plea taken was that on that date the quorum was not complete. He, therefore, tried to suggest that the holding of the meeting was not in dispute. However, he does not dispute that in the impugned order, there is absolutely no finding as to how the election held on 10.08.2014 was validly held. In the impugned order, there is also no finding as to whether the quorum was complete or not. In view of it, he does not have any objection in case the matter is remitted back to the Prescribed Authority for fresh decision. 5. Accordingly, with the consent of the parties, the impugned order dated 06.04.2016 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Prescribed Authority for fresh consideration of all the issues in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order by any of the parties. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.