Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1915 (ALL)

Nagari Pracharini Sabha v. State of U. P.

2016-05-17

UMESH CHANDRA SRIVASTAVA, V.K.SHUKLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Ref: Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support Delay Condonation Application, which constitutes sufficient cause, the Application is allowed. Delay of 41 days is condoned. Special Appeal is treated to have been filed well within time. Ref: Special Appeal Nagari Pracharini Sabha, Visheshwarganj, Varanasi through its Additional Assistant Secretary is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 29.02.2016, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.9118 of 2016 (Nagari Pracharini Sabha vs. State of U.P. and others), wherein the learned Single Judge has refused to interfere with the order dated 4th December, 2015 passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits by which he has referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority while exercising the Authority conferred under Section 25(1) of Societies Registration Act, 1860. From the side of the petitioner-appellant, it has been contended that Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits has referred the matter in a mechanical manner without even going into the objection raised that the local person presenting rival claim was not at all member and in view of this, in-genuine reference ought not to have been made. Said arguments in question have been controverted by submitting that once two set of rival claims have been before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits and the issue in question being raised was touching the validity of the elections, then rightful exercise of authority has been made by referring the dispute and in view of this, no interference be made. After respective arguments have been advanced, the factual situation that is so emerging is that in the District of Varanasi there is a Society known as Nagari Pracharini Sabha, Town Hall, Varanasi registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 10.09.1989 and its registration has been renewed from time to time. This much is also reflected that with respect to election of Committee of Management two set of election for registration before the Assistant Registrar were presented; one by the petitioner-appellant claiming himself to be elected General Secretary in election dated 02.02.2015 and another by Shobh Nath Yadav, who claims himself to be Secretary elected in election dated 08.03.2015. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, after receiving the two sets of rival claims, issued notice to the claimants for producing original documents in support of their elections. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, after receiving the two sets of rival claims, issued notice to the claimants for producing original documents in support of their elections. Once such is the factual situation that is so emerging that there has been rival claim and there has been a serious dispute as to who are the rightful claimant of the Committee of Management and original papers have not been produced, then the matter has been rightfully referred to the Prescribed Authority and what we find that there is serious issue of membership pertaining to Shobh Nath Yadav and even the said issue has to be answered by the Prescribed Authority. Suffice is to mention that the Prescribed Authority when it goes to decide the said issues, should also decide the dispute as to whether Shobh Nath Yadav is a valid member of Society as it is being alleged by the Committee of Management that he is not a valid member and while deciding this question, the Prescribed Authority should call for the relevant records as to how he became the member of the Society and who has inducted under the bye-laws of the Society. Prescribed Authority at the point of time of deciding election dispute should advert himself on following three issues: (i) who had the authority to convene the meeting and hold the elections; (ii) the persons who have participated in elections are valid members of the general body of Society; (iii) elections have been held strictly in consonance with the bye-laws of the Society. A categorical finding be returned on all the three scores before proceeding to accept the validity of elections. With these, present Special Appeal is dismissed.