Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 2270 (ALL)

MALATI DEVI v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-07-04

ARUN TANDON, SUNITA AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard Sri Kripa Kant Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. Learned counsel for the parties agree that the present special appeal as well as the Writ Petitions No. 27742 of 2016 and 21456 of 2016, may be disposed of at this stage after calling for the records of the writ petition specifically in view of the order which is proposed to be passed hereinafter. 3. Shri Bhar Shiv Managala Vidyalaya, Badi, Gaibi, District Varanasi is a Society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said Society runs and manages a junior high school with the same name. With reference to the elections of the Office bearers of the Society held on 9.11.2014, a list of office bearers was submitted, showing Sri Uma Shankar Singh as the President, Malati Devi as the Manager, Sri Ram Lakhan Prasad as the Secretary and Munna Rajbhar as the Member of the Executive Body. This list is stated to have been registered under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 where no objection thereto had been filed. It is further stated that after the signature of Malati Devi as the Manager of the institution was approved, she sought permission from the District Basic Education Officer vide letter dated 9.6.2015 for advertisement of two vacancies for the post of Assistant Teacher, which was duly granted. 4. It appears that another list was submitted by the respondents to the present appeal stating therein that the appellant Malati Devi had resigned and in her place Munna Rajbhar had received the charge of the Manager. The list of office bearers 2015-16 was registered on 1.2.2016. Coming to know of the aforesaid change, Malati Devi filed objections before the Assistant Registrar on 29.3.2016 with request to cancel the list of office bearers of the year 2015-16. The Assistant Registrar vide letter dated 13.4.2016 required the contesting parties to produce the original records. 5. At the same time, Malati Devi also filed Writ Petition No. 21456 of 2016 challenging the impugned list of the office bearers 2015-16. In the said writ petition, notices were issued and 17.5.2016 was fixed for appearance of the parties. According to the appellant, the matter has now been directed to come up on 12.7.2016 as a fresh case. 6. At the same time, Malati Devi also filed Writ Petition No. 21456 of 2016 challenging the impugned list of the office bearers 2015-16. In the said writ petition, notices were issued and 17.5.2016 was fixed for appearance of the parties. According to the appellant, the matter has now been directed to come up on 12.7.2016 as a fresh case. 6. The records reflect that with reference to the order of the High Court dated 17.5.2016, the Assistant Registrar concluded the hearing as was initiated on the complaint of the present appellant and vide order dated 20.5.2016 has cancelled the registered list of office bearers for the year 2015-16. Dissatisfied with the order so passed, the respondent No. 4 and other office bearers filed Writ Petition No. 27742 of 2016 wherein an interim order has been passed by the learned Single Judge staying the operation of the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 20.5.2016. Hence, this intra Court appeal. 7. This Court during the course of hearing has called upon the learned counsels for the parties to answer as to whether the Assistant Registrar had the jurisdiction to enter into the dispute of resignation of the Manager of the institution. This Court is of the considered opinion that all the issues pertaining to the election and continuance of the office bearers of a registered Society are necessarily to be examined by the prescribed authority under Section 25 of The Societies Registration Act and it is not within the competence of the Assistant Registrar to enter into such disputes. The legal position in this regard is well-settled. 8. Both the counsel for the parties are agreeable to the settled legal position in this regard. 9. In view of the above, we find that the order dated 1.2.2016 passed by the Assistant Registrar for re-registration of the list of office bearers 2015-16 and the subsequent order dated 20.5.2016 passed by him deciding the dispute regarding resignation of Malati Devi cannot be legallysustained as they suffer for want of jurisdiction. 10. The questions whether Malati Devi had resigned from the post of Manager of the Society/Institution and that in her place respondent Munna Rajbhar has been elected as the Manager for the remaining period need to be examined only under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act at the first instance. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal and Writ Petition Nos. 10. The questions whether Malati Devi had resigned from the post of Manager of the Society/Institution and that in her place respondent Munna Rajbhar has been elected as the Manager for the remaining period need to be examined only under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act at the first instance. 11. Accordingly, the present appeal and Writ Petition Nos. 27742 of 2016 and 21456 of 2016 are disposed of with the following directions: (a) Both the orders dated 1.2.2016 and 20.5.2016 passed by the Assistant Registrar are hereby set aside. (b) The Assistant Registrar is directed to transmit the entire records as submitted by the parties in respect of resignation of Smt. Malati Devi to the Prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The prescribed authority shall consider the dispute as raised by the parties and shall decide the same strictly in accordance with law after affording full opportunity to the parties concerned preferably within eight weeks thereafter. ———————