Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 396 (ALL)

AryaSamaj,NyayShahar,Etawah v. State of U. P.

2017-02-02

SANGEETA CHANDRA, V.K.SHUKLA

body2017
JUDGMENT Committee of Management, Arya Samaj,NyayShahar, Etawah through its Secretary Smt. Manorma Mishra is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition no. 29504 of 2016 wherein the learned Single Judge keeping in view the background of the case and the factum of the order passed in writ petition no. 61717 of 2015 and writ petition no. 14236 of 2016 has dismissed the writ petition but leaving it open for the petitioner appellants to seek appropriate adjudication/declaration from the Civil Court. The order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge is being quoted below; "This petition challenges an order passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits dated 23rd May, 2016. The order records that upon a petition filed by the present petitioners before this Court being Writ Petition No. 61717 of 2015, following orders were passed on 6.11.2015: - "Accordingly, with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 20.10.2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar is quashed. The fourth respondent shall within two weeks of receipt of certified copy of the order, refer the dispute for adjudication by the 'PradeshiyaNyay Sabha'. The 'PradeshiyaNyay Sabha' shall, on receipt of reference, enter into the controversy, and decide the same, in accordance with law." It seems that an order was then passed on 15th March 2016 by Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, rejecting the petitioners' objection with regard to non-inclusion of names send by petitioners for being treated as delegates. This order came to be assailed by the petitioners by filing Writ Petition No. 14236 of 2016, which was dismissed as withdrawn vide following orders on 31st March 2016: - "After some argument, Sri Rakesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition with liberty reserved in favour of the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing a civil suit or such other remedy, as may be available to the petitioners under law. Accordingly, this writ petition is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty reserved in favour of the petitioners to seek such remedy as may be available to them under law." Yet another Writ Petition No. 23882 of 2016 was filed challenging the order passed by Registrar dated 15.5.2016, rejecting the application for transfer of proceedings pending before Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow Region, Lucknow to some other Deputy Registrar. This petition was dismissed as having become infructuous vide order dated 30th May, 2016. The Deputy Registrar has noticed the order passed by this Court on 6.11.2015, which required petitioners' grievance to be considered by PradeshikNyay Sabha. Petitioners appear to have moved an application before the Deputy Registrar, questioning the proceedings before the PradeshikNyay Sabha on the ground that respondent no. 4 is not the competent person to represent it. The objection of petitioners' moved before the Deputy Registrar was forwarded to the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha on 29.4.2016, and it was observed that till the matter is decided, no further action be taken by it, with regard to matter in issue. The Deputy Registrar appears to have later realized that once this Court had directed petitioners' grievance to be referred to PradeshikNyay Sabha, there was no occasion for him to have issued any restraint and consequently, has withdrawn his direction contained in his order dated 29.4.2016, vide order dated 23rd May 2016, which is assailed in this petition. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners states that fourth respondents cannot act as Pradhan of the PradeshikNyay Sabha and the petitioners are not expected to participate in the proceedings before him. Various orders passed by the Delhi High Court in original suit filed in the respect of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha i.e. the apex body, to challenge the authority of fourth respondent to conduct proceedings on behalf of PradeshikNyay Sabha, is relied upon. The petition is opposed by the respondents, strongly contending that respondent no. 4 is the appropriate person to examine petitioners' claim, and once proceedings are being conducted before it, as per the directions issued by this Court on 6.11.2015, the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to intervene and has rightly withdrawn his earlier order, interfering with the proceedings pending before the PradeshikNyay Sabha. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records. It is apparent that proceedings before the PradeshikNyay Sabha have been referred by this Court upon the asking of petitioners in its earlier Writ Petition No. 76717 of 2015. The question as to whether respondent no. 4 is entitled to act on behalf of PradeshikNyay Sabha, which is State level authority, is essentially a civil dispute, inasmuch as the PradeshikNyay Sabha is purely a private body. This Court, upon an earlier petition filed by the petitioner i.e. Writ Petition No. 14236 of 2016, has permitted the petitioners to avail the remedy of filing a civil suit or such other remedy as may be available to the petitioners, under law. The Deputy Registrar having realized the fact, that, it was pursuant to directions issued by this Court that proceedings are going on before the PradeshikNyay Sabha, has rightly refused to interfere in the matter. Question as to whether respondent no. 4 has the authority to act as head of the PradeshikNyay Sabha or not, is purely a civil dispute, for which appropriate declaration can be granted by the civil Court and petitioners were permitted to withdraw his earlier petition to seek such remedy. The proceedings before the Delhi High Court in which different orders have been passed, is in respect of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha i.e. apex body, in an original suit. The scope of proceeding before the writ Court, vis-a-vis before the Court having original civil jurisdiction are quiet distinct. I am not inclined to take any different view in the matter as is already taken before in Writ Petition No. 14236 of 2016, and the grievance directed against the respondent no. 4, is not liable to be entertained in writ proceedings, specially as no State action is otherwise under challenge. The writ petition, in respect of the grievance raised and for the relief sought, is not the appropriate remedy. 4, is not liable to be entertained in writ proceedings, specially as no State action is otherwise under challenge. The writ petition, in respect of the grievance raised and for the relief sought, is not the appropriate remedy. Leaving it open for the petitioners to seek appropriate adjudication/declaration from the civil Court, the writ petition is consigned to records." Learned counsel for the petitioner appellants has submitted before us with vehemence that in the present case learned Single Judge has erred in law in not entertaining the writ petition whereas Akhilesh Sharma, who was appointed as Pradhan of PradeshikNyay Sabha by R.S. Tomar is not entitled to act as Pradhan as he was not appointed by the competent authority, in view of this, writ petition in question ought to have been entertained and ought to have been decided on merits. The claim in question has been resisted by Sri Pankaj Srivastava, Advocate, as well as Sri Sanjeev Singh, Advocate, by contending that rightful orders have been passed and no interference should be made by this Court. We have proceeded to examine the order dated 19.12.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge and we have also proceeded to examine the order passed on 6.11.2015 in writ petition no. 61717 of 2015 and order dated 31.3.2016 passed in writ petition no. 14236 of 2016 and both the orders in question clearly and categorically would go to show that at the behest of the petitioner appellants both the orders in question have been passed wherein the dispute in question was referred for adjudication by PradeshikNyay Sabha and PradeshikNyay Sabha was further required to enter into controversy and to decide the same, in accordance with law, and this much is also clear that thereafter the objections in question have been rejected and opportunity, thereafter, has been accorded to file suit. Once such is the background of the case and petitioner appellant's submission has been to the effect that Akhilesh Sharma, who was appointed as Pradhan of PradeshikNyay Sabha by R.S. Tomar is not entitled to act as Pradhan of PradeshikNyay Sabha as he was not appointed by competent authority, all these are essentially question of fact and such issues cannot be answered in writ jurisdiction and learned Single Judge has rightly mentioned as to whether Akhilesh Sharma has the authority to act as Head of PradeshikNyay Sabha or not is purely civil dispute for which appropriate declaration can be granted by Civil Court and rightly has given opportunity to the petitioner appellants to file suit before the Civil Court. Consequently, present special appeal sans merit and same is dismissed, accordingly.