Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 589 (UTT)

Vibha Bhatnagar v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-11-21

ALOK KUMAR VERMA, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Ramesh Ranganathan, J. Special Appeal No.74 of 2015 is filed by the sixth respondent, and Special Appeal No.200 of 2015 is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4, in WPMS No.445 of 2015 against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 24.02.2015. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in SPA No.200 of 2015 filed WPMS No.445 of 2015 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms and Societies dated 29.01.2015. 2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the term of the office of the first respondent-Committee of Management expired on 26.11.2013. Elections, however, were notified in the newspaper according to the first respondent herein on 21.01.2014, and according to the appellant in SPA No.74 of 2015 on 22.01.2014. The Deputy Registrar, vide letter dated 21.01.2014, directed the first respondent herein not to hold the elections. Questioning the said order passed by the Deputy Registrar, the first respondent-society filed WPMS No.178 of 2014. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by his order dated 29.01.2014, rejected the first respondent’s request for grant of stay of the order of the Deputy Registrar. The first respondent herein preferred Special Appeal No.17 of 2014, and a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 17.02.2014, while holding that the election process should be monitored by the Deputy Registrar or his authorized nominee, stayed the order dated 21.01.2014 till the disposal of the writ petition. The review petition, filed there against by Dr. N.S. Bhatnagar, was also dismissed by the order dated 29.04.2014. There is also a dispute between the parties as to when the elections were completed. While the appellant in SPA No.78 of 2014 claims that the elections were already held on 16.02.2014, the first respondent herein claims that the elections were in fact held only on 23.02.2014. 3. While the first respondent claims that the result of elections were declared only on 23.02.2014, the claim of the appellant in SPA No. 74 of 2015 is that, since the office bearers were elected unopposed on their filing nomination on 16.02.2014, there was nothing for the Deputy Registrar to supervise; and this is reflected in both his report and the reference made by him to the Prescribed Authority. By his order dated 29.01.2015, the Deputy Registrar made a reference to the Prescribed Authority. By his order dated 29.01.2015, the Deputy Registrar made a reference to the Prescribed Authority. While learned counsel on both sides agree that the reference related to his inability to supervise elections, both the parties are at variance on the other question regarding the elections having been held after expiry of the term of office of the elected office bearers on 26.11.2013. While the first respondent contends that it is not the subject matter of the reference, the appellant in SPA No. 74 of 2015 insists that this also forms a part of the reference made by the Registrar to the Prescribed Authority. 4. Be that as it may, on the order of reference dated 29.01.2015 being subjected to challenge in WPMS No. 445 of 2015 by the first respondent- Society, the learned Single Judge, by the order under appeal, held that a certified copy of the order, passed in Special Appeal No.17/2014 dated 17.02.2014, was communicated to the Deputy Registrar on 22.02.2014, and the elections were held in his presence on 23.03.2014; and, therefore, the observations of the Deputy Registrar, that he could not be obtain a certified order of the order dated 17.02.2014 passed in SPA No. 17 of 2014 prior to the elections, and he could not supervise the elections, was patently wrong; and more over, it was nowhere mentioned that the elections were adversely affected for any reason. After holding that the ground, that the Deputy Registrar could not supervise elections, was no ground to refer the dispute to the prescribed authority, the learned Single Judge held that the impugned order was unsustainable. The writ petition was allowed, and the order of reference was quashed. Aggrieved thereby, these two Special Appeals. 5. During the pendency of these special appeals, the term of office of the office bearers, elected in February, 2014, came to an end on their completing their three year term of office on 22.02.2017. Fresh elections were held thereafter on 16.05.2017, and the new office bearers assumed office soon thereafter. While the appellant in SPA No. 74 of 2015 contends that even this election was uncontested, it is not in dispute that the validity of these elections have not been subjected to challenge in any legal proceedings. 6. Fresh elections were held thereafter on 16.05.2017, and the new office bearers assumed office soon thereafter. While the appellant in SPA No. 74 of 2015 contends that even this election was uncontested, it is not in dispute that the validity of these elections have not been subjected to challenge in any legal proceedings. 6. The only question which necessitates examination is regarding the scope and purport of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act as amended by U.P. Act 13 of 1978. Section 25 reads as under :- “25. Dispute regarding election of office-bearers.— (1) The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearers of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit: Provided that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied— (a) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office-bearer; or (b) that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected; or (c) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns such office-bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of any rules of the Society. Explanation I.—A person shall be deemed to have committed a corrupt practice who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person— (i) induces, or attempts to induce, by fraud, international misrepresentation, coercion or threat of injury, any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being, a candidate at the election; (ii) with a view to inducing any elector to give or refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or to inducing any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at the election, offers or gives any money, or valuable consideration, or any place or employment, or holds out any promise of individual advantage or profit to any person; (iii) abets (within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code) the doing of any of the acts specified in clauses (i) and (ii); (iv) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or elector to believe that he or any person, in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure; (v) canvasses on grounds of caste, community, sect or religion; (vi) commits such other practice as the State Government may prescribe to be a corrupt practice. Explanation II.—A promise of individual advantage or profit to a person includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself or of any one in whom he is interested. Explanation II.—A promise of individual advantage or profit to a person includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself or of any one in whom he is interested. Explanation III.—The State Government may prescribe the procedure for hearing and decision of doubts or disputes in respect of such elections and make provision in respect of any other matter relating to such elections for which insufficient provision exists in this Act or in the rules of the society.] (2) Where by an order made under sub-section (1), an election is set aside or an office-bearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of office-bearers of a society has not been held within the time specified in the rules of that society, he may call a meeting of the general body of such society for electing such office-bearer or office-bearers, and such meeting shall be presided over and be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorised by him in this behalf, and the provisions in the rules of the society relating to meetings and elections shall apply to such meeting and election with necessary modifications. (3) Where a meeting is called by the Registrar under sub-section (2), no other meeting shall be called for the purpose of election by any other authority or by any person claiming to be an office-bearer of the society. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, the expression ‘prescribed authority’ means an officer or court authorised in this behalf by the State Government by notification published in the Official Gazette.” 7. The heading of Section 25 shows that it is only with respect to disputes, regarding election of the office bearers, that a reference can made by the Registrar, or 1/4 members of the Society, to the Prescribed Authority. On such a reference being made, the Prescribed Authority may hear and decide any doubt or dispute in respect of the elections, or continuance in office of the office bearers of such Society. The Prescribed Authority has been conferred the power, after hearing the parties and deciding the dispute, to pass such orders, in respect of such disputes, as it deems fit. The Prescribed Authority has been conferred the power, after hearing the parties and deciding the dispute, to pass such orders, in respect of such disputes, as it deems fit. The power conferred on the Prescribed Authority to pass such orders as it deems fit, in respect of a dispute regarding elections, includes the power to set aside the election of the office bearers. However, the proviso to Section 25(1) restricts the power of the Prescribed Authority to set aside the election of office bearers of a Society only on his satisfaction that clause (a) to (c) of the proviso thereunder are attracted. Further, in terms of Explanation-1, a corrupt practice would be deemed to have been committed only if clauses (i) to (vi) thereunder are attracted. 8. Since the office bearers, who held office when the dispute was referred by the Registrar to the Prescribed Authority on 29.01.2015, no longer hold the said office on expiry of their term on 22.02.2017, the Prescribed Authority can no longer, in view of efflux of time, set aside the election of office bearers who no longer hold office as their three year term of office came to an end on 22.02.2017. 9. When we pointed out that the cause may no longer survive now, and no useful purpose would be served in now directing the Prescribed Authority to hear and decide the dispute since he cannot set aside the election of office bearers who no longer hold office on expiry their term office of three years on 22.02.2017, Mr. Shashank Pande, learned counsel for the appellant in SPA No. 74 of 2015, would emphasise on Section 25(2) to submit that, after a decision is taken and an order is passed by the Prescribed Authority, the Registrar can call for a meeting of the General Body to elect office bearers; and to preside over such meeting. 10. The first limb of Section 25(2) provides for the consequences of an order being made under Section 25(1) by the Prescribed Authority. In terms thereof, when the Prescribed Authority sets aside an election or holds that the office bearers are no longer entitled to continue in office, the Registrar may call for a meeting of the General Body of the Society for electing such office bearers, and preside over such meeting to be conducted by him. In terms thereof, when the Prescribed Authority sets aside an election or holds that the office bearers are no longer entitled to continue in office, the Registrar may call for a meeting of the General Body of the Society for electing such office bearers, and preside over such meeting to be conducted by him. The first limb of Section 25(2) is no longer available to be exercised by the Prescribed Authority, since he cannot make an order setting aside the elections or hold that office bearers are no longer entitled to continue in office, since the three year term of the erstwhile Committee of Management expired on 22.02.2017 and the erstwhile office bearers ceased to hold office thereafter. 11. As the prescribed authority cannot pass any such order at this point of time, it matters little what the consequences of such an order being passed would be. However Section 25(2) also confers independent powers on the Registrar to call for a meeting, of the General Body of the Society to elect office bearers, and to preside over such a meeting. Such a power is available to be exercise by the Registrar on his arriving at the satisfaction that the election of office bearers of the Society has not been held within the time specified in the Rules of that Society. 12. While Mr. Shashank Pande, learned counsel for the appellant in SPA No. 74 of 2015, would contend that, on expiry of the term of their office on 27.11.2013, the Committee of Management of the Society was no longer entitled, under the bye-laws of the Society, to hold elections, Mr. Neeraj Garg, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, would submit that the bye-laws confer power on the Committee of Management to hold elections within a period of three months after expiry on their term of office; and, consequently, the elections held in February, 2014 cannot be said to have been held beyond the time specified under the Rules of the Society. 13. It is unnecessary for us to examine these rival contentions, since the satisfaction under Section 25(2), that election of the office bearers of the Society has not been held within the time specified in the rules of that Society, is that of the Registrar, and not of the Prescribed Authority. 13. It is unnecessary for us to examine these rival contentions, since the satisfaction under Section 25(2), that election of the office bearers of the Society has not been held within the time specified in the rules of that Society, is that of the Registrar, and not of the Prescribed Authority. While it may have been open to the Registrar to record his satisfaction in this regard, and then call for a meeting, he could not have referred this dispute to the Prescribed Authority since the satisfaction under Section 25(2) is his, and not that of the Prescribed Authority. 14. In the present case the Registrar has not chosen to exercise his power under Section 25(2) to call for a meeting and has, on the other hand, referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. As Section 25(2) explicitly confers such a power only on the Registrar, and not on the Prescribed Authority; and as the Prescribed Authority cannot, at this stage, set aside the election of office bearers or hold that the office bearers are no longer entitled to continue in office, we are satisfied that no useful purpose would be served in permitting the Prescribed Authority to exercise his jurisdiction to hear and decide the reference made to him by the Registrar. Though not on the grounds referred to in the order under appeal, we are satisfied that, for the reasons stated hereinabove, the order under appeal does not necessitate interference. 15. Both the Special Appeals fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.