Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1488 (ALL)

Gram Shiksha Samiti v. State Of U. P.

2022-09-15

SALIL KUMAR RAI

body2022
JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, the counsel for the petitioner and Sri Bachchu Lal Yadav, the counsel for respondent no. 4. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 8.4.2022 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra rejecting the complaint of the petitioner. The order dated 8.4.2022 has been passed after the matter was remanded back to the Deputy Registrar by this Court vide its order dated 18.3.2021 passed in Writ - C No. 7978 of 2021. 3. Both respondent no. 4 and Sri Vipin Kumar Chauhan, the petitioner, claim themselves to be the elected Manager of the Governing Body of Gram Shiksha Samiti, Kasimpur Power House, District Aligarh. The admitted facts are that the elections of the Society were previously held on 25th June, 2012 and the list of office bearers elected in the aforesaid elections was registered by the Registrar. The respondent no. 4 was elected as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society in the elections held on 25th June, 2012. Subsequently, in 2016, the respondent no. 4 submitted another list of office bearers for registration claiming that fresh elections were held on 22nd June, 2016. The records reveal that the said list was registered by the Registrar on 6th July, 2016. In 2017, Vipin Kumar Chauhan submitted a list of office bearers for registration, claiming that elections were held on 2nd January, 2017 in which he was elected as Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society. Vipin Kumar Chauhan claimed that the General Body of the Society, vide its resolution dated 29th May, 2016 had expelled Mahendra Singh Chauhan, Ravindra Singh Chauhan (respondent no. 4) and Lakhan Singh and had cancelled their membership of the Society. At this stage, it would be relevant to note that in the elections held in 2012, Lakhan Singh was elected as the President and one Santosh Kumar Raghav was elected as the Vice-President of the Society. The Deputy Registrar vide his order dated 11th December, 2020 rejected the list of office bearers submitted by Vipin Kumar Chauhan and also simultaneously registered the list of office bearers of the Society produced by respondent no. 4 who claimed that another elections were held in 2020. The order dated 11th December, 2020 was challenged by Vipin Kumar Chauhan before this Court through Writ -C No. 7978 of 2021. 4 who claimed that another elections were held in 2020. The order dated 11th December, 2020 was challenged by Vipin Kumar Chauhan before this Court through Writ -C No. 7978 of 2021. It is relevant to note that in the order dated 11th December, 2020, the Deputy Registrar did not record any finding on the claim of Vipin Kumar Chauhan regarding the expulsion of respondent no. 4, Lakhan Singh and Mahendra Singh from the Society vide resolution dated 29th May, 2016. In Writ -C No. 7978 of 2021, this Court held that findings on the issue regarding the expulsion of respondent no. 4 and two other persons from the Society was necessary to decide the validity of the elections claimed by respondent no. 4 and consequently of the list submitted by him in 2016 and quashed the order dated 11th December, 2020 passed by the Deputy Registrar and remanded back the matter to the Deputy Registrar to record a finding on the validity of the resolution dated 29th May, 2016. The Deputy Registrar vide his impugned order dated 8th April, 2022 has rejected the claim of Vipin Kumar Chauhan that the respondent no. 4, Mahendra Singh Chauhan and Lakhan Singh had been expelled by the General Body of the Society vide its resolution dated 29th May, 2016. Hence, the present petition. 4. The Deputy Registrar vide his order dated 8th April, 2022 has rejected the claim of Vipin Kumar Chauhan on the ground that the proceedings of the meeting dated 29th May, 2016 produced by Vipin Kumar Chauhan appeared to be a forged document and the aforesaid finding has been recorded by the Deputy Registrar on the ground that the alleged meeting held on 29.5.2016 was not presided over either by the then President of the Society or Santosh Kumar Raghav, the Vice-President of the Society. In his order dated 8.4.2022, the Deputy Registrar has also taken note of the facts stated in a representation dated 3rd March, 2022 filed by respondent no. 4 in which it was stated that the signatures of many members on the proceedings of the meeting dated 29th May, 2016 produced by the petitioner were forged and some of the members who have been shown to have attended the meeting were dead on that date. 4 in which it was stated that the signatures of many members on the proceedings of the meeting dated 29th May, 2016 produced by the petitioner were forged and some of the members who have been shown to have attended the meeting were dead on that date. The Deputy Registrar while passing the order dated 8th April, 2022 has also taken note of the fact that the petitioner did not produce any evidence to show that notice of the meeting dated 29th May, 2016 were sent by post to the members of the Society as required by the bye-laws of the Society. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has argued that from a reading of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar, it was evident that the last date of hearing before the Assistant Registrar was 17.2.2022 and, therefore, the Assistant Registrar had acted illegally in accepting the representation dated 3rd March, 2022 filed by respondent no. 4 and the documents annexed with the same and has also acted illegally in rejecting the case of the petitioner relying on the facts stated in the representation dated 3.3.2022. It has been stated that the petitioner had demanded a copy of the representation dated 3rd March, 2022 and the documents filed along with the said representation in order to file his reply but the Deputy Registrar did not provide a copy of the aforesaid document to the petitioner. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar are vitiated and the order dated 8.4.2022 has been passed without affording proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It was further argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had submitted all the necessary documents and evidence in support of his plea to prove that the meeting dated 29th May, 2016 of the General Body had been called in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society. It has been stated by the counsel for the petitioner that the postal receipts of the notices issued to the members of the General Body of the Society were filed before the Deputy Registrar and the Deputy Registrar has wrongly noted in his order dated 8th April, 2022 that the petitioner had not submitted the postal receipt of the notices issued to the members of the General Body. It has been stated that the Deputy Registrar was in collusion with respondent no. 4 and the erroneous recital regarding failure of the petitioner to file the postal receipts has been made only to help the respondent no. 4. It is in the aforesaid context that the counsel for the petitioner has requested that the records of the case be summoned to verify the correctness of the recital in the order dated 8.4.2022. It was argued that the President and the Vice-President of the Society were not present in the meeting dated 29th May, 2016 and, therefore, the General Body of the Society had elected a Chairman to preside over the meeting and the Deputy Registrar has wrongly rejected the proceedings of the meeting dated 29th May, 2016 on the ground that the said meeting was not in accordance with the bye-laws as it was not presided either by the President of the Society or its Vice-President. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the order dated 8th April, 2022 is liable to be quashed. In support of his contention, the counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court reported in Ramadhar Shashtri & Anr. vs. Deputy Director of Education, IV Region, Allahabad & Ors. (1987) UPLBEC 14. 6. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the petitioner. 7. It is the admitted case of the parties that the President of the Society and Sri Santosh Kumar Raghav who was the Vice-President of the Society were not present in the meeting dated 29.5.2016 and, therefore, the meeting was presided by some other person. The case of respondent no. 4 is that no meeting as claimed by the petitioner was held on 29.5.2016 and the proceedings have been forged by the petitioner. I am not expressing any opinion on the factual dispute between the parties regarding the meeting dated 29.5.2016. The bye-laws of the Society provide that the meetings of the General Body shall be presided by the President and, in his absence, by the Vice-President. The meeting of the General Body could have been presided by a person than the President or the Vice-President if the President or the Vice-President were not present in the meeting after notice of the meeting was sent to them in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society. The meeting of the General Body could have been presided by a person than the President or the Vice-President if the President or the Vice-President were not present in the meeting after notice of the meeting was sent to them in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society. The bye-laws of the Society provide that notices of the meeting are to be sent by UPC along with the agenda of the meeting. In his order dated 8th April, 2022, the Deputy Registrar has recorded a finding that despite being asked, the petitioner had not filed the postal receipts of notices sent to the members of the General Body regarding the meeting held on 29th May, 2016. There is no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner had filed the postal receipt of the notices in the proceedings before the Registrar. There is no averment in the writ petition that the recital in the impugned order that postal receipts of notices sent to the members of the Society including the President and the Vice-President had been filed before the Deputy Registrar and the recital in the order dated 8th April, 2022 that the petitioner had not filed the postal receipts is contrary to records. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out to summon the records of the case. In case, the meeting was called without notices having been sent to the members or the President and the Vice-President of the Society, the meeting dated 29th May, 2016 was not in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society and the resolution passed in the said meeting was not valid. The absence of notice by post to the members of the General Body including the President and the Vice-President is sufficient to invalidate the meeting dated 29th May, 2016 and the resolution passed by the General Body, if any such resolution was passed, and there is no illegality in the order of the Deputy Registrar rejecting the plea of the petitioner. 8. In light of the reasons given above, even if the contention of the petitioner that the representation dated 3rd March, 2022 submitted by respondent no. 8. In light of the reasons given above, even if the contention of the petitioner that the representation dated 3rd March, 2022 submitted by respondent no. 4 was not given to him to enable him to rebut the facts stated in the aforesaid representation is accepted, the same cannot by itself be a ground to set-aside the order dated 8th April, 2022 because the final conclusion in the order would be legal for the reason stated previously and independent of the irregularity in the proceedings in relation to the representation dated 3.3.2022. For the aforesaid reasons, the judgment of this Court reported in Ramadhar Shashtri (supra) is not applicable in the present case. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find it a fit case for interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition lacks merit and is, hereby, dismissed. 10. The petitioner may exercise any other remedy available to him in law.