JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri Anil Bhushan Advocate on behalf of the petitioners, Sri V. K.S. Chaudhary, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri R.S. Maurya Advocate on behalf of respondents 2 and 3 and Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No. 1.
2. Adhunik Shiksha and Welfare Society is a society duly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The aforesaid society has established a professional college in the name and style 'R. K. Gupta Memorial Institute of Technology and Management, Agra'. It is not in dispute that at the time of inception of the society Sri R. K. Gupta, the husband of Srimati Nisha Gupta, the petitioner, was Secretary of the society. Sri R. K. Gupta, while in office, expired on 13th November, 2000 and, according to the petitioner, in his place Srimati Nisha Gupta, petitioner No. 2, was appointed as Secretary for the remaining term. The term of the elected Committee of Management was due to expire in July, 2001. According to the petitioner fresh elections took place on 08.07.2001 in which Srimati Nisha Gupta was again elected as Secretary while Sri P. K. Sharma was elected as the President.
3. The respondents, on the other hand, contend that fresh elections took place on 10.07.2001 in which Sri B. L. Gupta was elected as President and Srimati Nisha Gupta was elected as the Secretary. Two sets of elections i.e. 08.07.2001 and 10.07.2001 were transmitted to the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra for registration of the list of office bearers of the society. The Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits issued notice dated 04.05.2003 and, thereafter, by means of order dated 14.08.2003 held that the elections as set up by Sri B. L. Gupta, respondent No. 3, were patently illegal and fabricated while the elections which have been pleaded by Srimati Nisha Gupta dated 08.07.2001 were according to the rules applicable and were recognized, it was accordingly directed that the list of office bearers submitted by Srimati Nisha Gupta be registered under Section 4 of the Act.
4. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits Sri B. L. Gupta and Sri Santosh Kumar Goel filed Writ Petition No. 39129 of 2003 in the High Court. The Hon'ble single Judge initially granted interim stay order on 03.09.2003. Against the interim order Intra Court Special Appeal No. 3905 of 2003 was filed by Srimati Nisha Gupta. The Division Bench of this Court by means of order dated 16.09.2003 directed the appellant, Srimati Nisha Gupta, to file counter affidavit in Writ Petition No. 39129 of 2003. The interim order granted by the learned single Judge in the writ petition "was modified to the extent that the parties were directed to maintain status quo as was prevailing on 03.09.2003 i.e. the date when the learned single Judge passed the interim order.
5. In Writ Petition No. 39129 of 2003 it was specifically contended on behalf of Sri B. L. Gupta and Sri Santosh Kumar Goel that (a) the right to decide the election dispute under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 vests with the Prescribed Authority and the Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits has no jurisdiction to register the list of one side and reject the list of the other side; and (b) the order dated 14.08.2003 has been passed by the Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits in violation of the principles of natural justice.
6. The writ petition was finally decided by the Court on 24.03.2004. On the basis of the contentions so raised the learned single Judge while deciding the issue no. (a) held as follows:--
"Thus Registrar is totally vested with the power to see as to whether dispute, which is sought to be raised, is a genuine dispute and the same is not at all artificial, fabricated dispute. The right of the Registrar of the society in no way is fettered in regard to registration of the list of office bearers and members and it is only when he is satisfied that grounds as provided under Section 25 (1) is in existence, then he can refer the dispute for which the reasons are to be given by him."
7. However, the Hon'ble Court, thereafter, issued the following directions:--
"Tested on these principles, the impugned ok dated 14.08.2003 has to be seen. The Assistant Registrar Firms, societies and Chits as mentioned therein that election proceedings dated 10.07.2001 are totally forged and fabricated. If this is correct that election proceedings are forged and fabricated, then there is no necessity of any reference to be made, and the same by no stretch of imagination can be termed to be bona fide dispute. But before concluding, Assistant Registrar has to undertake exercise as already observed in the judgment."
8. The Hon'ble Court issued the following directions:--
"In order to ascertain the validity of an election, exercise has to be undertaken on three aspects, namely (i) whether person/persons who had convened the meeting had right to convene the meeting? (ii) valid electoral college i.e. the persons who participated in the election, had right to participate in the election or not? and (in) whether the elections had been conducted as per provisions contained in the bye laws of the society? In the present case, no such exercise has been undertaken by the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits. As observed above on merits also the impugned order is not liable to be sustained.
In the result, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 14.08.2003 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits for fresh decision. Parties to the dispute have agreed to appear before the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits. The Assistant Registrar, after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the parties, will pass appropriate reasoned order within two months thereafter. In the present case since Special Appeal Bench has directed to maintain status quo, as such it is hereby directed that status quo between the parties shall be maintained till disposal of the dispute by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits."
9. The Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits in compliance of the order of this Court again heard the partiers and by means of order dated 07.06.2004 held that the elections dated 10.07.2004 were genuine and accepted the list of office bearers elected in the said election for the purposes of registration under Section 4 of the Act and at the same time he held that that the elections set up by Srimati Nisha Gupta dated 08.07.2001 were illegal and were liable to be rejected. Against the said order of the Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits dated 07.06.2004 the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.
10. On behalf of the petitioners it is contended that it is undisputed fact between the parties that Srimati Nisha Gupta was the Secretary of the outgoing Committee of Management and she alone had the competence to convene a meeting in accordance with the registered bye laws of the Society copy whereof has been enclosed as annexure-4 to the writ petition. Clause 10 of the said bye laws envisages the powers of the Secretary of the Society. It is further not in dispute that in both the sets of elections i.e. the elections dated 08.07.2001 set up by Srimati Nisha Gupta and the elections dated 10.07.2001 set up by Sri B. L. Gupta, Srimati Nisha Gupta is alleged to have been elected as the Secretary of the society. The dispute is with regard to the election of the post of President and other office bearers of the society. It is, therefore, submitted by the petitioner that in the facts of the case it cannot be said that there was no bona fide dispute with regard to the elected office bearers of the society and, therefore, the Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits had no jurisdiction to decide the said dispute. He was under legal obligation to refer tine matter for adjudication under Section 25 (1) of the Act to the Prescribed Authority. It is further submitted that the findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits are not in accordance with the directions issued by this Court in the earlier judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 39129 of 2003 (the relevant paragraphs whereof have been quoted hereinabove). In any case it is submitted that according to the respondents Srimati Nisha Gupta who was elected as Secretary had been removed from the office of the Secretary under resolution of no confidence said to have been passed in the meeting held on 03.02.2003. According to the petitioners the question of legality or otherwise of the said resolution necessarily requires a reference to be made as such a dispute is squarely covered by the provisions of Section 25 (1) of the Act. The Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits could not have declared that Srimati Nisha Gupta has been rightly removed from the office of the Secretary under resolution dated 03.02.2003.
11. On behalf of respondents it is contended that the Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits has recorded pure finding of fact on the basis of material on record he has come to the conclusion that Srimati Nisha Gupta has placed reliance on forged and fabricated documents. In such circumstances it was not necessary for the Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits to have referred the dispute under Section 25 (1) of the Act to the Prescribed Authority and under the judgment of the High Court dated 24.03.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 39129 of 2003 the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits was required to adjudicate upon the legality of the elections and therefore the objection raised by the petitioners with reference to Section 25 (1) of the Act is totally misconceived. It is lastly submitted that finding of fact may not be interfered with in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
12. With regards to the meeting dated 10.07.2004 it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that Srimati Nisha Gupta wanted to wriggle out of her own acts and therefore, it was alleged that, her signatures were forged. The Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits has rightly disbelieved the case pleaded by Smt. Nisha Gupta. It is further submitted that Srimati Nisha Gupta has been validly removed from the office of Secretary of the society under resolution dated 03.02.2003 which has been ratified in the meeting of the general body dated 03.08.2003 and in her place Sri Santosh Kumar Goel has been appointed as Secretary, The outgoing Committee of Management has held fresh election of the Committee of Management on 11.07.2004 with Sri B. L. Gupta as President and Sri S. K. Goel as Secretary, as the term of the earlier Committee of Management has since expired.
13. In the rejoinder it is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the minutes of the meeting held on 03.08.2003, whereby a resolution for removal of Srimati Nisha Gupta from the post of Secretary of the Society is alleged to have been approved by general body, were never placed before the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits in the knowledge of the petitioners it appears that after hearing certain documents were accepted by the Deputy
14. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits which included the alleged resolution dated 03.08.2003 (reference para 23 of the writ petition).
15. It is, therefore, submitted that there has been manifest violation of the principles of natural justice while passing the impugned order.
16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the writ petition. From the order passed by this Court earlier dated 24.03.2004 in Writ Petition No 39129 of 2003 it is apparently clear that the Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits was directed to prima facie satisfy himself as to whether there was a bona fide dispute between the parties with regard to the elections of the office bearers of the society. The order passed by the learned single Judge cannot be read so as to confer jurisdiction upon the Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits to decide the dispute of the election of the office bearers of the society. The legal position so far as the powers of the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits viza viz Section 25 (1) of the Act is concerned is well settled in the cases of Committee of Management v. Secretary, Arya Kanya Inter College, reported in (1999)2 UPLBEC 77 and Sita Ram Rai and Ors. v. Additional Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and Ors., reported in 2003(3) Education & Service Cases (Allahabad) 1617.
17. The order of the learned single Judge only required the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits to prima facie satisfy himself with reference to the issues pointed out in the paragraphs quoted hereinabove, as to whether there was a bona fide dispute between the parties which required adjudication under Section 25(1) of the Act or not and fort the said purpose the first and the foremost issue to be decided by the Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits was as to who was competent to convene the meeting for the purpose of holding fresh elections. The impugned order only refers to some registers produced by Sri B.L. Gupta alleged to be signed by Srimati Nisha Gupta at various places although Smt. Nisha Gupta has denied the same. In the opinion of the Court, there is a bona fide dispute between the parties with regard to legality or otherwise of the meetings held on 08.07.2001 and 10.07.2001 wherein the respective elections set up by the parties are claimed to have taken place. The Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the legality of the aforesaid meetings and to declare that denial of Srimati Nisha Gupta with qua publication of agenda in respect of meeting dated 10.07.2001 cannot be believed in view of documents placed by Sri B. L. Gupta, the contesting party. Such an issue requires consideration of evidence for the purposes of arriving at a conclusion as to whether the agenda was signed by Smt. Nisha Gupta and published accordingly and whether the elections are valid or not. Such a dispute, in facts of the case, must necessarily be decided by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act.
18. Even otherwise if the entire case of the respondents is accepted on its face value, it is admitted position that Srimati Nisha Gupta was elected as Secretary of the society in the elections dated 10.07.2001 set up by respondent No. 3, Sri B. L. Gupta. According to the respondents Srimati Nisha Gupta was removed from the office of the Secretary in the meeting held on 03.02.2003 which has been ratified by the general body in the meeting dated 03.08.2003. This fact has been disputed by Srimati Nisha Gupta. Dispute about continuance of an office bearer is to be referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act.
19. The dispute of removal of Srimati Nisha Gupta from the post of Secretary necessarily requires adjudication of the issue as to whether she was entitled to continue in office or not In such circumstances this Court is of the opinion that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits dated 07.06.2004 cannot be legally sustained. The Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits should have referred the dispute for adjudication under Section 25 (1) of the Act to the Prescribed Authority. It may also be emphasized that respondent No. 3, Sri B. L. Gupta, himself had taken such a plea earlier before this Court when he had filed Writ Petition No. 39129 of 2003. The subsequent elections which have been pleaded by the respondents have deliberately been held during the pendency of the present writ petition and therefore the fate of the said elections held on 11.07.2004 would necessarily abide the result of the present writ petition.
20. Since this Court has held that the order of the Deputy Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits declaring that the elections dated 10.07.2001 are valid and that Srimati Nisha Gupta had been validly removed from the post of Secretary of the Society, is not legally sustainable in the eye of law, the same is required to be quashed. The matter is required to be directed to be decided by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act. Since during this period fresh elections have been held by the respondents, the legality of the aforesaid elections dated 11.07.2004 shall also be gone into by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) as the competence of the person concerned to hold such fresh elections would depend upon the fate of the claim of the parties in respect of earlier elections.
21. In view of the aforesaid the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 07.06.2004 passed by the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, contained in annexure-16 to the writ petition, is hereby quashed. The Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits is directed to transmit all the relevant papers pertaining to the dispute between the parties in respect of the elections of the year 2001 as well as of the elections dated 11.07.2004 for adjudication to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. The Prescribed Authority, in turn, shall decide the legality of the elections including the right to hold the said elections after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and after permitting exchange of documents, strictly in accordance with law, preferably within two months.
22. Since in the earlier judgment of this Court the parties were directed to maintain status quo as on 3rd September, 2004. The same arrangement shall continue till the decision of the dispute by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act afresh.