Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13966 of 2018 Petitioner :- C/M Adarsh Rashtriya Vidyalaya And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nitinjay Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vashishtha Dhar Shukla
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
On oral prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, he is permitted to delete respondent no.4 from the array of parties.
Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and Sri V.D. Shukla for respondent no.3. With their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting a formal counter affidavit.
There is a registered society in the name Adarsh Rastriya Purva Madyamik Vidyalaya, Rajaoura, Agra. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.2.2018 passed by the second respondent, Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Agra, whereby he has discarded the proceedings dated 8.3.2016 submitted by petitioner no.3, according to which Brijesh Kumar Parihar, manager of the Committee of Management was removed from the post of manager and also expelled from the general membership of the Society. By the same order, the proceedings submitted by Brijesh Kumar Parihar dated 19.10.2008, 16.10.2011, 12.10.2014, 20.3.2016, 15.10.2017 and 3.12.2017 have been approved. The proceedings dated 15.10.2017 relates to the election of the Committee of Management of the Society and accordingly, a further direction has been issued for registering list of office bearers of the Committee of Management for the year 2017-18 on the basis of the said election.
Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings dated 8.3.2016 set up by the petitioners has been discarded on the sole ground that the petitioners failed to produce original record in respect thereof. It is submitted that the petitioners could not produce the original record because of the fact that no hearing took place on the dates fixed for such purpose and the matter was simply adjourned. In this regard the averment made in paragraph 38 of the writ petition are being relied upon. He further submitted that after exchange of objection and counter objection, the respondent committee on 12.12.2017 filed copies of various proceedings dated 19.10.2008, 16.10.2011, 12.10.2014, 20.3.2016, 15.10.2017 and 3.12.2017 without making available the copies of those proceedings to the petitioners. They were not even aware of the fact that these proceedings had been filed before the Deputy Registrar. The Deputy Registrar proceeded to accord approval to these proceedings ignoring the fact that the election dated 12.10.2014 set up by respondent no.3 was on the face of it not admissible in as much as in his affidavit filed in December 2015, while seeking renewal of registration certificate, he specifically asserted that the last election took place on 26.10.2014. It is argued that infact the election had taken place on 26.10.2014 and on basis of such proceedings, not only renewal certificate was granted, but even the list of office bearers was registered. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioners, the election dated 12.10.2014 set up for the first time was contrary to the material already available on record but it has been approved in a mechanical manner.
Learned counsel for the third respondent does not dispute that copy of various proceedings which have been approved by the impugned order, were filed for the first time before the Deputy Registrar on 12.12.2017, without supplying the copies thereof to the petitioners. He also is unable to explain the discrepancy in the date of election of the year 2014. He therefore, very fairly stated that he has no objection in case the matter is remitted for fresh consideration by the Deputy Registrar.
Learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents submitted that the Deputy Registrar would take fresh decision in the matter, after supplying copy of all the proceedings filed by respondent no.3 on 12.12.2017, within a period of three months.
Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 24.2.2018 is hereby set aside. The writ petition is allowed.
The Deputy Registrar is directed to supply copy of all the proceedings submitted by Brijesh Kumar Parihar on 12.12.2017, to the petitioners, within two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. He shall, thereafter, proceed to decide the dispute afresh in the light of the observations made above, within a period of next three months.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 25.4.2018 skv