Dispute in this writ petition is whether the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits exercising powers under section 4(1) of the Societies Registration Act (in short as the 'Act') can decide the question of validity of an election of the Managing Committee of the society or its office-bears.
The facts in the case are noted as under :-
The society namely, Afzalul Uloom, Daulatpur, Post Mehnagar, District Azamgarh is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Under the bye-laws, the Society is to be managed by a managing committee elected by the general body. The members elected by the general body elect a President and Manager as the office bearers. The tenure of the committee of management as provided under clause 8(2) of the Bye-laws is of 10 years. The petitioners claim that the last election of the committee of management was held in the year 2004 in which the committee of management with Masood Ahmad as the President and Imran Ahmad as the Manager were elected. Imran Ahmad, the manager of the committee of management expired on 15.11.2007. A meeting of the general body was convened on 26.11.2007 in which condolence was passed on account of death of Imran Ahmad. Thereafter, the meeting of the general body was held on 29.11.2007 in which a decision was taken for filling up of the casual vacancy in the office of manager by electing Masood Ahmad Khan as its manager. All the papers of the aforesaid elections were submitted before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Azamgarh. While papers were pending before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Masood Ahmad died on 1.7.2008. The meeting of the general body was held on 3.7.2008 in which condolence resolution was passed with regard to the death of Mushtaq Ahmad. Subsequent meeting of the general body was held on 4.7.2008 in which a decision was taken for filling up the casual vacancy caused in the office of the President by election of Arshad Zabbar Khan, petitioner no. 3, as the President. The papers pertaining to the aforesaid two resolutions were filed before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits.
Acting on the basis of the papers so submitted, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits registered the list of members and office bearers of the committee of management for the period 2008-09. In the said list, Arshad Zabbar Khan was registered as President and Masood Ahmad Khan registered as Manager.
On the list being filed before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits after it was confirmed/registered by the Assistant Registrar, a writ petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31470 of 2008 was filed by Zabbar Khan, in which it was prayed that the list has been confirmed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits without seeking objection from the petitioners. The writ petition was disposed of with the direction that the objection of the petitioner shall be considered and decided by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, in accordance with law after hearing the parties. In pursuance of the direction of this Court and after hearing the parties, Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits revoked the registered list of members and office bearers for the year 2008-09 and instead registered the list of members submitted by committee of management with Zabbar Ahmad as the Manager.
On the other hand, the stand of the respondent is that the list of members submitted by the petitioners was based upon a decision taken by the committee of management headed by Arshad Zabbar Khan as President dated 4.7.2007. The election of the petitioners was based upon the resolutions passed on 6.9.2006 and 19.9.2006 which indicate that the erstwhile Manager Imran Ahmad died and on the said date and in order to fill up the casual vacancy of the manager, Masood Ahmad Khan was elected as manager of the committee of management. The contention of the respondent is that condolence resolution was passed by the committee of management headed by the petitioners on 6.9.2006 and on the death of Imran Ahmad in his place Sri Masood Ahmad, petitioner no. 2 has been appointed as Manager. Another resolution was passed on 19.9.2006 admitting the fact that Irfan Ahmad died on 6.9.2006 and in his place Masood Ahmad be appointed when the incumbent was still alive. Consequently the application for revised list of members submitted on 24.2.2008 by the petitioner-committee of management was fictitious and forged and no authenticity can be given to the said list submitted by the petitioners and as such, the order impugned has correctly accepted the list submitted by the respondents which was authorised by recognised committee of management.
The second contention raised by learned counsel for the respondent is that no elections were held in the year 2004. The last election was held in the year 1998 and in terms of the bye-laws of the society, the tenure of the committee of management is ten years and after expiry of the ten years the election has taken place in which the respondent committee of management was elected as legally constituted committee of management.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Registrar was not competent to decide the issue which related to the validity of the two committees of management, one headed by the petitioners and other by the respondents. The Registrar was required to refer the matter to the prescribed authority for determination of the dispute. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on various decisions of this Court :-
(i) Kranti Kumar Chaturvedi and another versus District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat and others 1995 (2) E.S.C. 166 (Alld.), in the following observations have been made by a Division Bench of this Court:-
" Section 25 of the Act contemplates different situation. It is attracted only when there is no dispute in respect of registration of society or its renewal of certificate of registration but there is dispute between two rival parties each of whom is claiming to be validly elected body. In such a situation the dispute between the two rival parties has to be referred for adjudication under section 25 of the Act. Section 25 of the Act is also attracted when a party challenges the illegality or otherwise of the election of particular set of office bearers of society on the grounds enumerated in seciton25 of the Act. Thus the dispute under section 25 of the Act can only be referred for adjudication only when it is found that the registration of the society or its renewal is intact."
(ii) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on another decision in the Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38822 of 2006 Chayan Ashram Sanskrit Vidyalaya versus State of U.P. And others.
(iii) Ram Prakash versus State of U.P. And others 2010 1 AWC 97.
The import of the aforesaid judgments is where dispute relates to the validity of the elections, the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits has to refer the matter to the prescribed authority and it can not enter into an arena which requires determination regarding validity of the election process.
Applying the aforesaid principle of the aforesaid case, the dispute in the present case relates to the rejection of the revised list of members and office bearers of the society submitted by the petitioners and accepting the list submitted by the private respondents. Whether the Registrar has the competence and can entertain such dispute is required to be seen in the present case.
Under section 4(1) of the Act, it is incumbent upon the society to file a revised list of its office-bearers and list of members of the general body once in every year. It is required to be done by a legally constituted society through its elected managing committee. The list is required to be ratified in the general body meeting before its submission before the Registrar. Before confirming such a list, objection is required to be invited in this behalf. If any objection is taken, the Registrar is required to decide the matter after hearing the parties.
In the present case, stand of the petitioners is that it was legally constituted committee of management, which had submitted its list of members to the Registrar, which was accepted in the month of May, 2008. The Registrar had rejected the list of the petitioners and accepted the list of the respondents which was beyond his competence as it involved determination of the validity of the two managing committees. In essence, it is said that while rejecting their plea the Registrar rejected the validity of the petitioners' list submitted by the committee of management headed by him, which was an area beyond the power of his determination. While analysing the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, I am unable to agree with the petitioner that the rejection of the petitioners voter list tentamounts rejecting validity of the elections of the petitioners committee of management. The revised list was required to be sent by the legally constituted committee of management of the society. Petitioners on their own showing have been appointed to the said managing committee on the basis of the resolution passed on 6.9.2006 and 19.9.2006. It is the case of the petitioners that the resolution dated 6.9.2006 and 19.9.2006 was passed on account of death of Imran Ahmad who had actually died on 15.11.2007. The very foundation and legitimacy of the committee of management is dis-placed by this fact Masood Ahmad was appointed as a manager when incumbent Imran Ahmad was alive. Consequently any decision taken by that committee was non est in the eyes of law. The petitioners have tried to wriggle out by stating that that the dates in the resolutions have been wrongly mentioned. It is stated in paragraph-10 of the writ petition that the dates of two meetings referred to dated 26.11.2007 and 29.11.2007 are in fact 26.11.2006 and 29.11.2006. This is an inadvertent mistake. Nothing in support of this contention has been placed on record by the petitioners. Even these dates so not tally with dates of 6.9.2006 and 19.9.2006. Even assuming that it was an inadvertent mistake, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to file original copy of the proceedings on which date the said meetings were held. Again the said dates mentioned in the application dated 26.11.2006 and 29.11.2006 are incorrect. The resolution has been passed on 6.9.2006 and 19.9.2006 on the basis of which Masood Ahmad was appointed as Manager of the Committee of Management. One could understand that instead of year 2006 it is shown as 2007, there can be no error in recording the dates. Moreover, this plea has been taken for the first time before this Court and not before that. It was never contended by the petitioners before the prescribed authority.
The list submitted by the petitioners was certified by the managing committee which was not legally constituted. The Registrar while rejecting or confirming the list has power to ensure that the said list has to be referred by a legally constituted committee. The other aspect of the matter is that as to whether any election has taken place in the year 2004. The respondents have placed reliance on clause 8(2) of the bye-laws of the society, which clearly mentions that the tenure of the elected committee of management is of 10 years. So in the face of it, one fails to understand as to how the elections were held in the year 2004 ?
The Registrar while certifying the list submitted by the respondents has acted under section 4(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1960. As already submitted here-in-above, his power of determination under the Act is only to certify the list submitted by the duly constituted managing committee. The list submitted by the petitioners was not submitted by the duly constituted committee, and as such, no cognizance could be taken by the Registrar. The list submitted by the respondent managing committee was approved by a legally constituted managing committee. The Registrar has not entered into an arena in validating the election of the two rival committees of management. He has only certified the list submitted by the legally constituted managing committee after hearing both the parties. No issue regarding validity of the rival committee of management has been determined by the Registrar as it has only certified the revised list submitted by the legally constituted managing committee of the Society.
Per contra the respondents have stated that after expiry of 10 years, he was the care-taker manager on account of illness of Imran Ahmad on 25.7.2007 and after the death of Mushtaq Ahmad, new President was appointed. The election was held after expiry of 10 years when list of voters was last submitted by the manager. The Registrar has rightly accepted their application.
I find no force in the writ petition. The writ petition is according dismissed. However, in case the petitioners want to question the election of the respondents, they may approach the appropriate forum in this behalf.
(Sunil Hali, J.) Dated: 22nd December, 2011 SU.