In the present case, petitioners have rushed to this Court questioning the validity of order dated 12.08.2011 passed by the Prescribed Authority, wherein Prescribed Authority has refused to pass order on the ground that writ petition No.57420 of 2006 is pending with an interim order and it would not be proper to take decision.
This Court yesterday in Civil Misc. Writ petition No.14336 of 2010 has already relegated the matter to the Regional Level Committee for examining the validity of the election of the Committee of Management of the institution in reference to the elections held in the year 2006 as also in reference to the elections held in the year 2009. The fact of the matter is that writ petition No.57420 of 2006 has already been decided and is not at all pending. In view of this the Prescribed Authority being an statutory authority under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is duty bound to the decide the election dispute in reference to the election of the office bearers and members of the society as also in reference to their continuance.
Much emphasis has been laid on behalf of the respondents in the present case that Indrajeet Kumar Rai and Khedan Shukla are not even primary members of the general body of the society, as such opinion has been formed in the order which had been passed on 26.08.2002 pertaining to Indrajeet Kumar Rai, and it has been stated that the claim set up is fictitious. Once matter has to be decided by the Prescribed Authority, then at the point of time when he proceeds to decide the matter in respect of the validity of the elections, then at the said point of time, he shall take into account the entire background of the litigation, which is in reference to the order passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and further shall also see that the incumbents, who have participated in the elections are validly enrolled members of the general body of the society in terms of Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The orders dated 12.08.2011 and 17.03.2012 clearly reflect that the election dispute has been deferred. In view of this the aforesaid two orders to the extent they defer the election dispute, are hereby quashed and set aside, and the Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the dispute in regard to elections of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the society as also the dispute in regard to their continuance, by means of reasoned and speaking order. It is further made clear that while proceeding to decide the election disputes, the Prescribed Authority shall take into account the following facts:
(i) as to whether the incumbents who are said to have held the elections, had the authority to convene meeting for holding elections or not?
(ii) as to whether the incumbents who had participated in the elections, had the right to participate in the election or not? and
(iii) as to whether the elections had been held strictly in consonance with the approved scheme of administration?
Consequently, present writ petition stands partly allowed.
Order Date :- 27.4.2012 SRY