Court No. - 26
Reserved on 27.11.2017
Delivered on 23.4.2018
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 46143 of 2015
Petitioner :- C/M F.R. Islamia Inter College Thru' Its Manager & Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 5 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh,Amit Saxena,Ashok Khare
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.K. Singh,S.K. Upadhyay,V.K. Singh
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
1. This writ petition came up connected with record of Writ Petition No. 4297 of 2011 which has been dismissed by this Court on 20.9.2016 and Special Appeal No. 666 of 2016 against the order dated 20.9.2016 has also been dismissed by this Court on 20.10.2016.
2. This writ petition has also been shown to be connected Writ Petition Nos. 28999 of 2011 and 38592 of 2011.
3. At the time of hearing Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 38592 of 2011 stated that Writ Petition No. 38592 of 2011 has become infructuous and therefore be dismissed as such. The Writ Petition No. 38592 of 2011 was accordingly dismissed on 27.11.2017.
4. Writ petition No. 28999 of 2011 is not connected with the controversy although it relates to the same Institution and Society and was therefore directed to be listed separately.
5. Writ-C No. 46143 of 2015 was initially filed praying for quashing of an order dated 4.8.2015 passed by the Regional Level Committee. Later on, an amendment application was moved which was allowed by this Court on 25.10.2017 and further prayers were added for quashing of the order dated 28.5.2016 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly, and also for a direction that the amendment dated 26.5.2013 carried out in the bye- laws of the Society by the respondent no. 6 as well as the amendments made in the Scheme of Administration dated 27.3.2016 are null and void.
6. The facts as evident from the pleadings on record are as follows:-
There is a Society known as Local Body of All India Muslim Educational Conference, Bareilly registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It runs several Institutions, one of which is Fazlur Rahman Islamia Inter College, Bareilly which is a recognised and aided Institution and also a declared Minority Institution.
Under the bye-laws of the Society, there is Board of Control (General Body) comprising of twenty to thirty members, and a Managing Committee comprising of nine to fifteen members elected by the General Body for a period of three years.
The Fazlur Rahman Islamia Inter College, Bareilly has a separate Scheme of Administration duly approved by the Education Department in which the General Body is the same, as the General Body of the Society, which is empowered to elect from amongst themselves a Committee of Management for the Institution for a tenure of 3 years.
7. There was a long standing dispute with regard to the election of Committee of Management of the Society as well as the Institution in question, and as many as twelve writ petitions were filed by the rival parties claiming their right to manage the Society and administer the Institution. All the writ petitions were decided by this Court by judgment and order dated 23.3.2007. A copy of the judgment dated 23.3.2007 has been filed along with the impleadment application moved on behalf of one Haji Mukhtar Wasim. In the judgment and order dated 23.3.2007 reported in 2007 (3) AWC 3066 as Dr. Mehandi Hasan & another Vs. State of U.P. & others, this Court found that one Shakeel Husain along with six members of the Board of Control and one Md. Abrar Ahmad were fighting over the right to manage the Society and incorporate new members therein. The matter had been referred to the Prescribed Authority who initially passed an order that fourteen new members said to be enrolled in meeting dated 31.1.1993 were valid members, but later on the said order was recalled by him on application made by the rival parties on 11.8.2000. Several writ petitions were filed by aggrieved persons on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was accorded to the members concerned. This Court therefore declared the order of the Prescribed Authority holding that the said persons were not members of the Board of Control was without jurisdiction. Under Section 25(1) of the Society Registration Act, the Prescribed Authority was under a limited jurisdiction and was bound by the Reference made to it by the Assistant Registrar. The Assistant Registrar had referred the dispute relating to Md. Abrar Ahmad alleged President along with Aziz Ahmad alleged senior Vice President and that of one Fazlur Rahman Khan and Shafique Uddin by his order dated 6.4.1996 to the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority being bound by the terms of the Reference had no independent jurisdiction to travel into the dispute, not referred to it. Therefore the order passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 25.5.2001 was set aside and it was observed by the Court in its judgment and order dated 23.3.2007 that all subsequent elections of the Committee of Management were adversely affected because of the order of the Prescribed Authority and were therefore invalid. The persons claiming to be rival members of the General Body of the Society should get their rights adjudicated by initiating independent proceedings before the competent Civil Court.
8. A Suit was filed thereafter by Haji Mukhtar Wasim, namely Original Suit No. 778 of 2008 seeking a declaration that he was a valid member of the General Body while persons arrayed as opposite parties in the aforesaid suit be declared as invalid members. This Suit remained pending.
9. However without any declaration regarding validity of membership of members newly inducted, the Assistant Registrar under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act held an election on 18.6.2008, and one Aziz Ahmad was elected as President.
10. Later on, Aziz Ahmad approached the Assistant Registrar claiming that election of office bearers of the society had taken place on 24.3.2010 and also that the newly constituted Board of Control convened a meeting on 15.4.2010 in which seven new members were enrolled as members of Board of Control.
11. On the other hand, one Saleem Uddin also claimed that in a meeting of the Board of Control dated 1.3.2010, twelve new members were enrolled to the Board of Control.
12. The claim of enrollment of new members was brought forward by the contesting parties in view of the fact that only nineteen members of the Board of Control existed whereas as per bye-laws, existence of a minimum of twenty and the maximum of thirty members is contemplated.
13. Aziz Ahmad's claim and that of Saleem Uddin were both considered and decided by the Assistant Registrar by his order dated 9.12.2010, the seven members said to be enrolled on 15.4.2010 by Aziz Ahmad were discarded and the claim of enrollment of twelve new members on 1.3.2010 by Saleem Uddin was accepted. The Assistant Registrar further directed holding of next elections on the basis of new list recognised by him containing twelve new members.
14. Aziz Ahamd filed a Writ Petition No. 4297 of 2011 challenging the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 9.12.2010. The petitioners in this writ petition and claimed that after the judgment and order dated 23.3.2007, fresh elections of the Committee of Management were held under the order of the Assistant Registrar on 3.6.2007 which was recognised on 7.8.2007. In this Committee, the petitioner Aziz Ahmad was elected as Manager / Secretary and Haji Rafique Ahmad was elected as President.
15. Under the approved Scheme of Administration, the term of office bearers of the Managing Committee was three years from the date they were chosen provided however, that they would be allowed to continue till their successor was chosen. This Committee of Management continued to manage the college and before its rights to hold fresh elections expired, the petitioner's Committee being the outgoing Committee held fresh election on 14.6.2010.
16. The District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly however accepted the claim of rival Committee of Management said to have been elected on 30.5.2010, and referred the dispute to the Joint Director of Education under Section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 by his letter dated 22.6.2010.
17. The Regional Level Committee by its order dated 7.9.2010 approved the election of the petitioner, Aziz Ahmad and discarded the elections set up by rival group dated 30.5.2010. However, the rival group convinced the Assistant Registrar that the newly enrolled nine members by the petitioner's Committee were not validly enrolled and the Assistant Registrar in his order dated 9.12.2010 declared these members invalid, and recognised nine new members enrolled by Saleem Uddin, it was this order of the Assistant Registrar which was challenged by Aziz Ahmad in Writ-C No. 4297 of 2011.
18. On 1.2.2011, an interim order was granted that the newly enrolled members may not participate in the elections to be held by the Assistant Registrar.
19. The order dated 7.9.2010 recognising the petitioner's election on the other hand was challenged by one Nisar Ahamd – respondent no. 6 in Writ-C No. 38592 of 2011. No interim order was granted and the petitioner' Committee continued to run and manage the college and as its term was going to expire, it held fresh election on 14.5.2013, and sent the papers to District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly for approval.
20. The salary of Teachers and other staff continued to be disbursed under the signatures of the petitioner no. 2 – Qamar Ali, but the District Inspector of Schools in his order dated 22.6.2013 mentioned that there was a dispute of two rival Committees which had already been referred to the Regional Joint Director of Education and therefore the matter be decided by the Regional Joint Director of Education.
21. The Regional Level Committee in its order dated 3.1.2015 proceeded to examine the papers sent by the rival Committees and also the report sent by the Assistant Registrar. However, the Regional Level Committee did not decide the validity of either of the elections and simply discarded both the elections on the ground that the dispute relating to membership is pending before the High Court in Writ-C No. 4297 of 2011.
22. The order passed by the Regional Level Committee was challenged in Writ-C No. 1761 of 2015 which was allowed on 26.3.2015. This Court set aside the order passed by the Regional Level Committee and directed it to decide the dispute afresh.
23. In compliance of the orders passed by this Court on 26.3.2015 both the parties were heard by the Regional Level Committee and the impugned order dated 4.8.2015 has been passed discarding the petitioner's election and recognising the election of respondent no. 6.
24. Aggrieved by the order dated 4.8.2015, this writ petition no. 46143 of 2015 has been filed.
25. Initially, this Court passed an interim order in this writ petition on 17.8.2015 on the ground that in Writ Petition No. 4297 of 2011, the dispute regarding induction of new members in the General Body of the Society i.e. the Board of Control had been raised and this Court had passed an interim order on 1.2.2011 prohibiting election of office bearers of the Board of Control on the basis of electoral college determined by the Assistant Registrar, nevertheless elections were held and respondent no. 6 was shown to be elected on 3.5.2013, however only on the basis of the electoral college which was already under challenge.
26. The interim order dated 17.8.2015 was challenged by the respondent no. 6 in a Special Appeal. The Division Bench allowed the Special Appeal on 10.9.2015 set aside the interim order dated 17.8.2015 with an observation that the Writ-Court should decide the writ petition itself on merits within a period of two months.
27. The petitioners' Committee thereafter filed Special Leave Petition-C No. 2887 of 2015 and the Supreme Court disposed of the said Special Leave Petition by observing that since it had not interfered with the order passed by the Division Bench, the writ petition be decided within three months from the date of passing of order by the Division Bench i.e. from 10.9.2015.
28. The direction of the Supreme Court was to decide the Writ-C No. 46143 of 2015 within a period of three months. The said writ petition however remained pending.
29. In the meantime, affidavits were exchanged. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State respondents by the Joint Director of Education, Bareilly Region, Bareilly, it has been stated that under the bye-laws of the Society, there is a provision for conduct of election of Committee of Management by the members of the General Body. Since, the tenure of the earlier Committee of Management had expired on 4.6.2010, and no fresh elections were held before the said date, therefore the District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly had issued the order dated 22.6.2013 for single operation of salary account under Section 5 of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. The Regional Level Committee in its order dated 4.8.2015 had examined the affidavits filed by the rival Committees of Management and after examining the entire material available on record, including the list of members of the Society sent from the office of the Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Bareilly, it was found that out of twenty five existing members, 14 members had filed their affidavits in favour of the respondent no. 6 saying that they had participated in duly held elections where respondent no. 6 was elected. The petitioners on the other hand had submitted copies of affidavits of only eleven members. One Abdul Salam Khan was said to have been appointed as convener of the said election. Abdul Salam Khan by means of his affidavit had clearly denied his role as convener, or his participation in the alleged elections held by the Committee of Management headed by the petitioner. Also, out of the eleven members of the General Body whose affidavits were filed by the petitioner, three members Saleem Uddin, Abdul Salam Khan and Abrar Ahmad denied that they voted in favour of Qamar Ali – the petitioner no. 2, therefore, by the order dated 4.8.2015 of the Regional Level Committee, the Committee of Management under the Presidentship of Nafees Ansari with the respondent no. 6 as its Manager was recognised and also the elections conducted on 30.5.2015.
30. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 6. In the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 6, it has been stated that the last election of the Board of Control was held on 10.7.2008 and one Saleem Uddin was elected as Secretary and Abrar Ahmad was elected as President. The Managing Committee was to continue till 9.7.2011, but one Aziz Ahmad filed an application before the Assistant Registrar saying that Saleem Uddin had been removed from the post of Secretary and he was elected as Secretary and also that in another meeting of the Board of Control held on 15.4.2010, seven new members were enrolled. The Assistant Registrar after hearing the parties passed an order on 9.12.2010 rejecting the claim set up by Aziz Ahmad regarding removal of Saleem Uddin and inclusion of seven new members. The Assistant Registrar further went on to approve the list of twenty seven members of the General Body which included nine newly enrolled members.
31. This order of the Assistant Registrar dated 9.12.2010 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 4297 of 2011 and this Court passed an order on 1.2.2011 that during the pendency of the writ petition, no election of Board of Control shall be held with the nine newly incorporated members participating.
32. It has been submitted that the members of the General Body of the Society also participate in the election of the Committee of Management of the Inter College which is run by the Society. The interim order that was passed in Writ Petition No. 4297 of 2011 was only with regard to election of the Managing Committee of the Society and not of the Institution. Also, since the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 9.12.2010 was not stayed by the interim order dated 1.2.2011, the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 26.5.2013 in which the respondent no. 6 was elected as Secretary / Manager.
33. Qamar Ali - the petitioner set up a rival election dated 14.5.2013 and therefore the matter was referred to the Regional Level Committee. Before the Regional Level Committee, it was claimed by the petitioner that in the elections dated 14.5.2013, one Abdul Salam Khan was allegedly acting as convener, but Abdul Salam Khan filed an affidavit before the Regional Level Committee denying any such participation. Some other members of the General Body who were shown to have been elected as members of the Managing Committee by the petitioner – Qamar Ali also filed affidavits categorically denying their participation in the said election.
34. The Regional Level Committee held that the power to convene meeting of the General Body was with the President and since the President has accepted that the meeting of the General Body was rightly convened by the Senior Vice-President and fourteen members out of the twenty five members of the General Body have voted in favour of the respondent no. 6, he was entitled to manage the affairs of the Institution.
35. Since, the tenure the Committee of Management as per Scheme of Administration is only three years and Scheme further provides that office bearers are entitled to continue till their successor is chosen in fresh elections, elections were again held in 2016 in which the respondent no. 6 was elected again.
36. In the two rejoinder affidavits filed by the petitioners to the two counter affidavits filed by the State respondents and the private respondents, it has been submitted that under the Bye-laws of the Society, the Board of Control shall have power to ratify the acts of the Managing Committee.
37. Under the bye-law 15(viii), it is provided that at the end of three years, the Managing Committee of the Institution run by the Society shall elect seven members out of the members of the existing Managing Committee and five members out of the members of the Board of Control of the Society. The last election of the Board of Control was held on 25.5.2007 in which Saleem Uddin was elected as Secretary and Abrar Ahmad was elected as President. No such election as stated by the respondent no. 6 was held on 10.7.2008. The elections dated 25.5.2007 were held under the supervision of the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly. A meeting of the Board of Control was held on 24.3.2010 in which the contesting respondent no. 6 was present and he has signed therefore he cannot now say that no meeting of the Board of Control was held on 24.3.2010. In the said meeting, Aziz Ahmad was elected as Secretary and Abrar Ahmad was elected as President and petitioner no. 2 – Qamar Ali was elected as Senior Vice-President, the Managing Committee elected on 24.3.2010 had full authority to enroll new members.
38. It has been stated that the interim order dated 1.2.2011 had the effect of staying the Assistant Registrar's order dated 9.12.2010 and therefore the nine new members said to have been enrolled by the rival Committee of Management, had no authority in law to participate in any election for the Committee of Management of the Inter College. It cannot be said that by the interim order that was passed in Writ Petition No. 4297 of 2011, only the elections of Board of Control was stayed and not the elections of the Committee of Management of the Inter College.
39. The Committee of Management of Inter College was to be elected as per clause 5 of the Scheme of Administration. Since, the list finalised by the Assistant Registrar by the order dated 9.12.2010 was under cloud because of the interim order dated 1.2.2011 in Writ Petition No. 4297 of 2011, the said list could not have been relied upon by the Regional Level Committee to hold the elections of the respondent no. 6 to be valid elections.
38. In the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 6 subsequent developments have been brought on record. The Committee of Management of the Institution being elected on 26.5.2013 had a tenure of three years which came to an end on 25.5.2016. In a meeting of the General Body of the Society held on 26.5.2013 clause 5(viii) of the bye-laws came to be amended and the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Bareilly was informed about the amendment by the letter dated 18.6.2013, which letter was received in the office of the Assistant Registrar on 21.6.2013 within the time period prescribed as per the Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act.
40. The Scheme of Administration of the Institution was also amended and it was approved by the Joint Director of Education by his order dated 30.4.2016.
41. By the aforesaid amendments brought about in the Bye-laws of the Society and the Scheme of Administration of the Institution, the confusion which was earlier there with regard to Constitution of Committee of Management of the Institution was removed. Proceedings for holding fresh elections were initiated in a meeting of the Board of Control which was held on 15.5.2016 which was attended by the fourteen out of twenty five members who were alive of the General Body, and twelve members were elected as Committee of Management of the Society. These twelve members held a meeting on 20.5.2016 and elected the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution. The papers relating to the aforesaid elections were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools who approved the said Committee of Management on 28.5.2016. It has been further stated that since, a new Committee of Management has been elected and has also been recognised by the Educational Authorities, the writ petition challenging the order passed by the Regional Level Committee has become infructuous.
42. After the supplementary counter affidavit was filed, the petitioners moved an amendment application and challenged the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 28.5.2016 approving the new Committee of Management of the Institution and also praying for a declaration from this Court that the amendments in the Scheme of Administration of the Institution and the amendments in the bye-laws of the Society made by the rival Committee of Management are null and void.
43. Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that in the earlier round of litigation before this Court i.e. Writ Petition No. 1761 of 2015, this Court had specifically issued a direction to the Regional Level Committee to first decide as to who was in effective control of the Institution in question and who was entitled under the Scheme of Administration to hold the elections of the Committee of Management before dealing with the dispute raised by the rival Committees of having held the elections on different dates.
44. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the impugned order dated 04.08.2015 passed by the Regional Level Committee, the Regional Level Committee had not dealt with the question as to who was entitled to hold elections as being the outgoing the Committee of Management and who was in effective control of the Institution at all, but had addressed itself to the dispute raised with regard to election of Committee of Management of the petitioner by respondent No. 6 on the ground that certain members said to have been elected by the petitioner-Committee in the said elections had not supported the case of the petitioner and had filed affidavits disputing the same. Certain members, who had been newly incorporated by the petitioner- Committee having not supported the case of the petitioner-Committee and saying that they had not attended the election at all would make the elections held by the Committee of Management doubtful. On the other hand, elections held by the respondent-Committee were declared to have been held in accordance with the amended Bye-laws and thus, recognized.
45. It is the case of the petitioner that the Bye-laws were amended illegally on 26.05.2013 by the Committee headed by respondent no. 6 and without reporting the same to the Registrar under section 4-A of the Society Registration Act. Such amended Bye-laws could not have been given effect to. On the basis of these amended Bye- laws alone the elections were held of the respondent-
Committee. The Scheme of Administration that was later on amended similarly by the respondent-Committee could not take effect unless the same was approved by the Director.
46. It is the case of the petitioner that section 4-A of the Society Registration Act is mandatory and cannot be rendered redundant and respondent-Committee having not communicated the amendment in the Bye-laws to the Assistant Registrar could not have gone on to elect the Committee of Management on the basis of amended Bye- laws.
47. It is the case of the petitioner that their Committee of Management was elected in 2007 and 2010 and again in 2013 on the basis of unamended Bye-laws more specifically Clause 15 (viii) as it stood since its inception.
48. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court in Committee of Management of Philanthropic Education Society, Aligarh and another vs State of U.P. & others 2005 (2) ESC 1297, paragraphs 8, 14 and 15 thereof and judgment rendered in Krishna Tiwari & another vs. Regional Joint Director of Education, Varanasi & others 2005 ADJ 389 (All) and Committee of Management, Sri Raghubar Dayal Pathak Inter College, Etawah through its Manager vs Committee of Management, Sri Raghubar Dayal Pathak Inter College, Etwah through its alleged Manager and others, 2006 (7) ADJ 427 to argue that subsequent elections if any held by the Committee of Management of which initial elections were challenged and held invalid, can also be declared invalid on the same ground.
49. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment rendered by this Court in Committee of Management Town Inter College Mohamodabad Gohna vs District Inspector of Schools and others, 1995 (25) ALR 57, and the Full Bench decision in Committee of Management vs Deputy Director of Education and others, 2004 (4) ESC 2257 (All) to argue that outgoing Committee of Management which was in effective control of the Institution could hold elections. If such elections were held in time i.e. before the expiry of tenure, the elections could not be challenged by a rival Committee nor set aside.
50. Mr G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has pointed out certain discrepancies in the pleadings of the petitioner and the relief clause as framed. He has argued that initially when the writ petition was filed only the decision of the Regional Level Committee dated 04.08.2015 had been challenged. Later on, through an amendment, the order dated 28.05.2016 of the District Inspector of Schools recognizing the subsequent elections of respondent-Committee has been challenged. Moreover, the Resolution dated 26.05.2013 amending the Bye-laws by respondent No. 6, and the Scheme of Administration as amended by Resolution of the respondent-Committee on 27.03.2016 alone have been challenged. The Bye-laws having been amended by respondent-Committee have been approved by the Assistant Registrar similarly Scheme of Administration proposed to be amended by respondent- Committee has been further approved by order passed by the Joint Director on 30.04.2016. These orders of the
26.05.2013 and 27.03.2016 both relate to proceedings conducted by a private body i.e. respondent-Committee of Management alone and the petitioners have not challenged the subsequent approval of the said Resolution by the Assistant Registrar and by the Joint Director, such reliefs as prayed for by the petitioners through amendment in the writ petition cannot be granted by this Court.
51. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the Bye-laws of the Society to argue that only the President or the Vice-president of the Managing Committee or Society could have called the meeting of the Society. In this case, the meeting of the Society was neither called by the President nor by the Vice-president. In the Scheme of Administration of the College, there is no provision for calling a meeting of the General Body, and therefore, the provision given in the Bye-laws of the Society shall govern such procedure of calling a meeting even for the General Body of the Institution concerned. In the case of respondent-Committee, meeting was called for elections on the basis of amended Bye-laws.
52. It has also been argued that the election meeting of petitioners-Committee of Management on 18.06.2008 was called on the basis of communication by the Secretary of the Society Mr Aziz Ahmad and not by the President, and therefore, the said meeting of the General Body for conducting the elections of 2008 also was vitiated.
53. Learned counsel for the respondents has also disputed the enrollment/incorporation of seven members of the petitioners-Committee of Management, whereas in the case of respondent-Committee of Management, the Assistant Registrar by an order dated 09.12.2010 has upheld the enrollment of 12 members and these twelve members participated in the elections held for the respondent-Committee of Management.
54. Learned counsel for the respondent has also pointed out the interim order dated 01.02.2011 passed in Writ Petition No. 4297 of 2011, by which it was only directed by this Court that the elections of Office bearers of the Board of Control may not be held on the basis of electoral college by the Assistant Registrar and that this writ petition was eventually dismissed by detailed order dated 20.09.2016.
55. This Court in its judgment and order dated 20.9.2015 did not interfere with the order passed by the Assistant Registrar dated 09.12.2010 and left it open for the petitioner or any other aggrieved parties to approach the Civil Court for determination of disputed questions of fact relating to membership. The judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge was further challenged in Special Appeal No.
666 of 2016 (Aziz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and others) and this Special Appeal was also dismissed by this Court on 20.10.2016.
56. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Sri Sanatan Dharam Sabha and another vs. The Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, U.P., Lucknow & others, AIR 1989 ALL 189 to argue that section 4-A of the Society Registration Act is not mandatory in nature and the amendment in the Bye-laws if not communicated in time to the Registrar will not become ineffective on that count alone.
57. Learned counsel for the petitioner has on the other hand in his rejoinder pointed out Clause 15(viii) of the Bye-laws and has said that till 2013 whatever elections were held by the petitioners-Committee of Management were held on the basis of un-amended Bye-laws. If the Bye-laws were later on amended clandestinely without reporting to the Registrar and the Scheme of Administration was also amended by the respondent- Committee of Management illegally, it is open for this Court to ignore such illegal amendments and presume the same to have never been made. Moreover it is his case that the dispute relating to parent body, the Society has nothing to do with the dispute relating to Management of the College.
58. He has referred to the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the aforesaid writ petitions had to be decided before the next elections were held, but despite this order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the writ petitions before this Court came to be adjourned repeatedly on one ground or other, and subsequent elections were held ignoring the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
59. It has been pointed out that the amendments made in the Bye-laws have not been registered till date by the Registrar, who has found them to have been illegally made.
60. This Court has considered the pleadings on record and the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the parties. The amendments made in the Bye-laws of the Society and the amendments made in the Scheme of Administration of the Institution have been duly approved by the Assistant Registrar and the Joint Director of Education. The resolutions of the Committee of Management and the General Body proposing the amendments alone have been challenged. These resolutions are by a private body and are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. However, the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar and Joint Director of Education approving such amendments are amenable to writ jurisdiction but have not been challenged. Therefore this Court cannot grant the later two prayers made by the petitioner added by way of amendment to the writ petition.
61. The question before this Court in this writ petition would therefore be confined only to the validity of the order passed by the Regional Level Committee dated 4.8.2015.
62. During the course of arguments, it has come on record that Writ Petition No. 4297 of 2011 in which the interim order dated 1.2.2011 was passed, has been dismissed by this Court on 20.9.2015, and Special Appeal filed against the said judgment has also been dismissed on 20.10.2016.
63. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. Vs. Church of South Indian Trust Association JT 1992 (3) SC 990 has held that an interim order passed during the pendency of the proceedings would merge in the final order and in case the petition is dismissed, it is to be presumed that such interim order was never passed. It is therefore no longer open for the petitioner to challenge the validity of the elections held by the opposite party no. 6 on the ground that such elections were held in the teeth of the interim order dated 1.2.2011, and the Regional Level Committee ought not to have recognised the respondent no. 6 elections as the electoral college contained the names of nine new members enrolled and recognised by the Assistant Registrar in his order dated 9.12.2010, which was impermissible.
64. The Regional Level has given opportunity of hearing to either of the parties and on the basis of affidavits of members claimed by the petitioner to have participated in the elections held by it allegedly on 14.5.2013, gave a finding that since there was a denial by such members of any elections held on 14.5.2013, the said elections cannot be recognised. On the other hand, the elections held by respondent no. 6 were being supported by fourteen out of the twenty six members of the General Body. Hence the Regional Level Committee held that the elections of respondent no. 6 were valid.
65. I do not find any factual or legal infirmity in the order of the Regional Level Committee dated 4.8.2015.
66. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 23.4.2018 Arif