Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19411 of 2018 Petitioner :- C/M Jagwant Singh Bhadoriya Degree College And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Anand Gaur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ramesh Chandra Tiwari Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
By impugned order dated 13.4.2018, the Deputy Registrar, Kanpur while considering two rival claims for the post of Manager of the Committee of Management of Jagwant Singh Bhadoriya Degree College Samiti, a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, has discarded the claim of Smt. Asha Singh, petitioner no.2 and has upheld the claim of Dr. Brijesh Singh (respondent no.3).
The petitioners claim that petitioner no.2 was elected on the post of Manager on 22.10.2017 against a casual vacancy which had arisen consequent to death of R.G. Singh Bhadoriya, the Manager on 20.10.2017. On the other hand, respondent no.3 claims that the post of Manager could be filled up only by inheritance. His father R.G. Singh Bhadoriya was the Manager and having died, he being the eldest son, is entitled to hold the post of Manager.
In the impugned order, the Deputy Registrar has placed reliance on bye law no.5 (a) whereunder Balwant Singh and R.G. Singh Bhadoriya were founder members and were entitled to continue as such during their life. Their membership would only come to end on resignation or death. They could not be removed. After their death, their place would be occupied by their elder son.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that by law no.5 (a) only entitled Dr. Brijesh Singh, the eldest son of R.G. Singh Bhadoriya to hold the post of founder member but thereunder he cannot be held entitled to co-option as Manager.
Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 submitted that under the unamended bye law no.10, the Manager was entitled to hold the post during his life time and after him, his elder son. It is urged that the petitioners manipulated an amendment in the bye laws and the aforesaid provision was got amended. He submitted that even if bye law no.5 (a) would not apply, the third respondent was entitled to hold the post of Manager as per provisions of the original bye laws. However, he does not dispute that the original bye laws have since been amended, though it is his case that the amendment was not carried out validly. He does not dispute that the Deputy Registrar has not adjudicated upon the controversy whether the amendment was validly carried out or not. In fact, there is absolutely no consideration of bye law no.10 or the amendment made therein.
Counsel for the parties, after some argument, state that the Deputy Registrar may be directed to consider these aspects after setting aside the impugned order. Learned standing counsel states that the second respondent will decide the dispute within a period of three months.
Accordingly and in view of the agreement arrived at between the parties, the impugned order is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted back to the second respondent for deciding the controversy afresh in the light of observations made above. The aforesaid exercise shall be conducted by the second respondent, after due notice and opportunity of hearing to both the parties or to any other person likely to be affected thereby, within a period of three months.
The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 28.5.2018 SL