Heard Mrs. Bulbul Godiyal, learned Senior Advocate along with Sri Ram Raj Ojha, leaned counsel for the petitioner. Notices on behalf of opposite parties no. 1 and 2 have been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Sri M.B. Tiwari, Advocate, holding brief of Sri M.B. Singh has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 3.
The petitioner is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and having its own by laws in the name and style of Kranti Vidya Mandi, Bangla Bazar, Lucknow which is imparting education for Classes I to Class VIII and is aided by the State Government.
It is the case of the petitioner that the general body of the Society in its meeting held on 03.07.2018 resolved to issue an election notification. In furtherance thereof since only limited number of candidates filed their nominations, therefore, all those persons who have filed their nominations were elected and a list of the elected Managing Committee was forwarded for its approval. The general body of the Society held a meeting on 27.07.2018 wherein it resolved to declare the office bearers elected uncontested. Similarly, a meeting was held on 10.06.2019 wherein 8 out of 11 members passed a resolution that the Managing Committee in the year 2018-19 shall also continue for the year 2019-20 without any change. In a subsequent meeting 11 out of 15 members resolved and agreed to the resolution dated 10.06.2019. A list of the Managing Committee for the year 2019-20 was forwarded with the opposite party no. 2 along with a letter dated 17.06.2019. The opposite party no. 2 had invited objections in the said letter. However, by means of the order dated 08.07.2019, the opposite party no. 2 approved the list of the members of the Managing Committee of the Society.
In the meantime, the opposite party no. 3 filed his objections and in response to the objections filed, the opposite party no. 2 has initiated the hearing, however, in the meantime by means of the order dated 05.09.2019 it has stayed/suspended the list of the members of the Managing Committee for the year 2019-20.
It is in this backdrop that the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once the list had been approved by the opposite party no. 2 and especially in view of the fact that the hearing was already going on before the opposite party no. 2, it had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order staying/suspending the list of members of the Managing Committee without giving an opportunity to the petitioners who otherwise were already participating and as such the order dated 05.09.2019 is bad in the eyes of law.
This court by means of order dated 25.09.2019 had required the counsel for opposite party nos. 1 and 2 to seek instructions in the matter and to inform the Court whether any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing of the order dated 05.09.2019.
Learned Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions has submitted that for the purposes of ascertaining the correctness of the members and the Committee of Management especially in light of the objections that the names mentioned in the list also contain names of persons who had expired and, therefore, the list has been suspended.
The matter in issue is a short question. Instead of keeping the matter pending this Court with the consent of learned counsel appearing from both sides agreed to dispose of this matter finally. It is not in dispute that the opposite party no. 2 had already confirmed the list of members of the petitioner-institute by means of the order dated 08.07.2019. A copy of which has been annexed as Annexure no. 13 with the writ petition. Subsequently, the objection at the behest of opposite party no. 3 was considered and upon which the hearing is taking place before the opposite party no. 2. Under these circumstances where the issue is still pending before the opposite no. 2 who has to decide the lis finally. The order which has been passed it amounts to grant of final relief which could not be done by the opposite party no. 2. Even otherwise the order passed by the opposite party no. 2 is bereft of any reason which could persuade the opposite party no. 2 to pass such an order. Neither of the opposite parties could indicate under what provisions or authority of law, the opposite party no. 2 pass such an order.
This Court is of the considered view that the order order dated 05.09.2019 cannot be sustained.
Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed. The order dated 05.09.2019 which has been passed dehors the provisions of law to the extent as mentioned above is set aside. It is further directed that the parties shall appear before the opposite party no. 2 before whom the matter is being heard and he shall after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties shall finally decide the matter before him in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from the date a certified copy of this order is place before him.
With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands partly allowed.
Order Date :- 30.9.2019 Asheesh