Court No. - 25
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 53629 of 2012 Petitioner :- C/M Madarsa Arbia Darool Kuran And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. & Others Counsel for Petitioner :- G.K. Singh,Anshu Chaudhary,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Prashant Shukla,Syed Safdar Ali Kazmi,Vijay Kumar Singh,Yakub Ansari Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.,Gautam Baghel,R.K. Ojha
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
A society known as Madarsa Arbia Darool Kuran Mohalla Dostpura Kopaganj District Mau, which was initially registered on 22.9.1992 was getting its registration renewed from time to time, had a Committee of Management for its administration. On 1.7.2006, the last uncontested election was held wherein one Fayyaz Ahmad was elected as the President and Hafiz Iftikhar Ahmad was elected as a Secretary/Manager of the Committee. Even though, the term of the Committee was for five years when in the month of April, 2010 some dispute arose, the General Body of the society on 23.5.2010 dissolved the Committee of Management and resolved that till a new election was held Hafiz Iftikhar Ahmad, the petitioner no.2, here would officiate as a Manager. On 3.6.2010 the General Body again met and resolved that in January 2011, a Committee of Management had to be elected for managing the affairs of the society. On the other hand the respondent no.4, Sri Ubaid Ullah also staked his claim on the basis of a resolution dated 10.6.2010 whereby it was stated that he had been elected a Manager and the petitioner no.2 i.e. Sri Hafiz Iftikhar Ahmad had been removed from the post of Manager and he i.e. Sri Ubaid Ullah was elected a Manager. The respondent no.4 and the petitioner no.2 on the basis of the resolutions dated 10.6.2010 and 23.5.2010, respectively filed their papers before the Assistant Registrar for being recognized as the properly elected Managers of the Committee of Management. The Registrar faced with two lists of office bearers, one of the petitioner no.2 and the other of the respondent no.4., issued notices to both of them and on 13.1.2011 accepted the list of office bearers of the respondent no.4. Aggrieved by the passing of the order dated 13.1.2011 of the Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh the petitioner no.2 filed a Writ Petition No. 5155 of 2011 (Committee of Management Arbia Darool Kuran and another vs. State of U.P. and others) wherein this Court on 1.2.2011 held that the order dated 13.1.2011 which was passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh was without jurisdiction and that when he was faced with two lists of office bearers then he should have referred the matter to the prescribed authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In the meantime, as per the resolution dated 3.6.2010 elections were held by the petitioners on 3.1.2011. The respondents also as per the resolution dated 10.6.2010 held an election on 5.6.2011. Ultimately the prescribed authority decided the matter on 22.9.2012 and held that the proceedings wherein the petitioners' office bearers were elected were not acceptable, whereas the proceedings wherein the office bearers of Sri Ubaid Ullah's list were elected were accepted and the list of his office bearers was also recognized. Aggrieved thereof the petitioner filed the instant writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the prescribed authority on the following grounds:
(I) The prescribed authority has misread the resolution dated 3.6.2010.
(II) The finding as has been arrived at with regard to the meetings of 3.6.2010 and 3.1.2011 were not backed by reasons and strangely enough motives had been attributed to the petitioners.
(III) While recognizing the meeting as was held under the Presidentship of Fayyaz Ahmad on 10.6.2010, the prescribed authority had very whimsically found that everything was in order vis a vis that meeting.
(IV) For no reason whatsoever, he had found that the meeting dated 10.6.2010 was attended by more than half of the erstwhile Committee of Management.
(V) When the election as per the respondent no.4 was held on 10.6.2010 and the list of office bearer was also submitted thereafter how the Prescribed Authority concluded that a fresh election was held on 5.6.2011 was not clear as the resolution dated 10.6.2010 did not mention whether the election of the respondent no.4 was for the remaining term or that it was for the next five years. Yet the Prescribed Authority had found that both the elections, namely, of 10.6.2010 and 5.6.2011 were correctly held.
(VI) The prescribed authority had wrongly, on absolutely no basis, found that on 3.6.2010, it had been resolved by the General Body that elections would be held in July 2011.
(VII) With regard to the election of the petitioner the order had only said that since the election of the respondens were found to be in order the election set up by the petitiner had to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has, in reply, submitted that the findings as were arrived at with regard to the meetings held on 3.6.2010 and the election dated 3.1.2011 were absolutely correct and he has submitted that when the election of the petitioner was found to be fallacious then the only option with the prescribed authority was to recognize the election of the respondent no.4.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the prescribed authority definitely misread the resolutions of 23.5.2010 and 3.6.2010. A bare reading of these resolutions makes it clear that the findings as had been arrived at by the prescribed authority were without any basis. The resolution of 3.6.2010, nowhere sates that any election had to be held in July 2011. Further, I find that the finding as had been given by the prescribed authority that the meetings of 3.6.2011 and 3.1.2011 were planned against the respondent no.4 have no basis. Still further, I find that even though there were various submissions made by the petitioners before the prescribed authority that the Committee of Management of the respondent no.4 was not a properly elected Committee, yet without giving any reason the prescribed authority found that the resolutions dated 10.6.2010 and 5.6.2011 were in order and on that basis has found that the Committee of Management as was elected by the respondent no.4 was the correctly elected Committee of Management. I further find that the prescribed authority had not dealt with the submissions of the petitioners that when a regular election was held on 10.6.2010 then why on 5.6.2011 a fresh election was held by the respondent no.4.
Under such circumstances, I hold that the prescribed authority has misread the evidence as was there before it and has arrived at wrong conclusions and, therefore, the order dated 22.2.2011 deserves to be set aside.
The writ petition is allowed.
The parties shall now appear before the prescribed authority again who shall now decide the case afresh within six months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. The Prescribed Authority shall decide the case after properly analyzing the Resolutions.
The Committee of Management which is today managing the Society and its institution shall continue to manage the affairs of the society and its institution till a decision is taken by the Prescribed Authority. Thereafter, the office bearers who would get recognition shall hold a fresh election instantly. The Registrar may for the purposes of the next election ascertain the electorate which would vote for the next election.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 Ashish Pd.