Court No. - 7
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31799 of 2019 Petitioner :- C/M Madarsa Ashfakiya Kaji Tola Bareilly And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar,Rahul Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
The petitioner claims that he was elected Manager of the Society registered under the name and style of Madarsa Ashfakiya Kaji Tola Bareilly. A fresh list of the committee of management was submitted under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act for registration. The fresh list has been got registered. The name of the petitioner is absent from the fresh list of the registered office bearers of the society.According to the petitioner, the said list was registered on the foot of a fraudulent document which records that the petitioner had resigned as Secretary of the Society.
The submission of Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners is that the order of registration dated 29.01.2019 of the new list of committee of management is ex parte to the petitioners.
No useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending. With consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the writ petition is being finally disposed of.
It is well settled that the principles of natural justice are not cast in any strait jacket formula. The requirements of natural justice are adapted to the facts of the case to subserve the ends of justice. In the evolution of the law of natural justice, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has applied the concept of post decisional hearing in appropriate cases. In the case of Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati and others, reported at (2015) 8 SCC 519, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"38. But that is not the end of the matter. While the law on the principle of audi alteram partem has progressed in the manner mentioned above, at the same time, the Courts have also repeatedly remarked that the principles of natural justice are very flexible principles. They cannot be applied in any straight-jacket formula. It all depends upon the kind of functions performed and to the extent to which a person is likely to be affected. For this reason, certain exceptions to the aforesaid principles have been invoked under certain circumstances. For example, the Courts have held that it would be sufficient to allow a person to make a representation and oral hearing may not be necessary in all cases, though in some matters, depending upon the nature of the case, not only full- fledged oral hearing but even cross-examination of witnesses is treated as necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. Likewise, in service matters relating to major punishment by way of disciplinary action, the requirement is very strict and full-fledged opportunity is envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the other hand, in those cases where there is an admission of charge, even when no such formal inquiry is held, the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even post-decisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the Courts have held that under certain circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on."
In view of above, the matter is remitted to the respondent no. 2- Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly Region, Bareilly.
A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent no. 2-Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly Region, Bareilly, to execute the following directions:
(i) The petitioner shall appear before the respondent no.2- Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly Region, Bareilly, and submit his pleadings and other supporting documents.
(ii) The respondent no. 2-Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly Region, Bareilly shall notice all concerned parties including the respondent No.3 on the representation of the petitioner.
(iii) The respondent no. 2-Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly Region, Bareilly, shall decide the representation of the petitioner after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and all other concerned parties, including the respondent no. 3.
(iv) The parties shall exchange their pleadings and relied upon the documents before the respondent no. 2-Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly Region, Bareilly.
(v) The respondent no. 2-Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly Region, Bareilly, shall record his satisfaction in writing that the parties have been provided copies and pleadings being relied upon by their respective adversaries.
(vi) The respondent no. 2-Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly Region, Bareilly shall fix a date of hearing. The respondent no. 2-Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly Region, Bareilly shall grant an opportunity of hearing to the parties on the appointed date.
(vii) The respondent no. 2-Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly Region, Bareilly, shall decide the controversy by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law.
(viii) The entire exercise shall be completed by the respondent no. 2-Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly Region, Bareilly within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order along with fresh copy of the representation and supporting documents in this regard.
This Court at this stage has not interfered with the order dated 29.01.2019.
The order dated 29.01.2019 shall abide by the fresh order passed after determination made in pursuance to the directions.
It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the veracity of the assertions of the writ petition nor has judged the claim of the petitioner on merits. It is for the competent authority to do so with an independent application of mind and in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.9.2019 Ashish Tripathi