Heard Sri Vashistha Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri A.K. Singh, who has filed a counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 3 and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.
The order under challenge has been passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur dated 29th December, 2008 having proceeded to decide a dispute, which initially began on a complaint of two persons dated 1st March, 2005. The complaint was made by one Mr. Mainnuddin Siddiqui and Mr. Atim Ansari alleging that the registration of the Society has been obtained by inserting the names of such persons, who have not been elected as office-bearers by the residents of the village. The said complaint was, therefore, initially in relation to the Committee of Management that was reflected to have been constituted at the time of the registration of the Society.
During the pendency of the said complaint, it appears that the petitioners submitted documents on 15th November, 2007 alleging that Mr. Ali Raj Ansari is the President of the Madrasa and that there were total nine office-bearers. On 1st December, 2007, the respondent no. 3 as President appears to have approached the Assistant Registrar for granting renewal indicating that there was a Committee of Management of 15 members in accordance with the bye-laws and, therefore, it is he who should be granted the renewal of the Society.
Notices were issued and it transpired that the petitioners had reflected a constitution of the Committee of Management on 17.12.2006 whereas the respondent no. 3 claimed elections to have been held on 18th November, 2007.
Accordingly, the dispute took a different turn and the Assistant Registrar thereafter proceeded to examine the complaint dated 1st March, 2005 as well as the validity of the papers submitted by the parties in relation to the subsequent elections.
While passing the impugned order, the Assistant Registrar has categorically recorded that the main dispute centres round the original constitution of the Committee of Management namely as to whether the Committee consists 15 or 9 members and also the subsequent claims set up, and while doing so he arrived at the conclusion that the claim of the petitioner-Zahid Hussain Siddiqui, who had been earlier elected as the Manager, appears to be invalid as he has manipulated the documents. Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar has proceeded to accept the elections of the respondent no. 3 dated 18.11.2007 on the basis that the earlier manipulation made by the petitioner-Zahid Hussain Siddiqui disentitles him from seeking renewal.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Assistant Registrar once having come to know of any doubt or dispute with regard to the constitution of the Committee or subsequent elections, was obliged to refer the dispute under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 1860 Act'), inasmuch as, sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the 1860 Act clearly envisages that any such dispute has to be resolved by the Prescribed Authority under the aforesaid Act and not by the Assistant Registrar. He, therefore, contends that once the Assistant Registrar had taken notice of these rival sets of management and the right of the office-bearers to continue, then the Assistant Registrar was bound to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority and not decide the same himself.
In response, Sri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 submits that once the Assistant Registrar after making an enquiry found that documents pertaining to the claim of the list of the office-bearers, had been manipulated by the petitioners, therefore, in such a situation once there was an element of fraud or misrepresentation, there was no occasion to have referred the same and, therefore, the Assistant Registrar was well within his jurisdiction to pass orders. He also contends that the petitioners, as a matter of fact, wanted to induct persons of their own choice in violation of the bye-laws and, therefore, the Assistant Registrar having assessed the same, has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners on the basis of the material that was available on records.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the Assistant Registrar has extensively dealt with the circumstances in which he found that the claim of the petitioners to be false, therefore, there was no occasion to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, the Assistant Registrar himself has clearly recorded that the main issue, which was being decided by him, was with regard to the constitution of the Committee of Management of the elections as set up by the rival parties. This leaves no room for doubt that the dispute, which was being decided, was something different from what had been initiated under the complaint dated 1st March, 2005. The dispute, therefore, read compositely was relating to the doubt or dispute of the office-bearers and their continuance and, therefore, in the opinion of the Court, it was a dispute that ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the 1860 Act. The Assistant Registrar, therefore, travelled beyond his jurisdiction in proceeding to have decided the dispute treating himself to be the authority competent to do so.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 29th December, 2008 is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
The Assistant Registrar shall remit the entire dispute to the Prescribed Authority of the area concerned within a period of three weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order and the Prescribed authority shall proceed to decide the same within a period of three months thereafter upon giving an opportunity of hearing to the concern parties.
Order Date :- 1.2.2011 Akv