The petitioner no.1 is Committee of Management of an Educational Institution, its Manager has joined this petition as petitioner no.2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition against the order dated 22.2.2014 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies & Chits, Meerut Region, Meerut.
In view of the proposed order no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending, as the parties have agreed that the writ petition may be finally disposed of. Learned counsel for the parties agree not to exchange affidavit and as such the writ petition is being finally disposed of in terms of the Rules of the Court.
The essential facts of the case are that a Society under the name of Anjuman Madarsa Quasmia Arabia Islamia, Bulandshahr is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act,1860, (Act No. 21 of 1860), (for short Act, 1860). The Society has established an educational institution. The certificate of registration has been renewed from time to time. It is stated that the last election was held on 14.6.2009 wherein Abdul Haseen was elected as the President and Haji Noor Mohammad Qureshi as the Manager and one Abdul Hakim was elected as the Auditor. The term of the office bearer of the Committee is three years.
It is stated that the outgoing Manager of the Institution did not take any steps for getting fresh election as the term of the office bearer was upto 2012. The President of the Society Abdul Haseen convened a meeting of the general body on 26.6.2013 for holding the election. It is stated that accordingly a meeting was held on the said date in which out of 21 members 15 members were present. In the said election Abdul Haseen was re-elected as the President and Mohd. Abid was elected as the Secretary/Manager while Abdul Hakim was re-elected as Auditor. A copy of the proceedings of the general body is brought on the record as Annexure-2 to the writ petition.
It is stated that the papers relating to election were submitted to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut Region, Meerut along with the list of members and office bears of the committee of management for the year 2013-14. It appears that no action was taken at the end of Deputy Registrar inspite of the reminders sent by the petitioners. In the meantime the Manager of the Committee, namely, Haji Noor Mohammad Qureshi made a representation dated 18.7.2013 before the respondent no2/ Deputy Registrar making certain allegation with regard to validity of the election. It is alleged that the Deputy Registrar without conducting any hearing proceedings passed an order dated 24.7.2013 rejecting the election of the petitioners. The petitioner submitted a representation on 13th August, 2013 against the said order whereupon the Deputy Registrar issued notice to both the factions.
On 30th September, 2013 the Deputy Registrar referred the matter under section 25(1) of the Act,1860, to the Prescribed Authority, Sadar, Bulandshar. Aggrieved by the said order Haji Noor Mohammad Qureshi the respondent no.5 preferred a Writ Petition No. 59092 of 2013 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court on the ground that the order was without any reason and the Deputy Registrar was directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties concerned.
It is averred in the writ petition that after the matter was remanded to the Deputy Registrar, the petitioner has filed a detailed representation dated 9.12.2013. The Deputy Registrar by impugned order dated 22.2.2014 has held that the election held by the petitioner was not valid.
I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Irshad Ali, learned counsel appears for the respondent no.5 and learned Standing Counsel appears for the State functionaries.
Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submit that the order of the Deputy Registrar is arbitrary and has been passed in gross violating of principles of natural justice. Lastly he urged that the order is without jurisdiction as the matter pertains to the dispute of the election of office bears and the matter ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority under section 25(1) of the Act, 1860.
Learned Senior Counsel elaborating his submissions on the violation of principles of natural justice has drawn the attention of the Court to the submission made in paragraph 27,28 and 29 of the writ petition wherein it is stated that hearing stood concluded on 3rd January, 2014 and subsequent thereto no other date was fixed for hearing. From the record it transpires that subsequent to the last date of hearing the Deputy Registrar by his communication dated 28.1.2014 made a reference to one Sanjeev Tomar, Hand Writing Expert requesting his opinion with regard to signature on the Agenda dated 1.6.2009 and 15.5.2012. The Hand Writing Expert has submitted his report on 11.1.2014 and without apprising the petitioner about the said report or without giving its copy to the petitioner, the Deputy Registrar has decided the matter solely on the basis of Hand Writing Expert report.
It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioner had no knowledge of any such reference having been made to the Hand Writing Expert nor any knowledge with regard to report of Hand Writing Expert having been received by the Deputy Registrar. Sri Irshad Ali, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 was not able to contradict the said facts.
The Deputy Registrar under the provisions of the Act, 1860, exercises quasi judicial power. The applicability of Rules of the Natural Justice in quasi judicial proceedings are too well settled to reiterate here.
It is well settled law that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot act as a court of appeal.
The judicial review is confined to the examination of decision making process. The Court does not substitute its own view. The Court can interfere where the important evidence have been overlook or legal provisions involved is misinterpreted or misapplied resulting error apparent on the fact of the proceedings. The duty of the Court is to confine to the question of legality. Its concern should be ;
(i) whether decision making authority exceeded its power;
(ii) committed an error of law;
(iii) committed a breach of Rules of Natural justice;
(iv) reached a decision which no reasonable Tribunal would have reached or
(v) abused its power.
Reference may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Admin. v. Manpreet Singh, (1992) 1 SCC 380 ; State of U.P. v. Committee of Management of S.K.M.Inter College, 1995 Supp(2) SCC 535; State of U.P. v. Dr. Vijay Anand Maharaj, AIR 1963 SC 946, Mansukh Lal Vithaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujrat (1997) 7 SCC 622 and State of A.P. v. P.V. Nanunantha Rao (2003) 10 SCC 121.
Sri Irshad Ali, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 has very fairly submits that from the order it appears that the Deputy Registrar had failed to give the copy of the said report. According to him the matter may be remitted to the Deputy Registrar to pass a fresh order after hearing the concerned parties.
Accordingly, the order dated 22.2.2014 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Meerut Region, Meerut is set aside.
The matter is remitted to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Meerut Region, Meerut to consider the matter a fresh and pass order in accordance with law expeditiously preferably within three months from the date of communication of this order.
Writ petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.3.2014 ssm