The question which is to be decided in the instant writ petition is, as to whether the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), can decide about the genuineness of a signature without getting an expert opinion about the same. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 23.4.2015 and 24.4.2015 passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The society know as Masdarul Uloom Educational Society which is registered under the Act, elected its office bearers to its committee of management on 20.11.2011, wherein the petitioner no. 2 Shabihuddin Khan was elected its Secretary. Thereafter as per Section 4 of the Act, the list of office bearers was also forwarded to the Registrar. Under Section 4-B of the Act, of course, the list of members of the General Body was also filed. On 8.3.2013, one Sri Atiqur Rehman submitted an application to the effect that only such list of office bearers be registered wherein he had shown himself as the Secretary. The list which Sri Atiqur Rehman submitted was accompanied by a resignation letter of the Petitioner no. 2.
A resolution of the General Body dated 25.2.2013 which accepted the resignation of the petitioner no. 2 was also submitted. Thereafter on 17.4.2013, the list as was submitted by Sri Atiqur Rehaman of the year 2013 - 2014 was also registered. Consequently, the District Minority Welfare Officer Chandauli, was also informed by the Assistant Registrar about the change in the list of office bearers. When on 27.5.2013, the District Minority Welfare Association Chandauli informed the petitioner no. 2 about the change only then he came to know that some election had been held by the respondent no. 5 Sri Atiqur Rehman. On 3.6.2013, therefore, the petitioner no. 2 Sri Shabihuddin Khan moved an application before the Registrar informing him of the list of office bearers as per him for the year 2013-2014. Subsequently, on 20.6.2013 an objection was also filed by the petitioner no. 2 to the list submitted by Sri Atiqur Rehman. As a reply to the objection of the petitioner no. 2 Shabihuddin Khan, Sri Atiqur Rehman the respondent no. 5 also filed his rebuttals on 26.6.2013. To decide the matter, the Assistant Registrar on 28.6.2013 put the petitioner to notice to appear before him on 20.7.2013. Similarly, the respondent no. 5 was also required to appear before the Assistant Registrar. On 23.9.2013, the Assistant Registrar passed an order which recognized the office bearers of the respondent no. 5. This order dated 23.9.2013 was challenged by the petitioners by means of Writ Petition No. 62989 of 2013, which alongwith another writ petition no. 1254 of 2014 came to be decided on 28.5.2014 and the dispute regarding the office bearers was referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. Before the Sub Divisional Officer, again, written submissions were filed by the petitioner and the respondent no. 5. Since, the case of the respondent no. 5 was that the petitioner no. 2 had resigned and this fact the petitioner no. 2 had contested, he had, therefore, lodged an F.I.R. on 13.1.2014 under Sections 419/420/467/468/471/504/506 and 120-B IPC. Before the Prescribed Authority arguments were raised and a request for summoning various documents was also made. Amongst the various requests, one of them made on 18.4.2015 was that the Prescribed Authority may summon the Forensic Expert's Report as had been got prepared in the criminal case which was initiated because of the lodging of the F.I.R. by the petitioner. However, on 23.4.2015, the application for summoning the forensic report was rejected and the Prescribed Authority, thereafter, on 24.4.2015 decided the claim of the office bearers of the petitioners and respondent no. 5 and held that Atiqur Rehman was the secretary of the Society.
Assailing the two orders dated 23.4.2015 and 24.4.2015, the petitioners have filed the instant writ petition and made the following submissions:-
I. When the matter was referred before the Prescribed Authority by the order of this Court dated 28.5.2014, the petitioner had already initiated criminal proceedings against the respondent no. 5 by getting registered a first information report on 23.1.2014 (case crime no. 29 of 2014 under Section 419/420/467/468/471/504/506 and 120-B IPC). Pursuant to that F.I.R., the investigation had commenced and the Investigating Officer had summoned the original resignation letter alleged to have been written by the petitioner no. 2 Shabihuddin Khan and had tried to ascertain as to whether the signature on it was that of the petitioner or had it been fraudulently forged by the respondent no. 5. The matter had been referred to a forensic lab of the Government and a report had been prepared by the laboratory. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 18.4.2015, when the petitioner made a request for summoning the report of the forensic lab, so that the Prescribed Authority could come to a proper conclusion by the impugned order dated 23.4.2015, the application of the petitioner to summon the expert's opinion was wrongly rejected.
II. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after rejecting the application for summoning the expert's report, the judgement of the Prescribed Authority was delivered on the very next date. This, he submits, was a 10 page judgment and was, in fact, prepared from before and was only delivered on the very next day.
III. The averment by the respondent no. 5 that there were 37 memebers in the general body was also wrong and, the membership of Atiqur Rehman itself was fraudulent as the receipt of membership fee which he had submitted was fabricated. It contained no signature of the petitioner no. 2 IV. When the petitioner had raised a definite issue before the Prescribed Authority that Atiqur Rehman's receipt of deposit of membership fee was fabricated and the signature of the petitioner no. 2 on that receipt was also forged then a finding ought to have been arrived at by the prescribed authority.
V. The matter may be adjudicated upon by this Court as it involves a pure question of law and the petitioners could not be relegated to avail the remedy of filing a suit.
VI. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, even if, the prescribed authority was not required to function as a regular Court it did not mean that when contested issues were involved, it could dispense with procedures of law by which those issues could be resolved.
In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon a decision reported in AIR 1972 (SC) 330 : (M/s Bareilly Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen and others) and specifically read out a certain portion of it and so the same is being reproduced here as under:-
"Though Evidence Act is not applicable to the industrial tribunals that does not mean that where issues are seriously contested and have to be established and proved the requirements relating to proof can be dispensed with"
Learned counsel further submitted that when the very resignation letter upon which the respondent no. 5 was relying upon was being denied by the petitioners then the only option for the Prescribed Authority which was examining the resignation letter was to see as to whether the signature of the petitioner no. 2 was there on the resignation letter at all, and, for that purpose, as per the sections 45 and 73 of the Evidence Act, the opinion of the expert should have been considered.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the principles of Evidence Act have to be taken recourse to when a disputed question had to be resolved. The court or the Prescribed Authority could not behave as an expert. In this context, he relied upon a decision in Ajit Savant Majagavi v. State of Karnataka reported in AIR 1997 SC 3255 and read out paragraph 37 and 38 and, therefore, the same are being reproduced here as under:-
Paragraph 37:- This Section consists of two parts. While the first part provides for comparison of signature, finger impression, writing etc. allegedly written or made by a person with signature or writing etc. admitted or proved to the satisfaction of the Court to have been written by the same person, the second part empowers the Court to direct any person including an accused, present in Court, to give his specimen writing or finger prints for the purpose of enabling the Court to compare it with the writing or signature allegedly made by that person. The Section does not specify by whom the comparison shall be made. However, looking to the other provision of the Act, it is clear that such comparison may either be made by a handwriting expert under Section 45 or by anyone familiar with the handwriting of the person concerned as provided by Section 47 or by the Court itself.
Paragraph 38:- As a matter of extreme caution and judicial sobriety, the Court should not normally take upon itself the responsibility of comparing the disputed signature with that of the admitted signature of handwriting and in the event of slightest doubt, leave the matter to the wisdom of experts. But this does not mean that the Court has not the power to compare the disputed signature with the admitted signature as this power is clearly available under Section 73 of the Act. (See : State (Delhi Administration) vs. Pali Ram, AIR 1979 SC 14 = (1979) 2 SCC 158) In reply, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the prescribed authority rightly came to a conclusion that the petitioner no. 2 Shabihuddin Khan had, in fact, resigned as affidavits of 32 members of the General Body had categorically stated before the prescribed authority that the petitioner no. 2 had attended the meeting of the General Body and had signed the proceedings in their presence and that the resignation was also submitted in their presence.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the Prescribed Authority was presiding over a summary proceeding and it was not a Court which was required to adjudicate with the help of the provisions of the Evidence Act. He submitted that when by naked eyes it could be said that the signature was that of the petitioner no. 2 then no further expert opinion was required.
Learned counsel still further submitted that if the petitioners were aggrieved by the findings of fact as had been arrived at by the Prescribed Authority, they could approach the Civil Court by filing a civil suit and stated that after 2011 an election had been held on 16.10.2016 and that election had yet not been challenged by the petitioners. A new committee of management had come into existence and the instant writ petition had become infructuous.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the Prescribed Authority erred in not summoning the opinion of the expert regarding the veracity of the signature of the petitioner no. 2. Shabihuddin on the resignation letter. The Prescribed Authority has to function in a manner the law of the land requires it to. The law of evidence is such a law which has to be adhered to by any authority/Court which is deciding a matter in which evidence has to be looked into.
In the instant case, when the signature on the resignation letter was being denied by the Petitioner no. 2 and when the Prescribed Authority had no jurisdiction to act as an expert of comparing signatures then it had no other option but to summon the opinion of an expert which was already available. I also hold that when the procedure adopted by the Prescribed Authority was erroneous, the petitioner need not be relegated to the remedy of filing of a suit.
Further the submission of the respondents that the writ petition had become infructuous also holds no water. If this order of the Prescribed Authority is held to be erroneous then the person who had got the elections held in the year 2016 would be deemed to have held an invalid election. This is also what has been held in 2006 (7) ADJ 427( Sri Raghubar Dayal Pathak Inter College v. State of U.P. And Others). It has been brought to the notice of the Court that the Registrar has been directed by an order of this Court dated 20.4.2017 which has been passed in writ petition no. 9239 of 2017 to decide about the membership of the General Body.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 23.4.2015 and 24.4.2015 are quashed.
The matter is now remanded back to the Prescribed Authority which shall decide the matter afresh. If the resignation is found to be correct then, of course, the election which were held in 2016 would continue. But if the resignation letter is found to be forged, then the Registrar shall proceed to hold the election under Section 25(2) of the Act. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 praveen.