Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 20936 of 2016 Petitioner :- C/M Sri Guru Nanak High School And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Awadh Narain Rai Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4 and 6; and Sri Awadh Narain Rai for the respondent no.5.
Dispute in respect of management of the institution had been engaging the attention of the Regional Level Committee. On one ground or the other the Regional Level Committee had been deciding the matter in such a way that its order upon challenge in writ jurisdiction of this Court had resulted in the matter being remitted back to it. When the dispute last came before this Court in Writ-C No.32470 of 2015, the matter was remanded back by order dated 27.05.2015, which is being reproduced herein below:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and Sri A.N. Rai, who has appeared for the respondent No. 5.
From the undisputed fact it transpires that with respect to the dispute of elections held by the rival Committees of Management, this Court had passed a detailed order on 10th December, 2014 requiring the Regional Level Committee to decide the aforesaid issue. It appears that the Regional Level Committee proceeded to pass an order dated 12th December, 2014 which came to be subjected to challenge by means of Writ Petition No. 4931 of 2015. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings before this Court, an order dated 21st November, 2014 was produced as having been passed by the Regional Level Committee calling upon the petitioners to submit their stand and version, if any. Since by this order of 21st December, 2014, all contentious issues stood reopened and available for parties to canvass before the Regional Level Committee, the writ petition referred to above was dismissed as having become infructuous and the Regional Level Committee was directed to proceed in the matter.
It is contended that even before the order of this Court dated 1st April, 2015 could be served, the Regional Level Committee proceeded to pass an order dated 6th April, 2015 reiterating its order passed on 12th December, 2014.
It subsequently transpires that when the order of this Court was presented and brought to the attention of the said Regional Level Committee, the Joint Director of Education has again reopened the proceedings and called upon the parties/authorities to proceed afresh.
From the above narration of facts it is apparent that the Regional Level Committee has clearly overstepped its jurisdiction. However, this Court refrains from making any further observations with regard to the conduct of the said Committee or it members in light of the fact that the Joint Director of Education has presently left the matter open to be decided afresh by the Regional Level Committee. In light of the above position, learned counsel for the parties also agreed that the matter be heard afresh by the Regional Level Committee.
Accordingly and in light of the above, the order passed by the Regional Level Committee on 6th April, 2015 shall stand set aside. The Regional Level Committee shall now proceed to consider the rival claims in accordance with law and the directions carried on the judgment of this Court dated 10th December, 2014. The further proceedings to be taken by the Regional Level Committee shall not be influenced or based upon the orders dated 12th December, 2014 or 21st December, 2014. Needless to state but it is so provided that the Regional Level Committee shall proceed in the matter after putting all concerned to notice and affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned.
Considering the fact that the dispute is with respect to the elections of 2012, the Regional Level Committee therefore shall endeavour to decide the issue expeditiously and preferably within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the order of this Court.
The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms."
Thereafter, instead of deciding the issue on merits, the Regional Level Committee, by the impugned order dated 23.04.2016, proceeded to hold that as the registration of the society, which had established the institution, was not renewed, the election cannot be accorded recognition.
On the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, on 19.05.2016 following order was passed:-
"Heard counsel for the parties.
Amendment application is allowed. The petitioners are permitted to carry out the required amendment in the cause title so as to implead respondents 6 & 7 as prayed for in the prayer clause of the application.
The election of the committee of management of a recognised institution held on 24.6.2012 had been a subject matter of adjudication by the Regional Level Committee at least on five different occasions. Every time the matter came before this Court at the instance of the petitioners and the order passed by the Regional Level Committee had been quashed and it was directed to take fresh decision. Now by means of impugned order dated 23.4.2016, the Regional Level Committee has discarded the election primarily on the ground that the renewal of the registration of the society had not taken place since after 10.10.2005 and consequently, the society has become an unregistered society and election thus cannot be recognised.
It is pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that every time the Regional Level Committee is finding out a new ground for discarding the election. It is submitted that Authorised Controller is continuing in the institution since 8.7.2005. The registration of the society expired on 10.10.2005, but the Authorised Controller did not take any step to get the certificate renewed. The petitioners submitted an application on 15.12.2011 before the Assistant Registrar along with the requisite fee, but no order could be passed on the said application in view of objection raised by one Dr. Suresh Chandra Sharma to the effect that the petitioners could not file such application as they are not the validly elected Committee. Consequently, the Assistant Registrar did not pass any order on the said application. It is urged that under law such a situation is not visualised, where an Authorised Controller is functioning in the institution having all power to manage the institution, but still not taking steps to get the society renewed. He further submitted that in any case, the Assistant Registrar could have passed orders on the application filed by the petitioners, as the renewal of the society does not enure for any individual but for the benefit of the society as a whole.
Prima-facie, the submissions appears to have force.
Learned standing counsel prays for and is granted time to obtain instructions from the newly impleaded respondent no. 7 as to why he did not take steps for ensuring that the registration certificate is renewed. The sixth respondent shall also show cause as to why he had not taken steps to renew the registration of the society on the basis of application submitted before him on 15.12.2011.
Put up as a fresh case on 4.7.2016 before the appropriate Bench, by which date learned standing counsel shall obtain instructions or may file a short counter affidavit."
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the petition there had been renewal of registration of the society for a period of five years, with effect from 10.10.2015, hence, the ground on which the election was discarded is no longer in existence. Moreover, management of an institution is governed by a Scheme of Administration framed under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, therefore the Regional Level Committee must address the merits of the election proceeding.
On the submissions made, on 03.01.2018, this Court had passed the following order:-
"The Regional Level Committee has refused to accord recognition to the election set up by the petitioner's committee of management on ground that the society's registration had not been renewed.
On 19th May, 2016, this Court had passed detailed order requiring the seventh respondent, namely, Authorized Controller appointed in the institution, who was represented by learned Standing Counsel, to explain as to why steps were not taken for renewal of the registration of the society.
Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, who appears for the petitioners, has informed the Court that by order dated 13th June, 2017, the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Saharanpur has renewed registration of the society for a period of five years with effect from 10th October, 2015 and a certificate of renewal has also been issued on 31st May, 2017. He submits that since the Regional Level Committee has refused to accord recognition only on ground that registration of the society has not been renewed, the matter requires to be remanded back for fresh decision on merits.
Learned Standing Counsel, who appears for respondents 1 to 4, 6 and 7, shall seek instruction within a week whether the registration of the society has been renewed or not.
List this matter on 17th January, 2018. On which date, learned Standing Counsel shall inform the Court whether the registration of the society has been renewed or not.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to the learned Standing Counsel for compliance."
Pursuant to the order dated 03.01.2018, the learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions from the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Saharanpur in respect of renewal of registration of the society that had established the institution.
The written instructions obtained by him have been supplied to the Court along with photocopy of the certificate of renewal of registration of the society, which are taken on record.
From the written instructions so obtained and supplied, it is clear that the registration of the society has been renewed for a period of five years with effect from 10.10.2015 and a certificate to that effect has also been issued.
It is well settled that the renewal of registration of a society does not enure to the benefit of any member or office bearer of the society but is for the society as a whole. Even otherwise, management of an institution, which is recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, as is the petitioner's institution, is governed by a Scheme of Administration framed under the provisions of Section 16-A of the Act, 1921, therefore an election dispute in respect of its management would have to be considered with reference to the provisions of the Scheme.
In view of the above and considering that in the interregnum the registration of the society has been renewed, the order impugned dated 23.04.2016 passed by the Regional Level Committee communicated by the Joint Director of Education, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur, which discards the elections not on merit but for non-renewal of registration of the society, is liable to be quashed and is, accordingly, quashed. The Regional Level Committee shall restore the proceeding and shall take a fresh decision in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It is expected that the aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing of certified copy of this order.
The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
Order Date :- 27.2.2018 AKShukla/-