Court No. - 4
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4158 of 2021 Applicant :- C/M Sri Mool Chandra Raj Rani Shakya Shiksha Samiti And Another Opposite Party :- Sri Rashid Ali Khan, Sub Divisional Magistrate Counsel for Applicant :- Devendra Kumar
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicants.
The applicants are before this Court for a direction to initiate contempt proceeding against the opposite parties for wilful disobedience of the order dated 19.11.2018 passed in Writ Petition No. 36464 of 2018 (C/M Sri Moolchandra Rajrani Shakya Shiksha Samiti And Others Vs. State of U.P. & others.). The aforesaid order is quoted as under:-
"On oral prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to implead the District Basic Education Officer as respondent No. 4 to the writ petition.
Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sankalp Narayan for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi for respondent No. 3 and Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey for newly impleaded respondent no.4. With their consent, the writ petition is disposed of finally without inviting a formal counter affidavit.
The petitioners have called into question an order passed on 08.10.2018 by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur by which management dispute of Sri Moolchandra Rajrani Shakya Shiksha Samiti, Malikpur, Rooruganj, Orriya has been referred to the Prescribed Authority for adjudication under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. By the same order, list of office bearers of the Managing Committee of the said society registered for the year 2018-19 has been declared ineffective. The petitioners have also challenged the consequential order passed by District Basic Education Officer dated 23.10.2018 by which he has revoked the order dated 5.5.2018 attesting the signatures of petitioner no.2 as Manager.
The election of the Managing Committee of the society was held on 20.5.2017 in which petitioner no.2 was elected as Manager and Salik Ram, respondent no.3 as President. The list of Managing Committee, as communicated to the Deputy Registrar by petitioner no.2, was registered for the year 2018-19 in exercise of power under Section 4 of the Act. Respondent no.3 made a complaint on 18.6.2018 to the Deputy Registrar alleging that the list of office bearers got registered was not the same which was prepared on basis of the election. He alleged that the list of office bearers, who were elected, was duly signed by him alongwith Manager and thereafter it was handed over to petitioner no.2 for getting the same registered. However, petitioner no.2 submitted some other list in which, although respondent no.3 was shown as President and petitioner no.2 as Manager, but he included the name of some of his family members, who in fact were not elected. The Deputy Registrar, on the basis of the said complaint, issued notice to petitioner no.2 and in response whereof, he filed affidavits of 17 members of the General Body out of total strength of 19. The Deputy Registrar, after considering the case of both the parties, came to a conclusion that there is a serious election dispute between the parties and accordingly referred the same to the Prescribed Authority for decision under Section 25 (1) of the Act. While making the reference, he also declared the registration of list of office bearers of the year 2018-19 ineffective. In consequence thereof, the District Basic Education Officer has passed the consequential order revoking the attestation of signatures of petitioner no.2 as Manager.
Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that while making reference, the Deputy Registrar was not justified in keeping the list registered by him in abeyance. It is urged that unless a finding relating to fraud is recorded, such an order could not have been passed.
Learned counsel for the respondents do not dispute that in the impugned order, the Deputy Registrar has not recorded any clear finding relating to fraud having been committed by petitioner no.2 in getting the list of office bearers registered.
After some argument, the parties agreed that the impugned order, in so far as it directs reference of the dispute to the Prescribed Authority, be maintained, but other part of the order by which the list of office bearers registered for the year 2018-19 has been declared ineffective, be set aside. They further agree that based on the decision that would be taken by the Prescribed Authority, the Deputy Registrar may be permitted to register the list under Section 4.
Accordingly and in view of the consensus arrived at between the parties, the impugned order dated 8.10.2018 passed by Deputy Registrar in so far as it directs the dispute to be decided by Prescribed Authority is maintained, while the other part of the order declaring the list of office bearers registered for the year 2018-19 as ineffective, is hereby quashed. In consequence, the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer dated 23.10.2018 is also quashed.
The Prescribed Authority shall now proceed to decide the reference in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. In the meantime, petitioner no.2 shall be entitled to work as Manager of the institution but the Committee represented by him shall not take any major policy decision nor shall make any fresh recruitment.
The petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above."
Learned counsel for the applicants submits that a copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite parties but the opposite parties have willfully not complied with the order and, thus, have committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite parties to comply with the aforesaid order of the Court within three months from the date of production of a copy of this order.
The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite parties and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within two weeks from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed stamped envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite parties within one week, thereafter and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ Court and intimate the applicant of the order through the self-addressed envelop within a week, thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite parties within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad, self attested by the applicant alongwith a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked.
The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.
Order Date :- 26.10.2021 saqlain