1. Heard Sri Indra Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sharad Pathak and Sri Piyush Pathak, Advocates for the respondent.
2. An impleadment application has been filed by Sri Sharad Pathak, which is taken on record.
3. It has been submitted that the deponent of the said affidavit is a necessary and proper party as he is also a Member whose name finds place at sl. no.73 of the list of 100 Members finalized by the respondent- Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies & Chits, Ayodhya and in the writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.02.2021 wherein the final list of Members of General Body of the Society has been finalized and the election programme has been announced.
4. Sri Sharad Pathak has raised preliminary objection on the maintainability of the petition filed on behalf of the Society by Sri Irfan Ahmad acting as the Secretary saying that in view of the law settled by the Division Bench of this Court in Umesh Chandra and another Vs. Mahila Vidyalaya Society, Lucknow, 2006 (24) LCD 1373, without there being any Resolution passed by the Committee of Management, the writ petition could not have been filed on behalf of the Committee of Management as it has been held by the Division Bench that unless the Secretary is duly authorized to challenge the order of the Deputy Registrar by the Committee of Management, the litigation initiated on behalf of the Society would not be maintainable as it is always open for the Committee of Management to decide not to pursue the matter against the order of the Deputy Registrar. The Committee of Management looking into the larger interest of the Society may comply with the order passed by the Deputy Registrar.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the bye-laws of the Society filed as annexure-2 to the writ petition and has referred to paragraph-13 wherein it has been mentioned as follows:-
"Sanstha dwara athwa uske viruddh adalti karyavahi ke sanchalan ka uttardaitva tanjeem ke sadar va secretary par hoga"
6. This Court has carefully perused the language of pargraph-13 and finds therefrom that initiation and pursuing of litigation on behalf of or against the Society is a joint responsibility of the Chairman of the Society as well as the Secretary. There are no pleadings on record to say that the Chairman of the Society has authorized the petitioner to file this petition.
7. It has further been submitted by Sri Sharad Pathak that the petitioner has asked for inclusion of names of certain Members in the final electoral list of the General Body of the Society in Clause II of the relief clause. There are no pleadings on record to show that these alleged Members who have been allegedly deprived of the membership by the order impugned, have authorized the petitioner to file this petition on their behalf. The members whose names have been excluded from the final electoral list of the General Body of the Society have also not been impleaded as party to the petition.
8. It has also been submitted that in view of the law settled by the Division Bench of this Court, the Prayer (i) of the writ petition as it is framed cannot be granted at this stage as election programme has already been published by the order impugned. If the petitioner wishes to challenge any irregularity which will result in holding of elections on the basis of order dated 05.02.2021, he may do so after the elections are held.
9. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Deputy Registrar has decided the whole issue on the basis of the submission made by Mohd. Umar and other members of the General Body are the yes-men of Mohd. Umar and the Deputy Registrar has not provided opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and his counsel while passing the order impugned. The Deputy Registrar has also not seen the record of the Society and has not mentioned the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by Division Bench in Umesh Chandra (supra), paragraph-68(x) thereof wherein the Division Bench has observed thus:-
"While finalizing the electoral roll in pursuance to power conferred by sub-section 2 of Section 25 of the Act it shall be incumbent upon the Deputy Registrar or the competent authority to comply with the principle of natural justice keeping in view the observations made in the present judgment and without providing reasonable opportunity to defend the members of the Society can not deprive to participate in the election process."
11. The arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be said to be correct in view of the fact that the petitioner is still a member and his membership has not been cancelled by the order impugned.
12. The other alleged members whose names have been mentioned in relief clause (ii) of the petition are not before this Court saying that they have been deprived of the membership by the impugned order without hearing them.
13. The petition is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to Costs.
Order Date :- 19.2.2021 Rahul