Court No. - 39
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 73 of 2018
Appellant :- C/M Vaidik Shiksha Samiti Sirathu Through Its Manager P.L. Maurya
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secy. And 3 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Aditya,Ajay Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vijay Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J) Order on Delay Condonation Application.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the Special Appeal within the period of Limitation.
The application is, accordingly, allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned.
Order on memo of appeal.
By means of this Special Appeal, the appellant- respondent no.3 has challenged the judgement and order dated 1 July 2017, passed in Writ-C No. 28411 of 2017, whereby the writ petition filed by petitioners-respondent nos. 3 and 4 has been allowed.
The writ petition was filed alleging that a Society by the name of Vaidik Shiksha Samiti, Sirathu runs and manages an institution by the name of Gurukul Vaidik Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Sirathu, Kaushambi which is affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. It was stated that the last election of the office bearers of the Society was held on 20 June 2009 and thereafter, no elections were held which led to appointment of an Administrator in the institution by means of an order dated 26 September 2015. It was also alleged that the appellant-respondent no.3 had set up two elections, one of the year 2012 and another of 2015 and had sought registration of the office bearers alleged to have been elected in the aforesaid two elections. In pursuance of a direction by this Court in Writ-C No. 10512 of 2016, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the Assistant Registrar) by a detailed order dated 29 June 2016 had refuted the said two elections and directed holding of fresh election. However, subsequently in pursuance of an application, the Assistant Registrar recalled his earlier order dated 29 June 2016 by passing an order dated 31 May 2017 which was assailed in the writ petition on the ground that there existed no power of review with the Assistant Registrar.
The learned Judge being of the view that the order of the Assistant Registrar reviewing his earlier order dated 29 June 2016 was without jurisdiction, set aside the order. In view of the contention made by the learned counsel for the appellant-respondent no.3 that directions be issued to the Assistant Registrar to ensure elections of the committee of management in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as expeditiously as possible, the petition was allowed. The Assistant Registrar, accordingly, was directed to hold election in compliance of the order dated 29 June 2016 within a period of three months.
It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-respondent no.3 that the order dated 29 June 2016, passed by the Assistant Registrar was fraudulent and appears to be result of manipulation in collusion of petitioner-respondents with the Assistant Registrar and as such the order passed by the learned Judge should be set aside, particularly in view of the fact that the elections set up by the appellant-respondent no.3 were duly recognized.
It has been contended by Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-respondent nos. 3 and 4 that the judgement dated 1 July 2017, passed by the learned Judge directing election to the committee of management be held, was passed on the request of appellant-respondent no.3 and as such it is not open for the appellant-respondent no.3 to contend in this special appeal that the direction of the learned Judge for holding of fresh election is wrong.
It is evident from a perusal of the judgement and order dated 1 July 2017 that the direction for holding of election was issued by the learned Judge in pursuance of the concession/statement made by the appellant- respondent no.3.
In this view of the matter, it is not open for the appellant- respondent no.3 to challenge the judgement of the learned Judge, which, even otherwise, does not call for any interference.
This Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.2.2018 sfa/
(Dilip Gupta, J) (Jayant Banerji, J)