The petitioners are Ordinary Members of General Body of Arya Shiksha Sabha, Gorakhpur (for short, the "Society"), which is a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short, the "Act"). They are aggrieved by one of the findings recorded by the Prescribed Authority in the order dated 06th March, 2013 in respect of the interpretation of a clause of bye-laws of the Society.
Briefly stated, the facts are that the Society i.e. Arya Shiksha Sabha, Gorakhpur was registered on 22nd February, 1945. The Society has its 'Rules and Regulations'/bye-laws (for short, the "bye-laws"). The Society runs and manages an educational institution, namely, Mahadeo Prasad Poddar Arya Kanya Inter College, Gorakhpur (for short, the "College"). It is a girls college recognised under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The College receives aid out of the State fund, therefore, the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of the Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 are also applicable to the Institution. The renewal of certificate of registration of the Society was made from time to time.
It is stated that bye-laws of the Society was amended in the year 1964 and the dispute in respect of the amended bye-laws was adjudicated upon by the Assistant Registrar vide order dated 04/10th July, 1995 by confirming the amendment made in the year 1964. Against the said order of the Assistant Registrar, a writ petition was filed by one Sri Vijay Bahadur Singh, being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 24362 of 1995 (Society Arya Shiksha Gorakhpur and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and another), which came to be dismissed by this Court on 28th September, 2001.
The dispute arose in the year 2009 when the respondent no. 4 submitted a list of office-bearers on the basis of an alleged election dated 18th June, 2009. The Assistant Registrar refused to register the said list vide order dated 20th October, 2010 on the ground that the term of the office-bearers has expired and he directed the rival groups to produce the original documents in support of their claim. The Assistant Registrar after considering the objections filed before him vide his order dated 24th December, 2010 found 38 members to be valid members of General Body of the Society. All the petitioners herein were among these 38 members, who were found to be valid members. Vide said order the Assistant Registrar exercising his power under Section 25(2) of the Act directed the District Inspector of Schools to hold the election of the Society from amongst 38 members of the General Body. Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Assistant Registrar, the District Inspector of Schools deputed the Assistant District Inspector of Schools, who was working as Authorized Controller of the College, to hold the election of the Society.
It is stated that without any information to these 38 members of the General Body, an alleged election was stated to be held on 14th August, 2011 and the election proceedings were sent to the Assistant Registrar. Against such election, objections were filed by the erstwhile President and other members. The Assistant Registrar vide his order dated 02nd July, 2012 refused to accept the said election and further issued a direction to the District Inspector of Schools to hold fresh election.
It is further stated that thereafter fresh election was held on 08th August, 2012. Said election was also challenged before the Assistant Registrar on the ground that without following the procedure of the bye-laws, the election was held. The Assistant Registrar vide order dated 04th January, 2013 referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act.
The Prescribed Authority vide order dated 06th March, 2013 held that the election dated 08th August, 2012 was not validly held and, therefore, issued a direction for holding the fresh election. The order of the Prescribed Authority dated 06th March, 2013 was challenged by one Sri Nitin Srivastava by means of Writ-C No. 21552 of 2013 (Nitin Srivastava v. The Prescribed Authority/ Up Zila Adhikari Sadar and others). Said writ petition was dismissed by this Court on 18th April, 2013 on the ground that the petitioner therein, Sri Nitin Srivastava, was a life member and he was not an aggrieved person as the interpretation of the Prescribed Authority of Clause 6(b) of the bye-laws of the Society deals with the Ordinary Members of the General Body. Moreover, the Court was prima facie satisfied that the interpretation of the Prescribed Authority of Clause 6 (b) of the bye-laws was correct. Aggrieved by the said order dated 18th April, 2013, Special Appeal No. 715 of 2013 (Nitin Srivastava v. The Prescribed Authority/ Up Zila Adhikari and others) was filed by Sri Nitin Srivastava, which is still pending. In the meantime the present petitioners, who are Ordinary Members of General Body of the Society, have preferred the instant writ petition.
This Court while entertaining the present writ petition on 29th August, 2013 has stayed the election as the elections would depend upon the interpretation of Clause 6(b) of bye-laws of the Society.
I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned Counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, and Sri N.K. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are aggrieved only with a finding of the Prescribed Authority recorded in the order dated 06th March, 2013, in which it has been held that 4 Ordinary Members shall be elected by the General Sabha, Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur from amongst its members of General Body. He submits that the power under the said clause of the bye-laws of electing 4 members is conferred upon the General Body, Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur but such election is not required to be made from amongst its members of General Body of Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur but it has to be made from amongst the Ordinary Members of General Body of the Society i.e. Arya Shiksha Sabha, Gorakhpur.
He further urged that if the interpretation of the Prescribed Authority is accepted to be correct, the Ordinary Members of the General Body of the Society (Arya Shiksha Sabha, Gorakhpur) shall be deprived of their election to the Committee of Management for all time to come. Lastly he urged that Writ-C No. 21552 of 2013, filed by Sri Nitin Srivastava, was primarily dismissed by this Court on 18th April, 2013 on the ground that the finding of the Prescribed Authority cannot be challenged by Life Member as by the interpretation of Prescribed Authority the Ordinary Members stood excluded from the process of election, and a grievance could be agitated only by an Ordinary Member and not by a Life Member; the judgment dated 18th April, 2013 does not record a final finding with regard to interpretation of the bye-laws but it is based on prima facie reading of the bye-laws alone.
It is further contended that the special appeal against the said judgment dated 18th April, 2013 is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court, 1952 as the Prescribed Authority has been held to be a tribunal and no special appeal lies against the order of the tribunal in terms of Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court.
Sri N.K. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the respondent nos. 3 and 4, submits that the Prescribed Authority has rightly interpreted Clause 6(b) of bye-laws of the Society. According to him, 4 Ordinary Members of the Managing Council will be elected by the General Sabha, Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur from their members. He further urged that Clause 24 of the bye-laws of the Society provides that if there arises any dispute which is not settled by the Managing Council and the Working Committee, the General Sabha of Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur shall have a right to give final decision over the same. It is stated that the petitioners, who are Ordinary Members of the Society, have never raised objection with regard to Clause 6(b) of the bye-laws in the earlier elections dated 18th April, 2011 and 08th August, 2012. They have no locus to challenge the finding with regard to Clause 6 (b) of the bye-laws directly by means of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records.
The Society (Arya Shiksha Sabha, Gorakhpur) has its bye-laws. Clauses- 4, 5 and 6 of the bye-laws of the Society, which are relevant for the present dispute, read as under:
"4. The Sabha shall consist of :-
(a) (1) Patrons, (ii) Life Members. (iii) Ordinary Members. (iv) Representatives of Arya Samaj Gorakhpur.
(b) (i) Any Arya who contributes a sum of Rs.500/- (exclusive of building funds) at a time and is approved by the existing members of the Sabha shall be a patrons of the Sabha.
(ii) Any Arya who contributes a sum of Rs.250/- (exclusive of building fund) at time and is approved by the Sabha.
(iii) Any Arya who pays a monthly subscription of Rs.1/- or more to the Sabha and is approved by the existing members of this Sabha shall be it's ordinary member.
(iv) The general Sabha of the Arya Samaj Gorakhpur shall have the right to nine members from its executive for this Sabha. Each of these members shall have to contribute Rs.10/- per year to the Sabha himself or through some body.
5. For the proper management and administration of the Sabha affairs, there shall be two bodies :
(1) Managing Council (2) Working committee.
6. The M.C. shall consists of 21 members.
(a) 8 patrons and life members (to be elected by them from their number).
(b) 4 ordinary members (to be elected by General Sabha, Arya Samaj Gorakhpur, from their number).
(c) 9 representative of Arya Samaj Gorakhpur (to be elected by General Sabha Arya Samaj Gorakhpur from its executive)."
(emphasis supplied) From a careful reading of Clauses-4, 5 and 6, as above, it is discernible that the Society shall consist of 4 kind of members i.e. Patrons, Life Members, Ordinary Members and Representative of Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur. For Ordinary Member a monthly subscription of Rs.1/- is prescribed. Clause-4 further provides that the General Body of Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur shall have right to nominate/elect 9 members from its executive to the General Body of the Society (Arya Shiksha Sabha). The 9 members, who are nominated by Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur shall have to pay Rs.10/- subscription to the Society.
The only dispute is in respect of constitution of Managing Council and Working Committee of the Society. Clause-6 of the bye-laws of the Society provides that the Managing Council shall comprise 21 members, i.e., 8 Patrons and Life Members, 4 Ordinary Members and 9 Representative of Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur. The present dispute is confined to 4 Ordinary Members. A simple reading of the bye-laws shows that 4 Ordinary Members shall be elected by the General Body (General Sabha) of Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur.
The contention of Sri Khare is that if these 4 Ordinary Members come from the General Sabha of Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur, then the Ordinary Members of the Society shall have no right to be elected in the Managing Council and the Working Committee of the Society. Therefore, they will be deprived of their right to associate with the management for all time to come and they would remain Ordinary Members without any say in the affairs and management of the Society. According to Sri Khare, the words "from their member" in Clause 6(b) of the bye-laws indicate that right to elect 4 members is with the General Sabha of Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur and not from their General Body but from the Ordinary Members of the Society.
I am unable to find myself to agree with the submissions of Sri Khare. The bye-laws/ rules and regulations/ memorandum of association of a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 does not have a statutory character. It is like an article of association of a company registered under the Companies Act. Ordinarily the Courts do not interfere in the internal affairs of the Societies. It should be left to the General Body of the Society itself to interpret its rules/bye-laws according to the intention of its Members of the General Body.
The Supreme Court has considered the status of rules/bye-laws of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association and others v. B.D. Kaushik, (2011) 13 SCC 774. The following passages are, in this regard, apposite:
"52. In matters of internal management of an association, the courts normally do not interfere, leaving it open to the association and its members to frame a particular bye-law, rule or regulation which may provide for eligibility and or qualification for the membership and/or providing for limitations/restrictions on the exercise of any right by and as a member of the said association. It is well-settled legal proposition that once a person becomes a member of the association, such a person loses his individuality qua the association and he has no individual rights except those given to him by the rules and regulations and/or bye-laws of the association."
"55. .... As noticed earlier, SCBA being a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, is governed by its memorandum of association. The said Association is entitled to have its own rules and regulations. In fact, it is contemplated in the Act that a committee of management can be constituted to manage the affairs of the society as specified in the rules and regulations. The memorandum of association is a contract amongst the members of the society, which though required to be registered under the statute, does not acquire any statutory character. These are rules which govern internal control and management of the society. The authority to frame, amend, vary and rescind such rules, undoubtedly, vests in the general body of the members of the society. The power to amend the rules is implicit in the power to frame rules."
(Underlined by me) The principle of law that could be deducted from the above decision is that a Society has to follow its bye-laws/ rules strictly; no member has individual right except those given to him by the rules. In the words of the Supreme Court, "The stream cannot rise higher than the source." [vide: Zoroastrian Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and another v. District Registrar, Cooperative Societies (Urban) and others, (2005) 5 SCC 632.] Now coming back to the case in hand, the petitioners were elected in two previous elections held on 14th August, 2011 and 08th August, 2012, which were held in accordance with these bye-laws. The petitioners, who are Ordinary Members of the Society, never raised any objection in respect of interpretation of Clause 6(b) in the aforesaid elections. Before the Prescribed Authority also, none of the Members raised this issue. For the first time the petitioners have raised this issue in this writ petition.
Regard being had to the fact that this Court in Writ-C No. 21552 of 2013, wherein same impugned order was under challenge, had recorded its opinion that the view of the Prescribed Authority in respect of Clause 6(b) of the bye-laws is prima facie correct and the writ petition was dismissed on 18th April, 2013. The Court observed as under:
"Interpretation of the Prescribed Authority, Gorakhpur under the order impugned dated 6th March, 2013 of clause 6(b) of the bye-laws of the society is prima facie based on true and simple reading of the said clause.
Interpretation so placed by the Prescribed Authority cannot be said to be perverse nor petitioner who is a life member can be permitted to approach this Court for challenging the said interpretation, and thereby install the elections. It is clarified that after elections are over, it shall be open to the petitioner to file a civil suit, all issues are left open.
The present writ petition is dismissed subject to the observations made above."
It is a true that the said opinion of the Court was only a prima facie and said writ petition was filed by the Life Member and not the Ordinary Members, but the fact remains that the Court had applied its mind and recorded its prima facie satisfaction. Against the order of the writ Court dated 18th April, 2013, Special Appeal No.715 of 2013 was filed, which is still pending. Even if the special appeal is not maintainable, no effort has been made to challenge the said order in the appropriate forum i.e. by filing a special leave petition in the Supreme Court. It is a trite law that if a person is aggrieved by the judgment and he is not party to the case, then with the leave of the Court he can file an appeal before the appropriate Court.
After careful consideration of the matter, I am of the view that bearing in mind the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Supreme Court Bar Association (supra), fresh election may be held as directed by the Assistant Registrar. After the fresh election, it is open to the petitioners to raise this dispute in terms of Clause 24 of the bye-laws, which provides that if there arises any dispute which is not settled by the Managing Council and the Working Committee, the General Sabha of Arya Samaj, Gorakhpur shall have right to give final decision. Said Clause-24 reads as under:
"24. If there arises any dispute which is not settled by the M.C. and W.C. the general Sabha of Arya Samaj Gorakhpur shall have the right to give final decision over the same."
For the reasons recorded herein-above, I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17th July, 2014 SKT/-
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel, J.
The writ petition is dismissed.
For order, see my order of the date passed on the separate sheets (nine pages).
Dt.- 17.07.2014.
SKT