Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records.
The petitioner is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
The admitted position is that the tenure of the Management of the Society under Clause 9 is two years subject to its extension in special circumstances. It is admitted that the last elections were held on 4th May, 2008 in which the petitioner was elected as a President and Sri Virendra Kumar was elected as a Secretary. The tenure of the said Committee was to expire on 3rd May, 2010. Before the tenure could expire, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a resolution was passed on 4th April, 2010 for extending the tenure of the Committee of Management for a period of three months in order to enable the Committee to hold a fresh election. Fresh elections are alleged to have been held by the outgoing Committee of Management on 30th June, 2010.
The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits called upon the parties and after examining the claim has come to the conclusion that none of the elections have been held within time and since the tenure has expired, therefore directions have been issued for holding elections keeping in view the provisions of sub-section 2 of Section 25 of the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said decision had already been taken by the competent body to extend the tenure of the Committee of Management prior to its expiry and therefore the Assistant Registrar has committed an error in proceeding to assume jurisdiction to hold the elections of the Society. He submits that a decision had been taken for holding elections and accordingly elections have been held from amongst the members of the General Body on 30th June, 2010. He further submits that the power to extend the tenure of the Committee of Management is contained under Clause 9 (A) of the by-laws and, therefore, it cannot be said that the tenure had not been extended in accordance with the by-laws.
I have perused the records and considered the submissions raised.
The finding recorded by the Assistant Registrar is that even though the alleged resolution for extending the tenure is stated to have been passed on 4th April, 2010, the same was dispatched by the petitioner admittedly on 18th June, 2010.
On this fact, the Assistant Registrar came to the conclusion that the said resolution having been intimated much after the expiry of the term, the stand taken by the petitioner cannot be accepted.
The aforesaid finding recorded by the Assistant Registrar cannot be said to be perverse, inasmuch as, the fact that the intimation of the resolution was given on 18th June, 2010 is not disputed. What is being urged is that the intimation was given for holding of the elections on 6th June, 2010.
In my considered opinion and keeping in view the provisions of Clause 9 (A) of the by-laws the Committee ought to have intimated the resolution to the Assistant Registrar prior to the expiry of the term on 3rd May, 2010. This having not been taken, the only inference that can be drawn is that the said resolution dated 4th April, 2010 which has been intimated on 18.06.2010 is a complete after thought. The petitioner-Committee having not held the elections within time, the Assistant Registrar was well within his jurisdiction under sub-section 2 of Section 25 of the Act to proceed to hold the elections.
The writ petition therefore lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.9.2010 Akv