1. The Writ Petition No.8130 (MS) of 2014 has been filed by Jagdambika Prasad Pandey challenging the order dated 27.11.2014 issued by Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Gonda (for short ''Deputy Registrar'), asking the District Inspector of Schools to hold elections of the Society and the order dated 18.12.2014 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Gonda, asking the Principal GGIC to hold such elections on the basis of list provided by the Deputy Registrar. Writ Petition No.273 (MS) of 2015 has been filed by one Govind Tiwari also challenging the same orders. For the sake of convenience, this Court will hereinafter refer to Writ Petition No.8130 (MS) of 2014 as first Writ Petition and its Petitioner Jagdambika Prasad Pandey as Objector no.1 and Writ Petition No.273 (MS) of 2015 as Second Writ Petition and its petitioner Govind Tiwari as Objector no.2.
2. The brief facts of the case are being narrated as follows:
A Society by the name of Janta Shiksha Prasaar Samiti, Gonda was initially registered at File No.I14254 with Registration No.1041 on 8.2.1965. The Memorandum of Association and the Bye-laws were submitted in the office of the then Assistant Registrar and since there was no statutory provision at that time for renewal of registration, no efforts were made by the Committee of Management of the Society to get renewal of registration done later on.
3. The Bye-laws of the Society, which have been repeatedly referred to, by the learned counsel for the petitioners, have been filed as Annexure to the first writ petition. It is apparent from the same that the Society was registered under the name of Janta Shiksha Prasaar Samiti, Gonda with its Memorandum of Association being signed by five members of the Committee of Management, namely, Ram Raj Tiwari, Jhinku Prasad Pandey, Ram Lakhan Pandey, Govind Tiwari (Objector no.2) and Ram Narain Pandey. The Memorandum of Association mentions names of eleven office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society. The names of Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey, the contesting respondent in both the petitions or of the Objector no.1 are not mentioned but the name of Objector no.2 has been mentioned as one of the founder members.
4. In the Bye-laws of the Society, Clause-4 states that four types of members would constitute the General Body of the Society. There were Patron members, who would deposit Rs.1001/- in lump-sum or there were Life members, who would deposit Rs.1001/- or more. There were Ordinary members, who would deposit Rs.51/- for ten years membership, Rs.25/- for seven years membership, Rs.10/- for five years membership of the Society. There were also Village members, which were those villages, which would deposit Rs.151/- through joint contribution in the office of the Society. Villages being represented by the Gram Pradhans. Such members would be inducted by the Committee of Management of the Society by mentioning their names in the Membership register.
5. Under Clause-5 of the Bye-laws, three office bearers have been mentioned i.e. President, Vice President and Secretary, who would be Office bearers of the Society as also the Inter College to be established by the said Society for a period of five years on being elected by the Sarvajanik Mandal. The Sarvajanik Mandal was to consist of all members mentioned under Clause-4.
6. The Sarvajanik Mandal was entrusted with the responsibility of establishing the School and for arranging funds for the same. The Bye-laws also envisage under Clause-9 the constitution of an Advisory Committee called the Salahkaar Mandal, consisting of Manniya Sadasya and Vishistha Sadasya. For example; the M.P. and M.L.A. of the area concerned, Block Development Office and Chief Development Officer and such members from amongst life members, who had some experience in the field of education, as also five members to be nominated by the Committee of Management of the Society concerned.
7. The Advisory Committee or Salahkaar Mandal had to approve all proposals forwarded by the Prabandh Karini Samiti for expansion involving expenditure from the fund of the Society. Prabandh Karini Samiti was to be constituted under Clause-10 of fifteen members of which, five members, namely, Manager, Deputy Manager, Secretary, Deputy Secretary and Treasurer would be all office bearers, to be elected by the Sarvajanik Nirvachak Mandal.
8. Bye-laws mention the powers and duties of the Sarvajanik Mandal, the President of the Society and the Manager of the Society but they do not mention therein any power of the Manager of the Institution to induct any Member in the Society. The Secretary of the Society is entrusted with the duty of keeping Minutes of the Meeting of the Society and also keeping an account of Income and Expenditure of the Society. Under Clause 16 of the Bye-laws Sarvajanik Mandal was entrusted with the duty of appointing an Accountant (Aaye Vyay Nireekshak) every 3 years, who would submit a report with regard to the fund of the College every year to the Salahkar Mandal and the Committee of Management.
9. With respect to the Meeting of the Society and of the Committee of Management, Clause 18 provides ''that an Annual General Meeting would be held each year of the Sarvajanik Mandal, but for amendment of the Bye-laws of the Society, a Special Meeting was to be called and the proposed amendment had to be approved by 2/3rd of the majority. Seven days notice was required for every meeting of the General Body/ Sarvajanik Mandal. The Praband Karini Samiti's meetings were to be held quarterly or as and when the President so desired on giving of three days notice in advance. In case of some emergency, 24 hours notice could also be sufficient for holding of the meeting of the Committee of Management.
10. The Objector no.1 in his writ petition has submitted that he is a life member of the original Society Janta Shiksha Prasaar Samiti in 1965 with File No.I-14254 and on his complaint, action was taken against one Kamta Prasad Pandey, who had forged the signatures of other office bearers and had submitted papers for re-registration of the Society in 1983-84. Such re-registration was cancelled by the order dated 20.7.1993 by the Deputy Registrar, which order has attained finality after dismissal of Writ Petition No.3447 (MB) of 1993.
11. The elections of the Society were held in April 2001 in which, Objector no.1 was elected as Manager, but when the papers were submitted, they were wrongly referred to the Prescribed Authority.
12. The Prescribed Authority submitted a report on 9.8.2001 only on the basis of alleged election proceedings of the Committee of Management of Inter College held by the Authorized Controller on 24.8.1997 in terms of Scheme of Administration of the College. No elections were held as per the Bye-laws of the Society by the Sarvajanik Mandal.
13. The Objector no.1 again approached the Deputy Registrar and drew his attention to the Committee of Management becoming time barred. The Deputy Registrar found so in his order dated 26.12.2013 which has not been challenged by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey. The subsequent orders dated 26.5.2014 and 27.6.2014 have also not been challenged by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey. On the other hand, Objector no.1 has continuously agitated the matter before the Deputy Registrar for holding of the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society in terms of the Bye-laws of the Society.
14. The Objector no.2, who was mentioned at Serial No.11 of the list circulated tentatively by the Deputy Registrar's order dated 26.5.2014 and 27.6.2014, in his writ petition has alleged that after the circulation of the tentative list of members, he was not given any notice by the Deputy Registrar for deleting his name from the membership. He remained one of the three surviving members out of the eleven original life members of the Society and by issuing the order dated 27.11.2014, his right to participate in the election of the Society had been curtailed by the Deputy Registrar. It has also been submitted that the District Inspector of Schools instead of conducting the elections on his own, directed the Principal of Government Girl Inter College, Gonda to conduct the elections. Such delegation could not have been done by the delegate.
15. In the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey, objections have been raised with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition. Firstly, it has been submitted that no writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Registrar is maintainable on behalf of the individual members not authorized to do so by the Committee of Management.
16. Secondly, it has been submitted that the dispute regarding membership of the General Body determined by the Deputy Registrar could have been raised only by way of an election petition before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act or by way of a civil suit.
17. Thirdly, it has also been submitted that since the elections have been notified by the orders impugned, this Court in writ jurisdiction should not interfere as appropriate statutory remedy by filing of an election petition is available.
18. Fourthly, it has also been mentioned by Pandit S. Chandra during the course of argument that in pursuance of the orders impugned, elections have been held on 23.12.2014 and Committee of Management has further been recognized by the District Inspector of Schools thereafter. The consequential orders having not been challenged and they being in existence for the past five years, this Court should not interfere in the matter at this late stage.
19. Fifthly, it has also been stated that after the elections dated 24.08.1997, the elections were held on 28.03.2002 and 22.08.2007 but the same have not been challenged. The Society had been issued renewal of registration from time to time.
20. Lastly, it has also been submitted that the petitioner-Objector no.1 was a member of the Society which was registered at File No.I-75258 which registration was later on cancelled on 27.01.1993 and Objector no.1 was not a member of General Body of the College as well as Society since 2001. Not being a member of the Society Objector No.1 could not be said to be an aggrieved person to maintain the writ petition against the Committee of Management. It has been argued on the basis of judgment rendered in T.K. Latikha vs. Seth Karsandas Jamnadas 1999(6) SCC 632 (Para-9) and Manubhai Patel vs. Bank of Baroda 2000(10) SCC 253 (Para-7) that preliminary objections be first decided by this Court.
21. For the proposition that when election is over it could only be challenged by way of filing an Election Petition under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act or by way of a Civil Suit, reference has been made to a Division Bench judgment rendered in Basant Prasad Srivastava and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Another reported in [(1993) 2 UPLBEC 1333] and a judgment rendered in Committee of Management Vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and Another reported in [(1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242], and another Division Bench decision in the case of Ittahadul Muslemeeen Maktab Islami School and Another Vs. Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, U.P. and Others reported in 2009 (27) LCD 521.
22. Learned counsel appearing for Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey has placed reliance on several judgments to buttress his arguments. In his written submissions, reference has been made to 2006 (24) LC.D., 1373 D.B. (Paragraph 21) Umesh Chandra Vs. Mahila College; 2011 (29) L.C.D., 87, Vinay Dublish Vs. Deputy Registrar; 2015 (33) L.C.D., 2143 D.B. (Paragraph 16) Vijay Tewari Vs. State, for the proposition that individual members cannot file writ petitions to challenge the action of the Registrar. Reference has also been made to the judgments of this Court in 2012 (30) L.C.D., 2550, Paragraph 15, A.N. Pathan Versus State and 2014 (32) L.C.D., 48 N.K. Pandey Versus UCO Bank, for the proposition that petitioner was not aggrieved and has no locus standi to file the writ petition. Reference has further been made to the judgments in 2009 (27) L.C.D, 521, D.B., Allahabad I.M.E.M. Versus Registrar and Others and 2015 (2) U.P.L.B.E.C., 1339, Paragraphs 10 & 12, C.O.M. Ajhu Rai H.S. Versus State, for the proposition that the Prescribed Authority can decide all disputes relating to elections under Section 25(1). Reference has also been made to the judgments in 2011 (29), L.C.D., Page 60 S.C., Board of Waqf Versus Fatma Begum and 2011 (29) L.C.D. 1092, D.B. Allahabad, Zaheer Ahmad Versus Sunni Central Board, for the proposition that this Court should not interfere where there is alternative remedy available.
23. The questions that arise consideration before this Court are as follows:-
(i) Whether the writ petitions filed by individual members can be maintained for challenging the elections of the Society.
(ii) Whether elections having been held, the remedy is by way of election petition or a civil suit alone?
(iii) Whether Objector no.1 was a Member of Society registered and File No.I-75258 which registration of Society was cancelled by the Registrar vide his order dated 27.07.1993 and which order attained finality and the effect of such an order?
(iv) Whether Objector no.2 was a Member of the Society Janta Shiksha Parisar Samiti registered at File No. I-14254 and continues to be its member in the absence of any valid order of removal being passed by any Competent Authority?
(v) Whether the Letter/Report dated 09.08.2001 sent by the Prescribed Authority, the SDM Mankapur, Gonda, having being upheld in the Writ Petition No.292 (M/S) of 2003 by this Court on 09.05.2007 affirmed in Special Appeal on 24.08.2007, creates any right in favour of Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey to be considered as Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society.
(vi) Whether on dismissal of writ petition filed by Kamta Prasad Pandey, namely, Writ Petition No.3447 (M/B) of 1993, any right is created in favour of Objector no.1 or Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey?
(vii) Whether the Deputy Registrar could have reviewed his order dated 26.12.2013 holding the Committee of Management led by Parmeshwar Prasad Padey to have become time barred by observing in his order dated 27.11.2014 that the list of members submitted by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey was valid list of General Body members?
(viii) Whether the Deputy Registrar could have delegated his power to the DIOS, Gonda who could further delegate his power to hold elections to the Headmaster of Government Girls Inter College?
24. Sri M.B. Singh, who appears for the Objector No.1, has argued that the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27.11.2014 passed by the Dy. Registrar by which he has reviewed his own order dated 26.12.2013 and finalized the General Body Membership without any reference to the Bye-laws of the Society. It has been submitted that in pursuance of a specific query being made by this Court, the Dy. Registrar in his affidavit has stated that the list of office bearers had lastly been registered for the year 1993-94 only. The list of 1996-97 of the office bearers submitted by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey and subsequent lists were not registered under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. The Dy. Registrar's order dated 26.12.2013 was not challenged by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey which order clearly stated therein that the elections held on 24.08.1997 by the Authorized Controller under the directions of the Dy. Inspector of Schools or Dy. Director of Education XIth Region were the elections regarding the Committee of Management of the Inter College and were held on the basis of the Scheme of Administration approved by the Education Authorities. Even the elections held on 23.12.2014 which have been referred to by Sri Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey in his counter affidavit, have been admitted by the District Inspector of Schools to have been held in pursuance of Government Orders issued from time to time for appointment of Observer and in accordance with the Scheme of Administration for the College. They have, therefore, been approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 27.12.2014. The petitioners are disputing the orders passed by the Dy. Registrar in relation to the Committee of Management of the Society and its election as proposed in the orders impugned, they have no concern with the election of Committee of Management of Inter College and therefore, there is no need for them to challenge the said elections allegedly approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 27.12.2014.
25. It has also been submitted that the District Inspector of Schools had earlier demanded a list of members of General Body from the office of the Dy. Registrar by his letter dated 02.07.1997 while proposing to get the elections held by the Authorized Controller for the College and the Dy. Registrar had informed him that there was no list of General Body of the Society available in his office. In the impugned order passed by the Dy. Registrar while finalizing the list of the Membership of the General Body of the Society there is no mention regarding the category of such members as per the Bye-laws and this fact has not been denied by the Dy. Registrar in his counter affidavit. Mere statement made by the Dy. Registrar in his Order dated 27.11.2014 that he has gone through the documents submitted by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey with regard to induction of members and deposition of Membership fees and had seen the Proceedings Register, the Agenda Register and the Membership Register, without reference to the Bye-laws, would not suffice to enable this Court to come to the conclusion that the Dy. Registrar had validly exercised his power under Section 4-B of the Act, introduced by way of Amendment on 09.10.2013.
26. The failure of the Dy. Registrar to examine the procedure of induction of new members in exercise of his powers under Section 4-B of the Act vitiates the finalization of list of members in the order dated 27.11.2014.
27. The Objector No.1 has not only challenged the order passed by the Dy. Registrar dated 27.11.2014 in so far as it finalized the list of members of the General Body excluding the name of Objector no.1, but the Objector No.2 one of the three surviving Life Members of the Society has also challenged the said list as his name has also been excluded without any valid reason and without any notice to him. Not only this, one Ram Raj Tiwari who was also Life member of the Society and whose name was included in the Memorandum of Association submitted in the office of the Registrar and also in the tentative list published on 26.05.2014 had also challenged the order dated 27.11.2014 by filing a Writ Petition which writ petition was connected with these two petitioners but on death of Mr. Ram Raj Tiwari, it has been dismissed as infructuous. It has been submitted that out of 11 members of the General Body almost all of them have died and only three survived. All surviving members had approached this Court against the arbitrary action of the Dy. Registrar in excluding their names from the list of the members entitled to vote for the election of the Committee of Management.
28. It has been argued that this Court in several of its judgments has held that a Single member can also file a writ petition challenging the action of the authorities. In this regard, reference has been made to judgments rendered by a Division Bench in Ratan Kumar Solanki V. State of U.P. and Others reported in { 2010 (1) A.D.J. 622 } and another judgment by a Division Bench in Committee of Management, Janta Inter College Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2017 (3) U.P.L.B.E.C. 2535, besides one unreported judgment rendered by this Court in Writ Petition No.5413 (M/S) of 2015 on 07.01.2016.
29. It has been argued further that this Court as also the Supreme Court have held that availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar against maintaining a writ petition where on undisputed facts, this Court can validly decide the dispute. Reference has been made to a Division Bench judgment in Mohd. Taiyab Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2014 (10) ADJ Page 396, and Ram Sewak Khare Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2014 (4) ADJ 2241.
30. Sri D.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Objector No.2 in the second writ petition has argued that in the Memorandum of Association of the Society which was registered on 08.02.1965, and in the Bye-laws, the name of Objector no.2 finds place at sl.no. 11. Even in the order passed by the Dy. Registrar thereafter on 27.06.2014, circulating a tentative list of Members of the Society the name of Objector no.2 finds mention. But before passing the order dated 26.12.2013 and the order dated 26.05.2014 and 27.11.2014, no notice was ever issued to Objector no.2. The orders impugned have been endorsed to Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey and Objector no.1 alone by the Dy. Registrar. Under the bye-laws of the Society only Maanniye and Vishisist Sadsaya members are entitled to constitute the Sarvajanik Mandal for the election of Prabandh Karini Samiti. In the membership determined by the Dy. Registrar, there is no mention of the category of any of the members who allegedly formed the electoral college for the alleged elections that was held thereafter.
31. It has been further submitted that in pursuance of the order passed by the Dy. Registrar on 27.11.2014 the District Inspector of Schools, Gonda, had appointed one C.B. Singh Headmaster of Government Girls Inter College, Gonda to conduct the elections. Such action of the District Inspector of the Schools was not permissible under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act, as the Dy. Registrar had delegated his power to the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools could not have further delegated the said power to the Headmaster of Government Girls Inter College. Reference has been made in this regard the Division Bench's judgment rendered by this Court in Rajeshwary Prasad Singh Vs. Swami Sharan Singh reported in 2011 (29) LCD 1683.
32. It has further been argued by Sri D.K. Mishra, that when the writ petition was filed, this Court by order dated 09.03.2015 had directed production of all relevant records by the learned Standing Counsel from the office of the Dy. Registrar and also to show whether any meeting of the General Body was called by fixing of a date by the Dy. Registrar. The Dy. Registrar filed his counter affidavit but remained silent with regard to whether any meeting of the General Body was called by him. On 01.08.2016 this Court had directed the Standing Counsel to seek instructions from the Dy. Registrar regarding the availability of records of elections, if any, of the Committee of Management of the Society held after 02.07.1997, and whether the list of the Committee of Management of the Society registered in the office of Dy. Registrar had been approved. The Dy. Registrar had appeared before this Court and had admitted that no list of office bearers was registered after 1996-97 in his office till the passing of the order dated 27.11.2014 recognizing the list submitted by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey as constituting the General Body of the Society. In the counter affidavit filed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gonda, he had mentioned that the elections Observer was appointed by him to hold the election of Committee of Management of the School Janta Inter College, and not to hold the election of Committee of Management of the Society.
33. With regard to the arguments regarding maintainability of the writ petition on behalf of the petitioners, this Court has perused the judgment rendered by the Division Bench in Ratan Kumar Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2010 (1) ADJ 262. This Court finds that after considering two Division Bench judgments rendered in Dr. P.P. Rastogi Vs. Meerut University and Others reported in 1997 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 415 and Umesh Chandra Vs. Mahila Vidyalaya and others as well as two Single Judges' decisions in Smt. Vimla Devi Vs. Dy. Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra, reported in 1997 (3) ACC 1807 and Bhagwati Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2006 (2) ADJ 361; the Division Bench observed that a writ petition at the instance of an individual member of the Society would be maintainable, since, recognition of illegally constituted committee affects the democratic rights of the individual Member of the Society and his Fundamental Right to form an association. The Division Bench observed that no doubt it is true that an individual Member cannot represent the Committee of Management and challenge the order or action of any Authorities whereby the Committee of Management is allegedly affected and if an action or order affects the Committee of Management, the Collective Body, the Body itself can challenge the same or may authorize an individual to represent it and to challenge such an action or order of the Authorities. However, where the individual is aggrieved by an action of the Authorities, such individual has locus-standi, to approach this Court in Writ jurisdiction.
34. In the writ petitions before this Court, Objector No.2 is a life member and was also a signatory to the Memorandum of Association filed before the Registrar in 1965. He has approached this Court challenging the removal of his name from the Membership list determined by the Dy. Registrar by the order impugned on grounds of violation of Principles of Natural Justice.
35. The Objector No.1 has approached this Court saying that he is a Life member and was recognized as such in the list of members registered in the office of the Dy. Registrar in 1993-94. His membership has never been cancelled by any Competent Authority / Committee of Management or a General Body of the Society in question. It was he who had filed a complaint in February, 1993, against re-registration of the Society with an identical name by some imposters led by one Kamta Prasad Pandey and the Assistant Registrar by his order dated 02.07.1993 had upheld the contention raised by Objector no.1. Similarly, Objector No.1 was also instrumental in the Inquiry set up by by the Dy. Registrar which ultimately led to the passing of the order dated 26.12.2013 (passed under Section 25 (2) of the Act), whereby the Dy. Registrar had found that no elections of the Committee of Management of the Society, has taken place for the past several years and therefore, had directed election to be held under the supervision of the District Inspector of Schools.
36. This Court hence finds that the writ petitions filed by the objectors are maintainable on the question of the locus-standi. With regard to the other preliminary objections raised by the learned counsel for the respondent no.6, of maintainability of the writ petition in view of alternative/statutory remedy being available by filing a civil suit, this Court also finds that the order impugned having been passed in violation of Principle of Natural Justice can also be challenged by the individual members of the Society like the petitioners who are adversely affected. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others reported in 2012 (30) LCD 2550 and Nishant Kumar Pandey Vs. Uco Bank & Others reported in 2014 (32) LCD 48, both have referred to the issue of judicially enforceable right being available on the basis of which writ petition can be filed and maintained. It has been observed that if a person approaching the Court can satisfy that the impugned action is likely to adversely affect his rights which have been shown to have their source in statutory provisions such a writ petition cannot be rejected on grounds of locus-standi. A member of the General Body cannot be permitted to suffer at the hands of the Committee of Management or the Authorized Controller or authorities under the Societies Registration Act for their inaction, and thereby be rendered a mere spectator in the mismanagement of the Society.
37. In Mohd. Taiyab Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2014 (10) ADJ 396 and Ram Sewak Giri Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2014 (4) ADJ 2241 it has been observed that where undisputed facts are involved and there is violation of Principles of Natural Justice, writ petition at the behest of an aggrieved person is maintainable. It would be a negation of the democratic right of a member to force him to file an election petition before the Prescribed Authority when this Court finds that the order passed by the Dy. Registrar and by the Election Officer are in complete violation of the statutory provisions and the registered Bye-laws of the Society.
38. The availability of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar but is a self imposed restriction by the High Court and in a case where illegality has been committed and arbitrariness is writ large on the face of the record, the High Court can pass appropriate orders to enforce the Rule of Law.
39. From perusal of the record as made available from the office of the Dy. Registrar it is evident that after passing of the order dated 26.12.2013 the date fixed for next hearing was 17.01.2014 for Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey to produce original documents relating to Proceedings Register, Agenda Register, Membership Register, Cash book and Receipt Book. It is also evident that no documents were produced later on as no orders have been passed on the order-sheet thereafter, and straightway on 24.05.2014, draft of the order was placed before the Dy. Registrar for vetting. The draft of the order was signed on 27.06.2014 and objections were invited and notice was given for next hearing i.e. 02.08.2014. No hearing took place on 02.08.2014 and on the next date fixed for 03.09.2014 all parties to the dispute were present before the Dy. Registrar, who observed that the parties had nothing further to stay and the hearing was concluded and the case was reserved for orders. All of a sudden the order dated 27.11.2014 has been passed observing that the certain documents had been given by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey with regard to induction of new members.
40. This Court has repeatedly held that the orders passed by the Executive Authorities are vitiated in law, in case they are passed in negation of Principles of Natural Justice. Reference has been made to the judgment in Committee of Management, Madarsa Qashima Arbiya Islamiya Upperkot, Bulandshahar and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 2014 (5) ADJ 576.
41. This Court in matters relating to Committees of Management of Societies has observed that the violation of Principles of Natural Justice would vitiate an order for e.g. the judgement reported in 2010 (1) ADJ 262 (DB) Ratan Kumar Solanki Vs. State of U.P. & Others and an Unreported judgment in Writ Petition No.5413 (M/S) of 2015 and Writ Petition No.5783 (M/S) of 2015 rendered on 07.01.2016.
42. This Court having perused the aforesaid judgments also finds that in Committee of Management Madarsa Quasmiya Arabiya Islamiya Upper Court, Bulandshahar Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2014 (5) ADJ 576; Committee of Management Smt. Ram Beti Junior High School, Imaliya Firozabad Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2012 (30) LCD 1917; Committee of Management Board of Trustee Saltnat Bahadurpur Education & Trust and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2014 (11) ADJ 512; Committee of Management Dugeshwar Nath Vidyalaya Society & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2013 (2) UPLBEC 1613; T.P. Singh (En.2473) Senior Advocate Vs. Registrar/ Assistant Registrar, Firms Chits and Societies, Teliyarganj, Allahabad reported in 2019 (37) LCD 186; and in Anjuman Farogh-E-Islam & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2014 (3) UPLBEC 1953, the very same principles have been reiterated.
43. In the presence of counsel for both the parties, the records of the office of the Dy. Registrar were inspected. It is apparent from the letter of the District Inspector of Schools, Gonda, that the elections allegedly held on 22.08.2007 were on the basis of approved Scheme of Administration under Section 16 and Schedule-I of the Intermediate Education Act. The list submitted thereafter related to Committee of Management of the College being elected on the basis of Scheme of Administration of the College.
44. It is well known that under the Intermediate Education Act an Observer is appointed by the District Inspector of Schools for holding of election of Committee of Management as per the Scheme of the Administration of the Inter College concerned. In the affidavits filed by the District Inspector of Schools in these writ petitions also, it has been admitted by the District Inspector of Schools that he has acted in pursuance of two Government Orders issued in this regard relating to the Scheme of Administration and appointment of Observer by the District Inspector of Schools for holding of elections of Committee of Management of Higher Secondary Institution.
45. Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey had filed photocopies of certain documents to show induction of members before the Dy. Registrar. Such receipts are of the year 1998, 1999, 2006 and 2007. On all these papers/receipts, the seal of the Inter college has been affixed which proves that the list related to the College and not to the General Body of the Society, Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Gonda. Under the bye-laws of the Society, a Life member has to deposit only Rs.101/-, but in the list submitted by Sri Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey the alleged life members have deposited different amounts on different dates, sometime Rs.351/- or even Rs.251/- have been deposited. The Sarvajanik Mandal as per the Bye-laws consists of Maanniya Sadsaya (Patron) and (Aajivan Sadasya) Life members. In the absence of categorization by the Dy. Registrar in the list of members circulated by the order impugned, it is apparent that Sarvajanik Nirvachak Mandal had not been duly constituted and the Dy. Registrar has not applied his mind at all to the registered Bye-laws.
46. In the bye-laws, although it has been mentioned that the Committee of Management of the School and the Society would be the same, as per statutory provisions, separate elections had to be held for which agenda was to be circulated fixing date for election of Committee of Management of the Society. It has been misrepresented before this Court that when the Headmaster of Government Girls Inter College held elections on 23.12.2014, the Committee of Management of the College was elected as also the Committee of Management of the Society. The Dy. Registrar has filed an affidavit on 22.08.2016 disclosing therein that after 1993-94 no list for Committee of Management of the Society has been registered.
47. This Court in its judgments rendered in Committee of Management, Mansha Ram Sukh, Ucchhtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others has dealt with the effect of Committee of Management becoming time barred. The proceedings carried out by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey for induction of members were fraudulent proceedings and the Membership Register, if any, that was produced before the Dy. Registrar is a forged and fabricated document and there was no evidence of any election proceedings. Therefore, the elections, if any, carried out on 23.12.2014 even if not challenged by the petitioners, the objections raised by the respondents would have no meaning as has been held by this Court in Rajmani Maurya Vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Chits and Societies reported in 2013 (8) ADJ 310.
48. For a decision on the issues number (v) and (vi), this Court has gone through the Letter dated 09.08.2001 sent by the Prescribed Authority to the Dy. Registrar which led to Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey being recognized as Incharge of the Society. In the letter/report dated 9.8.2001 sent by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mankapur, Gonda on reference being made to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act (for short ''the Act') by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad (for short ''Deputy Registrar'), it has been mentioned that on receipt of reference, a copy of the same was served upon the interested parties i.e. Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey, the Objector no.1 and one Ram Raj Tiwari, asking them to submit documents with regard to the alleged election of Committees of Management and also to appear and give the statements. However, only Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate along with the documents and no other person filed any statement or appeared before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. As per the documents made available by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey, it was found that in the past, two Societies had been registered with similar names and because of dispute thereafter arising with regard to the registration of the second Society, the matter was referred to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad (for short ''Assistant Registrar') and by an order dated 20.7.1993, the Society by the name of "Janta Shiksha Prasaar Samiti, Gonda" with President Chandi Prasad Pandey was recognized on 10.10.1995. The Deputy Registrar again renewed the Society for a period of five years on papers moved by Chandi Prasad Pandey.
49. The tenure of such Committee of Management of the Society was valid upto the year 2000. The Deputy Director of Education, 9th Region, Faizabad on 31.7.1997 had directed the District Inspector of Schools, Gonda as the Authorized Controller to hold the elections of Committee of Management of the College. The Authorized Controller circulated the agenda and held the elections of Committee of Management of the College on 24.8.1997. Such Committee of Management of the College was valid for the period of five years i.e. upto the year 2002. Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey had submitted documents in relation to the renewal of the Society on 10.10.1995 and the proceedings of election of Committee of Management of the College dated 24.8.1997 in the office of the Prescribed Authority. In the letter sent by the Prescribed Authority dated 9.8.2001, he has stated that the Deputy Registrar should have recognized the Committee of Management of the College on the basis of renewal certificate granted on 10.10.1995 and the elections held by the Authorized Controller on 24.8.1997. Objector no.1 and Ram Raj Tiwari were erstwhile members of the Committee of Management of the College, but in the elections held by the Authorized Controller on 24.8.1997, they did not participate. Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey being elected as Secretary/Mantri, is looking after the administration of the College since 24.8.1997 without any dispute from any member being raised. The District Inspector of Schools, Gonda had also issued a certificate on 21.7.2001 that the Committee of Management of the College is not disputed.
50. The letter dated 9.8.2001 of the Prescribed Authority is in fact a report, as is evident from the last line of the said letter, which shows that this report was being submitted for perusal by the Deputy Registrar and for appropriate orders to be passed thereon.
51. With regard to the argument of Pt. S. Chandra that Objector no.1 was not a member of the original Society but a member of the second Society, which was later deregistered and he cannot be heard, this Court has gone through the papers filed. In the counter affidavit filed by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey, a copy of the objections dated 18.2.1993 of Objector no.1 has been filed as Annexure No.CA-10. A perusal of CA-10 shows that there is no statement made by Objector no.1 in his letter as has been alleged in the counter affidavit that he was member of the Society registered subsequently at File No.I-75278.
52. In the letter addressed to the Deputy Registrar, Objector no.1, the complainant, says that Janta Shiksha Prasaar Samiti, Gonda is registered at File No.I-75278, whereas some people with the intention of usurping the Society, have shown elections to be held of the Committee of Management. Such elections have been fraudulently held and are completely illegal. No member of the General Body was ever called in the alleged election proceedings and no such election proceedings actually took place. The complainant further says that there is possibility of grave prejudice being caused to the Society and a request has been made to conduct an enquiry into the forgery and take appropriate steps against those found responsible. A request was made to provide a copy of the entire file.
53. From a perusal of such complaint dated 18.2.1993, it is evident that Objector no.1 as Deputy Manager of Janta Shiksha Prasaar Samiti, Gonda, has mentioned that he is the member of Janta Shiksha Prasaar Samiti, Gonda, the original Society. The application for inspection and giving of copy of record, does not show that the complainant, Objector no.1, anywhere says that he is the member of the Society registered at File No.I-75278.
54. The order of the Assistant Registrar dated 20.7.1993 was challenged in Writ Petition No.3447 (MB) of 1993 by Kamta Prasad Pandey, alleging himself to be the Manager of the Committee of Management of Janta Higher Secondary School and by one Hanumant Prasad Tiwari, alleging himself to be the Secretary of Janta Shiksha Prasaar Samiti, Gonda. It was filed against the order of the Assistant Registrar and Chandi Prasad Pandey, Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey and Objector no.1 were arrayed as respondent nos.2, 3 and 4 in the said writ petition. Initially an interim order was granted by this Court, which was later on vacated on 18.5.1994 and the writ petition was dismissed thereafter on 3.2.1995.
55. Such order dated 20.7.1993 was followed by another order dated 21.7.1993, renewing the registration of the original Society with Registration No.1041/1964-65 upto date. The last such renewal was dated 10.10.1990 for a period of five years and by a letter no.888 dated 5.8.1993, the Committee of Management of the Society for the period 1993-94 was also registered.
56. Another order which was passed by the Deputy Registrar on 26.12.2013 has also been looked into by this Court carefully.
57. The order dated 26.12.2013 states that the order dated 20.7.1993 was challenged by Kamta Prasad Pandey and Hanumant Prasad Tiwari in Writ Petition No.3447 (MB) of 1993, which writ petition was dismissed on 3.2.1995 and the order dated 20.7.1993 attained finality.
58. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools by a letter dated 2.7.1997 prayed for a copy of membership list of the General Body of the Society but the Deputy Registrar by his letter dated 9.7.1997 informed the District Inspector of Schools that only the list of office bearers/Committee of Management was available in his office and for the list of members of the General Body, office bearers may be contacted.
59. It is in reference to such letter dated 2.7.1997 sent by the District Inspector of Schools, showing that the Authorized Controller has been asked to conduct the elections of the Committee of Management of the College that the elections were held on 24.8.1997 where Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey was elected as Manager and Chandi Prasad Pandey as President. When a letter for renewal of registration was moved on 23.10.2000 by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey, objections were invited by the Deputy Registrar on the same on 10.11.2000. Surendra Pratap Narain Pandey, Jagdambika Prasad Pandey (Objector no.1), Ram Raj Tiwari, Kapil Dev Dwivedi, Parmeshwar Saran Pandey and Bhagirathi Pandey, who were admittedly the members had been issued notices on 27.3.2001, asking for their objections to the list submitted by Sri Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey for registration of Committee of Management of the Society for the year 2000-01.
60. Sri Ram Raj Tiwari had filed his objections against the list of office bearers of 2000-01. Objector no.1, also by his letter dated 14.5.2001 submitted copy of the election proceedings dated 24.4.2001, along with a list of office bearers for the Committee of Management of the Society for the year 2000-01, and requested for renewal of registration certificate to be issued to him on the basis of such election proceedings.
61. The Deputy Registrar in his order dated 26.12.2013 has observed that a perusal of the office record showed that by a letter dated 30.5.2001, reference was wrongly made under Section 25(1) of the Act to the Prescribed Authority, annexing therewith copies of documents submitted by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey, Jagdambika Prasad Pandey (Objector no.1) and Ram Raj Tiwari. In fact, the elections held on 24.8.1997 by the Authorized Controller were held under the directions of the District Inspector of Schools, Gonda and Deputy Director, Secondary Education and related to Committee of Management of the College, where there was no dispute relating to such election proceedings.
62. Objector no.1 on 14.8.2001 submitted his objections before the Deputy Registrar, stating therein that the Samiti was running the Inter College. There was a dispute with regard to the election of office bearers of the Samiti and not of the College. The reference was made to the Prescribed Authority and the Prescribed Authority without giving opportunity of hearing had sent his report in favour of Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey. When the complainant Objector no.1 came to know about the report dated 9.8.2001, he filed an application on 10.8.2001 for recall of the order, and had also requested that no renewal of registration be done in favour of Committee of Management headed by Chandi Prasad Pandey and Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey as his application for recall was pending before the Prescribed Authority.
63. The Prescribed Authority thereafter by his order dated 3.4.2002 recalled his report/letter dated 9.8.2001 and passed a fresh order on 27.12.2002, rejecting the election proceedings dated 24.8.1997 submitted by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey and the election proceedings dated 24.4.2001 submitted by Objector no.1.
64. The orders dated 3.4.2002 and 27.12.2002 passed by the Prescribed Authority were challenged in Writ Petition No.292 (MS) of 2003 by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey, which writ petition was allowed on 9.5.2007 by this Court and Special Appeal No.712 of 2007 filed by Objector no.1 thereafter was rejected on 24.8.2007 on grounds of maintainability.
65. The order dated 26.12.2013 further states that Objector no.1 again filed an application on 8.6.2012, saying that the Committee of Management of the Society had been rendered time barred as no elections have taken place. On such complaint being moved, several dates were fixed and an opportunity was given to Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey to submit the original documents. No original documents were filed by any of the concerned parties.
66. The order dated 26.12.2013 passed by the Dy. Registrar has not been challenged by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey. In the said order the Dy. Registrar held the Committee of Management of the Society to be time barred and that no elections of the Society had been held for the past several years. Such time barred Committee had no right to induct new members in the General Body of the Society as has been held by this Court in the case of Committee of Management Munshi Ram Sukh Ucchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2016 (34) LCD 507.
67. From perusal of the pleadings and the record of the office of the Dy. Registrar produced before me on earlier occasions, and from the judgments relied upon before this Court, I am of the considered opinion that the election that was held on 24.12.1997 by the Authorized Controller on the directions of the District Inspector of Schools and the Dy. Director of Education was that of the Committee of Management of the Inter College and not of the Society. Elections held thereafter in 2002 and 2007 also, with Observers appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, as per the scheme of Administration, attached to Schedule 1 of Part III of the Intermediate Education Act related to the Committee of Management of the College.
68. No election of the Committee of Management of the Society had been held since 1993 and the Dy. Registrar rightly held the Committee of Management to be time barred while passing the order dated 26.12.2013 under Section 25 (2) of the Act. The order dated 26.12.2013 was not challenged by anyone and it attained finality. But this time barred Committee of Management was responsible for induction of new members in the Society. Yet the induction of several of such members as per the documents submitted by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey in the office of the Dy. Registrar, has been approved by the Dy. Registrar.
69. When the Dy. Registrar had already issued a tentative list of members of the General Body of the Society on the basis of Memorandum of Association which contained 11 names, if Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey had produced before him evidence of majority of such members having died and only three being alive including Objector No.2, the Dy. Registrar was required to send notice of the proceedings before him to Objector no.2 also. However, Objector no.2, was never endorsed any of the orders passed by the Dy. Registrar. Objector no.2 was never heard although he was one of the few original Life members still alive. 70. After insertion of Section 4-B in the Societies Registration Act, the determination of membership has to be done by the Dy. Registrar taking into account the parameters laid down under Section 4B of the Act. Reference has been made to the judgment namely T.P. Singh (En.2473) Senior Advocate Vs. Registrar/ Assistant Registrar, Firms Chits and Societies, Teliyarganj, Allahabad reported in 2019 (37) LCD 186 by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
71. I have perused the judgment cited before me. The Division Bench in the judgment rendered in T.P. Singh (Supra) has observed in para 22 to 25 thus:-
"22. A further Section 4-B was inserted by U.P. Act No. 23 of 2013 published in U.P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 09.10.2013 and reads as under:
"4-B(1) At the time of registration/ renewal of a society, list of members of General Body of that society shall be filed with the Registrar mentioning the name, father's name, address and occupation of the members. The Registrar shall examine the correctness of the list of members of the General Body of such society on the basis of the registrar of members of the General Body and minutes book thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee and bank pass book of the society.
(2) If there is any change in the list of members of the General Body of the society referred to in sub-section (1), on account of induction, removal, registration or death of any member, a modified list of members of General Body, shall be filed with the Registrar, within one month from the date of change.
(3) The list of members of the General Body to be filed with the Registrar under this section shall be signed by two office bearers and two executive members of the society." (emphasis added)
23. The reason for insertion of Section 4-B mentioned in "Statement of Objects and Reasons", of U.P. Act No. 23 of 2013 is that there is no provision of filing of list of General Body of Society and a large number of disputes in Societies are raised due to non existence of correct list of General Bodies with Registrar. In several cases an illegal person fraudulently produces before Registrar incorrect list of General Body of Society and claims to be the member and office bearer of such Society.
24. In order to avoid such situation it was decided to amend Act, 1860 for its application to State of U.P. and that is how Section 4-B came to be inserted in Act, 1860. List of members of General Body of Society has to be filed at the time of registration or renewal of Society. List must mention names, father's name, address and occupation of members. Registrar is under a statutory duty to examine correctness of list of members of General Body of such Society on the basis of register of members of General Body and minutes thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee and Bank pass book of Society. Apparently it shows that members included in the list, whether included correctly, has to be examined by Registrar. If a member is not included in list, whether such non inclusion also can be examined by Registrar is not very clear from Section 4-B(1) of Act, 1860 but this is made clear by sub-section (2) which says that if there is any change of list of members of General Body of Society referred to in sub-section (1) on account of induction, removal, registration or death of any member, a modified list of members of General Body shall be filed with Registrar within one month from the date of change.
25. A plain reading of above provision shows that at the time of registration or renewal, a list of members of General Body of Society has to be filed by Assistant Registrar. Thereafter whenever there is any change in said list, same has to be informed to Registrar by submitting a modified list of members of General Body. When such a modified list is submitted to Registrar, in our view, examination allowed to be made by Registrar in respect of correctness of list of members of General Body in sub-section (1) would also include removal of member(s) for the reason, when modified list is communicated to Registrar, whether modification is on account of induction or removal in any manner, both aspects and correctness thereof can be and must be examined by Registrar."
72. In Anjuman Farogh-E-Islam and Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others (supra) a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while considering Section 4B of the Act has observed that thus:
24. From a plain reading of Section 4-B of the U.P. Act 2013 of it is discernible that now all the Societies at the time of the registration or renewal of certificate, as the case may be, are required to submit a list of members of general body alongwith their required documents. The Registrar has been empowered to examine the correctness of a list of members of general body on the basis of register of members of general body, Minute Books, Cash Book, Receipt book of membership and Bank etc. of the Society. It further requires that if there is change in the list of the members of the general body of the Society due to enrollment of new members, bare resignation or removal, the modified list of members of general body is required to be filed with the Registrar within one month from the date of the change.
25. From the aforesaid amendment it is also evident that the intention of the legislature is to minimize the dispute of the Societies as in the most societies the disputes are with regard to validity of enrollment of the members and the election held on the basis of disputed members.
26. The requirement of Section 4-B of the U.P. Act No. 23 of 2013 is for all the Societies at the time of registration / renewal of a Society, therefore, requirement under Section 4-B of the U.P. Act No. 23 of 2013 can be applied in pending cases also. If there is a dispute with regard to the enrollment of the fresh members, the Registrar can direct the parties concerned to produce the minutes book, cash book, membership fee receipts etc. to establish that the enrollment was in terms of the bye-laws. If the Registrar examines the validity of the enrollment of the members on the basis of the aforesaid documents, it would ensure that rank outsider could not be able to control the affairs of the Society on the basis of fake documents." (emphasis added)"
73. From perusal of the order impugned, it is apparent that Dy. Registrar has not considered the dispute of membership in the light of parameters contained in Section 4B read with Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, and the registered bye-laws of the Society. The perusal of the order of the Dy. Registrar does not show that he considered the Cash Book/Membership Register/ Receipt Book/ Agenda Register for induction of new members or the Proceedings Register at all.
74. There is no mention of the Registered Bye-laws of the Society at all in the orders impugned. In the Bye-laws Clause 4 defines the category of members and Clause 7 defines the Sarvajanik Mandal and Clause 10 refers to how the Committee of Management of the Society has to be constituted.
75. In the list approved by the Dy. Registrar by the order impugned it is apparent that no category of members has been mentioned. Only the names of such alleged members of the General Body have been mentioned as provided by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey. Since no category of members has been mentioned the question of Constitution of Sarvajanik Nirvachak Mandal as per the Bye-laws has also been left open by the Dy. Registrar. If any election had been held on the basis of such Membership list the same could not be said to be an election in accordance with the Bye-laws and the same is liable to be ignored by this Court.
76. With regard to the order dated 27.11.2014 an additional ground of challenge has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of a judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Harish Chandra Gupta Vs. U.P. Cooperative Registrar Firms and Chits reported in 1990 (8) LCD 321. The Division Bench considered the arguments raised before it that under Section 25 (2) of the Act that it is permissible for the Registrar to delegate the entire power exercisable by him to any officer nominated by him for the conduct of the elections. The argument was rejected by considering the provision of Section 25 (2) and by observing thus:
"In respect of the first matter it provides that the power may be exercised when--(1) an election has been set aside or an officer-bearer has been held disentitled to hold office in proceeding under S. 25(1), and (ii) when the Registrar is satisfied that the time specified under the rules of the Society for holding election has expired and no election has been held. The first situation is positive or active and the second is negative or passive. The first situation arises from an order of the Prescribed Authority and the second from inaction of the office-bearers of the Society. In either of the two situations or on existence of both of these, the Registrar is authorised to take a certain step. The step that he is authorised to take is to call meeting of the general body of the Society. The purpose of calling such meeting is also specified viz., to elect office-bearer or office-bearers of the Society. This pertains to matter (2) enumerated above. Up to this stage S. 25(2) does not speak of any functionary except the Registrar. Therefore, up to the stages referred to hereinbefore there is no scope for delegation. Coverage of Matters (ii) does not stop here. After the meeting has been called, the next question is -- (1) who will preside over the meeting, and (2) how the meeting will be conducted. The first relates to the manner of exercise of power and the latter to the rules applicable to the further exercise of power. About the 1st, S. 25(2) says that the meeting may be presided over by the Registrar himself or by his nominee. It is only here that a functionary other than the Registrar comes in the picture and that is his nominee. The meeting whether presided over by the Registrar himself or by his nominee will have to be conducted in accordance with the rules of the Society relating to meetings and elections. From the scheme of S. 25(2) it appears that the occasion for Registrar to nominate an officer arises only when he decides, after calling the meeting, that the meeting shall not be presided over by him but by some one else. Accordingly the role of the nominee arises only after the meeting has already been called. The essential function of calling the meeting, therefore, has to be performed by the Registrar himself. Once it is held that the Registrar himself has to call the meeting and this function cannot be delegated by him, the next question would be as to who has to finalise the list of voters or members of the Society.
7. For calling meeting of the general body the Registrar will have to fix a date for the meeting and intimate that date to the members of the Society. Without this the calling of meeting will not be complete. For issuing notice to the members, the Registrar must have a valid list of voters or members of the Society. Without such a list it will not be possible for him to give intimation of the date of meeting fixed by him. It is apparent that if any dispute arises regarding the membership of the Society it will have to be decided before the notices are issued. Thus the, function of finalising the list is implicit in the function of calling the meeting of the general body. From this it flows that the nominee of the Registrar is not competent to take any decision regarding the list of members, if any dispute in that regard arises. In fact from the scheme of Section 25 it appears that the settlement of dispute of that nature must precede the calling of the meeting. Accordingly, the decision of the Tahsildar to hold election on the basis of the list dated 18th July, 1986, about which there was dispute, cannot be sustained. For the same reason the Deputy Registrar's order dated 4th September, 1989, Annexure 11, whereby he required the Tahsildar to decide dispute regarding, membership also cannot be sustained. The election was held on 14th September, 1989 without there being a valid and finalized list of members. The said election cannot, therefore, be upheld.
(emphasis added)
77. In case the Registrar had found that the Committee of Management had become time barred and elections were to be held under Section 25 (2), then meeting had to be called by the Dy. Registrar and elections were to be held by him or an Officer appointed by him. No such meeting was called by the Dy. Registrar. Only the power was delegated by him to the District Inspector of Schools, Gonda, to hold such meeting. Moreover, the District Inspector of Schools could not further delegate the power for holding the election meeting to the Principal of the Government Girls Inter College, Gonda. This has been held in Harish Chandra Gupta Vs. Registrar Firms, Chits and Societies reported in 1990 (8) LCD 321 and Rajeshwari Prasad Singh Vs. Swami Sharan Singh and Others reported in [2011 (29) LCD 1683].
78. The aforesaid judgments have been relied upon by this Court in Ram Sampada Verma Vs. State of U.P. and Others in Writ Petition No.5096 (M/S) of 2011 and in the case of Committee of Management Vs. Radha Krishnan Vs. State of U.P. and Others.
79. There is a difference between renewal of the Society and the registration of the list of office bearers and mere renewal granted in favour of the Society would not create any right in favour of those alleged office bearers who had submitted the application for renewal of registration as has been held by this Court in Yuva Jagriti Parishad and Another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010 (9) ADJ 565.
80. This Court is of the considered opinion that no doubt renewal of registration has been made on the papers submitted by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey periodically before the Authorities concerned. However, in view of the observation made by this Court in Yuva Jagriti Parisar (Supra) that the renewal of registration of Society may be granted in favour of the Society irrespective of the fact as to who is the office bearer, and such renewal of registration of the Society has absolutely no bearing on the issue as to who are the office bearers of such registered Society, this Court finds that mere registration of list annually submitted by Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey would create no right in favour of Parmeshwar Prasad Pandey to claim that he had been recognized for the past several years as Manager of the Society and that his long tenure has remained undisputed. In the absence of challenge to his elections, this Court should not entertain the writ petitions.
81. The Dy. Registrar while appointing the District Inspector of Schools, Gonda, to hold the meeting did not first fix a date for meeting of General Body on his own, as is required under the law settled by this Court in the case of Harish Chandra Gupta (Supra). Moreover, the District Inspector of Schools has admitted in his affidavit filed before this Court that he had appointed as the Election Observer the Headmaster of the Government Girls Inter College to conduct the election of the Committee of Management of the Inter College as per the Government Order issued in this regard dated 02.09.2008 and the Government Order dated 25.08.2011.
82. The Dy. Registrar could have delegated his power for conducting the elections as per the bye-laws of the Society on any officer including the District Inspector of Schools for holding the General Body Meeting for elections of office bearers of the Society, for which the copy of the bye-laws of the Society should have been forwarded by the Dy. Registrar, as under Section 25 (2) of the Act, any meeting held in pursuance of orders passed by the Dy. Registrar for election of office bearers of Society has to be done as per the procedure prescribed in the bye-laws. This was not done.
83. Moreover, a Division Bench of this Court has already observed that a delegatee cannot further delegate his power. The District Inspector of Schools having been delegated the power could not have further delegated his power to the Headmaster of Government Girls Inter College for holding elections as envisaged under Section 25 (2) of the Act. It is apparent that not only the Bye-laws of the Society, but also the statutory provisions of the Act were violated.
84. Therefore, these writ petitions deserve to be allowed and are hereby allowed and the orders impugned are set aside. The elections, if any, held in pursuance of the orders impugned also cannot be recognized for having been held invalid for the Prabandh Karini of the Society.
85. Since only two members out of the original 11 members of the Janta Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Gonda, are alive, and there is a provision in the Bye-laws of a Salahkar Mandal/ Advisory Committee consisting of such ex-officio members as MP and MLA of the area concerned, and also Block Pramukh and Block Development Officer, Chief Development Officer, a direction is issued to the Dy. Registrar to call a meeting of official members constituting Salahkar Mandal. The Dy. Registrar and two remaining Life members along with the ex-officio members of the Salahkar Mandal may co-opt/induct new members in the Society who would then form the General Body/ Sarvajanik Mandal in accordance with the Bye-laws of the Society.
86. After Sarvajanik Mandal is constituted a meeting should be arranged by the Dy. Registrar for election of office bearers after issuance of notice and circulation of Agenda for the same to all such members. The entire exercise for induction of new members in the Society the constitution of Sarvajanik Mandal thereafter and for holding of the elections of Committee of Management of the Society is to be completed preferably within a period of six months by the Dy. Registrar as envisaged in Clause 9 of the Bye-laws. The two Life members who are still alive shall be involved at every stage of the proceedings. Agenda for holding elections on the basis of the tentative membership list formulated shall be circulated by Registered Post and published in two Newspapers of the State of Uttar Pradesh.
87. The directions for constitution of the General Body/ Sarvajanik Mandal are being issued by this Court taking inspiration from a judgment rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench in Committee of Management Sarvodaya Post Graduate College Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2011 (29) LCD 272 where the coordinate Bench has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment in the case of Ranveer Singh Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun at Orai reported in 2000 (38) ALR.