Court No. - 19
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36149 of 2018 Petitioner :- Muslim Association Kanpur And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arvind Srivatava,Bhanu Pratap Singh,Gajendra Singh Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondents no.1 & 2 and Sri Arvind Srivastava for respondent no.3. With their consent, the writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting a formal counter affidavit.
Muslim Association Kanpur, petitioner no.1 is a registered society under the Societies Registration Ac5t, 1860. The general body of the said society comprised of 466 members. Certain amendment was carried out in the bye-laws of the society in a meeting held on 3.7.2016. It was followed by formal registration of the amendments by the Deputy Registrar. Subsequently, the amendments were challenged by respondent no.3 by filing objections before the Deputy Registrar. It was followed by filing of Writ Petition No.8134 of 2018 before this Court. The Deputy Registrar, after being apprised of the fact that the amendments have been challenged before this Court, proceeded to pass an order staying the amendments. Ultimately, in a batch of writ petitions relating to the said society, this Court by judgement dated 13.4.2018, directed the Deputy Registrar to decide the objections relating to amendments in the bye-laws of the society after providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned. In compliance of the said order, the impugned order dated 8.10.2018 has been passed by Deputy Registrar holding that meeting dated 3.7.2016 was not validly held, as all 466 members were not given intimation of the said meeting nor they had participated therein. After discarding the amendments, the Deputy Registrar has proceeded to issue a further direction that the Committee elected on 26/27.2.2015 shall manage the society. Aggrieved by the said order, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Sri Y.K. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the meeting dated 3.7.2016 was held with a participation of 70 members out of total 90 members. He submitted that although general body comprised of 466 members, but large number of them had not deposited the annual subscription fee, therefore, they stood debarred from participating in the proceedings of the society as per clause 7 of the bye-laws. He further submitted that the aforesaid plea was specifically raised before the Deputy Registrar, but without adverting to the same, he discarded the proceedings dated 3.7.2016, resulting in manifest error of law. He further submitted that the order of the Deputy Registrar permitting the Managing Committee elected on 26/27.2.2015 to manage the society is also wholly illegal inasmuch as fresh election was held on 18.2.2018 and the said election was duly recognised by an order passed on 1.6.2018 by the Deputy Registrar. He further submitted that the said order was stayed by the Deputy Registrar himself on objection filed by the contesting respondent by an order dated 6.6.2018. The said order was subjected to challenge in Writ Petition No.22501 of 2018 and wherein, this Court by an order dated 5.7.2018, stayed the operation of the order dated 6.6.2018, meaning thereby that the petitioner Committee would be the valid Committee for managing the affairs of the society.
Sri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for respondent no.3 does not dispute that the Deputy Registrar has not gone into the issue as to whether certain members of the general body stood disqualified to participate in the proceedings dated 3.7.2016 in view of clause 7 of the bye-laws. He, therefore, does not have any objection in case the said issue is remitted for a fresh consideration by the Deputy Registrar.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 8.10.2018 is quashed. The Deputy Registrar is directed to decide the said issue as well as any other issue which may be pressed before him by the parties, after providing them opportunity of hearing, expeditiously preferably within four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J) Order Date :- 30.10.2018 SL