These two petitions W.P. No. 25151 (MS) of 2020 and W.P. No.25284 (MS) of 2020 challenge the order dated 22.11.2020 passed by the Dy. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits whereby the Deputy Registrar issued notices to 24 persons calling upon them to submit their objections to the list of office bearers submitted by the private respondent no. 5.
Since the petitioners of both the petitions were amongst the 24 persons to whom the notice was issued and the petitioners of both the petitions are aggrieved by the said order dated 21.11.2020, hence, both petitions were connected and have been heard and are being decided by this common judgment.
Heard Sri Sandeep Dixit, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ankit Srivastava for the petitioners in W.P. No. 25151 (MS) of 2020 and Sri Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. No. 25284 (MS) of 2020 and Dr. L.P. Mishra and Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 6 and the learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents in both the petitions.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 21.11.2020 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits whereby the Deputy Registrar while issuing notice to the petitioner and calling upon them to furnish their reply within a period of 15 days but on the same day itself i.e. 21.11.2020, it accepted the list of office bearers which was furnished by the respondent no. 5 thereby making the time so provided by the notice completely redundant.
The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Deputy Registrar issued a notice dated 21.11.2020, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure No. 19 and is addressed to 24 persons including the petitioners of the instant two petitions.
It is further submitted that by means of the said notice dated 21.11.2020, the Deputy Registrar informed that the private respondent no. 5 alleging herself to be the Pradhan has furnished a list of office bearers to be registered for the year 2020-21. It was further informed to the addressee of the said notice that in case if they had any objection to the same, they were entitled to file the same within a period of 15 days. It is further urged that once the Deputy Registrar had issued the notice calling upon the petitioners to furnish their objection within a period of 15 days, it was not open for the authority to have taken a decision on the same day itself by approving the list of office bearers which was furnished by the private respondent no. 5. In effect the issuance of notice by the Deputy Registrar was perhaps an empty formality and it had taken a decision and once having done so, there was nothing left for the petitioner either to respond or for the Deputy Registrar to decide.
In the aforesaid backdrop, it has been submitted that since order has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing, consequently, the same is bad and deserves to be set aside.
It is also submitted that the petitioners are actually the office bearers of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Uttar Pradesh and in compliance of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 as applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh, the list of office bearers was furnished which was on record and registered by the Deputy Registrar by means of his order dated 19.03.2020, a copy of which has been brought on record as Annexure No. 10. It has been pointed out that the petitioner no. 1 has been shown as one of the office bearers in the list of so registered so also the petitioner of W.P. No. 25284 (MS) of 2020 namely Virendra Ratnam has also been shown as one of the office bearers.
The aforesaid petitioners who have been shown as office bearers have an interest in the functioning of the Society and without being afforded an opportunity of hearing, the impugned order has been passed which in effect amounts to removal of the lawfully appointed office bearers with another list of office bearers which was furnished by the respondent no. 5 which could not have been done, without waiting for the objection from the petitioners.
In the aforesaid circumstances, it has been prayed that the impugned order suffers from being arbitrary and having been passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, this being against the principles of natural justice deserves to be set aside.
Per contra, Dr. L.P. Mishra and Sri Atul Kumar Dwivedi appearing for the respondent no. 6 have submitted that the present petitioners do not have the locus to maintain the aforesaid petition, inasmuch as, they have been removed from the Basic/Primary membership of the Society, hence, they loose their right to maintain or occupy the post of office bearers in the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. It is also submitted that initially there were certain vacancies which had occurred in the Committee of the office bearers and was sought to be filled.
The Deputy Registrar by means of order dated 09.01.2020 had permitted the Society to hold its meeting in accordance with its bye-laws and thereafter carry on the exercise of filling up the vacancies. It is submitted that against the said order a petition was preferred bearing W.P. No. 7217 (MS) of 2020, however, no interim protection was granted except that in case if any election is held in pursuance of the order dated 09.01.2020, it shall be subject to the orders of the Court. It is in furtherance thereof as events transpired that the Committee of office bearers held a meeting and filled the posts. A list of the office bearers was submitted before the Deputy Registrar who by means of order dated 19.03.2020 approved the same, however, clarifying that the same would be subject to the outcome of W.P. No. 7217 (MS) of 2020. It is also informed that against the order dated 19.03.2020 two other petitions bearing W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 and W.P. No. 1250 (MS) of 2020 were also filed which are engaging the attention of the Court.
In the aforesaid backdrop it has been submitted that the issue regarding the petitioners actually having any locus to maintain a petition needs to be decided.
A pin pointed query was put to Sri Dwivedi as to whether once the order dated 19.03.2020 had been passed by the Deputy Registrar where the petitioners have been indicated to be the office bearers and by means of the notice dated 21.11.2020, the Deputy Registrar had issued notice to 24 persons including the petitioners of the instant two writ petitions affording them a period of 15 days to furnish their reply whether in such backdrop the impugned order could have been passed without even granting an opportunity of hearing especially when it had the effect of casting a cloud over their rights to continue as a office bearer.
Sri Dwivedi has argued at length, however, could not dispute the fact that the Deputy Registrar once having served the notice and calling upon the petitioners to furnish their reply, it was but obvious that he ought to have waited for a period of 15 days before passing any order.
Having heard the parties at length and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds that the Deputy Registrar who is an authority having powers conferred under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is definitely an Authority covered within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thus all its decisions are required to comply with the doctrine of equality and fair play, as envisaged in Article 14 of the Constitution of India. If any order, decision or administrative act of such Authority results in civil consequence, then such decision or action can definitely be tested on the touchstone of principles of natural justice and can be judicially reviewed.
The Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. Debasis Das reported in 2003 (4) SCC 557 has held in para 19 as under:-
"19... Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice."
This Court has elaborated the expression "civil consequence" by observing that (Debasis Das case, SCC pg.572, para 19) "encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages".
This Court has further stated, that, "in its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life."
and in Para 15 held as under:-
"15. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilised States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative order, which involves civil consequence must be consistent with the rules of natural justice."
The Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Ratan Sinha Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2009 (14) SCC 690 in paras 13 and 14 has held as under:-
"13. The law in this regard has been settled by several decisions of this Court. The principle that emerge from the decisions of this Court is that, if there is a power to decide and decide detrimentally to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in exercise of such a power and that the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made.
14. Corollary principles emanating from these cases are as to what particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to an extent on the facts and circumstances of that case and that it is only where there is nothing in the statute to actually prohibit, the giving of an opportunity of being heard and on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty imposed on the decision maker itself implies an obligation to hear before deciding. These cases have also observed, whenever an action of public body results in civil consequences for the person against whom the action is directed, the duty to act fairly can be presumed and in such a case, the administrative authority must give a proper opportunity of hearing to the affected person."
The Supreme Court in Nisha Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in 2014 (16) SCC 392 in para 5 held as under:-
"5. Trite though it is, we may yet again reiterate that the principle of audi alteram partem admits of no exception, and demands to be adhered to in all circumstances. In other words, before arriving at any decision which has serious implications and consequences to any person, such person must be heard in his defence. We find that the High Court did not notice the violation and infraction of this salutary principle of law. Accordingly, on this short ground, the impugned Judgments and Orders require to be set aside, and are so done. The matter is remanded back to the Divisional Commissioner for taking a fresh decision after giving due notice to the Appellant and affording her an opportunity of being heard. The Divisional Magistrate, Kullu, shall complete the proceedings expeditiously, and not later than six months from the date on which a copy of this Order is served on him."
In view of the aforesaid decisions and as it has not been disputed by the parties that the petitioners have not been granted any opportunity of hearing before passing of the order dated 21.11.2020, this Court is of the view that without entering into the merits or commenting upon any of the allegations or counter allegations made by respective parties but only for the reason that opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioners of both the petitions, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside.
In view of the aforesaid both the writ petitions succeed. The impugned order dated 21.11.2020 is set aside. The petitioners are directed to furnish their replies to the Deputy Registrar, within one week from today. Upon receiving the reply, the Deputy Registrar shall consider the same and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned shall decide the controversy and pass a fresh, speaking order, strictly in accordance with law.
It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and it shall be open for the Deputy Registrar to take an independent view of the matter.
In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 2.2.2021 Asheesh