Shiksha Prasar Samiti And Another vs State Of U.P. And Others on 9 February, 2011

From Advocatespedia, ASSN: 135893
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Committee of Management, SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI DHARAI MAFI, District Sultanpur through its Manager Smt Shanti Devi & others ...Petitioners


State of U.P. and others ...Opp.Parties

Writ Petition No. 3511[MS]2011

Committee of Management Mahatma Shiv Kumar Inter College. Dharai Mafi and others ...Petitioners


State of U.P and others ...Opp.Parties.

Writ Petition No. 2021[MS]2011

Committee of Management Shiksha Prasar Samiti,Dharaee Mafi through its President Anoop Sanda ...Petitioner


Deputy Registrar, Firm, Societies & Chits Faizabad Division, Faizabad and another ...Opp.Parties

Bench: Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.

Delivered on: January 10, 2012

Facts: "A writ petition, as has rightly been pointed out by the High Court, for grant of the said reliefs, was not the remedy. A matter involving a great deal of disputed questions of fact cannot be dealt with by the High Court in exercise of its power of judicial review. As the High Court or this Court cannot, in view of the nature of the controversy as also the disputed questions of fact, go into the merit of the matter; evidently no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage."

In the instant case, one party is claiming that they are the valid members of the society and their Committee of Management is validly elected body whereas the second party is strongly contesting that as a matter of fact their Committee of Management is elected body and the seven persons inducted later on by the rival group, are not the valid members and by fabricating the papers they are showing themselves to be the valid members. The disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. During the course of arguments, Sri M.B.Singh Counsel for the Deputy Registrar informed that the last election of the society was held on 15.6.2005. In the record, which has been produced by the Standing Counsel, there are two affidavits of Smt. Shanti Devi, in which it has been clearly stated that the election was conducted on 15.6.2005 in which she was elected as Manager. The proceedings dated 15.6.2005 shows that Shiv Prasad Pathak and Smt. Shanti Devi were elected unopposed as President and Manager of the Committee of Management and their tenure was only for a period of two years. At this juncture, it would be relevant to clarify that right to convene a Meeting for the purpose of holding elections of the office bearers is with the outgoing Committee of Management and after expiry of the term of the office bearers, it is the Registrar, who can pass an order under Section 25 (2) of the Act for convening a meeting of the General Body of the Society for holding fresh election. It is at this stage only that outgoing office bearers are debarred from convening any meeting for the said purpose. The Committee of Management, which is represented by Dr L.P.Mishra is saying that the fresh election of Committee of Management of the Society as well as of the College took place on 9.5.2010 and again the same old Committee of Management was elected. The other Committee of Management represented by Sri Som Kartik, Advocate is saying that the election to elect Committee of Management of the society were held on 17.7.2010 in the college in which Anoop Sanda was elected as President of the committee of Management and Om Prakash Pathak was elected as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the society. Thus one thing is crystal clear that after the last election held on 15.6.2005, the next elections were conducted in 2010 i.e. after a lapse of the term of the elected office bearer of the Committee of Management ie. after more than three years.

Procedural History: .In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Assistant Registrar was justified in exercising powers under sub section (2) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act in directing that a fresh meting of the general body be held for electing office bearers of the Society. Sri Srivastava lastly urged that it is a case where there was a dispute in respect of election or continuance of office bearers of the society and, therefore, the matter ought to have been referred to the Prescribed Authority for decision under sub section (1) of Section 25 of the Act. We are unable to accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellants. The dispute referred to under this provision could arise only if the election had been held within the period of three years and two rival groups claimed to have been elected as office bearers of the Society. The claim made by both the parties was based upon the elections, which were admittedly held after more than five years. In these circumstances, the Assistant Registrar was perfectly justified in issuing direction to hold a fresh election under sub section (2) of Section 25 of the Act. We, therefore, find no illegality in the impugned judgment and order of the learned single Judge." In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 10.12.2010 passed by Deputy Registrar, Faizabad Region, is hereby set-aside. The Deputy Registrar, Chit, Funds and Societies, Faizabad Region, Faizabad shall conduct the election, within three months, under his supervision at the earliest in accordance with law after deciding the membership issue and preparing the electoral roll. As regard the writ petition no. 3511(MS) of 2011, it may be mentioned that the District Inspector of Schools, Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj Nagar attested the signature of the petitioner vide order dated 20.5.2011. Subsequently, by an order dated 24.5.2011, the aforesaid order dated 20.5.2011 whereby signatures of one of the petitioners were attested, was cancelled. The contention of the petitioners' counsel is that the authority has exceeded its jurisdiction and has cancelled and reviewed its earlier order dated 20.5.2011. The argument of the other side is that the order dated 20.5.2011 was cancelled by the D.I.O.S. vide order dated 24.5.2011 as the DIOS realized its mistake in issuing the order dated 20.5.2011 because he himself had earlier written a letter dated 27.12.2010 to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari regarding existence of dispute of Committee of Management of the college. If any mistake is brought to the notice of the authority concerned, which he has committed either inadvertently or by slip of eyes, then the order passed is liable to be recalled and reviewed not because it is found to be erroneous, but because it was passed in a proceeding which was itself vitiated by an error of procedure or mistake which went to the root of the matter. It may be added that a judicial or quasi-judicial authority has inherent power to correct its own proceeding when it is satisfied that in passing a particular order, it was misled by one of the parties or there is an inadvertent error. It is also settled position of law that there is a clear distinction between a statutory review and a review under the inherent powers of the Court or Tribunal to rectify the wrong that has been committed by itself. Thus the contention of the petitioners' counsel that the authority had reviewed its order is not correct for the reasons enumerated hereinabove.

Judgmenet: This judgement delivered on January 10, 2012: the writ petition no. 3511(MS) of 2011 is hereby dismissed. As regard the third writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 2021(MS) of 2011, it has been filed by the Committee of Management through its President Anoop Sanda for quashing the order dated 16.3.2011 passed by Deputy Registrar, Faizabad Division, Faizabad whereby renewal has been done of the society for next five years w.e.f. 10.1-0.2010 under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act and the same can be assailed by them by filing an appeal under Section 12-D(2) of the said Act and writ is not the approprite remedy. It may be added that renewal of the society does not create any right for being the office bearers of the Committee of Management. During the course of arguments, Sri M.B.Singh, Counsel for the Societies, Chits and Funds, suggested that the renewal certificate of the society may be permitted to be remain intact but it shall not be treated to be in favour of any one of the parties. Both the contesting parties consented that renewal certificate may remain intact and they will not claim any rights to be in their favour. Under these circumstances, the aforesaid writ petition no. 2021 (MS) of 2011 stands disposed of in above terms

Acts cited-

  1. Section 25 in The Societies Registration Act, 1860
  2. The Societies Registration Act, 1860
  3. Article 226 in The Constitution Of India 1949
  4. Section 12D(2) in The Societies Registration Act, 1860
  5. Section 25(2) in The Societies Registration Act, 1860