1

A.F.R.

In Chamber

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38789 of 2016

Petitioner :- C/M Sankatha Prasad Inter College

And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar

Singh,Jai Singh Yadav

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nanhe Lal

Tripathi,Prabhakar Awasthi

Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.

In this writ petition, the order dated 25.7.2016

passed by the Regional Level Committee,

Allahabad, has been challenged. The events which

fall within a narrow compass culminating in the

impugned order would be essential for the

adjudication of this case.

There is a registered society by the name of

Sankatha Prasad Shiksha Sadan Prabandh Samiti

Mawai Ganeshpur, Fatehpur. The society also runs

an Intermediate College which is recognized under

the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. As per law,

the society has its bye-laws and the Intermediate

College has its Scheme Of Administration. A perusal

of the bye-laws and the Scheme of Administration

shows that enrolment of members is done only for

the general body of the society and those very

NeutralA“itationANo9AEABOBO'UH“'8NBNH

2

members are the members of the general body of the

Intermediate College. The general body of the

society elects its members for its Committee of

Management and, thereafter, the latter functions for

the society as also the Intermediate College.

On 5.12.2010, when an election was held one

Sri Jai Bahadur Singh was elected as president and

Sri Shattrughan Lal Vishwakarma was elected as the

Manager. The elected body which was elected by

the Election dated 5.12.2010, on 27.12.2011 claimed

that on the enrolment of 9 life members and 11

Ordinary members vide resolution of the general

body dated 5.12.2010, the General Body of the

Society now had 28 members. The Committee

which was elected on 5.12.2010 also came up with

an election dated 1.12.2013 on the basis of those 28

members. This election was approved by the

Assistant Registrar on 19.12.2013 on the basis of

which, the list of office bearers was registered by

the Assistant Registrar under Section 4 of the

Societies Registration Act on 2.3.2015.

However, when knowledge dawned on the

other members regarding the addition of members to

the general body, they filed their complaints before

the Assistant Registrar and when the Assistant

3

Registrar on 2.3.2015 had ultimately registered the

list of office bearers, the Petitioners filed a writ

petition being Writ Petition No. 20789 of 2015

which was allowed on 28.4.2015. The order dated

2.3.2015 passed by the Assistant Registrar was set

aside and the Assistant Registrar, by the High

Court's order, was directed to finalize the list of the

General Body of the Society in accordance with law

and after affording an opportunity of hearing to all

the stake holders.

The Assistant Registrar, thereafter, on

14.8.2015 passed an order holding that the election

dated 1.12.2013 was invalid and finalized a list of

14 members who according to him were there in the

General Body of the Society. However, the Assistant

Registrar was of the view that Election was to be

held under Section 25 (2) of the Societies

Registration Act, 1860. Thereafter, the District

Inspector of Schools, upon the resolution of the

dispute regarding membership, granted permission

dated 26.8.2015 to the institution to hold the

election of the Committee of management.

However, the president of the society on the very

next day i.e. 27.8.2015 requested the District

Inspector of Schools to get the Election of the

Society also held. Thereupon on 28.8.2015, the

4

District Inspector of Schools appointed one Sri

Ramendra Singh, the member of the Government

Kanya Uchchattar Madhyamik vidyalaya Chakki,

Fatehpur as the Election Officer. The Election

Officer, thereafter, finalized the Election programme

and published the same in two newspapers, namely,

Dainik Jagran and Amar Ujala. Observers etc. were

appointed and the election of the committee of

management of the Society as also of the college

was held on 12.9.2015. On 14.9.2015, the observer

submitted his report to the District Inspector of

Schools and on 16.9.2015, the District Inspector of

Schools approved the Election and also attested the

signature of the petitioner no. 2 as the manager.

Aggrieved by the order of the Assistant

Registrar dated 14.8.2015, the respondent no. 5 filed

a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 50262 of

2015. This writ petition, however, came to be

dismissed on 8.9.2015 as the Election was already

notified for 12.9.2015. A Special Appeal being

Special Appeal No. 742 of 2015 was filed against

the order of the High Court dated 8.9.2015 which

was also disposed of on 30.10.2015. However, upon

the Election results being declared, the respondent

no. 5 again filed a writ petition being Writ Petition

No. 68194 of 2015 whereby four orders were

5

challenged.

I.The order dated 14.8.2015 passed by the

Assistant Registrar finalizing the Electoral

Roll of 14 members.

II.The Election dated 12.9.2015 of the

Committee of Management of the Society.

III.The Election dated 12.9.2015 of the

Committee of Management of the

Institution.

IV.The order dated 16.9.2015 of the District

Inspector of Schools which had approved the

Election dated 12.9.2012.

On 14.1.2016, the High Court did not enter into

the merits of the impugned orders. However,it

granted liberty to the petitioners of the Writ Petition

No. 68194 of 2015 to approach the Regional Level

Committee. The operative portion of the order dated

4.1.2016 is being reproduced here as under:-

“Accordingly, without going into the merits of the

impugned orders as well as the election

proceedings, this writ petition is disposed of with

liberty to the petitioners to approach the Regional

Level Committee and in which event, the

Regional Level Committee shall decide the

objections preferred by the petitioners, in

accordance with law (emphasis added), after

due notice and opportunity of hearing to all

affected parties. The aforesaid exercise be

carried out by the Regional Level Committee,

expeditiously and preferably within a period of

next six months from the date the objection were

preferred before it. The impugned order dated

16.9.2015 as well as the election proceedings

6

shall abide by the decision taken by the Regional

Level Committee.”

When the Regional Level Committee passed an

order on 25.7.2016 (order impugned in the writ

petition), the instant writ petition was filed. The

order impugned was to the following effect:-

i.The Election of the Committee of

Management held on 12.9.2015 was held to

be invalid.

ii.A direction was given to the Assistant

Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits,

Allahabad, to review his order dated

14.8.2015 whereby he had found that only

14 members were the actual members of the

General Body. This exercise had to be

completed by the Assistant Registrar within

a period of three months of the passing of

the impugned order dated 25.7.2016.

iii.A direction was also given to the District

Inspector of Schools to get the Election of

the Committee of Management of the

Institution held on the basis of the list of

members which was to be finalized by the

Assistant Registrar.

iv.The accounts of the institution were in the

mean time to be operated by the District

7

Basic Siksha Adhikari, Fatehpur, singly.

Learned counsel for the petitioner while

assailing the order dated 25.7.2016 passed by the

Regional Level Committee has made the following

submissions:-

(i)The Joint Director of Education/ the

Regional Level Committee and the Assistant

Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad

perform their functions in their own spheres.

The two Acts which govern their functioning

are two different legislations. The Joint

Director of Education/ Regional Level

Committee draw their powers from the U.P.

Intermediate Education Act, 1921, read with

the Government Order dated 19.12.2000. The

Joint Director of Education was required to

decide a dispute in regard to a Committee of

Management of an Intermediate College

governed by the provisions of the Intermediate

Education Act. By means of the Government

Order dated 19.12.2000 it was provided that the

dispute pertaining to the Committee of

Management of an Intermediate College would

be decided by the Regional Level Committee.

In effect, therefore, he submitted that the

Regional Level Committee was required to

8

decide a dispute pertaining to a Committee of

Management of an Institution governed by the

Intermediate Education Act, 1921. While

deciding the question of election of Committee

of Management, however, the Regional Level

Committee incidentally could have gone into

the validity of the Electoral Roll which was

used for holding the Election. However, he

submits that if by virtue of the bye-laws of the

society and the Scheme of Administration of an

Intermediate College, the Committee of

Management of the Society and the

Intermediate College (run by the society) are

one and the same then the Assistant Registrar

who exercises his powers under the Societies

Registration Act, 1860, alone could deal with

the list of the General Body of the Society

under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration

Act. He submits that whenever a dispute with

regard to the list of the General Body of a

society is raised then under Section 4-B of the

Societies Registration Act, 1860, the dispute

pertaining to the said list was required to be

decided by the Assistant Registrar under the

provisions of the Section 4-B of the Societies

Registration Act, 1860. Learned counsel to

9

bolster his submission has relied upon 2018

(11) ADJ 586 (T.P. Singh (En. No. 2473),

Senior Advocate vs. Registrar/Assistant

Registrar, Firms Societies & Chits,

Teliyarganj and others).

Learned counsel further submitted that a

dispute under Section 4-B of the Societies

Registration Act could not be appealed against.

However, if the Prescribed Authority under

Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act had

to decide any dispute then he could also have

incidentally looked into the electoral roll also.

Therefore, the learned counsel for the

petitioner submits that the Regional Level

Committee which functioned as per the

Government Order dated 19.12.2000 could not

have looked into the order passed by the

Registrar dated 14.8.2015 and also could not

have directed the Registrar to review his order.

Since the learned counsel for the petitioner

relied upon the provisions of the Government

Order dated 19.12.2000, the same is being

reproduced here as under:-

“'kklu Lrj ij fujUrj ;g f'kdk;rsa izkIr gks jgha gS

fd ek/;fed f'k{kk vf/kfu;e] 1921 ,oa osru forj.k

vf/kfu;e] 1971 }kjk izkIr vf/kdkjksa dk dfri;

vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk nq:i;ksx fd;k tk jgk gS] blfy,

10

e.Myh; la;qDr f'k{kk funs'kd dh v/;{krk esa ,d

lfefr dk xBu fd;k tkrk gS ftlesa e.Myh; mi

f'k{kk funs'kd rFkk lEcfU/kr tuin ds ftyk fo|ky;

fujh{kd lnL; gksaxsA ;g lfefr fuEufyf[kr izdj.kksa

ij fopkj djsxhA

1- izcU/kdksa ds gLrk{kj izekf.kr djukA

2- osru forj.k vf/kfu;e ds vUrxZr lkf/kdkj fu;a=d dh

fu;qfDrA

3- leLr izdkj ds izcU/kdh; fooknA

4- f'k{kdksa ds ofj"Brk lEcU/kh fooknA

5- osru vuqeU;rk ls lEcfU/kr leLr izdj.k U;k;ky;h

izdj.kksa dks NksM+djA

;g lfefr mDr izd.kksa dk ijh{k.k djus ds mijkUr

viuh laLrqfr ml vf/kdkj dks izLrqr djsaxh] tks vf/kfu;eksa

ds vUrxZr bu dk;ksZa dks djus ds fy, vf/kd`r gSA bl

lfefr dh ekg esa nks ckj fu;fer :i ls cSBdsa vk;ksftr

gksaxhA U;k;ky;h izdj.kksa ij mDr lfefr viuh laLrqfr

f'k{kk funs'kd dks izsf"kr djsaxh] ftudh vk[;k ,oa laLrqfr

izkIr gksus ij 'kklu }kjk dk;Zokgh gsrq funsZ'k fn;k tk,xkA

”

(ii)Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submitted that the Regional Level Committee

could not have sat in appeal over the order of

the Assistant Registrar. He submitted that the

order of the Assistant Registrar, having not

been challenged, had attained finality and the

Regional Level Committee could not have

directed that Assistant Registrar to review his

order dated 14.8.2015. In this regard, learned

counsel for the petitioner relied upon a

judgement of this Court reported in 1988

UPLBEC 732 (Committee of Management of

Hindu Inter College, Kosi Kalan vs.

Regional Deputy Director of Education,

11

Agra Region, Agra and Others.

(iii)Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submitted that simply because the Court had

directed the parties to approach the Regional

Level Committee it did not mean that it had

bestowed the Regional Level Committee with

the power to arrogate to itself a jurisdiction

which it did not have. In this regard, learned

counsel for the petitioner relied upon 1993

ACJ 1293 ( Udit Narain Kshetriya High

School Padrauna Deoria through its Secy.

Sri Ram Pratap Narain Singh and Other v.

District Magistrate, Deoria and 2005 (7) SCC

791 (Harshad Chiman Lal Modi v. DLF

Universal Ltd. And another). He submitted

that the Regional Level Committee had to

decide the matter in accordance with law and if

the law did not permit it to decide the issue as

was raised before it then it ought to have kept

its hands away.

(iv)Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submitted that the High Court had by its order

only directed the Regional Level Committee to

decide the dispute in accordance with law. It

had not bestowed any jurisdiction on the

Regional Level Committee.

12

(v)Learned counsel for the petitioner further

submitted that even on merits the order of the

Assistant Registrar dated 14.8.2015 could not

be interfered with as it had interpreted

resolution dated 5.12.2010 by which resolution

no members had been enrolled but a resolution

was there that in future they would be enroled.

He submitted that after the enrolment of the

new members there was also no fresh

resolution accepting the fresh members as

regular members. In this regard, learned

counsel for the petitioner relied upon 2011 (29)

LCD 272 (C/M, Sarvodaya Post Graduate

College vs. State of U.P. And Others).

(vi)Learned counsel had also submitted that

when the Election of the Society alone had to

be looked into then it mattered little that it was

the District Inspector of Schools who

monitored the Elections.

The counsel for the respondent no. 5, however,

in reply, made the following submission. He had

also submitted his written arguments:-

(I) The order dated 14.8.2015 could have been

looked into by the Regional Level Committee

as the order dated 4.1.2016 passed by this

Court was passed on the basis of consent and,

13

therefore, a jurisdiction vested in the Regional

Level Committee to look into the order dated

14.8.2015 which was passed by the Assistant

Registrar. This was the order which was

challenged in the writ petition being Writ

Petition No. 68194 of 2015. When once the

order of the Assistant Registrar Firms,

Societies and Chits, Allahabad had come into

existence and had not been interfered with by

the Court and in fact when the Court had

relegated the parties to approach the Regional

Level Committee then the Regional Level

Committee alone could have looked into the

orders which were impugned in Writ Petition

No. 68194 of 2015. The respondent no. 5 relied

upon 2014 (4) ESC 2341 (Committee of

Management, Public Inter College,

Mandaripur, Bijnor vs. State of U.P. And

Others) to support his case.

(ii)Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5

further submitted that in view of the order

passed on 30.10.2015 in Special Appeal No.

742 of 2015 and in view of the order dated

4.1.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 68194 of

2015 the order passed by the Regional Level

Committee on 25.7.2016 could not be

14

interfered with.

(iii) The respondent no. 5 had drawn the

attention of the Court to the Resolution dated

5.12.2010 and had submitted that the

Resolution dated 5.12.2010 very clearly had

resolved to enrol fresh members. Learned

counsel for the respondents read out the

Resolution No. 3(2) dated 5.12.2010 and,

therefore, the same is being reproduced here as

under:-

“2- Jh f'ko jke f}osnh us izLrko j[kk fd gekjh

lfefr esa vf/kdka'k o;kso`) ,oa ek= lk{kj lnL; gS

blfy, Hkfo"; essa uo ;qod f'kf{kr ,oa fufoZokfnr

lnL; j[ks tkus pkfg, lnj esa izLrko dk Lokxr

djus gq, Hkfo"; esa izLrko ds vuqlkj gh lnL; cuk;s

tkus dk fu.kZ; ft;kA

vU; dksbZ izLrko u tkus ds dkj.k v/;{k

egksn; us vkt gh dk;Zokgh ds lekiu dh ?kks"k.kk dhA

”

(iii) He submits that “Hkfo"; esa izLrko ds vuqlkj gh

lnL; cuk;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k” was such a

statement in the Resolution which gave the

General Body a power to enrol members then

and there. Learned counsel for the respondent

also drew the attention of the Court with regard

to the method in which earlier members were

enrolled and, therefore, submitted that the writ

petition be dismissed.

15

Having heard the learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent no.

5, this Court is of the view that the order dated

25.7.2016 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

The Joint Director of Education/Regional Level

Committee and the Assistant Registrar operated in

different fields and under different enactments. The

Regional Level Committee could have looked into a

dispute, had it arisen between the Committee of

Management of an Intermediate College governed

by the provisions of the Intermediate Education.

However, the Assistant Registrar could not have

done so. The Assistant Registrar could have only

looked into the register of members under Section

4B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. If there

was any dispute with regard to the management,

then he could have referred the same to the

Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the

Societies Registration Act. Furthermore, when the

order dated 14.8.2015 was not challenged and, when

by the order dated 4.1.2016 passed in Writ Petition

No. 68194 of 2015 the Regional Level Committee

was asked to look into the grievance of the

petitioner of that writ petition in accordance with

law then the Court had not bestowed the Regional

Level Committee the jurisdiction to sit in appeal

16

over the order dated 14.8.2015 passed by the

Assistant Registrar. The High Court had also not

bestowed powers on the Regional Level Committee

to the extent that it could have directed the Registrar

to to review his order dated 14.8.2015. When the

writ petition did not adjudicate upon the order

14.8.2015 then the only irresistible conclusion was

that the order dated 14.8.2015 had attained finality.

Further, this Court is of the view that when the High

Court by its order dated 14.1.2016 directed the

parties to approach the Regional Level Committee

then it had not bestowed any power on it and when

the Regional Level Committee was adjudicating the

matter it had to, in the first instance, see if it had any

jurisdiction to look into the controversy as was

placed before it. The Regional Level Committee had

to decide the matter in accordance with law.

Further, on merit, I find that the Resolution

dated 5.12.2010 was only to enroll members in the

future. Still further, I am of the view that as per the

bye-laws if any new member had to be enrolled the

General Body was required to pass a resolution

accepting those members. Since no meeting had

taken place as per the resolution dated 5.12.2010 it

has to be presumed that the members enrolled on

5.12.2010 were not in fact members under any

17

resolution.

In view of what has been observed above, the

order 25.7.2016 passed by the Regional Level

Committee Allahabad cannot be sustained and is set

aside.

The writ petition is allowed.

Order Date :- 8.5.2020

PK