Allowed

Resident Welfare Association Purvanchal Silver CITY-2 v. Deputy Registrar Societies Firms and Chits Fund and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC21 Mar 2018WRIC/47631/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court consolidated four writ petitions challenging orders of the Deputy Registrar and Prescribed Authority regarding elections of a Resident Welfare Association. The bench quashed orders declaring previous elections illegal due to alleged bye-law deviations and lack of audited accounts. The court directed recognition of the Board elected on 18.06.2017.

What did the court decide?

Orders of Deputy Registrar and Prescribed Authority set aside; office bearers elected on 18.06.2017 recognized; audit directed to be completed.

Resident Welfare Association Purvanchal Silver… — Cooperative Societies | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. 2

¶2

Reserved

¶3

Case :- WRIT- C No. - 47631 of 2016

¶4

Petitioner :- Resident Welfare Association Purvanchal Silver City-2 Respondent :- Deputy Registrar, Societies, Firms And Chits & 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh, Prashant Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ananya Pandey, Rajesh Chandra Dwivedi

¶5

Connected with

¶6

Case :- WRIT- C No. - 59931 of 2016

¶7

Petitioner :- Resident Welfare Association Purvanchal Silver City-2 Respondent :- Deputy Registrar (Societies, Firms And Chits) & 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Dinesh Kumar Singh, Prashant, Nikhil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhyay, Smt. Mukal Srivastava, Saurabh Sinha, B.B. Jauhari

¶8

Connected with

¶9

Case :- WRIT- C No. - 1413 of 2018

¶10

Petitioner :- Resident Welfare Association Purvanchal Silver City-2 Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manjari Singh, Kunal Ravi Singh, G.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhyay, Smt. Mukal Srivastava, Saurabh Sinha, R.K. Pandey, Shashi Nandan

¶11

Connected with

¶12

Case :- WRIT- C No. - 5173 of 2018

¶13

Petitioner :- Smt. Swati Bansal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prashant, Nikhil Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anjali Upadhyay, Smt. Mukal Srivastava, Saurabh Sinha, B.B. Jauhari

¶14

Hon'ble Ram Surat Ram (Maurya),J.

¶15

Heard Sri G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Kunal Ravi Singh, Sri Nikhil Kumar and Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh, for the petitioners and Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Saurabh Sinha, Sri R.K. Pandey, Sri B.B. Jauhari and Ms. Sudha Pandey, holding brief of Ms. Anjali Upadhaya, for the respondents, in the aforementioned writ petitions. As common issues of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions as such these writ petitions were consolidated and heard together.

¶16

¶17

Writ-C No. 47631 of 2016 has been filed for quashing order of Deputy Registrar, dated 14.09.2016, holding that the term of Board of Management of the Society, Resident Welfare Association Purvanchal Silver City-2, has expired and requesting District Magistrate to permit to hold election of Board of Management under Section 25 (2) of Societies Registration Act, 1860.

¶18

Writ-C No. 59931 of 2016 has been filed for quashing order of Deputy Registrar, dated 04.11.2016, who while deciding the representation of Pankaj Jain, held that election dated 28.02.2016 of Board of Management of the Society, Resident Welfare Association Purvanchal Silver City-2, was not held according to the provisions of Model Bye-laws as such cannot be recognized.

¶19

Writ-C No. 1413 of 2018 has been filed for quashing order of Prescribed Authority, dated 21.12.2017, holding that Bye-laws of the society was not according to Model Bye-laws nor the office bearers got the accounts of the society audited as such membership has not been correctly decided and elections of Board of Management of the Society, Resident Welfare Association Purvanchal Silver City-2, held on 18.12.2016 and 18.06.2017 were illegal and order of Deputy Registrar dated 30.12.2017, proceeding to hold election of Board of Management under Section 25 (2) of Societies Registration Act, 1860 and appointing receiver of the society.

¶20

Writ-C No. 5173 of 2018 has been filed for quashing order of Prescribed Authority, dated 21.12.2017, holding that Bye-laws of the society was not according to Model Bye-laws nor the office bearers got the accounts of the society audited as such membership has not been correctly decided and elections of Board of Management of the Society, Resident Welfare Association Purvanchal Silver City-2, held on 18.12.2016 and 18.06.2017 were illegal and order of Deputy Registrar dated 30.12.2017, proceeding to hold election of Board of Management under Section 25 (2) of Societies Registration Act, 1860 and appointing receiver of the society and for mandamus directing the competent authority to restore position of Resident Welfare Association, as on 29.12.2017.

¶21

Resident Welfare Association, Purvanchal Silver City-2, Plot No. 10, Estate Chorasia, Sector-Pi-2, Greater Noida (hereinafter referred to as the association) was formed by the residents of the apartment, situated at Plot-10,

¶22

¶23

for the purposes of administration of the affairs and properties appertaining to the apartment, management of common area and the facilities. The society was carrying on its activities for welfare of the residents of apartment for last several years and Pankaj Jain was elected as President/Secretary time to time up to 27.02.2016. The association was registered under the provisions of Society Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 28.09.2010. Its Registration number is 888 of 2010-11.

¶24

State of U.P. enacted U.P. Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2010”), (by which U.P. Ownership of Flats Act, 1975 was repealed), which came into force on 13.02.2010. In exercise of powers under Section 30 of the Act, 2010, State of U.P. framed U.P. Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Rules, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) w.e.f. 16.11.2011. Section 14 (6) of the Act, 2010 authorizes State of U.P. to frame Model Bye-laws for the residents associations. State of U.P. also framed Model Bye-laws along with the Rules, 2011. Section 14 (6) of the Act, 2010 provides for adaption of Model Bye-laws, by every association.

¶25

General body of the association adapted model bye-laws in its meeting dated 24.11.2011 and submitted it to Deputy Registrar for its registration. Thereafter, some amendments were made in it on 06.05.2012 and 13.05.2012, as suggested by Deputy Registrar. Deputy Registrar, thereafter, registered the bye-laws on 08.09.2014. Deputy Registrar forwarded the byelaws to Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida, for his approval, who declined to grant approval, on the ground that Model Bye-laws was not adapted in verbatim. Bye-laws of the association was again drafted as directed of Chief Executive Officer. Nodal Officer, Greater Noida called for a special meeting of the general body of association for adaptation of the byelaws as drafted afresh. General body of the association, in its meeting dated 30.09.2014, adapted the bye-laws as provided by Chief Executive Officer. One Neelam Ahi again filed her objection against the bye-laws. She also filed Writ Petition No. 55792 of 2014, challenging the bye-laws, which was disposed of, by order dated 16.10.2014, directing Chief Executive Officer to decide the objection of Neelam Ahi. Chief Executive Officer, by his order

¶26

¶27

dated 01.04.2015 held the bye-laws was not in terms of Model Bye-laws. Deputy Registrar, by his order dated 28.04.2015 de-recognised the bye-laws.

¶28

Deputy Registrar also referred the dispute relating to election of office bearers of Board of Management of the association on 11.05.2015 to Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act. Prescribed Authority by its order dated 16.07.2015, held that election of office bearers of Board of Management was illegal. Deputy Registrar, by order dated 29.07.2015, appointed an Administrator for holding election of Board of Management. These orders were challenged in Writ-C Nos. 42123 and 42202 of 2015, which were disposed of, by judgment dated 16.10.2015, holding that byelaws of the association was not framed according to Model Bye-laws. As such the impugned orders were not liable to be set aside. However, Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida was directed (i) to form the association of apartment owners, (ii) the association so formed should adapt Model Byelaws and submit it for registration to Deputy Registrar, with elected office bearers, (iii) and so forth. This judgment was upheld in Special Appeal No. 815 of 2015 by judgment dated 04.11.2015.

¶29

In compliance of the aforesaid judgment, Deputy Chief Executive Officer called for a meeting of the residents of apartment on 29.11.2015, for the purposes of formation of the association and adaption of Model Bye-laws, in which Model Bye-laws was adapted with necessary modification. The general body formed an interim committee of 5 members, to discharge functions of the association, by way of interim measure. Deputy Chief Executive Officer forwarded the bye-laws as adapted on 29.11.2015 to Deputy Registrar for its registration, which was registered by Deputy Registrar on 12.12.2015. Deputy Chief Executive Officer, thereafter proceeded to decide valid electoral roll. He invited objections of the residents/owners of the apartment. He, by his order dated 05.02.2016, held that only those owners can participate in the election of Board of Management for the year 2015-16, against whom, annual maintenance charges were not due on 31.01.2015. He directed Election Officer/Tahsildar to prepare Voter List accordingly. Election Officer prepared Voter List of 394 persons. Election Officer held election of Board of Management on

¶30

¶31

28.02.2016, in which Vishal Sharma and Govind Baboo were elected as the president and secretary respectively and 8 other members of Board of Management were elected.

¶32

Deputy Chief Executive Officer submitted the papers relating to election dated 28.02.2016 to Deputy Registrar for its registration. It appears that no one challenged the election dated 28.02.2016. Later on Pankaj Jain filed an objection before Deputy Registrar that according to the bye-laws annual general meeting for holding election of Board of Management was required to be held in June, 2016 which was not held as such term of Board of Management as elected on 28.02.2016 has expired; he requested Deputy Registrar to hold fresh election in exercise of powers under Section 25 (2) of the Act. Deputy Registrar, by his order dated 14.09.2016, held that under Clause-13 of the bye-laws, annual meeting of the association was required to be held on last Sunday of June of the year. In June, 2016 no election was held as such term of Board of Management elected on 28.02.2016 has expired. He wrote a letter to District Magistrate seeking permission to hold election in exercise of powers under Section 25 (2) of the Act. Writ-C No. 47631 of 2016 has been filed against order of Deputy Registrar, dated 14.09.2016,in which operation of the order dated 14.9.2016, has been stayed on 30.09.2016.

¶33

Deputy Registrar, thereafter, passed another order dated 04.11.2016 that under clause-7 of the bye-laws, if a member is in arrears of dues in respect of his contribution for common expenses for more than sixty days on the last day of the year preceding the year in which election was held then he is disqualified. Out of 10 persons elected on 28.02.2016, there were dues against 9 persons as such they were not qualified to participate/elected in the election and election dated 28.02.2016 of Board of Management of the association, was not held according to the provisions of the bye-laws as such cannot be recognized. This order has been challenged in Writ-C No. 59931 of 2016, in which operation of order of Deputy Registrar, dated 04.11.2016, has been stayed by order dated 20.12.2016. Pankaj Jain has also filed a writ petition (registered as Writ-C No. 56209 of 2016) for mandamus, directing Chief Executive Officer to hold election of Board of Management, in compliance of the order dated 04.11.2016, which is pending.

¶34

¶35

As Deputy Registrar has held that term of Board of Management as elected on 28.02.2016 has expired, Board of Management proceeded to hold fresh election. Notice dated 14.11.2016 was circulated, fixing 18.12.2016 as the date for election of office bearers of Board of Management. Election of office bearers of Board of Management was held on 18.12.2016. Pankaj Jain challenged the election dated 18.12.2016, in Writ-C No. 7579 of 2017, which was dismissed by this Court, by judgment dated 27.02.2017, on the ground of alternative remedy. Pankaj Jain then filed his objection before Deputy Registrar on 27.03.2017 and requested to refer the dispute relating to the election dated 18.12.2016 to Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1), on which Deputy Registrar has sent reference under Section 25 (1) of the Act, which was registered as Case No. 2 of 2017.

¶36

Board of Management, by its resolution dated 21.05.2017, declared fresh election of office bearers to be held on 18.06.2017 and requested Chief Executive Officer to appoint an observer. Chief Executive Officer through his letter dated 08.06.2017 asked the office bearers to supply audited balance sheet of FY 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17, Voter List and copy of registered bye-laws. Deputy Registrar also issued a letter dated 13.06.2017 to a Charted Accountant to conduct audit of FY 2015-16 and 2016-17. This letter dated 13.06.2017 was challenged in Writ-C No. 30242 of 2017, which was disposed of, by order dated 18.07.2017, with direction to Chief Executive Officer to appoint an auditor for conducting audit of the accounts from the very inception of the association till date within three months. In the meantime, audit in pursuance of the letter dated 13.06.2017 may go on. Deputy Registrar wrote another letter dated 02.08.2017, directing the secretary of the association to get the accounts audited as directed by letter dated 13.06.2017. As the record of the association were with the earlier office bearers as admitted that Pankaj Jain was elected as President/Secretary time to time up to 27.02.2016 and they did not handover the records in spite of various efforts made by Govind Baboo, present secretary as such audit of the accounts of the association could not be proceeded. Ultimately Deputy Registrar by order dated 30.12.2017, appointed an interim committee of 5 members and directed to run day to day activities of the association.

¶37

¶38

In the meantime election of office bearers of Board of Management was held on 18.06.2017. When the papers relating to election dated 18.06.2017 was forwarded to Deputy Registrar for registration, then he through his letter dated 09.08.2017 again referred the dispute under Section 25 (1) of the Act, which was registered as Case No. 5 of 2017. Earlier reference was registered as Case No. 2 of 2017. Both the cases were consolidated and decided by Prescribed Authority by a common order dated 21.12.2017. Prescribed Authority found that the bye-laws of the association was not in verbatim of Model Bye-laws as such office bearers elected according to this bye-laws cannot be legally recognized. Board of Management elected on 18.12.2016 did not get the account of the association audited. In the absence of audited balance sheet, membership of Voter List is also doubtful as such elections dated 18.12.2016 and 18.06.2017 were illegal. The orders of Prescribed Authority dated 21.12.2017 and Deputy Registrar dated 30.12.2017 are challenged in Writ-C Nos. 1413 and 5173 of 2018.

¶39

The counsel for the petitioners submitted that in compliance of direction of this Court dated 16.10.2015 and 04.11.2015, bye-laws of the association was redrafted in supervision of Chief Executive Officer. Deputy Chief Executive Officer held a meeting of the owners of apartment on 29.11.2015, for formation of the association and adaption of the bye-laws in which the association was formed and the bye-laws was adapted. Deputy Chief Executive Officer send this bye-laws to Deputy Registrar for registration, which was registered on 12.12.2015. Deputy Chief Executive Officer, thereafter, invited objections of owners of the apartment, for finalizing the membership/electoral college. He, by his order dated 05.02.2016, held that only those owners can participate in the election of Board of Management for the year 2015-16, against whom, annual maintenance charges was not due on 31.01.2015. He directed Election Officer/Tahsildar to prepare Voter List accordingly. Election Officer prepared Voter List of 394 persons and held election of Board of Management on 28.02.2016, in which Vishal Sharma was elected as the President, Govind Baboo was elected as the secretary and 8 other members of Board of Management were elected. Thereafter, elections of Board of Management was held on 18.12.2016 and 18.06.2017, by the

¶40

¶41

office bearers. Under clause-26 (i) of the bye-laws of the association, term of Board of Management is one year and under clause-26 (iii) of the bye-laws, the office bearers shall hold office until their successor is elected. The order of Deputy Registrar, dated 14.09.2016, holding that term of Board of Management elected on 28.02.2016 has expired is illegal. In any case, the office bearers elected on 28.02.2016 would continue till election of their successors. Elections of Board of Management, held on 18.12.2016 and 18.06.2017, by the office bearers were valid. When the order of Deputy Registrar dated 14.09.2016 has been stayed by this Court on 30.09.2016, then Deputy Registrar, malafide passed another order dated 04.11.2016, holding that election dated 28.02.2016 was not held according to the provisions of the bye-laws inasmuch as under clause-7 of the bye-laws, if a member is in arrears of dues in respect of his contribution for common expenses for more than sixty days on the last day of the year proceeding the year in which election was held then he is disqualified, as such election dated 28.02.2016 cannot be recognized. This Court by order dated 16.10.2015 has specifically directed to permit the owners to deposit Rs. 1000/- within stipulated time for enrollment as a member of the association. The owners, who had deposited Rs. 1000/- has become member of the association as formed on 29.11.2015. Deputy Chief Executive Officer, by his order dated 05.02.2016, held that only those owners can participate in the election of Board of Management for the year 2015-16, against whom, annual maintenance charges was not due on 31.01.2015. He directed Election Officer/Tahsildar to prepare Voter List accordingly. Election Officer prepared Voter List of 394 persons and held election dated 28.02.2016, under supervision of Chief Executive Officer. Election dated 28.02.2016 has not been challenged by any member. Deputy Registrar, while passing the order dated 04.11.2016 has over-looked the direction of this Court. In clause-26 (i) of the bye-laws, the words “of the month of June” are missed due to typographical error, but these words are mentioned in clause-13 of the bye-laws. The other changes i.e. name of the association etc. have to be necessarily made as the places which are blank in Model Bye-laws and to be filled according to particular association. The provision for holding annual general meeting 'on last Sunday of the month of June of each calendar year' is directory and means that annual general

¶42

¶43

meeting for the purposes of election of Board of Management has to be completed in the month of June. Date of meeting can be fixed by the office bearers according to the convenience of the members. There is no illegality if the election of Board of Management was held on 18.06.2017, without any objection to any member. Use of 'calendar year' in place of 'financial year' in clause-13 of the bye-laws does not make any difference inasmuch as in both the contingency month of June fixed for annual meeting will remain unchanged. Prescribed Authority has illegally held that as the Model Byelaws has not been adapted as such members of Board of Management would become illegal ipso facto. So far as the objection relating audit of the accounts of the association is concerned, Pankaj Jain was through out the secretary/ president of the association prior to election dated 28.02.2016 as such all the papers relating to the association were in his possession. In election dated 28.02.2016, Govind Baboo was elected as the secretary. Govind Baboo wrote letter dated 28.03.2016 to Deputy Registrar that the out going office bearers had not handed over the papers relating to association and requested to direct them to hand over all the papers relating to the association, exercising powers under Section 23 of the Act. Govind Baboo also wrote letters dated 25.05.2016 dated 07.09.2016 to Chief Executive Officer, copy of which was also given to District Magistrate. None of the authorities have taken any step to direct the out going office bearers to hand over papers to present office bearers. Govind Baboo got the accounts audited for FY 2016-17 from a Charted Accountant and submitted the report dated 29.07.2017. The order of Prescribed Authority is liable to be set aside.

¶44

In reply to the aforesaid arguments, the counsel for the respondents submitted that in the meeting dated 29.11.2015, an interim committee was constituted to give final shape of the bye-laws of the association adapting Model Bye-laws. Interim committee has taken over the office of the association and prepared financial statement on 30.11.2015. Pankaj Jain also handed over a list of Sundry Debtors dated 30.11.2015, in which 10 elected office bearers, in election dated 28.02.2016, were shown in dues. Under clause-7 of the bye-laws, if a member is in arrears of dues in respect of his contribution for common expenses for more than sixty days on the last day of

¶45

¶46

the year proceeding the year in which election was held then he is disqualified. Elected members were not qualified to become member of electoral college. Entire election was illegal. Deputy Registrar and Prescribed Authority both found that the bye-laws as adapted on 29.11.2015 was not in accordance with Model Bye-laws as such elections held on its basis is illegal and cannot be recognized. In clause-13 of the bye-laws, the words 'calendar year' has been mentioned in place of 'financial year'. In clause-26 (i) the words 'of the month of June' are missing which are substantial omission due to which in stead of holding election of the office bearers in June, the election was held on 18.12.2016, which is not in conformity of the Model Bye-laws. The office bearers elected on 18.12.2016 had no right to conduct election on 18.06.2017. In any case, the election dated 18.06.2017 is illegal and cannot be recognized. Under Section 23 of the Act, the office bearers are liable to submit audit report in every financial year. The office bearers have failed to submit audit report of the association in spite of letters of Chief Executive Officer dated 08.06.2017 and Deputy Registrar 13.06.2017, 19.09.2017 and 13.10.2017 as such the order of Prescribed Authority holding elections dated 18.12.2016 and 18.06.2017 as illegal does not suffer from any illegality. The writ petitions have no merit and are liable to be dismissed.

¶47

I have considered the arguments of the counsel for the parties and examined the record. This Court, in judgment dated 16.10.2015, passed in Writ-C Nos. 42123 and 42202 of 2015, has held that bye-laws of the association was not framed according to Model Bye-laws and directed Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida (i) to form the association of apartment owners, (ii) to get adapted Model Bye-laws by the association so formed and submit it for registration to Deputy Registrar, with elected office bearers, (iii) to grant recognition to the registered association, (iv) to conduct election of Board of Management under his supervision, (v) to prepare electoral roll according to Section 12 (1) (f) read with Rule-3 (vi) to permit apartment owners to deposit entrance fee of Rs. 1000/-, (vii) to prepare voter list, (viii) to hold election of Board of Management etc. This judgment has been upheld in Special Appeal No. 815 of 2015 by judgment dated 04.11.2015. From the aforementioned directions, it is clear that Chief Executive Officer, Greater

¶48

¶49

Noida was directed to form a fresh association of apartment owners, taking entrance fee of Rs. 1000/- from the apartment owners, according to clause-4 of the Model Bye-laws. Chief Executive Officer, Greater Noida in compliance of the aforesaid directions formed the association of apartment owners and held first special meeting of the general body on 29.11.2015, in which the bye-laws of the association has been adapted in terms of Model Bye-laws. This bye-laws was registered by Deputy Registrar on 12.12.2015.

¶50

Deputy Chief Executive Officer, thereafter proceeded to decide valid electoral roll. He invited objections of the residents/owners of the apartment. He, by order dated 05.02.2016, held that only those owners can participate in the election of Board of Management for the year 2015-16, against whom, annual maintenance charges was not due on 31.01.2015. He directed Election Officer/Tahsildar to prepare Voter List accordingly. Election Officer prepared Voter List of 394 persons. Election Officer held election of Board of Management on 28.02.2016. Election dated 28.02.2016 was not challenged by any body. At a later stage, Pankaj Jain began to say that the office bearers who were elected on 28.02.2016 were in dues as such they were disqualified for becoming member of electoral college according to clause-7 of the byelaws. The order of Deputy Registrar dated 04.11.2016 holding that under clause-7 of the bye-laws, if a member was in arrears of dues in respect of his contribution for common expenses for more than sixty days on the last day of the year proceeding the year in which election was held then he is disqualified; Out of 10 persons elected on 28.02.2016, there were dues against 9 persons as such they were not qualified to participate/elected in election and election dated 28.02.2016 of Board of Management of the association was not held according to the provisions of the bye-laws as such cannot be recognized, is illegal. This plea is not liable to be accepted, inasmuch as Deputy Chief Executive Officer invited objection against electoral roll but no objection was filed. Otherwise also when fresh association was formed, after taking entrance fee of Rs. 1000/- from apartment owners, then no question of disqualification of these new members arises under clause-7 of the bye-laws. Under clause-7 of the bye-laws, if a member was in arrears of dues in respect of his contribution for common

¶51

¶52

expenses for more than sixty days on the last day of the year proceeding the year in which election was held then he is disqualified. If the dues was not in respect of common expenses, clause-7 will not be attracted.

¶53

Order of Deputy Registrar, dated 14.09.2016, holding that under Clause-13 of the bye-laws, annual meeting of the association was required to be held on last Sunday of June of the year; In June, 2016 no election was held as such term of Board of Management elected on 28.02.2016 has expired, is illegal, inasmuch as he has failed to notice that under clause-26 (i) registered bye-laws, in which term of Board of Management was one year from the date of assuming office and under clause-26 (iii) the office bearers are entitled to hold office till election of his successors. In none of contingency, Deputy Registrar has jurisdiction to exercise powers under Section 25 (2) of the Act.

¶54

Findings of Prescribed Authority that the bye-laws of the association was not in verbatim of Model Bye-laws is vague inasmuch as he has not pointed out any difference in the bye-laws of the association with Model Bye-laws. The objection of the respondents is that in clause-13 'calendar year' was mentioned in place of 'financial year'. Use of 'calendar year' in clause-13 of the bye-laws does not make any difference inasmuch as in both the contingency month of June, fixed for annual meeting, as mentioned in clauses-13 and 26 (i) of the bye-laws, will remain unchanged. Second objection is that in clause-26 (i) the words “of the month of June” are missed. This was a typographical error. These words are mentioned in clause-13 of the bye-laws, which is for 'annual meeting'. The other changes i.e. name of the association etc. have to be necessarily made as the places in this respect are blank in Model Bye-laws and to be filled according to particular association.

¶55

The provision for holding annual general meeting 'on last Sunday of the month of June of each calendar year' are directory could only mean that annual meeting for election of office bearers has to be held till end of June. Date of meeting can be fixed by the office bearers according to the convenience of the members. There is no illegality if the election of Board of Management was held on 18.06.2017, without any objection to any member.

¶56

Other ground taken by Prescribed Authority that Board of Management

¶57

¶58

elected on 18.12.2016 did not get the account of the association audited; In the absence of audited balance sheet, membership of Voter List is also doubtful as such elections dated 18.12.2016 and 18.06.2017 were illegal. In election dated 28.02.2016, Govind Baboo was elected as the secretary. Govind Baboo wrote letter dated 28.03.2016 to Deputy Registrar that the out going office bearers had not handed over the papers relating to association and requested to direct them to hand over all the papers relating to the association, in exercise of powers under Section 23 of the Act. Govind Baboo also wrote letters dated 25.05.2016 dated 07.09.2016 to Chief Executive Officer, copy of which was also given to District Magistrate, in this respect. None of the authorities have taken any step to direct the out going office bearers to hand over papers to present office bearers. Govind Baboo got the accounts audited for FY 2016-17 from a Charted Accountant submitted the report dated 29.07.2017. In Counter Affidavit of Pankaj Jain, it is admitted that previous papers were handed over to the present office bearers on 13.01.2018. On this ground, election cannot be held as invalid.

¶59

Deputy Registrar issued a letter dated 13.06.2017 to conduct audit of FY 2015-16 and 2016-17 by a Charted Accountant. This letter dated 13.06.2017 was challenged in Writ-C No. 30242 of 2017, which was disposed of, by order dated 18.07.2017, with direction to Chief Executive Officer to appoint an auditor for conducting audit of the accounts from the very inception of the association till date within three months. In the meantime, audit in pursuance of the letter dated 13.06.2017 may go on.

¶60

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petitions succeed and are allowed. The orders of Deputy Registrar dated 14.09.2016, 04.11.2016 and 30.12.2017, and Prescribed Authority, dated 21.12.2017 are set aside. Deputy Registrar and Chief Executive Officer shall recognize the office bearers elected on 18.06.2017 without any objection. If any previous paper has not been handed over to present office bearers of Board of Management, then Deputy Registrar shall obtain those papers exercising his powers under Section 23 of the Act and hand over it to present office bearers within a reasonable time, so that audit shall be completed.

¶61

Order dated : 21.03.2018/mt

Resident Welfare Association Purvanchal Silver CITY-2 v. Deputy Registrar Societies Firms and Chits Fund and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Resident Welfare Association Purvanchal Silver CITY-2 v. Deputy Registrar Societies Firms and Chits Fund and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajkumar Sharma Vs Uttar Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and 2 Others

Ambika Prasad Tiwari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravindra Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. and Another

Barati Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Hemand Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

Dayaram Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others