Allowed

C/M of Amar Bahadur Shikshan Sansthan and Another v. State of U P and 4 Others

Allahabad HC11 Nov 2019WRIC/13960/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that a dispute regarding the removal of a society Manager falls under Section 25(1) of the Society Registration Act, 1960, which mandates referral to the prescribed authority for determination, not the Registrar.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was set aside and the dispute regarding the continuation of the petitioner as Manager was directed to be referred to the prescribed authority (Respondent no. 3).

C/M of Amar Bahadur Shikshan Sansthan and Another Vs… — Company and Corporate | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 54

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13960 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Of Amar Bahadur Shikshan Sansthan And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Rai,Chandan Sharma,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Samarath Singh,Sankalp Narain,Shri G.K. Singh (Senior Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ratnakar Upadhyay

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sankalp Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ratnakar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4 and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.

¶6

The petitioners in the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 26.02.2019 passed by Assistant Registrar Firm Societies and Chits, Prayagraj whereby respondent no. 2 has affirmed the removal of petitioner as Manager of the Society namely Amar Bahadur Shikshan Sansthan Ahiri Baraut Handia, Allahabad (hereinafter referred as 'Society') and approved the election of Sri Virendra Pratap Singh as Manager of the Society.

¶7

The last election of Committee of Management of Society was held on 05.10.2016 in which indisputably the petitioner was elected as Manager of the institution. It appears that some differences had cropped up among members of Committee of Management of the Society, and the respondent no. 4 brought certain amendment in the bye-laws of the society on 26.07.2017. It further transpires from the record that respondent no. 4 resolved to accept

¶8

the resignation dated 26.08.2017 of petitioner as Manager of the Society. The resignation of petitioner from the post of Manager as well as amendment in by laws were forwarded to the respondent no. 2, who by order dated 21.4.2018 affirmed the resolution of the respondent no. 4 accepting resignation of the petitioner from the post of Manager.

¶9

The petitioner submitted representation against the order of respondent no. 2 dated 21.4.2018. The respondent no. 2 allowed the representation of the petitioner on 25.06.2018 and set aside the earlier order dated 21.04.2018.

¶10

The respondent no. 4 assailed the order of the respondent no. 2 dated 25.06.2018 in Writ Petition No. 31332 of 2018 wherein this Court on 14.09.2018 rejected the stay application.

¶11

The respondent it appears, thereafter called a meeting on the motion of six members of the society for the removal of the petitioner from the post of Manager. The meeting of the General Body took place on 16.09.2018 in which the General Body passed the resolution removing the petitioner no. 2 from the post of Manager. The proceedings of the meeting of General Body dated 16.09.2018 was forwarded to the respondent no. 2 who by order dated 26.02.2019 accepted the resolution of the General Body of the Society removing the petitioner no. 2 from the post of Manager.

¶12

Assailing the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that indisputably the petitioner was elected as Manager of the institution and his claim has

¶13

further been affirmed by the respondent no. 2 by order dated 14.9.2018 and the meeting alleged to have been called on the motion of the six members of the Society is a device to remove the petitioner from the post illegally in as much as none of the conditions under which the General Body could pass resolution for removal of petitioner no. 2 under bye laws of the Society are present in the case.

¶14

He further submits that if there was any dispute with regard to continuance of office bearers of the society, the only course open to the respondent no. 2 is to refer the matter to the prescribed authority under Section 25(1) of the Society Registration Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred as Act, 1960) and thus, the order impugned is without jurisdiction. In support of said contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (1) ADJ 44 DB.

¶15

Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent though disputed the factual assertion made by the petitioner but concedes on the question of law that if there is a dispute of continuation of office bearer of the society, the respondent no. 2 is under obligation to refer the matter to the prescribed authority/respondent no. 3 instead of deciding the dispute himself.

¶16

The facts narrated above clearly reflects that the petitioner no. 2 has been indisputably elected as Manager of the society and further resolution of respondent no. 4 removing the petitioner from the post of Manager on the

¶17

ground of resignation was set aside by respondent no. 2 on 25.06.2018. The respondent no. 4 could not obtain any interim order in the Writ Petition No. 31332 of 2018 challenging the aforesaid order of respondent no. 2. Thus, it is evident from the fact on record that the question as to whether petitioner no. 2 can continue as Manager of the Society is basically a dispute of continuance of office bearers of the society. This Court in the case of Committee of Management Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj (supra) has held that if there is dispute or doubt in respect of election or continuance of office bearers of the Society, the same is to be determined by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1960 and not by the Registrar himself.

¶18

Thus, for the reasons given above, the order impugned is without jurisdiction, as such it is not sustainable in law, and is accordingly set aside. The respondent no. 2 is directed to refer the dispute to the respondent no. 3 within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. The respondent no. 3 is further directed to transmit the records of the case to the prescribed authority within said period. The respondent no. 3 shall decide the dispute within a period of four months, thereafter, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶19

The writ petition is allowed subject to observations above.

¶20

Order Date :- 11.11.2019 Mohit

C/M of Amar Bahadur Shikshan Sansthan and Another v. State of U P and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M of Amar Bahadur Shikshan Sansthan and Another v. State of U P and 4 Others

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

Parasuram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Km. Kumkum Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rajan Tripathi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Virendra Rai Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sudhir Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and Another

C/M Darul Uloom Alimia Jamdashahi and Another Vs State of U.P. and Another