Disposed

Rohtas Presidential Towers Residents Welfare Association Thru President Sudhir Thakur and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Finance Lko and Ors.

Allahabad HC2 Dec 2024WRIC/6829/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged an order directing fresh elections by holding the society time barred. Court stayed implementation of impugned order while requiring respondents to file counter affidavit and fixing next hearing.

What did the court decide?

Stay on operation and implementation of impugned order dated 24.07.2024 until next date.

Rohtas Presidential Towers Residents… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 7

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6829 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Rohtas Presidential Towers Residents Welfare Association Thru President Sudhir Thakur And Anr. Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Finance Lko And Ors.

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Shukla,Ashish Kumar Mishra,Ghulam Waris

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shyam Mohan Pradhan

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Vivek Raj Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Pramod Kumar Shukla learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for State-respondent and Sri Shyam Mohan Pradhan, learned counsel for respondent No. 5.

¶8

By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.07.2024 passed by Dy. Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits in exercise of powers under Section 25(2) of Registration of Societies Act, 1860 thereby holding that the petitioner society is time barred and passing further orders for a direction to hold election without cancelling elections held by the petitioner.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner is the Resident Welfare Association duly registered under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Apartment (Promotion of Construction, Ownership and Maintenance) Act, 2010. The last election of the petitioner society was held on 12.02.2023.

¶10

It has further been stated that the list of elected members were duly submitted to the Registrar for his approval which was granted on 23.06.2023 and the signatures of the petitioner were attested on 28.07.2023. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the term of the Committee of management would be w.e.f. 28.07.2023 when the signatures were attested by the Dy. Registrar and the concerned bank.

¶11

It has further been submitted that on the expiry of its term the fresh elections were conducted by the petitioner association by issuing notification on 02.04.2024 and the elections were concluded on 23.06.2024 when the results were declared. After the elections have been conducted, the impugned order has been passed on 24.07.2024 directing for fresh elections to he held as the petitioner society has become time barred.

¶12

Learned counsel for petitioner has vehemently submitted that in pursuance to the notice issued by Dy. Registrar and even otherwise the petitioner had duly intimated to the Dy. Registrar about the elections held on 13.06.2024 by means of letter dated 25.06.2024. Despite intimation with regard to elections being held by means of impugned order, the Dy. Registrar has held the petitioner's society to be time barred and directed for holding of fresh election. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case Vinod Kumar Varshney Vs. State of U.P. and others (Civil Misc. Writ Petiton No. 54357 of 2015) wherein in it has been held that " In the light of the aforesaid, our answer to question No. 1 is that the Committee of management even after the expiry of its term can convene a meeting for the purpose of holding an election unless it is specifically barred under the Rules of its society. Such right continues till such time the Registrar passes an order under Section 25(2) of the Act after which no further meeting could be convened thereafter by the Committee of management in view of Sub-Section (3) of Section 25 of the Act."

¶13

It has been stated that in the bye laws of the society, the term of the office of the office bearers of the Committee of Management shall be one year from the date of assuming office and shall be eligible for re-election.

¶14

It is stated that there is no provision in the bye laws restraining the elected Committee of Management from holding fresh elections after expiry of its term of its office. Accordingly, it has been stated that there was no order passed by the Dy. Registrar under Section 25(2) of the Act prior to holding of the election of the petitioner society and consequently the impugned order is illegal and arbitrary.

¶15

Sri Shyam Mohan Pradhan, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 has vehemently opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that term of the Committee of Management had expired on 11.02.2024 inasmuch as they were elected on 12.02.2023 and the term as provided for in the bye laws is one year. He further submits that after expiry of its term, the petitioner society has no jurisdiction or power to hold elections and any election could have been held only by the orders of the Dy. Registrar under Section 25(2) of the Act which order has been passed on 24.07.2024 which has been impugned in the present writ petition.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.

¶17

Even if the objections of the respondents are accepted to the extent that the term of the petitioner society came to an end on 11.02.2024 after completing one year in office, the said Committee could have conducted elections unless and until any order was passed by the Dy. Registrar under Section 25 (2) of the Act prior to holding of such elections.

¶18

In the present case, it is not in dispute that no order has been passed by the Dy. Registrar directing the society to hold elections and consequently prima facie the petitioner society could have held elections. The matter require consideration.

¶19

Sri Piyush Kumar Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No. 4 and submitted that he shall upload his Vakalatnama on the website.

¶20

Let a counter affidavit be filed by the respondents within two weeks from today. Petitioner shall have one week thereafter to file a rejoinder affidavit.

¶21

List this case on 12.09.2024.

¶22

Till the next date of listing, operation and implementation of impugned order dated 24.07.2024 shall remain stayed.

¶23

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶24

Order Date :- 9.8.2024 Ravi/

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rohtas Presidential Towers Residents Welfare Association Thru President Sudhir Thakur and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Finance Lko and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohtas Presidential Towers Residents Welfare Association Thru President Sudhir Thakur and Anr. v. State of U.P. Thru Addl.Chief Secy. Finance Lko and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Mukesh Kumar Pandey vs Tehsildar Judicial, Tehsil Rudauli, Ayodhya and Another

Tilak Chandra Soni vs Board of Revenue, U.P. Lucknow Thru. Chairman and 4 Others

Vikram Singh and 3 Others vs Dy. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and 4 Others

Ayub Khan Vs Divisional Commissioner, Ayodhya and 4 Others

Riyaz Ahmad Khan and Others Vs District Magistrate / District Deputy Director of Consolidation, Balrampur and Others

Vinod Kumar and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others