Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Raj Mohan Singh, J.
Handball Federation Of India - Appellant
Versus
State Of Haryana & Ors. – Respondents
CWP No. 14516 of 2022 (O&M)
Decided On : 09-08-2022
certiorari - Election Dispute - Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012, Section 33(2), 33(4), 33(5), 72 - The court discussed the compliance requirements of Sections 33(2), 33(4), and 33(5) of the HRRS Act, 2012 for the approval of the governing body after holding an election. It emphasized that the constitution of the governing body shall be valid only upon approval, and the tenure of the governing body shall commence from the date of approval. The court found that the election held on 01.11.2020 could not remain in operation due to the lack of mandatory compliance, and the governing body never came into existence for want of approval. Therefore, the court dismissed the writ petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to quash an order appointing an Administrator for the petitioner-Society and setting aside the election of the Governing Body. The dispute arose from the alleged non-approval of the governing body by the competent authority as required under Section 33(5) of the HRRS Act, 2012.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the election held on 01.11.2020 could not remain in operation due to the lack of mandatory compliance for approval of the governing body. It concluded that the writ petition was devoid of merits and dismissed it.
Issues: The issues revolved around the approval of the governing body under Section 33(5) of the HRRS Act, 2012, and the validity of the election held on 01.11.2020.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the mandatory compliance requirements of Sections 33(2), 33(4), and 33(5) of the HRRS Act, 2012 for the approval of the governing body after holding an election. It held that the election process could not be complete without such approval.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding it devoid of merits.
JUDGMENT
Raj Mohan Singh, J. - Present writ petition has been preferred for the issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 05.07.2022 passed by respondent No.2 whereby order dated 11.11.2021 passed by respondent No.3 has been set aside. Respondent No.2 has directed respondent No.4 to appoint an Arbitrator to conduct the elections of the Governing Body of the petitioner and to manage the affairs for the intervening period.
2. Election of the petitioner-Society was held on 01.11.2020. According to the petitioner, an intimation in respect of newly elected body was given to the District Registrar, but the same could not uploaded on the portal of the Society due to non-functioning of the site. Intimation and list of newly elected Governing Body along with resolution were brought to the notice of District Register of Societies, Rohtak. Respondent No.9 filed a complaint before respondent No.4 against the aforesaid election dated 01.11.2020. Respondent No.4 sought reply from the petitioner. Petitioner filed its reply to the said complaint along with orders passed by the Delhi High Court in WP(C) No.7029 of 2020 and WP(C) No.8530 of 2020 filed by respondent No.9. Vide the aforesaid orders passed by the Delhi High Court, prayers for cancellation of meeting of the Executive Committee dated 27.09.2020 before election, issuance of writ of certiorari to cancel the Annual General Meeting to be held on 31.10.2020 and to restrain the petitioner-Society to conduct elections etc. were rejected.
3. According to the petitioner, respondent No.9 was filing false and frivolous complaints against the petitioner and, therefore, the petitioner-Society approached respondent No.2 on 23.12.2020, raising the issue of filing false complaints by respondent No.9 without any locus standi. Petitioner also informed respondent No.2 about the mala fide design of respondent No.9 in which petitioner was not allowed to upload the information about the newly elected Governing Body on the website of the Department. Petitioner also submitted a letter dated 14.12.2020 to respondent No.4 which was received in the office of respondent No.4 on 17.12.2020. Petitioner-Society received a letter dated 26.02.2021 from respondent No.4 in respect of complaint filed by respondent No.9, requiring the petitioner to respond in the context of letter dated 22.01.2021, whereby respondent No.3 had directed respondent No.4 to examine and decide the letters dated 28.11.2020 and 18.01.2021 filed by respondent No.9 against the petitioner - Society.
4. Petitioner filed CWP No.10079 of 2021 in the High Court. Learned State counsel appeared on the basis of advance notice on 28.06.2021 and submitted before the Court that the complaints dated 28.11.2020 and 18.01.2021 shall be decided within eight weeks. In view of specific stand of respondent No.4, writ petition was disposed of by directing respondent No.4 to decide the aforesaid complaints within eight weeks in accordance with law. The District Registrar while deciding the aforesaid complaints on 20.08.2021 took notice of following facts:-
"1. That Handball federation of India, Rohtak was registered with the office of the then Registrar of Societies Haryana, Chandigarh vide Registration no.44 of 1972-73 and thereafter re-registration of the said society was got done under HRRS Act 2012 vide reregistration number HR- RTK-2013-00544 dated 31 December 2013.
2. That Sh. Pritpal Singh Saluja has apprised this office vide letter dated 14.12.2020 received by this office on 17.12.2020 that the election of the federation were held on dated 01/11/2020 and the information regarding newly elected governing body cannot be uploaded on the society portal due to none functioning or error and when the site is functioning the same shall be uploaded accordingly and till date no documents have been received by this of
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the constitution of the governing body shall be valid only upon approval, and the tenure of the governing body shall commence from the date....
The Assistant Registrar has the authority to reject election claims based on insufficient documentation, but must first resolve membership disputes under Section 4-B before conducting elections under....
The Assistant Registrar lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of elections under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and any disputes must be referred to the prescribed authority under S....
Point of Law : Parties could not have been relegated to avail the remedy provided under Section 25 (1) of the Act. In fact, the Deputy Registrar in the order impugned was not concerned only with elec....
The court affirmed the validity of the election of the Committee of Management, emphasizing adherence to the Society's Bye-Laws and proper authority in convening meetings.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
