The Assistant Registrar of Societies has no jurisdiction to cancel a list of members of a managing body without notice and opportunity of hearing and without making a reference to the prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act.

S. K. PHAUJDAR, J.

( 1 ) THE present petition is directed against an order dated 4. 2. 1999 as per Annexure-8 to the writ petition. The order was recorded by respondent No. 1 concerning the list of the managing body of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act On short, the Act ). The petitioner prayed for quashing the aforesaid order with a further direction for a writ of mandamus upon respondent No. 1 to make a reference of the matter under Section 25 of the Societies Registration act. Respondent No. 2 had filed a caveat and was heard on the very first day of the presentation of the petition and he filed his counter-affidavit. The petitioner filed a rejoinder-affidavit and all concerned were heard.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, a society named as Varanasi Kala Pratishthan is a society registered under the Act and the petitioner is the secretary thereof. The society has its own bye-laws and the object of the society is to promote silk business by obtaining financial assistance from Khadi Gram Udyog Commission. The erstwhile secretary of the society had resigned on health grounds and after acceptance of the resignation by the society, the petitioner was appointed its secretary by an unanimous resolution dated 10. 11. 97. The petitioner was also a member of the society. He wrote a letter to the Khadi Gram Udyog Commission informing certain irregularities in the society and requesting them to get the accounts of the society audited. An audit was done and a lot of financial irregularities committed by the erstwhile secretary was detected. Accordingly, a police case was started against Aqbal Singh. Membership fee for each year was Rs. 10 and the life members and "sadbhavi" members had to deposit the fees every year for continuation of the membership. The election of the society was held in 1994 and was again scheduled in 1997.

( 3 ) ON 17. 8. 98 the petitioner wrote a letter to the Assistant Registrar of Societies for registration of the names of life members and ordinary members and a list thereof was appended to that letter. The election for the sangarakshak mandal, i. e. , the managing body, was fixed on 5. 9. 1998 and it was duly notified in a local newspaper. As per the schedule, a meeting was held on 5. 9. 98 and the members of the managing body were elected. A copy of the proceeding dated 5. 9. 98 was send to the Assistant Registrar of Societies with a request to register the list of the members of the managing body. The letter and the list were duly received and petitioner was informed by a letter dated 23. 9. 98 that the list had been registered. The office of the Assistant Registrar, societies, also issued a certified copy of the list of the managing body for the year 1998-99.

( 4 ) IT is the further case of the petitioner that on 19. 9. 1999 the petitioner received an information that the list of the managing body for the year 1998-99 submitted by the petitioner and already registered in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Societies, had been cancelled by him and instead thereof a list submitted by the present respondent was recognised. The petitioner approached the office of respondent No. 1 and obtained a certified copy of the order dated 4. 2. 99 whereby the list submitted by the petitioner was cancelled. This letter dated 4. 2. 99 forms annexure-8 to the writ petition and is the subject-matter of the present writ petition. The petitioner contended that the order was absolutely arbitrary, illegal and against the principles of natural justice and was without jurisdiction as well. It was contended that no notice was given to the petitioner before cancellation and he was not afforded any opportunity although allegations of fraud was levelled against him. It was further contended that the Assistant Registrar had not given any reason for such cancellation and had acted upon the opinion of the District government Advocate only.

( 5 ) IN his counter-affidavit, respondent No. 2 submitted that the orde

Click Here to Read the rest of this document