Back
1998 Supreme(All) 938
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
BEFORE THE HONble O. P. GARG, J.
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, J.A.VIDYALAY - Appellant
Versus
DY.REGISTRAR, FILMS SOCIETIES - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 28425 Of 1997
Decided On : 08/26/1998
Ashok Khare, J.N.Verma, V.K.SHUKLA
The Deputy Registrar has the jurisdiction to renew the certificate of registration of a society under Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and is not bound to refer a dispute about the election of the committee of management to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act unless the dispute falls within the ambit of Section 25.
Headnote:
SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT - SECTIONS 3-A, 4, 25 - RENEWAL OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION - DISPUTE REGARDING ELECTION OF COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT - JURISDICTION OF DEPUTY REGISTRAR AND PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, challenged the order of the Deputy Registrar renewing the certificate of registration of the society at the instance of a rival faction. The petitioner contended that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to pass the order and should have referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Deputy Registrar had the jurisdiction to renew the certificate of registration under Section 3-A of the Act and that the order of renewal was not vitiated by non-observance of principles of natural justice. The court further held that Section 25 of the Act, which provides for reference of disputes to the Prescribed Authority, is attracted only when there is a dispute between two rival parties each claiming to be validly elected or when the legality of the election of particular office bearers is challenged on the grounds enumerated in the section. In the present case, the dispute was not about the registration of the society or its renewal but about the election of the committee of management, and therefore, the Deputy Registrar was not bound to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority.
Issues: 1. Whether the Deputy Registrar had the jurisdiction to renew the certificate of registration of the society under Section 3-A of the Act? 2. Whether the order of renewal was vitiated by non-observance of principles of natural justice? 3. Whether Section 25 of the Act, which provides for reference of disputes to the Prescribed Authority, was attracted in the present case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Deputy Registrar had the jurisdiction to renew the certificate of registration under Section 3-A of the Act. The court relied on the fact that the renewal of the certificate of registration is an administrative enquiry and that the Prescribed Authority has the power to set aside the election of an office bearer only if it is satisfied that any corrupt practice has been committed or that the result of the election has been materially affected by improper acceptance or rejection of nominations or votes. 2. The court held that the order of renewal was not vitiated by non-observance of principles of natural justice. The court noted that the petitioners had filed objections before the Deputy Registrar and had the opportunity to place material in support of their objections. The court further held that in cases where observance of principles of natural justice would have made no difference and the admitted or undisputed facts lead to a situation where only one conclusion is possible under the law, issuing a writ to compel the observance of natural justice is not called for. 3. The court held that Section 25 of the Act, which provides for reference of disputes to the Prescribed Authority, was not attracted in the present case. The court held that Section 25 is attracted only when there is a dispute between two rival parties each claiming to be validly elected or when the legality of the election of particular office bearers is challenged on the grounds enumerated in the section. In the present case, the dispute was not about the registration of the society or its renewal but about the election of the committee of management, and therefore, the Deputy Registrar was not bound to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition and upheld the order of the Deputy Registrar renewing the certificate of registration of the society.
( 2 ) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 and 3.
( 3 ) SRI Janta Audyogik Vidyalaya, Sherpur, Gurha, Kanpur dehat is a society which was registered under the Societies registration Act, 1860 on 9. 1. 1963. The renewal of the certificate of registration of the said society was made on 19. 3. 1994 for a period of 5 years commencing from 10. 10. 1990 on the application of Ram swarup Yadav, the then Manager/secretary. List of the Committee of Management and its office bearers of the year 1993-94 was filed. At that time, there were only 12 members of the general body. Shiv lal Singh- respondent no. 3 applied for renewal of the certificate of registration for a period of 5 years and filed the necessary documents as required u/s 4 of the Societies Registration Act. The petitioners filed objections before the Deputy Registrar who by the impugned order dated 18. 8. 1997 came to the conclusion that the papers filed by shiv Lal for renewal of the certificate of registration u/s. 3-A of the societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are acceptable and accordingly by invoking the powers u/s 4 (1), list of the committee of management of the year 1997-98 was registered and renewal for 5 years w. e. f. 10. 10. 1995 was allowed, and the objections filed by Vir Sen Yadav were rejected.
( 4 ) SRI Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners challenged the impugned order on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioners and in effect, the impugned order is merely ex-parte. It was also urged that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order as the only course left open to him was to have referred the dispute about the election of the rival committees of management to the Prescribed Authority u/s 25 of the Act. Sri V. K. Shukla repelled all these submissions.
( 5 ) ON behalf of the petitioners, it was urged that the Registrar himself has no jurisdiction u/s 4 (1) of the Act to hear and decide any doubt or dispute in respect of an election or continuance in office of an office bearer of a society, and, therefore, any decision given by him in this regard will be wholly without jurisdiction. Sri Khare maintains that the Dy. Registrar was under the law bound to refer the dispute of the nature raised before him to the Prescribed Authority. In support of his contention, Sri Khare placed reliance on the following decisions :-
1. 1981 UPLBEC -308 (D. B.) - Vijav Narain Singh Vs. Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, U. P. , Lucknow and others; 2. (1987)1 UPLBEC - 333 - Committee of Management and others Vs. Zila Basic Sikhsha Adhikari and others; 3. (1988)1 UPLBEC - 515 (D. B.) - Purva Bazar Educational society, Gorakhpur Vs. Asstt. Registrar, Firms Chits and societies, Gorakhpur. 4. A. I. R. 1988 Allahabad - 236 - All India Council and another vs. Firms Societies and Chits. 5. 1991 AWC - 1311 - Muslim Welfare Society Machlinagar vs. Asstt. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. 6. 1993 (2) UPLBEC - 890 - Khoproha Educational Society and others Vs. Asstt. Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits. 7. 1994 HVD (Alld.) Vol. III- 389 (D. B.) - Company management Vs. Asstt. Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits.
The gamut of all these rulings is that if there is any doubt or dispute about the election of the committee of management or the office bearers, such a dispute cannot be resolved by Deputy Registrar in exercise of his pow
