ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : P.K.S. BAGHEL, J.
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, GYAN BHARTI SHIKSHA SADAN, KARVI, CHITRAKOOT AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ......Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15676 of 2012, decided on 21st April, 2014)
Result; Petition Dismissed.
Hon’ble P.K.S. Baghel, J.—This writ petition is directed against the order dated 19th November, 2011 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi Region, Jhansi, the respondent No. 2, whereby he has cancelled the renewal of registration of the Society submitted by the petitioners and has registered the list of the office-bearers submitted by the respondent No. 3.
2. The essential facts are that Gyan Bharti Shiksha Sadan, Karvi, District Chitrakoot (for short, the “Society”) is a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The affairs of the Society are regulated by the Memorandum of Association and bye-laws. The Society has established a Junior High School, namely, Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Karvi, Chitrakoot (for short, the “Institution”), which is recognised under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Basic Education Act, 1972. It receives aid out of the State fund. Thus, the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Junior High School (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1978 are applicable to the Institution. The petitioner No. 2 claims to be its Manager.
3. It is stated that Sri Awadhesh Prasad, the respondent No. 3, filed some fabricated proceedings dated 30th August, 2011 before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi Region, Jhansi (for short, the “Assistant Registrar”), wherein the petitioner No. 2 was stated to be removed from the office of the Manager and in his place Sri Awadhesh Prasad, the respondent No. 3, was elected as Manager. The Assistant Registrar registered the list of the office-bearers for the year 2011-12, wherein the respondent No. 3 is recognised as a Manager. A copy of the list of office-bearers is on the record as annexure-5 to the writ petition. The petitioner No. 2 filed an objection before the Assistant Registrar on 13th September, 2011 for cancellation of the list so registered. On the basis of the objection filed by the petitioner No. 2, the Assistant Registrar issued notice to the concerned parties on 19th September, 2011, and 30th September, 2011 was fixed for hearing. The Assistant Registrar after hearing both the parties passed the impugned order dated 19th November, 2011, wherein he has found that the petitioner No. 2 on the basis of the fabricated documents had obtained the renewal of registration of the Society, therefore, he cancelled the renewal of registration of the Society obtained by the petitioner No. 2 and refused to cancel the list of office-bearers submitted by the respondent No. 3 of the year 2011-12, which was registered by him in terms of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act.
4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 3. The stand taken by the respondent No. 3 is that on 15th February, 2009 last election was held, wherein the petitioner No. 2 was elected as Manager, but due to serious allegations against him a meeting of the General Body of the Society was convened on 30th August, 2011, wherein out of 31 members 25 members were present. In the said meeting, a resolution was passed for removal of the petitioner No. 2 as he was found to be involved in the activities against the interest of the Society and in his place Sri Awadhesh Prasad, the respondent No. 3, was elected as Manager and no change was made in respect of other office-bearers. Before the Assistant Registrar the respondent No. 3 submitted the election proceedings for the year 2009-10 dated 15th February, 2009, confirmation proceedings dated 28th February, 2009, proceedings dated 30th August, 2011 and list of members of the Committee of Management from 2007-08 to 2011-12 alongwith other documents. He had also filed a copy of the order of the District Basic Education Officer dated 14th September, 2011, whereby the respondent No. 3 was recognised as Manager.
5. It is stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioner No. 2 had submitted a fabricated document as he had shown one Sri J
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.