Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Sudhir Saxena, J.
Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti Mohalla Ramghat Ayodhya - Appellant
Versus
Registrar Firms Societies & Chits U.P. - Respondent
Misc. Single No. 1521 of 2012
Decided On : 02-09-2014
Societies Registration Act - Expulsion - Section 13-A - 1860 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Sections 13-A, 25(2), 25(1), 4 - The court discussed the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, particularly focusing on the authority of the Deputy Registrar, the procedure for removal of members, and the jurisdiction of the Registrar in deciding disputes regarding the election and continuance of office bearers. The court emphasized the requirement of a bona fide dispute and the necessity for a member to have locus standi before invoking the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. The court also highlighted the limitations on the Registrar's duty to refer disputes and the circumstances under which a resolution of a society can be challenged in writ jurisdiction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the order rejecting their application to proceed under Section 13-A of the Societies Registration Act and approving the resolutions expelling petitioner no. 2 from the society. The dispute arose from allegations of embezzlement and financial irregularities against petitioner no. 2, leading to his expulsion without proper hearing. The petitioners contended that the expulsion was illegal and violative of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Deputy Registrar had considered the entire material and given reasons for the findings, concluding that the writ petition was devoid of merits and dismissing it.
Issues: The issues revolved around the legality of the expulsion of petitioner no. 2, the authority of the Deputy Registrar to decide the dispute, and the jurisdiction of the Registrar in addressing disputes regarding the election and continuance of office bearers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of a bona fide dispute and the necessity for a member to have locus standi before invoking the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act. It also highlighted the limitations on the Registrar's duty to refer disputes and the circumstances under which a resolution of a society can be challenged in writ jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The writ petition was found devoid of merits and was accordingly dismissed.
Sudhir Saxena, J.
1. This writ petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed challenging order dated 01.11.2011 passed by Deputy Registrar, Faizabad Division, Faizabad rejecting petitioners' application to proceed under Section 13-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 [as applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh] (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and approving the resolutions dated 19.06.2009 and 10.08.2009, whereby petitioner no. 2 was expelled. Petitioners have also challenged the resolution dated 10.08.2009 on the ground that petitioner no. 2 has been expelled, without giving any opportunity of hearing etc.
2. Briefly stated petitioners' case is that, Nirmal Singh (petitioner No. 2) was founder member of the general body of society and was duly elected to the post of Manager and Treasurer of the Society in the election held on 22.08.2004. In the election held on 20.12.2008, petitioner no. 2 was again elected as Manager and Treasurer for the next term. Private respondent no. 4 (Ram Ratan Lal Rajgarhia) and his son want to capture the property of Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti, a registered society and eye hospital being run by the Society. Strength of general body in the society is twelve. Society is also running a hospital at Ayodhya, District-Faizabad namely, Ayodhya Eye Hospital. Petitioner no. 2 was also Manager and Treasurer of the Eye Hospital. Sri Ram Ratan Lal Rajgarhia is very influential person. His son Ashok Rajgarhia took Rs. 7,00,000/- from the eye hospital illegally.
3. By non-speaking and unauthorized order dated 19.06.2009, Sri Ram Ratan Lal Rajgarhia removed petitioner no. 2 from the post of Manager and Treasurer of the Society. Said order is against the bye-laws of the society.
4. An FIR was lodged against Nirmal Singh (petitioner no. 2) and he was removed from the Society in collusion with the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad. Resolution dated 10.08.2009 has been passed expelling petitioner no. 2, without providing opportunity of hearing or show cause notice, as such, same is non est in the eyes of law. Sri Ram Ratan Lal Rajgarhia lodged an FIR against petitioner no. 2 under Sections 409, 467,468, 419 & 420 IPC in which petitioner no. 2 was bailed out. Petitioner no. 2 has improved the hospital by his hard work and labour as a result, eye hospital has become very famous in the area, under the President-ship of Late Smt. Chandra Mani Devi. New President of the eye hospital is trying to capture the same and harm petitioner no. 2. Order removing petitioner no. 2 is illegal and violative of principles of natural justice etc.
5. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad did not afford proper opportunity of hearing to petitioner no. 2 and decided the matter, without considering explanation and reply of petitioner no. 2. Petitioner no. 2 was appointed as Manager, ever since its inception. Term of the society is now five years as such it would come to an end on 20.12.2013 as such petitioner no. 2 is entitled to work as the duly elected Manager and Treasurer of the Society till new election takes place.
6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents in which case set up is that Nimal Singh (petitioner no. 2) was expelled from the society on 10.08.2009 as he was found involved in embezzlement and other financial irregularities. After his expulsion, one Sri Satish Kumar was enrolled as member of the Society. List of members of the society was submitted before the Deputy Registrar. Full opportunity of hearing was given to Nirmal Singh before his removal. Above decision of expulsion has not been challenged by petitioner no. 2. He filed W.P. No. 8801(MB) of 2009 for quashing the FIR, which was turned down by this Court holding that commission of cognizable offence is made out. This petition was dismissed on 09.09.2009. He submitted two lists of members before the Deputy Registrar, showing fourteen members of the society. There were only s
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
