SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Ajay Bhanot, J.
Shree Arya Mahila Hitakarini Mahaparishad and another – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
WRIT -C No. -9252 of 2023
Decided On : 19-04-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Dr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, Shivendu Ojha, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent: Vishakha Pande

The special provision made for a specific purpose in Bye law No. 35 prevails over the general law in Bye law No. 29, governing and regulating election meetings.

Headnote:

Societies Registration Act - Election Dispute - 1860 - [Rule 35 of the Rules of the Association, Bye Law no. 29, Bye Law no. 35] - The court discussed the legality of the meetings and resolutions, the validity of the elections held at separate venues, and the interplay of relevant bye laws of the society. The court emphasized the special provision made for a specific purpose in Bye law No. 35 and ruled that an election meeting shall be governed and regulated only by Bye law No. 35. The court also highlighted the importance of the venue of the election and the influence of the Division Bench's findings on the issue.

Fact of the Case:

The dispute arose from conflicting elections held by rival parties at different venues. The petitioners challenged the election set up by the respondent no. 4, invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Finding of the Court:

The Court analyzed the legality of the meetings and resolutions, the validity of the elections held at separate venues, and the interplay of relevant bye laws of the society. The Court emphasized the special provision made for a specific purpose in Bye law No. 35 and ruled that an election meeting shall be governed and regulated only by Bye law No. 35. The Court also highlighted the importance of the venue of the election and the influence of the Division Bench's findings on the issue.

Issues: The legality of the meetings and resolutions dated 23.01.2022 and 04.02.2022 called by the rival parties, and the validity of the elections held by the parties respectively at separate venues.

Ratio Decidendi: The special provision made for a specific purpose in Bye law No. 35 prevails over the general law in Bye law No. 29, governing and regulating election meetings. The venue of the election was conclusively adjudicated by the Division Bench, influencing the Court's decision.

Final Decision: The impugned order upholding the election claim set up by the respondent no. 4 was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Assistant Registrar to conduct the election in a fair and transparent manner within a specified period.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Radhakant Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Dr. Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Rakesh Pande, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Vishakha Pande, and Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

2. By the impugned order dated 27.02.2023 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Joint Magistrate/Upziladhari, Sadar, Varanasi, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the election set up by the respondent no. 4 has been upheld while the election claim of the petitioners has been invalidated.

3. Brief facts are these. Election to society was called on 18.02.2022 by the Chief Secretary/General Secretary of the Samrakshak Sabha by notice dated 23.01.2022. The said notice fixed Arya Mahila PG College, Varanasi as the election venue. On 04.02.2022 meeting called by the Joint Secretary of the All India Council resolved to change the venue of the election to Bharat Dharam Mahamandal Building, Jagatganj, Banaras.

4. Two elections were conducted by the rival parties at their respective venues. The competing election claims were presented before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi. The Assistant Registrar vide order dated 28.06.2022 recognized the election set up by the respondent no. 4 and invalidated the claim of the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioners invoked the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and instituted a writ petition which was registered as Writ C No. 20203 of 2022 (Shree Arya Mahila Hitakarini Mahaparishad and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others). The learned single Judge by judgment rendered on 20.10.2022 ruled as follows:

    "Therefore, under such facts and circumstances as well as law laid down by this Court, the writ petition is allowed and impugned order dated 28.6.2022 passed by the Assistant Registrar-respondent no.2 is hereby quashed. Respondent no.2 is directed to refer the matter to Prescribed Authority within two weeks alongwith election proposals of both the rival groups. Prescribed Authority is further directed to take final decision in the matter maximum within six weeks thereafter after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner, respondent no.3 and all other concerned, if any."

5. The order passed by the learned single Judge was carried in appeal by respondent no. 4 which came to be registered as Special Appeal No. 692 of 2022 (Dr. Shashi Kant Dixit vs. State of U.P. and Others). The learned Division Bench affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 16.12.2022. However, various observations were made by the learned Division Bench which influence the controversy till date. The learned Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 692 of 2022 (supra) dealing with the argument relating to invalidity of the notice and change of the election venue observed thus:

    "Dealing with the first argument that there is an inherent defect in the notice for convening the meeting on 29.01.2022, it would be apt to bear in mind that the election programme was notified by the appellant fixing 18.02.2022. It is not in dispute that convening a meeting is a step towards holding the elections. Clause 30 of the Rules of the Association provides for a three weeks notice for convening the meeting. Parties are in agreement that the election date so fixed by the appellant for holding the election remained unaltered. However, it is the venue which got changed. Now a question would arises whether holding a meeting on 04.02.2022 to change the venue would amount to materially and substantially altering the election program. The answer to the same finds place in Rule 35 of the Rules of the Association wherein, it is provided that in case election is held at Varanasi, then it should be at the Headquarters at Varanasi. Headquarters is specified in Clause 2 of the MOA, which is, at Bharat Dharam Mahamandal Building, Jagatganj, Benaras. Admittedly, th

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      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

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top