Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
C/M Arya Kanya Pathshala Samiti And 3 Others – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ C No. 39973 of 2023
Decided on : 25-04-2024
JURISDICTION - SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT - Sections 4, 25(1), 25(2) - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, particularly Sections 4 and 25. It emphasized that the Assistant Registrar does not have the authority to adjudicate on the validity of elections, which must be referred to the prescribed authority under Section 25(1). The court found that the Assistant Registrar's declaration of invalidity for the elections was without jurisdiction, leading to the conclusion that all subsequent actions based on that declaration were also invalid.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged an order by the Assistant Registrar declaring the elections of the Committee of Management of Arya Kanya Pathshala Samiti invalid. The Assistant Registrar acted under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, claiming the committee was time-barred and invalidated elections held on 30.10.2021 and 10.06.2023 based on a complaint regarding forged signatures.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Assistant Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction by declaring the elections invalid without proper authority. The court emphasized that the Assistant Registrar should have referred the matter to the prescribed authority under Section 25(1) for adjudication of election disputes.
Issues: Whether the Assistant Registrar had the jurisdiction to declare the elections invalid and whether the petitioners were afforded a fair opportunity to be heard before such a declaration.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Assistant Registrar does not have the jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of elections under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Any disputes regarding elections must be referred to the prescribed authority as per Section 25(1). The court also noted that the principles of natural justice were violated as the petitioners were not given an opportunity to present their case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order dated 19.09.2023 and the consequential order dated 05.04.2024, and remitted the matter back to the Assistant Registrar for a fresh hearing with an opportunity for all parties to be heard.
Key Points: - The Assistant Registrar does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of elections under the Societies Registration Act, 1860; such disputes must be referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) (!) (!) (!) . - Elections disputes, including validity of office-bearers, must be decided by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) and not by the Registrar/Assistant Registrar; a reference to the Prescribed Authority is mandatory if there is a doubt about election validity (!) (!) . - If the basic order is without jurisdiction, consequential orders and election proceedings triggered by that order are liable to be quashed/collapsed; the entire structure falls apart due to illegality at the root (subsuming principle of "sublato fundamento cadit opus") (!) (!) (!) (!) . - The court remitted the matter to the Assistant Registrar for a fresh hearing with opportunity to all parties, effectively setting aside the impugned orders dated 19.09.2023 and 05.04.2024 (!) . - The judgment cites harmonization of Sections 4 and 25, reiterating that disputes of election/duration of office-bearers must be decided under Section 25(1) by the Prescribed Authority, not by the Registrar (!) (!) (!) . - The petition was allowed; the impugned order and consequential orders were quashed, and the matter remitted for fresh proceedings with due hearing (!) .
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.
1. Heard Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Jai Singh Parihar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No.1 and 2 as well as Sri Prabhakar Awasthi and Sri Manish Kumar Pandey, learned counsels appearing for Respondents No.3 and 4.
2. Petitioners through this writ petition have challenged the order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Jhansi Region, Jhansi, whereby he has declared election proceedings dated 30.10.2021 and election proceedings dated 10.6.2023 to be invalid. The Assistant Registrar vide order dated 19.09.2023 has also declared the Committee of Management of the society as time barred in exercise of powers under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and further for elections of the Committee of Management of the society has proceeded to determine valid members of the society i.e. electoral college under Section 4(B) of the Act of 1860.
3. At the very outset Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.3 and 4 has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that pursuant to the impugned order dated 19.9.2023, Assistant Registrar, after hearing all the concerned parties, has taken decision under Section 4(B) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in respect of the membership of the society on 05.04.2024. He has further raised objection that Petitioner No.1 i.e. Committee of Management Arya Kanya Pathshala Samiti, Shipri Bazaar, Jhansi is represented through Deputy Manager though under the bye-laws of the society, Deputy Manager is not authorised to file any writ petition on behalf of the Committee of Management of the society.
4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Arya Kanya Pathshala Samiti, Shipri Bazaar, Jhansi is a society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The elections of the Committee of Management of the society took place on 13.6.2018. Later on, two office bearers of the Committee of Management of the society i.e. Deputy Manager and Treasurer died and therefore, in casual vacancies, Petitioners No.2 and 3 were co-opted as Deputy Manager and Treasurer respectively vide resolution of the Committee of Management dated 30.10.2021. After passing of the resolution on 30.10.2021, the list of the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the society was registered for 2022-23. The term of the Committee of Management of the society, which as per bye-laws is five years, was over therefore, fresh elections took place in the meeting of the general body on 10.6.2023 and thereafter election proceedings were placed before the Assistant Registrar for recognition of the elections. The Assistant Registrar has passed the impugned order dated 19.09.2023 whereby elections dated 30.10.2021 and 10.06.2023 have been declared invalid and further in exercise of powers under Section 25(2) of the Act of 1860 Committee of Management of the society has been declared as time barred and process of fresh elections has been initiated.
5. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners has submitted that any dispute or doubt in respect of the elections of the Committee of Management of the society can be adjudicated only by the Prescribed Authority on a reference made under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and Assistant Registrar does not have any jurisdiction to adjudicate over the validity of the elections of the Committee of Management of the society.
6. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners has invited attention of this Court towards the last three paragraphs of the impugned order dated 19.9.2023 and has submitted that sole basis for declaring the elections of Petitioners No.2 and 3 vide resolution dated 30.10.2021, as illegal, is that the President of the Committee of Management of the socie
The Assistant Registrar lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of elections under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and any disputes must be referred to the prescribed authority under S....
The court affirmed that the Assistant Registrar must assess the bona fides of disputes before deciding on their referral to the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act.
Only the Prescribed Authority has the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of society elections under the relevant provisions of the Act.
The Assistant Registrar lacks the authority to declare election results or cancel prior elections as per the Societies Registration Act; only the Prescribed Authority has such jurisdiction.
Point of Law : Parties could not have been relegated to avail the remedy provided under Section 25 (1) of the Act. In fact, the Deputy Registrar in the order impugned was not concerned only with elec....
The court affirmed the validity of the election of the Committee of Management, emphasizing adherence to the Society's Bye-Laws and proper authority in convening meetings.
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
