ARYA SHIKSHAN SAMITI Vs. BHUNESHWAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this petition is to the order dated 03.08.2005 (Annexure P/12) passed by the Registrar, Firms & Societies, Raipur, whereby the termination of the respondent No. 1 to 4 from the membership of the petitioner/Society has been held to be illegal and the same has been set aside, further, the order dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner/Society before the State Government, against the order dated 03.08.2005 has been dismissed affirming the order passed by the Registrar, Firms & Societies. The petitioner/Society also seeks dismissal of the complaint (Annexure P/10) made by the respondent No. 1 to 4.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner/Society are that the petitioner is society registered under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 1973 (for short "the Act, 1973"). The petitioner has its own rules and regulations framed by the Society whereunder the Society is carrying on its business. Elections are held every three year in the Society. The petitioner society is running a school known as Shradhanand Arya Vidya Mandir at Raipur. Since the respondent No. 1 to 4 caused hindrance in the functioning of the Society and also did not deposit their membership fee for years, their membership was terminated on 09.01.2005. Even after termination, the respondent No.1 along with few other persons were interfering with the functioning of the Society, and made complaints to the authorities of the Education Department. Thus, the petitioner society was constrained to file a writ petition being W.P. No. 1209/2005, before the then High Court of Madhy Pradesh, in which direction was issued to the Registrar, Firms & Societies to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of two moths after giving opportunity of hearing. Thereafter, the Registrar called upon the parties to appear before him wherein the Registrar, on the basis of authority letters submitted by the parties, recorded that there is no dispute by and between the parties, and, as such, the case was closed by order dated 30.05.1995. Subsequently, a civil suit was filed by the respondent No. 1 to 4 wherein the petitioner appeared as defendant. The said matter was heard by the, then, 4th Civil Judge, Class II, Raipur in which an order of status quo was ordered. The said order was also affirmed by the appellate court.

(3.) SHRI Sharma would further submit that the respondent No. 6 should not have exercised its power under Section 32 of the Act, 1973 when the application/complaint of the respondent No. 1 to 4, supported with affidavit, was not by majority of the members of the governing body of the society or by not more than 1/3rd of the total number of members of the society. Even if there were some complaints, the respondent No. 6 could not have passed an order in respect of restoring the membership of the respondent No. 1 to 4. The respondent No. 6 itself has found that the allegation of financial irregularity was false. The respondent No. 1 to 4 were terminated long back in the year 1995 but after more than 10 years, having failed in their attempts to obtain any order from the civil court, they filed a false and frivolous complaint. There is no concept of founder member and all the members are having equal status and are required to pay the membership fee. The respondent No. 1 to 4 were defaulters as they did not pay their membership fee for a long period. Thus, their expulsion was necessary.