JAIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is against an order passed by a learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition of the Appellant has been dismissed on the ground that Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 stands in the way of the Appellant seeking redressal of his grievances pertaining to election to the Society of which he is a member.

(2.) The facts of the case, to which there appears to be no dispute are that, the Appellant is member of a Society registered under the Said Act, which in turn, has authority to manage and conduct the affairs of a recognized educational institution referred to and covered by the Uttaranchal School Education Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as a State Act). In terms of Section 29 of the State Act, such a recognized educational institution is bound to administer itself on the basis of the scheme of administration propounded by an order under the said State Act. Scheme of administration, as appears from the scheme of the Act, is required to be sanctioned by the Director. In the instant case, the scheme of administration of the institution run by the Society, of which the Appellant is a member, has been sanctioned by the Director. The sanctioned scheme has not devised the method of sorting out disputes pertaining to election for constituting the committee of management. In the instant case, the committee of management is the Society itself. The said Act specifically provides in Section 25 thereof that in order to challenge an election of office bearers of a registered society, the Registrar can be moved only when at least one-fourth of the members have thus moved.

(3.) In the writ petition, order dated 11th June, 2010 passed by the District Education Officer, Hardwar was impugned, whereby and under, he granted approval to the election of the office bearers of the committee of management. The committee of management, thus elected, approval whereof had been given by the order impugned in the writ petition, is the committee also of the Society. Under the scheme of management sanctioned for the institution in question, if there are disputes pertaining to membership and posts, the same can be sorted out by the President or the District Education Officer and if the dispute is as to the claim by two or more managing committees, the same may be sorted out by the Divisional Educational Director on a reference to be made by the District Education Officer. Further more, the President or the District Education Officer has a right under the scheme of administration to decide who will use the rights related to the disputed post and who will perform the work of the said post. In other words, as aforesaid, the scheme of administration does not provide any mechanism of sorting out election disputes, though the members of the managing committee, the Manager and the President are to be elected in terms of the mandate contained in the scheme of administration. When the election of the managing committee of the institution is election of office bearers of a registered society and when a devise for sorting out disputes pertaining thereto have been provided specifically in a statute and the same has not been touched otherwise, the corollary would be that a person seeking to challenge election of such office bearers can do so only through the mechanism provided in Section 25 of the said Act and not otherwise. We, therefore, have no scope of interference.