VIBHA BHATNAGAR Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special Appeal No.74 of 2015 is filed by the sixth respondent, and Special Appeal No.200 of 2015 is filed by respondent Nos.1 to 4, in WPMS No.445 of 2015 against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 24.02.2015. Respondent Nos.1 & 2 in SPA No.200 of 2015 filed WPMS No.445 of 2015 seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms and Societies dated 29.01.2015.

(2.) Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the term of the office of the first respondentCommittee of Management expired on 26.11.2013. Elections, however, were notified in the newspaper according to the first respondent herein on 21.01.2014, and according to the appellant in SPA No.74 of 2015 on 22.01.2014. The Deputy Registrar, vide letter dated 21.01.2014, directed the first respondent herein not to hold the elections. Questioning the said order passed by the Deputy Registrar, the first respondent-society filed WPMS No.178 of 2014. A learned Single Judge of this Court, by his order dated 29.01.2014, rejected the first respondent's request for grant of stay of the order of the Deputy Registrar. The first respondent herein preferred Special Appeal No.17 of 2014, and a Division Bench of this Court by its order dated 17.02.2014, while holding that the election process should be monitored by the Deputy Registrar or his authorized nominee, stayed the order dated 21.01.2014 till the disposal of the writ petition. The review petition, filed thereagainst by Dr. N.S. Bhatnagar, was also dismissed by the order dated 29.04.2014. There is also a dispute between the parties as to when the elections were completed. While the appellant in SPA No.78 of 2014 claims that the elections were already held on 16.02.2014, the first respondent herein claims that the elections were in fact held only on 23.02.2014.

(3.) While the first respondent claims that the result of elections were declared only on 23.02.2014, the claim of the appellant in SPA No. 74 of 2015 is that, since the office bearers were elected unopposed on their filing nomination on 16.02.2014, there was nothing for the Deputy Registrar to supervise; and this is reflected in both his report and the reference made by him to the Prescribed Authority. By his order dated 29.01.2015, the Deputy Registrar made a reference to the Prescribed Authority. While learned counsel on both sides agree that the reference related to his inability to supervise elections, both the parties are at variance on the other question regarding the elections having been held after expiry of the term of office of the elected office bearers on 26.11.2013. While the first respondent contends that it is not the subject matter of the reference, the appellant in SPA No. 74 of 2015 insists that this also forms a part of the reference made by the Registrar to the Prescribed Authority.