ABUL KALAM Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order dated 19th March, 1998 passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Phulpur, district Azamgarh in Case No. 3/3 under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act has since been challenged. Dr. Padia, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the complaint was made by only two persons, out of whom one person had contested the case. Therefore, reference could not be made under Section 25 (1) of the Act, since, it has to be made at least by 1/4th of the members. In the alternative, he contends that even if the Registrar makes a reference, in that event such reference is to be made after having been satisfied about the materials placed before the Registrar in order to enable him to exercise his power under Section 25 (1) of the Act. He cannot mechanically refer the same. Such mechanical reference would not confer jurisdiction on the prescribed authority and as such, the decision is void and without Jurisdiction. He then contends that the petitioner had submitted his objection, which is Annexure-5 to this petition and that objection was not considered at all in the impugned order contained in Annexure-6. He points out that 83 members had participated in the election, therefore, the finding in Annexure-6 that notice was not served on the ground that the materials produced did not legibly show the circulation. On the face of the records produced showing that it was circulated, the authority could not have held otherwise. Relying on Section 25 (1), he contends that the prescribed authority is not the election tribunal to decide the question of validity of election. Its Jurisdiction is confined only within clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) and not beyond. Neither of these clauses refer to the question of notice. It is only on the grounds mentioned therein. There was no finding in the order contained in Annexure-6 to the extent that any of the grounds mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) are fulfilled or were in existence. Therefore, even on merit, the order dated 19th March, 1998 could not be sustained. He further contends that in the meantime the life of the Committee of Management having expired, a fresh election has taken place. By means of amendment, the fresh election that was sought to be held was challenged as soon as notice was issued. The amendment was allowed. However, in absence of the Committee of Management, this election has been held, and therefore, he contends that notice can very well be challenged if it was so made by the Committee which could not have issued the notice unless the order dated 19th March, 1998 is upheld. If that order cannot be sustained. In that event all subsequent formalities cannot stand. Therefore, according to him, the petition should be allowed and the order contained in Annexure-6 should be set aside.

(2.) Mr. Irshad All, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand contends that since the reference was made by the Registrar. It is immaterial whether it was complained by one or two persons. He then contends that the grounds mentioned in clauses (a), (b) and (c) to sub-section (1) of Section 25 were fulfilled and the election was held by using corrupt practice in not issuing notice to others. He then contends that in view of the subsequent election that had taken place and that the life of the Committee having expired, the writ petition has become infructuous. He then contends that the notice cannot be challenged and relies on the decisions, which would be referred to at appropriate stage.

(3.) Dr. Padia, on the other hand, contends that the petition could not have become infructuous.