ARYA PRATINIDHI SABHA Vs. SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Petitioner No. 1, is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. It has its bye-laws and we are informed that in its annual sessions which are held at various places the office bearers for managing the affairs of the Sabha are elected. One such election was held on 25th December, 1978 and Petitioner No. 2 claims to have been elected as president of the Sabha in that election He thereafter nominated various office bearers including Respondent No. 9 who was nominated as Secretary of the Sabha. Some of the Respondents seem to have disputed the validity of the election held in the meeting of the Sabha on 25th December, 1978, and they approached the Registrar of the Societies under the Societies Registration Act to have the said dispute resolved. The Registrar in his turn referred the matter to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lucknow, who, we are informed, is the Prescribed Authority appointed under the Societies Registration Act to hear and decide the dispute in respect of the aforesaid election as contemplated by Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. The Sub-Divisional Officer by an order dated 11th January, 1980, set aside the election held in the meeting of the Sabha on 25th December, 1978. By the same order the Sub-Divisional Officer appointed Respondent No. 9 as the Authorised Controller of the Sabha to manage the affairs of the Sabha as an interim measure. A direction was issued to the Registrar also to hold the election of the Sabha within a specified time. It further appears that Respondent No. 9 after being appointed as Authorised Controller of the Sabha as aforesaid appointed Respondent No. 10 as Manager of the D.A.V. Inter College, Govardhan, Mathura, by order dated 21st January, 1980. In this writ petition the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer dated 11th January 1980 insofar as he appointed Respondent No. 9 as Authorised Controller of the Sabha and the order of Respondent No. 9 appointing Respondent No. 10 as Manager of the D.A.V. Inter College, Govardhan, Mathura, dated 21st January, 1980 have been challenged. The order of the Sub-Divisional Officer insofar as he set aside the election held in the meeting dated 25th December, 1978 has not been challenged before us.

(2.) It was urged by counsel for the Petitioners that on a plain reading of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act it is apparent that the Sub-Divisional Officer did not have any jurisdiction to appoint an Authorised Controller even for interim management of the Sabha consequent upon the election held on 25th December, 1978, being set aside. Emphasis has been placed on Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act which reads:

(3.) It has been urged that Sub-section (2) by necessary implication provides that the only course open after an election has been set aside by the Prescribed Authority under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 is to get an election held as contemplated by Sub-section (2). A duty has been cast upon the Registrar appointed under the Act to hold such an election. Reliance has also been placed on a decision of the Supreme Court in Damyanti v. Union of India,1971 AIR(SC) 699, where it has been held that the right to form an association, necessarily implies that the persons forming the association have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admit in the association. Any law, by which members are introduced in the voluntary association without any option being given to the members to keep them out, or any law which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined it will be a law violating the right to form an association. In our opinion the submission made by counsel for the Petitioner has substance. It is true that in the instant case Respondent No. 3 happened to be as member of the Sabha, but if a power to appoint an Authorised Controller is to be read in Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act there is nothing to prohibit the Sub Divisional Officer from appointing an Authorised Controller whom the members of the Sabha may not like to be associated with the affairs of the Sabha. An Authorised Controller gets the power to manage the affairs of the Sabha to the exclusion of the members of the Sabha. The right to manage the affairs of the Sabha is a valuable right. In the absence of any valid statutory provision in this behalf the members of the Sabha cannot be deprived of this right by an order such as has been passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer in the instant case.