COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT ADARSH VIDYALAYA SAMITI BULANDSHAHR Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UPZILA MAGISTRATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner's committee of management was elected on 3.2.2000. The District Basic Education Officer on 28.2.2000 recognised the election and attested the signature of the Manager. On 8.3.2000 renewal of the society was granted in favour of the petitioner. The election of the respondent No. 4 was held on 5.3.2000 and the respondent No. 4 made a complaint before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 made a reference to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act 1860 (in brief the Act). The Prescribed Authority on 18.12.2000 has held that elections of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were illegal and were contrary to the bye-laws of the society, therefore, he directed for holding fresh election. It is this order which has been challenged in this petition.

(2.) Sri Vinod Sinha, the learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the Prescribed Authority while exercising power under the Act, does not function as Election Tribunal and he cannot decide the dispute about the validity of the election. He has placed reliance on the decision of learned single Judge in Abdul Kalam and another v. The Prescribed Authority/S.D.M. Phoolpur and others, 2000 (3) UPLBEC 2499. On the other hand, Sri Krishna Prasad the learned standing counsel has urged that the Prescribed Authority can examine the validity of the elections. He has placed reliance on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Jai Prakash Agarwal v. Prescribed Authority (Sub Divisional Officer), Sadar, District Deoria and others, 1999 (1) UPLBEC 697.

(3.) On the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties, the question is whether the Prescribed Authority functions as a Tribunal and could go into the question of validity of the elections? The Division Bench in Jai Prakash Agarwal (supra) has considered this question and has held that the Prescribed Authority decides important dispute of election and continuance in office of an office-bearer, which is essentially a dispute of civil nature. From the provisions of Section 25 (1) and (2), it is clear that the Prescribed Authority decides the dispute in exercise of inherent power of the State vested in him by the State Government. It further held that the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, is a Tribunal and the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority can be challenged in writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and special appeal under Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the rules of the Court would not lie against the order of the single Judge passed in writ petition. It appears that this decision of the Division Bench was not placed before the learned single Judge in Abdul Kalam's case wherein he has held that the prescribed authority does not act as a Tribunal. The decision in Abdul Kalam's case is of no help to the petitioner. Therefore, the prescribed authority in exercise of his judicial function as Tribunal has held by the impugned order dated 18.12.2000 that elections of the petitioner and respondent No. 4 were illegal, contrary to bye-laws of the society and it directed for holding fresh election. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority.