LAKHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioner, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 5 and learned Standing Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3.

(2.) The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 15.1.2011 of the Regional Level Committee headed by the Joint Director of Education as Chairman whereby a decision has been given in compliance of the judgment dated 16.11.2010 in Writ Petition No. 67063 of 2010 holding that the elections of the Respondent No. 4 - Committee in which the Respondent No. 5 has been elected as Manager is valid.

(3.) Sri P.N. Saxena submits that essentially the dispute in relation to the aforesaid elections was with regard to the validity of the members and such a dispute had come up before this Court in Writ Petition No. 67063 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of on 16.11.2010 by making observations to the effect that the recognition to the elections that were scheduled to be held on 18.11.2010 should not be granted till the objections pertaining to the membership as raised by the Petitioner are not decided. A copy of the judgment has been filed as Annexure-16. The Regional Level Committee has now proceeded to decide the said dispute and Sri P.N. Saxena submits that the impugned order does not take any decision with regard to the objections of the membership and simply concludes that the decision, earlier taken by the Deputy District Magistrate acting as Election Officer, is valid and, therefore, it does not require any further proof. The impugned order further recites that the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is the competent authority to decide the issue of membership and the Deputy District Magistrate is an appellate authority and, therefore, in such a situation, if the Deputy District Magistrate himself has taken a decision, then in that view of the matter, no further decision is required to be taken by the Regional Level Committee. Sri Saxena submits that this approach of the Regional Level Committee is erroneous inasmuch as the Deputy District Magistrate was acting as an Election Officer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools to hold the elections and not as an Authority under the Societies Registration Act. It is in that capacity that he took a decision in relation to the membership on 4.11.2010 that was assailed by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 67063 of 2010.