ASHOK KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Question that arise in this case is as to whether in absence of any provision for review can a statutory authority exercise the same if it is found that the impugned order was obtained by misrepresentation and fraud.

(2.) In order to appreciate the controversy involved in this writ petition certain facts are required to be noted:-

(3.) A society in the name of Kisan Adarsh Samiti Kisan (in sort KAS) was registered at Sl No. 192 of 1953. Registration of the said society was never renewed as provided under the Statute. A resolution was passed by the KAS for forming a new society in the name ans style of Kisan Uchchttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti, Budhansi, Aligarh (in short KUMVS). As a sequel to the said resolution, an application for seeking registration of the said society namely KUMVS along with resolution dated 5.6.1983 was registered at Sl No. 4020 of 1983 dated 27.7.1983. Periodical renewal of the registration of the society has been done. Respondent no. 4 applied for fresh registration of the KAS on the ground that the original papers of the society has been misplaced and obtained registration at Sl No. 4420 of 1983 dated 29.9.1983. Registration of the petitioners' society was questioned by the said respondents before the Asst./Deputy Registrar, Bareilly on the ground that the registration has been obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. Complaint of the respondent no. 4 was dismissed and the matter was referred to the Prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Society Registration Act for the purpose of resolving inter-se dispute amongst members of the society. Issue was decided in favour of the petitioners by the Prescribed authority vide order dated 18.12.1984. Thereafter, respondent no. 4 preferred a Civil Misc Writ Petition being C.M.W.P. No. 7860 of 1985 against the said order before this Court which is also dismissed vide order dated 16.9.1992. It transpires that the respondent no. 4 obtained a renewal of the erstwhile society on 19.1.1989. The said order was questioned before this Court in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 3374 of 1989 and this Court stayed the operation of the impugned order. Another complaint filed by the respondent no. 4 against the registration of the petitioners' society was rejected by the respondent no. 3. Thereafter, a complaint was filed by respondent no. 4 on 6.11.2003 in pursuance to which a notice under Section 12(d) of the Act was issued by the Deputy Registrar to the petitioners on 7.11.2003. Vide order dated 13.11.2003, respondent no. 3 cancelled the registration of KAS bearing No. 4420 and granted renewal against the Registration at Sl. No. 192/1953, after a lapse of 50 years of its initial registration for a period of 27 years by one stroke of pen. The said order was stayed by this Court in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 52826 of 2003 vide order dated 1.12.2003. Respondent no. 3 cancelled the registration of the petitioners' society KUMVS on 19.1.2004. The said order of cancellation was passed on the ground that five persons who are said to have participated in the agenda dated 19.5.1983 and resolution dated 5.6.1983 have filed their affidavits stating therein that the proceedings of the agenda and the resolution are fictitious as they never participated in the said proceedings. This order was questioned before the Commissioner, who in appeal remanded the matter back to the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 13.9.2004. This Court in its order dated 10.2.2005 set aside the order of remand dated 13.9.2004 and remanded the matter to the Commissioner for fresh consideration. On its remand, the matter was reconsidered and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. The writ petition filed by the petitioner bearing Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 74606 of 2005 was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 7.12.2005. This Court while dismissing the writ petition observed that the five persons who were shown to have participated in the meeting held by the petitioners at the time of the registration of the society in the year 1983 have denied their participation in any such meeting. This fact has not been controverted by the petitioners nor the statement of fact recorded in the order passed by the Assistant Registrar (Firms, Societies and Chits) has been questioned in the petition. Once person who were shown to have signed the agenda and participated in the meeting have disowned the participation in the said meeting, then certainly, it was a case of fraud and manipulation. What was concluded by the Court was that the petitioner had not denied the statements/affidavits were incorrect in any manner. A Special Appeal against the said order 7.12.2005 was preferred before Division Bench of this Court. While deciding the Special Appeal filed by the petitioners same conclusions were recorded. It was stated that five persons who are shown to have participated in the meeting held on 5.6.1983 had stated in their affidavits that they did not participate in any such meeting rendering same to be based upon non existent material. Finding recorded by the Assistant Registrar has not been questioned in the present writ petition. Consequence was that the Special Appeal was dismissed.