COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT HALDHAR VIDYA MANDIR SHIKSHA SAMITI BHAIRAMPUR PARAI KHAGAL SIRATHU Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UP ZILA ADHIKARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Indra Raj Singh, Sri A.K. Mishra holding brief of Sri Arvind Srivastava who has moved an application on behalf of one Ram Suhawan whose signatures are stated to have been attested pursuant to the elections held in response to the impugned order after the earlier round of litigation. Sri Alok Kumar Shukla has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondent No. 5.

(2.) The order under challenge has been passed by the Prescribed Authority dated 7th February 2011 holding that 32 members out of the original members who had participated in the elections of year 1987, are the valid members entitled to participate in the elections, and therefore any elections held pursuant thereto would be valid. This order appears to have been passed pursuant to the observations made by the Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 24 of 2011 decided on 7th January, 2011. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Sri Indra Raj Singh submits that the nature of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority is without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, the Prescribed Authority could not have entered into this dispute and even otherwise the determination of the electoral college has been made completely ignoring the entire passage of time from 1987 to 2011 for no valid reason. Learned Counsel submits that merely because two lists had been submitted and one of the lists matched with the membership of 1987, the same could not have been a reason to discard the membership as set up by the Petitioner. Sri Indra Raj Singh therefore contends that any elections held on the basis of such a list would not be valid. The proceedings are sought to be challenged on the ground that the Prescribed Authority had no authority to proceed in the matter for which reliance had been placed on a large number of decisions as is evident from the narration of facts contained in the impugned order itself. It is also evident from the impugned order that two complaints were filed by one Jugraj Singh and other by Durbin Singh and the same was not a reference as contemplated under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Even otherwise, it is contended that the nature of the dispute which was reflected in the said applications was not a rival claim with regard to the elections so as to confer any jurisdiction on the Prescribed Authority to proceed to decide the issues so raised. Learned Counsel submits that if it was a pure question relating to the membership then the Prescribed Authority even otherwise without any declaration of the earlier elections to be invalid, could not have proceeded to hold that the membership as relied upon by the Petitioner is invalid.

(3.) Sri A.K. Mishra contends that as a matter of fact the Assistant Registrar has already determined the list of membership that was not challenged and in such a situation, the contention raised on behalf of the Petitioner cannot be accepted, inasmuch as, the Prescribed Authority has simply reiterated the same position as was reflected by the Assistant Registrar in the orders dated 16.9.2010 and 4.1.2011. Sri Mishra therefore contends that it is no longer open to the Petitioner to raise the dispute in view of the directions issued by the Division Bench and also the observations made by the learned single Judge in the judgment dated 10.11.2010. He therefore submits that since the elections have been held and the signatures have been attested and now the Prescribed Authority has found the electoral college to be valid then no interference is called for. The contention of Sri Mishra in short is that the Prescribed Authority has acted well within his jurisdiction and the contentions so raised by the Petitioner is without any basis.