ARVIND SHUKLA Vs. COMMISSIONER KANPUR DIVISION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties at the admission stage, this writ petition is being disposed of finally in accordance with the Rules of the court. There is a registered society known as M.L.S. Management Committee, Reewan (Sandalpur) Kanpur. The same is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and was formed in the year 1965. Various renewals were granted to the society from time to time. Last renewal made by it was vide a renewal certificate dated 21-5-86 for 5 years w.e.f. 10-10-85. The term of the office bearers of the society was renewed for 5 years w e.f. 10-10-85 and was due to expire on 9-10-90 Therefore, one Shri Mani Lai Shukla, Founder of the society, circulated an Agenda dated 9-7-90 for holding a meeting of the Central Body of election of the office bearers on 12-8-90. The said election did take place on 12-8-90. Thereafter in a later meeting held on 6-8-90 the Management Committee, it is urged, authorized Sri Arvind Shukla to take necessary steps to obtain 6th renewal of the society. Consequently the petitioner after depositing the renewal fee applied for renewal vide his application dated 30-8-90. SINCE no objection was filed, the Assistant Registrar after satisfying himself that the documents filed before him by the petitioner accepted the Committee of Management headed by the petitioner as its manager and issued a renewal certificate dated 12th October 1990, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 9 to the writ petition. Thereafter one Sri Ram Gopal Srivastava Ex Secretary of the society made an application dated 30th October, 1990 before the Assistant Registrar alleged himself to be the manager of the society and prayed for the renewal of the society treating himself to be as manager of the society. There upon the Assistant Registrar, Kanpur, issued a letter dated 15-12-90 to the petitioner Sri Arvind Shuklk as Sri Ram Autar Shukla respondent no 3 directing them to deposit the renewal certificate issued on 12-10-90 and to file their respective affidavits. On a contest made by the aforesaid rival claimants the Assistant Registrar as well as the Appellate Authority vide their orders dated .23-2-91 and 16-9-91 respectively, copies of which have been filed as Annexures 18 and 25 to the writ petition, have on appraisal of evidence, recorded findings to the effect that the renewal of the said society obtained by Sri Arvind Shukla is for the reasons stated in the said orders illegal and had been obtained by misrepresentation. Therefore, the said two authorities have in purported exercise of their powers under section 12-D (c) of the Societies Registration Act 1860 held that the certificate of renewal has been obtained by misrepresentation. Relevant provisions in this regard read as follows :- The petitioner has felt aggrieved against the said impugned order; passed by both the authorities below. The crux of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it was not open under the law for the two authorities below to have passed the impugned orders in purported exercise of their powers under section 12-D (c) of the said Act as reproduced above because a bare reading of the said orders shows that the said authorities have by their orders not cancelled the certificate of renewal of the society. (Emphasis supplied). The submission is that all that has been done by the authorities below is that the renewal certificate of the Society as obtained by the petitioner has, infact, been cancelled but at the same time the said renewal certificate of the society has been maintained as obtained by Sri Ram Autar Shukla respondent no. 3, declaring him to be the manager of the society.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for Sri Ram Autar Shukla has during the course of the submission relied upon the facts and reasons given by the two authorities below to support the impugned orders He has further submitted that since the petitioner had not taken this ground before the authorities below, therefore, this court will in exercise of its writ jurisdiction not allowed the petitioner to raise the said ground.