URMILA GAUR Vs. KHADI AVAM GRAMODYOG AYOG

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is a society known as Gramodyog Mandal in Kanpur, which is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1860) and is dealing in khadi and village industrial products. The term of the Committee of Management is three years. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition it has been stated that elections were held on 10th April, 1995, in which Chiranji Lal was appointed as the President and respondent no.2 was elected as the Vice-President. This fact is admitted by respondent no.2 in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit. The petitioner further contended that elections were again held on 10th September, 1998, in which the petitioner no.1 was elected as President and respondent no.2 was elected as the Vice-President. These facts, are admitted by respondent no.2 in view of the fact that respondent no.2 filed a complaint dated 21st October, 1994 before the Deputy Registrar questioning the legality of the election held on 10th September, 1998. The Deputy Registrar by an order dated 11th February, 2000 rejected the complaint. Thereafter, respondent no.2 filed Suit No.405 of 2005 before the Civil Judge (Junior Division) for a declaration that the election of 10th September, 1998 be declared illegal. The said suit is still pending till date, in which no injunction has been granted.

(2.) It transpires that respondent no.2 filed another Suit No.279 of 2003, in which she obtained an interim injunction dated 4th February, 2006, which was questioned by the petitioner in a Misc. appeal, in which an interim order was passed, but subsequently, the appeal was dismissed on merits by an order dated 16th November, 2007. Thereafter, Writ Petition No.58316 of 2007 was filed by the petitioner, in which an interim order was passed staying the operation of all the orders passed by the court below. As a result of this interim order, it is alleged that the petitioner no.1 continued to be the President.

(3.) In paragraph 36 of the writ petition, it is alleged that elections for the year 2003-04 was held and was again held in 2007-08, in which the petitioner no.1 was elected as the President and petitioner no.2 was elected as a Member. The election of 2003-04 is admitted by respondent no.2 in paragraph 28 of the counter affidavit but the said respondent has not filed any document to show the list of office bearers of the election of 2007-08 while denying the elections of 2007-08.