(1.) I have heard Sri B.C. Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 & 2, and Sri Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents no.3. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondents no.4 & 5 and as per office report dated 01.11.2014 service on the respondents no.4 & 5 shall be deemed to be sufficient.
(2.) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firm Societies and Chits, Agra dated 29.06.2007.
(3.) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that there is a charitable Society, namely, Sri Bhagwan Bhajan Ashram, Vrindavan Mathura registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1860). Sometime in the year 2003 Assistant Registrar, Societies allowed 14 persons to become members of the Society. It is alleged that proper procedure was not followed and therefore, a dispute arose between the petitioner Tulasi Ram Patodia and Sri Raj Kumar Poddar, respondent no.3, Secretary of the Society. Subsequently a Writ Petition No.22572 of 2003 was filed and thereafter a Special Appeal No.514 of 2004 was filed. In the special appeal an interim order was granted on 07.05.2004 which was again extended by subsequent order dated 02.09.2004. Accordingly, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits suspended the list of office bearers of the Society till further orders of the Court by his order dated 30.09.2004. It is alleged that the respondent no.3, in the meantime became Secretary of the Society in an election which was held on 12.05.2003 even though interim order was operating in the case. It is alleged that after the respondent no.3 took over the charge of Secretary, he has misused his office and has committed several irregularities and caused financial loss to the Society and that he has also sold several shops situated in Modern Town, New Delhi in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 5-A of the Act, 1860, which provides that prior to such transfer of property previous permission of the District Judge has to be taken but no such permission of the District Judge was taken. In the meantime the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits passed an order on 20.07.2006 holding the election of office bearers of the Society to be valid and this order was then challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No.43516 of 2006 which was dismissed by the Court by order dated 23.08.2006 but the Court observed that there appears to be serious objections from either sides regarding misappropriation and dealing with the property of the Institution for personal benefits and a direction has been given by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to both sides to place before him the complete records and details within a period of three months. In pursuance of the order of the High Court, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits along with the certified copy of the Court's order dated 23.08.2006 with the prayer that the said respondent inquire into the act of the respondent no.3 in selling of land and other irregularities. The Deputy Registrar issued notice to the parties requiring details of the property sold and for producing the minutes books, membership register, agenda register, cash book, pass book and other relevant records by 23.11.2006. The petitioner complied with the said order and supplied all the relevant documentary material but the respondents did not submit any documents. Thereafter the petitioner also lodged an F.I.R. at the Police Station Vrindavan, District-Mathura under Sections 406, 409, 420, 465, 467 and 468 IPC against the alleged office bearers of the Society. The Magistrate is stated to have taken cognizance of the matter and passed the order for lodging an FIR, whereupon the respondents no.3 & 4 filed Criminal Revision No.388 of 2007 challenging the same. The Sessions Judge, Mathura stayed the operation of the order dated 06.01.2007 regarding non registering of the FIR and the said criminal revision was allowed by the High Court and the matter was remanded to the Sessions Judge, Mathura with a direction to decide the revision within a period of one week. In the meantime, the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits rejected the revision/complaint filed by the petitioner by order dated 29.06.2007 observing that the sale deeds were executed by the respondent no.4 as Vice President and Sri Ram Kumar Maheswari, as member of the Society and therefore a direction was given to the Secretary, Ram Kumar Poddar, respondent no.3 herein to seek permission from the competent court under Section 5-A of the Act, 1860.