JAGDISH CHANDRA SHASTRI Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition the order dated 29-3-1993 passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, as applicable in U.P., has been challenged. The Prescribed authority while deciding the dispute under Section 25 of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) purported to proceed for ascertaining the claim by rival parties and directed to produce the members supporting each other. It was observed that Sri Virendra Kumar Sisodia, had produced 16 members on 7-11-1992 four members on 22-1-1993 and three members on 15-2-1993, in respect of proceedings dated 6-1-1991, whereas Sri Jagdish Chandra Shastri (petitioner), has produced total nine members on 22-1-1993. The Prescribed Authority had come to a finding that there were '36' members in the Society.

(2.) Mr. Ashok Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that while deciding a dispute under Section 25 of the Act, the Prescribed Authority, is bound by law to decide the dispute. But, in this case, he has not decided any issue which are required to be decided under Section 25 of the said Act and had proceeded on extraneous consideration.

(3.) Sri T.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents contends that there is no infirmity in the order impugned in the writ petition. The Prescribed Authority, has rightly decided the dispute in view of the facts and circumstances of the case. According to him, in the counter-affidavit the respondents have made out a case on the date when election was alleged to be held, no election at all had taken place. According to the respondents no election, as claimed by the petitioner, had ever taken place. Therefore, it is a case of doubt in respect of election. Sri T.P. Singh, contends that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not a dispute in respect of continuance in office bearers of such society. Therefore, according to him, the Proviso is not attracted. Sri T.P. Singh, further contends that the said Proviso clarifies only the dispute in respect of continuance in office bearers, inasmuch as the doubt in respect of election is completely distinct and different from the dispute in respect of continuance in office of an office bearer. The two parts are severable. The proviso does not apply to the first part i.e. with regard to doubt. According to him the Proviso applies only to the second part namely, with regard to the dispute. He further contends that since the decision in Section 25 is subject to Civil Court's decision, therefore, the method and manner, in which the decision was taken, cannot be questioned except by a civil suit. He further contends that from the affidavits in the proceedings under Section 25 of the Act it was contended by 23 members that there was no election held on the alleged date. The members were produced before the Prescribed Authority on different dates and all of whom supported the affidavits filed before him. Whereas only ten members out of '36' members has supported the contention of the petitioner that election had taken place. Therefore, the Prescribed Authority, was free to decide the question on the basis of evidence laid before him. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the order impugned in the writ petition.