PARASHU RAM PANDEYS Vs. PRABANDH SANCHALAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pursuant to various orders passed in various litigations between the parties, ultimately the Administrator had finalised the list of members and had Issued a notice for election pursuant to an order dated 18.11.1996 which is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. This order was passed after provisionally publishing the list of the members and inviting objections to the said list by notice dated 28.10.1996 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. This order was challenged by alleged 46 members which included the name of one Prem Chand and another, who were elected as Manager and President respectively, by means of a writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 29.11.1996. The claim of said 46 persons that they were inducted as members of the general body subsequent to 17.11.1995 and, therefore, they should be permitted to participate in the election, as was directed by various orders passed in different litigations. By an order dated 29.11.1996, the claim of said 46 persons was negated. There upon, Prem Chand filed a civil suit being Suit No. 288 of 1996 before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Ballia, praying for the relief that list of members finalised for the general meeting is illegal and that injunction should be granted so that no election can be held without allowing the plaintiff to participate in the said election. Pursuant to an interim order granted in the said suit, election was alleged to have been held on 8th March, 1998 at Azamgarh by virtue of a notice dated 24.2.1998 contained in Annexure-15, in which it was Indicated that a list of 289 life members has been verified.

(2.) Pursuant to the said election, charge was handed over by the Administrator to said Prem Chand on 8th March, 1998 itself. This election has been challenged in this writ petition.

(3.) Mr. I. R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that after the list of members had been finalised pursuant to various orders passed by this Court and in the said suit, it was not open to the successor-in-office of the Administrator to re-open the issue particularly when the claim of said Prem Chand and others was negated by this Court by an order dated 29.11.1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 37942 of 1996. He contends further that there was no order or direction modifying the said finallsation of the list so as to enable the Administrator to determine and finalise the list of members anew. He next contended that the election was held at Azamgarh whereas the institution is situated at Ballia, which is almost 80 Kms. away. According to the learned counsel, the general meeting can be held either in the school itself or around the locality where the institution is situated, but cannot be held at a different district 80 Kms. away from the school. It is also contended that by suppressing the fact about passing of the order dated 29.11.1996 by this Court, Civil Suit No. 288 of 1996 was filed which was also dismissed on 6.12.1997. Therefore, no election could be held on 8.3.1998 pursuant to the interim order granted in the said suit which already stood dismissed inasmuch as the interim order that was granted stood merged in the order of dismissal of the suit.