PRATIHARI NIJOG ANNADANA BHOG COMMITTEE BHITAR BAIKUNTHA DHAM, SHRI JAGANNATH TEMPLE, PURI Vs. RAMA CHANDRA GOCHHIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claiming to be a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short, 'the Act') has filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging the order dated 17.12.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, Puri in F.A.O. No. 120 of 2010.

(2.) THE facts involved in this writ petition in short are that the petitioner is one of the 36 Nijogs of Shree Shree Jagannath Temple, Puri, known as Pratihari Nijog Annadana Bhog Committee. The said Nijog has been registered as a society under the Act having its own bye -law to govern its management and administration. The petitioner claims that as per the bye -law, the management of the Nijog is entrusted to a committee consisting of 17 members which was duly elected by the general body on 13.12.2006. While the matter stood thus, on 15.10.2008, 9 (nine) out of 17 members, resigned from the committee. Thereafter, three out of those nine withdrew their resignation. Therefore, the resigning members were only six in number, which did not affect the committee as per the bye -law. The petitioner has further contended that in terms of the provisions contained in the bye -law under Rule 6, sub -rule (una), the President has the power of nominating members of the Executive Committee as against the vacant seats. Accordingly, six members were nominated by the President. The opp. party -defendant, who is stated by the petitioner to be a suspended member of the Nijog, filed an application before the Registrar of the Societies, i.e., Additional District Magistrate, Puri with a prayer to withdraw the affiliation from the Governing Body/Committee of the Nijog. The opp. party challenged the nomination of the six members to the Executive Committee by the President. The Registrar of Societies passed an order as at Annexure -5 on 25.9.2010 declaring the entire Governing Body/Committee so framed is not in consonance with Rule 13(cha) of the bye -law and is not in force from 15.10.2008 and any action taken therefrom by the Committee is void ab initio and allowing the application filed by the opp. party by issuing a direction to hold fresh general election. The petitioner challenging the said order passed by the A.D.M. -cum -Registering authority of the society has filed Civil Suit No. 526 of 2010 before the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Puri. The opp. party, who is a defendant in the said suit after entering appearance, has filed a counter claim making a prayer for a decree to appoint an administrator to take charge of the management of the society to deal with the traditional Pratihari Seva of Lord Jagannath till a new committee is elected and takes charge of the management. The petitioner -plaintiff filed I.A. No.252 of 2010 praying for an interim injunction as against the order passed by the Registrar of Societies and the opp. party - defendant filed I.A. No. 268 of 2010 seeking a mandatory injunction for appointment of an administrator as claimed in the counter claim during pendency of the suit. After hearing the parties, the learned trial Court dismissed I.A. No. 252 of 2010 filed by the petitioner - plaintiff and allowed I.A. no. 268 of 2010. Challenging the order of dismissal of I.A. No. 252 of 2010, the petitioner has preferred FAO No. 121 of 2010 which is pending before the learned lower appellate Court. So far as the order passed in I.A. No. 268 of 2010 is concerned, where the learned trial Court directed both the parties to maintain status quo till fresh election is conducted by 17.12.2010, the petitioner - plaintiff challenged the said order filing FAO No. 120 of 2010 along with an application for stay of operation of the order passed by the learned trial Court. At the initial stage, by order dated 15.12.2010, the learned lower appellate Court directed stay of operation of the order dated 6.10.2010 passed in I.A. No. 268 of 2010. The opp. party entered appearance in the said appeal on 16.12.2010 and filed a cross objection with a petition to dismiss the interim application for stay. The learned lower appellate Court on 17.12.2010 modified the interim order of stay passed by him earlier directing that the administration of the Nijog shall be taken over a by a third party for the time being for smooth management of the Nijog till the next election is held and, accordingly, directing the administrator (Niti) Shree Mandir Puri to take over the management of the said Nijog and to conduct its election by 17.1.2011 and, hand over charge of the said nijog to the elected office bearers soon -after the election. It was further directed in the said order that the members of the said Nijog shall co -operate the administrator (Niti)fully for smooth management of the Nijog and its election. The administrator (Niti) was also directed to inform the Court after the election of the Nijog is over. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition for appropriate relief. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner strenuously urged that the bye -law of the society is binding on the parties which specifically provided under Rule 6 that the management of the society shall vest with the working committee and the tenure of the said working committee shall remain valid till constitution of the new committee. In addition to the above, he submitted that Rule 13 (cha) of the bye -law mandates that at any point of time if there is no committee, the management shall vest with the President and Secretary of the Old committee, who will work as if the committee is in force.

(3.) MR . D. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the opp. party, on the contrary, submitted that the opp. party was the Secretary of the committee. In view of compelling circumstances, 9 members of the Executive Committee including the opp. party who was the Secretary along with the Joint Secretary, Assistant Secretary and Cashier resigned from the committee with effect from 15.8.2006. Nine members having resigned, as provided in Clause 13 (cha) of the bye -law, the same being more than 50% of the total members, the President could not have nominated and selected a self styled Secretary to run the Executive Committee without going for election as required under the bye -law. The opp. party raised objection before the Temple Administration and subsequently before the Registering Authority, who after hearing both the parties held that the general election is appreciable. Mr. Mohapatra further submitted that the bye -law of the society annexed as Annexure -2 to the writ petition is not the registered bye -law available with the registering authority and which has been referred to in the proceedings before the Courts below. The bye -law as at Annexure -2 has been brought to the notice of the opp. party for the first time in the writ petition. In gist, Mr. Mohapatra submitted that even referring to the bye -law annexed, it would be seen that (i) as per Clause -6 of the bye -law, the term of the members of the Executive Committee is four years to be counted on and from the date of declaration of the election of members, (ii) the Executive Committee comprises of the members and once the term of the members expires, the Executive Committee automatically comes to an end, (iii) the Executive Body is authorized to appoint Election Officer as per provision in Clause -6(0), (iv) any member who is subject to the rigor of Clause -6 (Daa) shall be deprived of contesting election as provided in Clause -6 (Raa), and (v) the power of President and Secretary is codified in the bye -law which does not specify the power to appoint Election Officer. He also relied upon Clause -13 (cha) and Clause -13(una) and submitted that the election process as per the above clauses is to commence before 45 days of expiry of the period of the Executive Committee as referred to in Clause -6, i.e. four years, which expired on 13.12.2010 and, accordingly, the committee spent its force and became non -existent on and from 13.12.2010. The term of the Executive Committee can be prematurely ended before expiry of the period of four years on resignation of 50% or more members and the Executive Committee can also be prematurely dissolved on receipt of the resolution by 2/3rd members of the said committee resolving to dissolve the committee. He, therefore, canvassed that in view of the above, conclusion should be drawn that in case of not holding election in contingencies as specified above, the only alternative is Clause -13 (una) and the general body has the power to extend the period of the committee for six months in case the meeting is delayed before expiry of the term of the Executive Committee. But, however, once the tenure of the committee comes to an end and there is no scope on the part of any office bearers of the erst -while committee to take any step for election, no such steps can be taken by any of such office bearers for holding election as contended by the petitioner. Mr. Mohapatra, therefore, contended that the tenure of the Executive Committee having ended on 13.12.2010 and the bye -law being silent, with regard to the steps to be taken in such circumstances, keeping in view the interest of the society, the learned District Judge appointed an independent body/person for holding election in exercise of powers conferred under Section read with Section and Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. and the impugned order does not call for any interference. He also brought to the notice of this Court the inter se rivalry and faction amongst the members of the Nijog which are tale tell on the record and from the pleadings of the parties. He drew attention of the Court to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the plaint filed by the petitioner and paragraph -10 of the written statement filed by the opp. party in support of his contention. He also relied upon the counter claim made by the opp. party as at Annexure -5 and the contentions in the interim application No. 268 of 2010 as well as the interim application filed by the petitioner.