SURESH CHAND GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the notice dated 30.06.2016 issued by the returning officer, appointed by the District Registrar, Societies under the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 [for short 'the Act'] for conducting mid-term election of the Governing Body, consisting of 21 members, of the Vaish Education Society, Rohtak [for short 'the Society'] on 15.7.2016 by the 98 members of the Collegium, who were elected on 06.7.2014 by the General Body of the Society.

(2.) In brief, the petitioner has submitted that the Society is an educational society, registered on 14.7.1919 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 [for short 'the Act of 1860] and was allotted new Registration No. 00578 on 20.1.2014 under the Act. The Society has about 15000 members, who constitute the General Body. It is submitted that if the members of the General Body are more than one thousand then it has to elect a Collegium out of the General Body, which has to further elect the Governing Body, which would manage the day-today-affair of the Society. It is submitted that on 6.7.2014, the General Body elected 105 Collegium members. The term of the Collegium is upto three years. The Collegium further elected 21 members of the Governing Body on 15.7.2014, which was required to be approved by the District Registrar. The approval came on 21.7.2014. The term of the Governing Body is also of three years w.e.f. 21.7.2014. It is submitted that the Society is a State Aided Society to which 95% aid is given by the Government and 5% aid is given by the members. On 24.5.2015, 77 members of the Collegium passed a resolution and dissolved the Governing Body and on 9.6.2015 the District Registrar requested the State Government for appointment of the Administrator. Notice was issued in this regard on 7.7.2015 to the president of the Society. On 5.8.2015, Deputy Commissioner, Rohtak was appointed as Administrator, who took the charge on 11.8.2015. After having been appointed as the Administrator, he found some bungling in the financial affairs of the Society and thus appointed Vikram, IAS as an enquiry officer, who submitted his report on 4.1.2016 against three persons. After a stint of about six months, the Administrator decided to elect the Governing Body by way of election and issued notice on 22.3.2016 in this regard for the purpose of election on 8.4.2016. The District Registrar appointed the returning officer. While the elections were to be held, one of the members of the society, who is the member of the Collegium as well, filed CWP No.6371 of 2016 in order to challenge the notice dated 22.3.2016 in respect of the mid-term elections and also on the ground that out of 105 members of the Collegium, number of members are not eligible to cast vote. The said writ petition was dismissed on 3.5.2016 by this Court with liberty to the petitioner to approach the District Registrar in terms of Section 39(4) of the Act observing that if a person is aggrieved against the list of members, who are supposed to vote and contest the election for the Governing Body, may approach the District Registrar for the desired relief. It is pertinent to mention that during the pendency of the said writ petition, the elections were postponed on 4.4.2016 by the Administrator and another enquiry was marked by the Administrator to respondent No.4 on 5.5.2016. The enquiry was held against 9 members and all were found guilty in the report dated 24.5.2016. The Administrator ultimately found 7 members of the Society guilty and exonerated only 2 members out of 9 members vide its order dated 29.6.2016 and thus the strength of the Collegium, which was 105 reduced to 98. Then on 30.6.2016, the impugned notice was issued by the returning officer for the mid-term election of the Governing Body of the Society, which was to be held on 15.7.2016. The Governing Body was to comprise of 5 office bearers, namely, President, Vice President, General Secretary, Joint Secretary, Treasurer and sixteen executive members of Governing Body. The nominations were to be filed on 15.7.2016 and scrutiny of nominations was also to be held on the same day besides withdrawal of nominations. Publication was to be done on 15.7.2016 including allotment of symbol and polling was also to be held on the same day.

(3.) Be that as it may, the petitioner sent his objection to the list of voters on 4.7.2016 in which notice was issued by the District Registrar on 6.7.2016 for 12.7.2016. Before the District Registrar could have taken any decision in this matter, the petitioner approached this Court on 8.7.2016 with the present petition in which he had prayed that the election should not be held on the basis of notice dated 30.6.2016. At the preliminary stage when notice was issued by this Court, it was observed that the election shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition.