1995 (7) TMI 443 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the election held on 10th December 1989.
2. Jurisdiction of the Registrar to appoint an ad hoc committee.
3. Availability of alternate remedy.
4. Requirement of hearing before passing the order.

Detailed Analysis of the Judgment:

1. Validity of the election held on 10th December 1989:
The elected governing body of Chambal Ghati Shiksha Prasar Samiti passed a resolution on 5th November 1989, deciding that no new member would be inducted and the election would be conducted based on the membership as of that date. The election was held on 10th December 1989, and a new body was elected. However, there was a dispute about the validity of this election. An enquiry by the Registrar on 18th June 1990 concluded that the elected body was rightly elected. This decision was later set aside, and fresh elections were ordered by the Court, leading to the appointment of an ad hoc committee.

2. Jurisdiction of the Registrar to appoint an ad hoc committee:
The core issue examined was whether the Registrar had the statutory power to appoint an ad hoc committee as done in the order annexure P/XVI. The Court found that there is no statutory provision under the M.P. Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam Act, 1973, that empowers the Registrar to appoint an ad hoc committee. Section 32 of the Act allows the Registrar to hold an enquiry into the constitution, working, and financial conditions of a society but does not confer the power to appoint an ad hoc committee. Section 33 of the Act, which deals with the supersession of the governing body, vests this power with the State Government, not the Registrar.

3. Availability of alternate remedy:
The respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner had an alternate remedy of appeal under Section 40 of the Act, which should have been availed. The Court referred to precedents, including C. A. Abraham v. Income Tax Officer and Jai Singh v. Union of India, which establish that normally an aggrieved party should be relegated to the ordinary remedy provided under the statute. However, the Court also cited Hirday Narain v. Income Tax Officer, where the Supreme Court held that if a petition is entertained and the alternate remedy expires during the pendency of the petition, the petitioner should be heard on merits. Based on this principle, the preliminary objection was overruled.

4. Requirement of hearing before passing the order:
The Court noted that the order annexure P/XVI was passed without hearing the elected members, which was procedurally improper. The propriety required that the elected members should have been given an opportunity to be heard before passing such an order.

Conclusion:
The Court quashed the order annexure P/XVI, stating that the Registrar had no power to appoint an ad hoc committee and that the order was passed without giving the elected members an opportunity of hearing. The petition was allowed with costs awarded at Rs. 1,000, to be paid by the person who passed the order annexure P/XVI. The elected body was reinstated and would serve its normal tenure, excluding the period it was kept out of office.