# C/M, Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Harpur & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 5 ILRA 1592
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-05-16
- **Bench:** Shabihul Hasnain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-shiksha-prasar-samiti-harpur-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43791
- **Pages:** 6

## Text

1592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
18. Thus, though it is sought to be contended by learned counsel for the appellant that non-filing of
the e-TDS statements had not resulted in loss to the revenue but the requirement of filing e-TDS statements
in time cannot be overlooked. The Department cannot accurately process the returns on whose behalf tax has
been deducted until information of such deduction is furnished by the deductor within the prescribed time
and as emphasised by the Bombay High Court "timely processing of returns is the bedrock of an efficient tax
administration system". It is, therefore, necessary for the deductor to file e-TDS statements in time so as to
enable the processing of the returns in time. The Assessing Authority has also emphasised this aspect in the
order dated 22 April 2013. It has been stated that filing of e-TDS statements not only increases the reach of
the department but also leads to creation of an audit trial that can be utilized as an effective tool against
detection of tax evasion. It is for this reason that stringent action is required to be taken for non-compliance.
In such circumstances, it cannot also be urged by learned counsel for the appellant that no penalty could have
been imposed for non-filing of the e-TDS statements in time as it has not resulted in any loss to the revenue.

19. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant primarily are to the effect that
before imposing any penalty, adequate opportunity is required to be granted. This is what also was
contemplated in section 272A(4) of the Act.

20. We are of the opinion that adequate opportunity had been granted to the appellant but the
appellant failed to utilize the opportunities that had been granted. In fact even when the appellant had
appeared through a counsel, only an adjournment was sought and even thereafter no explanation was offered
before the Assessing Authority. However, an explanation was offered before the Appellate Authority which
was taken into consideration and the penalty amount was suitably reduced as the case of the appellant that a
regular Principal assumed charge on 25 January 2010 was accepted and the penalty was imposed after that
date. The decision dated 3 December 2015 of the Tribunal in ITA Nos.226 and 227, therefore does not help
the appellant.

21. We, therefore, find that substantial questions of law that had been framed in this appeal do not
arise for consideration.

22. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J.

Misc. Single / Writ Petition No.- 7678 Of 2016

C/M, Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Harpur & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
5 All. C/M, Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Harpur & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1593
Councsels For Petitioners:
Meenakshi Singh Parihar, Diwakar Singh, Diwakar Singh Kaushik, Yogesh Singh

Councsels For Respondents:
C.S.C., Anil Kumar Pandey

Head Notes:
Societies Registration Act, 1860-Section 25(1)-Committee of Management-Election dispute-Rival
elections-Deputy Registrar-Jurisdiction-Scope-Where two rival election proceedings are producedDeputy Registrar competent to examine genuineness of proceedings-Finding of forged election-Interference
by High Court-When not warranted-However, Deputy Registrar cannot recognise election held before expiry
of tenure or contrary to bye-laws-Election held prior to expiry of term-Invalid-Election held during
extended period without authority-Also invalid-Consequences-Both rival elections invalid-Recognition
order set aside-Committee of Management time-barred-Fresh election under supervision of Deputy
Registrar directed.
Facts:

Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having a single Committee of Management for
running the institution.

Term of Committee of Management was three years, expiring on 30.06.2015.

Petitioner claimed election dated 15.06.2015 and submitted papers before the Deputy Registrar.

Opposite party No.4 submitted rival election proceedings dated 08.07.2015 along with renewal application.

Deputy Registrar rejected petitioner's election as forged and recognised election dated 08.07.2015 in favour of
opposite party No.4.

Petitioners challenged the order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Registrar.

Issues
Whether the Deputy Registrar rightly rejected the election dated 15.06.2015 as forged and fabricated.

Whether opposite party No.4 had authority to hold election on 08.07.2015.

Whether recognition of election dated 08.07.2015 was legally sustainable.

Held:
Election dated 15.06.2015-Forged and fabricated: Findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar
regarding absence of agenda, contradictory dates, lack of notice, doubtful quorum and subsequent
preparation of proceedings were based on material on record and did not warrant interference.

Election dated 08.07.2015-Without authority: Term of Committee of Management expired on
30.06.2015. Under the bye-laws, extended period of three months could be availed only if election was not
held by the authorised office-bearers. Opposite party No.4 had no authority to hold election immediately after
expiry of term.

Deputy Registrar exceeded jurisdiction: Recognition of election dated 08.07.2015 was contrary to the
bye-laws and statutory scheme.
1594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Resultant position: Neither of the rival elections was valid. The Committee of Management had become
time-barred.

Order:
The writ petition is allowed in part.

The order dated 14.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Faizabad Region, is set
aside.

The Deputy Registrar is directed to conduct a fresh election of the Committee of Management under his
supervision, in accordance with law.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shabihul Hasnain, J.)

1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated
14.3.2016 passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Faizabad Region, Faizabad as
contained in annexure no. 1 to the writ petition, whereby election of the Committee of Management
of the Society dated 8.7.2015 submitted by opposite party no. 4 was recognized in his favour. The
petitioner's further prayer is to restrain the opposite parties from interfering in the functioning of
the petitioner's Committee of Management.

2. It has been averred by the petitioner that the Society named as "Shiksha Prasad Samiti
Harpur, Tehsil Kadipur, District Sultanpur" was initially registered and valid up to 16.12.1981. On
the instance of the petitioner, the society was again registered on 27.7.1985 and thereafter was got
renewed on 5.8.2010 for a period of five years w.e.f. 27.7.2010 meaning thereby that it was valid
up to 27.7.2015. Its by laws was duly approved, according to which there is only one Committee of
Management and there is no separate Committee of Management for running the College namely
Azad Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Harpur, District Sultanpur and the term thereof was valid for
three years and was expiring on 30.6.2015.

3. Therefore, according to the petitioner, last election of the Committee of Management of
the College was held on 1.7.2012, on the basis of list of fourteen members, in which opposite party
no. 4 was elected as President and the petitioner as Manager of the Committee of Management. As
the term of the Committee of Management was up to 30.6.2015 as stated above, therefore, the
election was held on 15.6.2015. The petitioner submitted copy of the proceeding dated 15.6.2015
before the Deputy Registrar approval. Simultaneously since renewal of the Society was to expire on
27.7.2015, petitioner submitted an application dated 31.7.2015 along with requisite fee for its
renewal.

4. It has further been averred that opposite party no. 4 also submitted election proceedings
dated 8.7.2015 to the Deputy Registrar along with application for renewal of the Society. At this
stage, it appears that two rival claims with regard to election proceedings on two different dates
have been filed before the Deputy Registrar.
5 All. C/M, Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Harpur & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.

1595
5. As soon as the petitioner came to know that opposite party no. 4 also submitted another
election proceedings dated 8.7.2015, they moved application on 21.7.2015 before the Deputy
Registrar requesting him that cognizance should not be taken on the papers submitted by opposite
parties no. 4.

6. It appears that on the application of the petitioner, the Deputy Registrar issued notice to
opposite party no. 4 inviting his objection and documentary evidence. On the objection filed by
him, the petitioner was required to submit relevant original documents, which he has submitted on
20.2.2016.

7. It has vehemently been argued by the petitioner that since before the expiry of the
committee of management, two elections were held and both the rival parties submitted their
election proceedings, the Deputy Registrar, should have referred the matter before the Prescribed
Authority, but on the contrary, the Deputy Registrar has himself decided the election dispute vide
the order dated 14.3.2016 recognizing the election proceedings submitted by the opposite party no.
4 and also passed order for renewal of the society in favour of opposite party no. 4. He says that the
said order is illegal, arbitrary and unreasonable and has been passed in violation of the provision of
section 25(1) of the Act.

8. Learned counsel for opposite party no. 4 Sri Sharad Pathak has submitted submitted that
the proceedings and the list of the office bearers given by Sri Ashfaq Ahmad, is based on
manipulated and forged documents. No election was held on 15.6.2015. There was no notice of the
election and the proceedings were placed before the Deputy Registrar much later. He says that
according to by laws, three months further time was allowed to get the election conducted in case
the management failed to hold the election during its tenure. According to him Kripa Shanker
Pandey- opposite party no. 4 was elected as President vide election proceedings dated 8.7.2015, in
which out of fourteen members, seven were present, hence the quorum was complete. Sri Kripa
Shanker Pandey was elected as President of the management committee. This election has been
recognized by the Deputy Registrar as a valid election.

9. I have heard rival claims of the parties and have gone through the contents of the writ
petition about the submission.

10. The Deputy Registrar in its order has given several reasons for not believing the list
preferred by Sri Ashfaq Ahmad; the first and the foremost reason given by the Deputy Registrar is
that Sri Ashfaq Ahmad has not given any evidence with regard to election alleged to have been
held on 15.6.2015. He has produced only a register, which records the proceedings. He has not
produced any register by which information is given for the next proceedings. He has failed to
show that any date for election was ever fixed in any meeting. An election cannot be held in any
and every meeting, which held for the general body. The only proceedings which have been filed
by the petitioner is annexure no. 5 to the writ petition from page- 54 to 57 of the writ petition. It is
clear from the perusal of the proceedings that no agenda was fixed for the election, which is said to
have taken place on 15.6.2015 at 9.15 a.m. On page- 154 it has been mentioned that the general
1596 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
body was held on 15.6.2015 and the day has been shown as Monday under the heading 'Sadharan
Sabha ki Baithak'. On the next date under the heading 'Sadharan Sabha ki Karyavahi', it has been
mentioned that the meeting was held on 15.6.2015 and the day has been shown as Sunday at 9.15
a.m. This itself goes to show that the proceedings have been prepared afterwards in order to present
the case. There are several resolution about the building and working of the College and without
any notice, proposal has been noted then and there for holding the election and it has been held
showing Kripa Shanker Pandey as Adhyaksh. In his election, Kripa Shanker Pandey has denied this
meeting. He says that no meeting was held under his Chairmanship and in fact no election was held
on that date.

11. Sri Sharad Pandey has been able to demonstrate one more lacuna in the story of the
petitioner's case for election. He has drawn attention on page-8 of the writ petition. These are
objections filed by the petitioners on 21.7.2015 against the papers submitted by Sri Kripa Shanker
Pandey on 13.7.2015. By this paper, Kripa Shanker Pandey has alleged that the election was held
on 8.7.2015, in which he was declared as President. The quorum was complete. He had the
authority of holding this election under the by laws. It has been pointed out that while filing
objection against the claim of opposite party no. 4, the petitioner has forgot to even make mention
about the fact that the election has been held by the petitioner on 15.6.2015. If the petitioner had in
fact participated in any election on 15.6.2015, this should have been first and foremost objection
against any subsequent election as alleged by Kripa Shanker Pandey. It should have been
mentioned that since election has been held on 15.6.2015, there was no occasion of any subsequent
election by any other person except the manager on 8.7.2015. Instead of taking this objection, the
petitioners have submitted that the papers submitted by Kripa Shanker Pandey on 13.7.2015
referring any election held on 8.7.,2015, should not be accepted. This fact has not been asserted that
the election has already taken place and hence any subsequent list should not be registered.

12. The Deputy Registrar has further pointed out that the register of proceedings submitted
by Ashfaq Ahmad starts from page 64 till 67. At page-64, there are only fourteen members on the
date of election dated 15.6.2015, out of which Kripa Shanker Pandey, Ram Piyare, Babu Ram, and
Doodhnath has been shown as absent and at the same time, nineteen members with Sri Ashfaq
Ahmad has allegedly inducted as new members, have not been shown as present. The Deputy
Registrar has raised objection on the quorum of the meeting and has finally come to the conclusion
that the proceedings appears to be forged and unbelievable.

13. On the basis of the discussions made by the Deputy Registrar and the arguments of Mr.
Sharad Pathak, This Court comes to the conclusion that the finding of the Deputy Registrar so far
election dated 15.6.2015being forged and fabricated, is concerned, appears to be correct. No
election was held and it is only after thought which came to the petitioner, after Kripa Shanker
Pandey preferred papers of the election alleged to have been held on 8.7.2015. This part of the
Deputy Registrar's order is correct and upheld by this Court.

14. So far registration of the papers and list submitted by Kripa Shanker Pandey is
concerned, this Court feels that he did not have any right to hold the election on 8.7.2015. No doubt
5 All. Major Pritam Singh & Anr. Vs Smt. Kamlesh Pundir & Anr.

1597
 there is a provision in the by laws, at page- 49 of the petition under the heading of 'karyakaal', that
tenure of the committee of management shall be three years but under certain conditions, if the
election is not held within three years, extension of three months time shall be permissible and after
that the election will be binding. Even if this by laws is taken to be right and correct, then Sri Kripa
Shanker Pandey did not have right to hold any election unless extended three months time had
expired after expiry of three years tenure i.e. on 30.6.2015. If the manager, i.e. the petitioner was
not going to hold election within three months, only then this clause will become operational.
Admittedly the terms of committee of management was to expire after 30.6.2015 and it was after
that expiry that the election could have been held; firstly after the expiry of the terms of three years
the Deputy Registrar ought to have gone for fresh election or if by laws are taken to be valid, the
election could have been held after three months i.e. after 30.9.2015, which is the date after three
months of the expiry of three years tenure.

15. With these discussions, this Court comes to the conclusion that neither the election
proceedings and the election held on 15.6.2015 submitted by Ashfaq Ahmad was a valid election,
nor Kripa Shanker Pandey had any right to hold the election on 8.7.2015. Consequently, the order
of the Deputy Registrar, by which he has recognized the election dated 8.7.2015 is bad in law. The
order of the Deputy Registrar to this effect is set aside.

16. In the result, the committee of management of the Society has become time barred and
there is no valid committee of management.

17. This writ petition is finally disposed of with the direction to the Deputy Registrar to get
a fresh election held for the committee of management under its supervision.
---------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.05.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHABIHUL HASNAIN, J.

Second Appeal No.- 7 Of 1994

Major Pritam Singh & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Kamlesh Pundir & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel For Appellants:
Virendra Misra, Saurabh Lavania

Counsel For Respondednts:
R.K.Agrawal