# Committee of Management v. Prescribed Authority/ Upzila Magistrate and others

- **Citation:** (2001) 1 ILRA 349
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000-12-18
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-v-prescribed-authority-upzila-magistrate-and-others-39730
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
349
services
of
other
employees
and
dispensing with the services of the
petitioner any illegality or irregularity was
committed. Otherwise also, reliance upon
the principle 'first come last go' is
misplaced in as much as this principle is
not applicable in the case of termination
of services of temporary employee in
terms of the conditions of the appointment
and in accordance with the provision of
Rules
regulating
the
termination
of
services of temporary employee.

10. All told, in the opinion of the
Court, the petition is devoid of substance
and liable to be dismissed summarily.

Accordingly,
the
petition
is
dismissed summarily.
Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -
7+( +21·%/( 90 6$+$, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

&RPPLWWHH RI 0DQDJHPHQW «3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
3UHVFULEHG $XWKRULW\ 8S]LOD 0DJLVWUDWH
DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 9LQRG 6LQKD
6KUL 63 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6UL .ULVKQD 3UDVDG

6RFLHWLHV 5HJLVWUDWLRQ $FW 6
3UHVFULEHG
DXWKRULW\ ZKHWKHU DFWV DV
(OHFWLRQ
7ULEXQDO
ZKLOH
H[HUFLVLQJ
SRZHUV XQGHU WKH $FW
+HOG3DUD
7KHUHIRUH WKH 3UHVFULEHG $XWKRULW\ LQ
H[HUFLVH
RI
KLV
MXGLFLDO
IXQFWLRQ
DV
7ULEXQDO KDV KHOG E\ WKH LPSXJQHG RUGHU
GDWHG WKDW HOHFWLRQV RI WKH
SHWLWLRQHUV DQG UHVSRQGHQW QR ZHUH
LOOHJDO
FRQWUDU\
WR
E\HODZV
RI
WKH
VRFLHW\ DQG LW GLUHFWHG IRU KROGLQJ IUHVK
HOHFWLRQ , GR QRW ILQG DQ\ LOOHJDOLW\ LQ WKH
LPSXJQHG
RUGHU
SDVVHG
E\
WKH
3UHVFULEHG $XWKRULW\
&DVH /DZ
 83& %(& 'LVDSSURYHG
 83& %(& '% IROORZHG

By the Court

1. The petitioner's committee of
management was elected on 03.02.2000.
The District Basis Education officer on
28.02.2000 recognised the election and
attested the signature of the Manager. On
08.03.2000 renewal of the society was
granted in favour of the petitioner. The
election of the respondent no. 4 was held
on 05.02.2000 and the respondent no. 4
made a complaint before the Deputy
Registrar, Firs, Societies and Chits, the
respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2
made a reference to the Prescribed
Authority under Section 25(1) of the
Societies Registration Act 1860(in brief
the Act). The prescribed Authority on
18.12.2000 has held that elections of the
petitioner and respondent no. 4 were
illegal and were contrary to the bye-laws
of the society, therefore, he directed for
holding fresh election. It is this order
which has been challenged in this
petition.

2. Sri Vinod Sinha the learned
counsel for the petitioner has vehemently
urged that the prescribed Authority while
exercising power under the Act, does not
function as Election Tribunal and he
1All] Committee of Management V. Prescribed Authority/ Upzila Magistrate and others
350
cannot decide the dispute about the
validity of the election. He has placed
reliance on the decision of learned Single
Judge in Abdul Kalam and another v. the
prescribed Authority/SDM, Phoolpur and
others 2000 (3) UPLBEC 2499. On the
other hand Sri Krishna Prasad the learned
standing counsel has urged that the
Prescribed Authority can examine the
validity of the elections. He has placed
reliance on a division Bench decision of
this court in Jai Prakash Agarwal V.
Prescribed Authority (Sub Divisional
Officer), Sadar, District Deoria and others
1999 (1) UPLBEC 697.

3. On the arguments advanced by
the learned counsel for the parties, the
question
is
whether
the
Prescribed
Authority function as a Tribunal and
could go into the question of validity of
the elections. The Division Bench in Jai
Prakash Agarwal (supra) has considered
this question and has held that the
Prescribed Authority decides important
dispute of election and continuance in
officer of an office bearer, which is
essentially a dispute of civil nature. From
the provisions of section 25 (1) and (2), it
is clear that the Prescribed Authority
decides the dispute in exercise of inherent
power of the State vested in him by the
State Government. In further held that the
Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of
the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as
applicable in Uttar Pradesh, is a Tribunal
and the orders passed by the Prescribed
Authority can be challenged in writ
petition
under
Article
26
of
the
Constitution and Special appeal under
Rule 5 of Chapter VIII of the Rules of the
Court would not lie against the order of
the Single Judge passed in a writ petition.
It appears that this decision of the
Division Bench was not placed before the
learned Single Judge in Abdul Kalam's
case were in he has held that the
Prescribed Authority does not act as an
Tribunal. The decision in Abdul Kalam's
case in of no help to the petitioner.
Therefore, the prescribed Authority in
exercise of his judicial function as
Tribunal has held by the impugned order
dated 18.12.2000 that election of the
petitioner and respondent no. 4 were
illegal, contrary to bye-laws of the society
and it directed for holding fresh election. I
do not find any illegality in the impugned
order passed by the Prescribed Authority.

4. The writ petition has no merit and
is accordingly dismissed.
Petition Dismissed.

$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -
7+( +21·%/( 86 75,3$7+, -

&ULPH 0LVF %DLO $SSOLFDWLRQ 1R RI

&DVH
&ULPH
1R

RI

8QGHU
VHFWLRQ ,3& 3ROLFH 6WDWLRQ
/RQH 'LVWULFW *KD]LDEDG

%LMHQGUD 6LQJK DOLDV 3LQWRR «$SSOLFDQW
,Q MDLO
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83
«2SSRVLWH SDUW\

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSOLFDQW
6KUL -DL 6KDQNHU $XGLFK\D
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
6UL 56 6KXNOD
$*$

&RGH RI &ULPLQDO 3URFHGXUH &RGH
6 %DLO*UDQW RI ± )LUVW UHPDQG