HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION (C) 3449 of2007 Smt. Yogini Bai Kashyap W/o Shri Govind Ram Kashyap Aged about 26 years, R/o Village: Kamta, Post : Borda, Tehsi) :Navagarh, District: Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VERSUS : 1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Secretary, Department of Commerce and Industries Mantralaya, D.K.S. Bhavan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Registrar, Homes & Societies, Chhattisgarh, 0-5, Anupam Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 3. Smt. Shanti Bai Kashyap, W/o Shri Manoharlal Kashyap, R/o Village : Kamta, Post Borda, Tehsil : Navagarh, District : Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Present: '):•- Ms. Monalisa Chatterjee, Ms. A.S.Sisodiya and Mr. Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel ofthe petitioner. Mr. Alok Bakshi, Govemment Advocate for the State/respondents 1 and2. Mi'. R.K.Kesharwani, Advocate for the respondent No. 3. (Passed on /5 ^ay of September, 2008) 1. The petitioner impugns the order dated 21.05.2007 (Annexure P/7) passed by 1 respondent quashing the order dated 27.01.2007 (Annexure P/3) passed by 2 respondent, vvhereby 2nd respondent i.e. Registrar, Firms and Societies, directed the authorities to hold election ofthe ofBce bearers within a period of30 days. 2. The indisputable facts, in brief are that the petitioner is a member of Jagriti Mahila Mandal, a Samiti, at village Kamta. The said Samiti is constituted as per the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Societies Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1973). The Samiti was constituted on 2.3.2006. After information regarding constitution of the Samiti was taken on record, 3 respondent submitted another list ofexecutive coinmittee ofthe Samiti under section 27 of the Act, 1973 and as such, there were two lists before the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Bilaspur. On 1.12.2006 (Annexure P/2) the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Bilaspur nominated 3 respondent as Chairmaii with President, Treasurer, Secretary, Joint Secretary and nine members to manage and run the Samiti on day to day basis for effective functioning of the society. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner preferred an appeal before 2" respondent. He passed the order on 27.1.2007 (Annexure P/3) to hold election ofthe office bearers within a period of30 days. Pursuant to the order dated 27.1.2007, election of the office bearers.was held on 25.02.2007, which is evident from Annexure P/4 and report was accordingly submitted. The petitioner was elected as Chairman with Sahodra Bai Kashyap as vice president, Umabai Kashyap as Treasurer, Urmila Bai Kashyap as secretary, Shiv Kumari Tiwari as Assistant Secretary, Shyam Bai Kashyap, Rukhmani Bai Kashyap, Dasmat Bai Kashyap and Sukwara Bai Kashyap as inembers. List of the elected candidates was submitted to the Assistant Registrar and ihe same was -¥••- taken on record by order dated 06.03.2007 (Annexure P/5). ,rd .^T*^, /^^ -^. a. % ?-^&--."--ffS=='-^ ?4 j § ^ ''^"'^ <si^£>>^ respondent, in the meantime preferred an appeal against the order dated 27.01.2007 passed by 2nd respondent to 1st respondent on 8.2.2007. 1st respondent, by order dated 21,05.2007 (Annexure P/7), quashed the order dated 27.01.2007 (Annexure P/3) passed by 2nd respondent ignoring the fact that pursuant to the order dated 27.01.2007, democratic election had already talien place and the order to fliat effect has been passed by the Assistant Registrar on 6.3.2007. 4. Ms. Monalisa Chatterjee, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the election had taken place pursuant to the order passed by 2nd respondent, the subsequent impugned order passed by 1 respondent ignoring the fact that election had already taken place, deserves to be quashed. 5. Per contra, Shri R.K.Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for 3 respondent would admit that.the election was completed on 25.2.2007 and the saine was taken on record by order dated 6.3.2007 (Annexure P/5) passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies. The petition desenres to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has never raised the objection with regard to the fact that pending appeal became infructuous on the ground that election had already taken place. Thus, the petitioner may not be penTiitted to raise the said ground. Secondly, the members elected were not having the primary membership of the society and thus, the election conducted by them was not legal and proper. , ' g -flS?''"* ^ M 6. In rejoinder, Ms. CKhatterjee would submit that the petitioner and other elected members as well as the members who participated in the election process were proper members of the society after having paid the requisite fee and the same has already been taken on record by the Assistant Registrar. 7. Thus, the fact that the President and other members were not the primary members cannot be adjudicated upon in this proceeding as the same has been accepted by the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies. No member including 3 respondent has challenged the same before any statutory forum or before this Court. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, without going into the jurisdiction of 1 respondent to decide the appeal, in the facts situation of the case wherein the election of the office bearers of the Samiti. pursuant to the order dated 27.1.2007 has already taken place, the appeal before 1 respondent became'infructuous. 9. The petitioner has been elected as president alongwith other office »- bearers, the report thereof was submitted to the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies which has been accepted as per order dated 6.3.2007. 10. Admittedly, initially, a committee was nominated under the Presidentship of 3 respondent not pursuant to any election but by nomination under order passed by the Assistant Registrar. The nominated committee cannot continue for ever. Thereafter, democratic s;®®: election took place and the petitioner was duly elected as President. The democratically elected office bearers have to be preferred against the nominated office bearers. The impugned order has committed illegality by quashiag the order passed by 2" respondent to hold democratic election. 11. Thus, at this stage, nothing remains for adjudication. Once duly democratically elected body has come into existence, if any grievance survives.the best forum may be filing of election petition before the appropriate authority. Thus, the order dated 21.5.2007 (Annexure P/7) passed by 1 respondent is quashed. 12. For the reasons inentioned hereinabove, this petition is allovved to the above extent. No order asto costs. : , §(]/.; . Satish K.Agmhdtri , Judge '... •., ¥-