HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 21 of 2011 The “Good Shepherd” Agricultural Mission. ……..Appellant Versus The Prescribed Authority/ S.D.M., Purnagiri and others. …….Respondents Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Gopal K. Verma, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. H.M. Bhatia, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. K.P. Uppadhyay, Addl. C.S.C. for the State/respondent nos. 1 & 5. Mr. Sanjay Bhatt, Advocate for respondent no.2. Dated: February 28, 2011 Coram: Hon’ble Barin Ghosh, C.J. Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Barin Ghosh,C.J. (Oral) The Society, known as “Good Shepherd Agricultural Mission”, is a Registered Society. According to its approved and registered bye-laws, it is to be administered by a Board of Directors, consisting of Director, Deputy Director, Secretary and two members. The Board has permanent status. Temporary vacancy in the Board, may be temporary filled by the Previous Board. The bye-laws direct that permanent vacancy shall be filled by the combined vote of the Board and compete staff. 2. A writ petition was filed, where it was alleged that an illegal Board is functioning. The Court accepted the contention and, accordingly, directed the Deputy Registrar of Societies to hold election. A review petition was filed by the private respondents herein, who contended that a legal Board is functioning, there is no permanent vacancy and, as such, there is no question of supplying vacancy through vote. At the same time, certain actions on the part of the Deputy Registrar, Societies were 2 called in question by a separate writ petition. In that writ petition, it was contended that the list of voters prepared, is not just. The review petition as well as the said writ petition have since been dismissed. The writ petition has been dismissed in view of the order passed on the review petition and the review petition has been dismissed preserving liberty of the review petitioner to avail of appropriate remedy before the Appropriate Forum. In order to obtain appropriate relief before the Appropriate Forum, an application was filed by the private respondents. The said application was by four persons. The appellant herein contended that the said application, by four persons, in view of the provisions contained in Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is not maintainable, since an application of that nature, by less than 25% of the members, is not maintainable. 3. The said contention has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority. While doing so, Prescribed Authority felt that since the Permanent Board is constituted by five members, the application by four members was maintainable. We think that the Prescribed Authority failed to appreciate the true purport of the application as well as the objection thereto. The principal contention of the applicants before the Prescribed Authority was that the list of voters prepared, is incorrect. Inasmuch as, expressed leave has been given by this Court to the respondents herein, who were applicants before the Prescribed Authority, to urge issues raised by them, including the issue pertaining to preparation of the list of voters, we think it was obligatory on the part of the Prescribed Authority to ascertain whether the list of voters that had been made by the Deputy Registrar, 3 Societies was in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society, as evidenced by the members registered and other papers and documents of the Society. Only in the event, the Prescribed Authority had been of the view that the number of members was less than 21 as was declared by the Deputy Registrar, Societies, and in the event number of applicants, before the Prescribed Authority, was 25% of such determined voters/members of the Society, then only the Prescribed Authority could proceed further with the application. That having not been done, we think that the order of the Prescribed Authority, as was impugned in the writ petition, was interferable and the same having not been interfered by the judgment and order under appeal, we set aside the same and at the same time quash the order impugned in the writ petition. 4. We direct the Prescribed Authority to ascertain the number of voters of the Society and thereupon to ascertain whether the applicants are, at least, 25% of those determined numbers of voters and, if so, to proceed further with the application of the applicants before the Prescribed Authority. (V.K. Bist, J.) (Barin Ghosh, C.J.) 28.02.2011 NCM: