© 811tfilcl-S@pl:g^o^ IN THE HtGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITION (C) N0. 4tf2-^ 2007 (SINGLE BENCH OTHER MATTERS) PETITIONER :- FORUM FOR CREATIVE ENTREPRENEURSHIP (Regd. No. 1222 Dated 3/6/2002) Sanjivani Clinic, Opposite Church Krishna Talkies Road, Risali, Bhilai Tahsil & District Durg Chhattisgarh Versus RESPQNDJENT:-1 STATE OF CHHATTISGARH / Through: Principal Secretary Industries & Commerce Department Govt of C.G. Mantralaya D.K.S. Bhawan Raipur C.G. y2. Registrar Firms and Societies Chhattisgarh 0-5 Anupam Nagar Raipur (C.G.) ^ A.<;" ^<^— J, ./3. Asst. Registrar • ,<.^T Firms and Societies Chhattisgarh /^ / (Raipur Division) 0-5 Anupam Nagar Raipur (C.G.) 4. Shri Avinash Chaurasia aged about 48 yrs S/o Shri Karuna Shankar Chaurasia 5. Smt Anita Chaurasia aged about 42 yrs W/o Shri Avinash Chaurasia Both members and resident of Modi No 2 Sitabuldi Nagpur 440012 (MS) j^ir" * ^yPETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA •rt^yf HIGH COURT OF CmiATTISGARIl AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (0 No. 4025 of2007 PETITIONER : Forum For Creative Entrepreneurship VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhattisgarh & Others. AF/< Post for pronouncement ofjudgment on .<33 day ofJune, 2010. 1 Sd/- i Satish K. Agnihotri i Judge mOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION CC) No. 4025 of2007 PETITIONER : Forum For Creative Entrepreneurship VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State ofChhaUisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.K.Bhaduri, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondents No. 1 to 3 Shri Avinash Chaurasia, respondent No.4 and Smt. Anita Chaurasia, respondent No.5 appear in person. JUDGMENT (Delivered on.-2.3'^day ofJune, 2010) The petitioner society, represented through Shri Ashutosh Chaurasia, seeks a direction to the respondent No.3 Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies Chhattisgarh, Raipur Division, Raipur, to take on record the election results of the petitioner society held on 16/6/2007 (Annexure P-7) communicated on 19/6/2007 (Annexure P-8). Further, a direction to the respondent No.3 to delete the names ofrespondent No.4 & 5 from the register of membership, as they have failed to deposit any subscription/membership w.e./ 3/6/2002. The indisputable facts, in nutshell, for adjudication ofthe case, are that pursuant to the order dated 23/5/2007 (Annexure P-12) passed by the respondent No.3 election of the petitioner society was held on 16/6/2007, wherein Dr. (Smt.) Archana Gaur was declared elected for the post ,of Convener/ President, Shri Ashutosh Chaurasia for the post of Working Executive/ Secretary and Smt. Snehlata Pandya for the post ofFinance Executive / Treasurer. On 23/5/2007 (Annexure P-12) Shri D.D. Mahant, Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Raipur Division, directed to hold election within a period of 45 days holding that the objection of respondent No.4 was not filed before declaration of election. Thus, it was held that the respondent No.4 was rightly deprived of participation in the election. Shri Tamaskar, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the election was held for the period of 3 years on 16/6/2007 (Annexure P-7). After completion of3 years, the term of elected body has expired and a fresh election is required to be held. Shri Avinash Chaurasia/respondent No.4, appearing in person, would submit that he was the founder member of the society and there was a direction to him on 23/5/2007 (Annexure P-12) for holding the election and the election held by Ashutosh Chaurasia was illegal and void ab-initio. Shri Avinash Chaurasia would further submit that the expulsion of respondents No.4 & 5 was without any aufhority of law. The respondents No. 4 & 5 had ab-eady preferred an appeal before the State Govemment, whichis evident from Annexure-2 of his retum dated 3/8/2009, indicating that the appeal is pending consideration. Shri Avinash Chaurasia would next submit that the appeal could not be heard because of pendency of this petition. Thus, no direction may be issued to the respondent No.3 to take the election results held on 16/6/2007 (Annexure P-11) on record and further delete the names of the respondent No.4 & 5. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner, leamed counsel appearing for the State and Shri Avinash Chaurasia in person for respondents No.4 & 5, respectively, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. There is no challenge to the election held on 16/6/2007 (Annexure P-11) pursuant to the order dated 23/5/2007 (Annexure P-12). It is not the case ofthe respondents No. 4 & 5 that they have made any challenge to the election held on 16/6/2007 in auy other forum except that they have filed an appeal against the order dated 23/5/2007, pursuant to which the election was held before the State Govemment. The term of the elected committee has come to an F^53^^ end on expiry of a period of 3 years and, as such, the election cannot be questioned today or it cannot be held as illegal in this petition. The respondent No.4 & 5 have not taken any steps to challenge the election held on 16/6/2007 (Annexure P-11) except raising the argument that the election was illegal and unauthorized in the present petition, which has been filed by the petitioner. The contention of Mr. Avinash Chaurasia, petitioner in person, is that the petitioner has preferred an appeal before the State Govemment under the provisions of Section 40 ofthe Chhattisgarh Society Registrikaran Adhiniyam, 1973 (for short "the Adhiniyam, 1973"). Memo of appeal has not been filed and, as such, what are the contents of the appeal are not known. Under the provisions of Section 40 ofthe Adhiniyam, 1973 an appeal is maintainable only against the order passed by the Registrar, not against holding of any election. It appears that the respondent No.4 has challenged the over-ruling of objection in the order dated 23/5/2007 (Annexure P- 12) not the holding of the election pursuant to the order dated 16/6/2007 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies (respondent No.3). There is no dispute that an appeal is pending consideration before the State Govemment, filed under Section 40 of the Adhiniyam, 1973. Section 40 ofthe Adhiniyam, 1973 reads as under : "40. Appeal:- (1) An appeal shall lie, - (a) if the order is made by the Registrar appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 4 either in original case or in appeal under clawe (b) to the State Government; (b) if the order is made by the sub-ordinate officers appointed under sub-section (2) of Section 4 or any other person to the Registrar appointed under sub-section (1) ofSection 4. (2) An appeal under sub- section (l) shall be flled -within two months of the date of communication ofthe order: ,^'i- -;.. 'r'^^-A**'' V ^ '% j ^. l-.. %5ftw: Provided that the appellate authority may admit an appeal after the expiry of such period if the appellant satisfies the appellate authority that he had sufflcient caiise for not preferring the appeal within suchperiod". 10. The order dated 23/5/2007 (Annexure P-12) appears to be under challenge in appeal filed under Section 40 ofthe Adhiniyam, 1973, was passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms and Societies, Raipur Division. The Registrar has been defined under Section 2 (c) as under: "(c) 'Registrar' means the Registrar of societies appointed under sub-section (1) of section 4 and includes an Additional, Joint, Deputy and Assistant Registrars of Societies, appointed under sub-section (2) of the said section when exercising or performing all or any of the po-wers or duties ofthe Registrar; " There is no dispute by the parties that 'Registrar' means the Assistant Regisb-ar appointed under sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Adhiniyam, 1973. 11. In case on hand, the Assistant Registrar has passed the order, thus the order passed by the Assistant Registo-ar comes within the definition of order passed by the Registrar as prescribed in Section 40 oftheAdhiniyam, 1973. 12. Havmg regard to the facts situation ofthe case, wherein there is a dispute with regard to the constitution of the petitioner society and expulsion of the respondent No.4 & 5 and the election held thereafter pursuant to order dated 23/5/2007 (Annexure P-12), and further appeal is pending consideration before fhe State Govemment, it would not be proper to adjudicate upon the dispute involving contrary facts raised by fhe parties. Since the appeal is already pending consideration before the State Govemment, the State Govemment may consider the appeal looking to the disputed questionoffacts. ^^~c. -\^, y ^.^ '^ i "^si;. g '^ '" :\. .5 13. No relief as sought for in the prayer clause 7.1 ofthe petition can be granted at this stage, as the same has become inliuctuous. With regard to other reliefs, the appeal is already pending consideration for the same before the State Govemment, thus no relief can be granted. 14. In view offoregoing, the petition is disposed ofwith a direction to the State Govemment that if the appeal filed by the respondent No.4 is pending consideration, the same may be considered and decided in accordance with law and on its own merits, within a period of 10 weeks from the date ofreceipt ofa copy ofthis order. 15. No order as to costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihom Judge Ashok