Civil Writ Petition No.9384 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9384 of 2010 Date of Decision:23.03.2011 Jasmail Singh ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Karambir Singh Nalwa, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.Jatin Salwan, Advocate, for respondent Nos.3 to 5. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Concisely, the relevant facts, which require to be noticed for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant writ petition and emanating from the record, are that as the representation filed by petitioner-Jasmail Singh was not decided, therefore, in the wake of Civil Writ Petition No.7094 of 2009, The Registrar, Firms and Societies, Punjab, Chandigarh (respondent No.2) was directed to take a final decision on the representation (29.03.2009) of the petitioner within a period of three months by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court(Permod Kohli, J.) by virtue of order dated 10.08.2009 (Annexure P-8). In pursuance thereof, respondent No.2 decided the indicated representation by way of impugned order dated 25.02.2010(Annexure P-9). 2. The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned order(Annexure P-9), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter, alia, pleading that Civil Writ Petition No.9384 of 2010 2 respondent No.2 has illegally rejected his(petitioner) representation on the ground that he has no powers under the Societies Registration Act, 1860(hereinafter to be referred as “the Act”) to interfere in the election process, validity of the elected members of the society and voter list and without noticing the provisions of Sections 15, 20 and 24 of the Act. The petitioner claimed that some members of the Executive Committee are enrolling new members for the general council in the garb of Memorandum of Association(Annexure P-1) of the respondent/Society. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the petitioner that since the respondents are enrolling the new members against the memorandum of association and the rules, so, respondent No.2 ought to have accepted his representation in this regard. On the basis of aforesaid allegations, the petitioner sought quashment of the impugned order(Annexure P-9) and directions to the respondents to again decide his representation dated 29.03.2009, after passing a speaking order in view of Section 24 of the Act. 4. The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 filed his written statement, while respondent Nos.3 to 5 filed their joint separate written statement, inter alia, pleading certain preliminary objections of, maintainability of the writ petition, cause of action and locus standi of the petitioner. Respondent No.2 claimed that the prayer of the petitioner that representation be decided under Section 24 of the Act, cannot be accepted because, Section 24 of the Act has not been notified in the State of Punjab and has only been inserted by Uttar Pradesh Act 11 of 1984. The representation of the petitioner was stated to have been considered and disposed of in accordance with law by passing a speaking order(Annexure P-9) on the ground that he has no jurisdiction/power to interfere in the internal matters, election process, validity of elected members of the society and voter-list etc. The aggrieved party can get the grievance redressed from the court of law. Civil Writ Petition No.9384 of 2010 3 5. The contesting respondent Nos.3 to 5 having toed the lines of pleadings contained in the written statement of respondent No.2, further explained that the petitioner is a habitual trouble maker and has always worked against the interest of the society. According to the contesting respondents that in the year 2006, the respondent-society had 283 valid members. As per rules of the society, election for the Managing Committee and its Office Bearers was being held after every three years. The then Managing Committee vide its resolution dated 27.02.2006 had decided to hold the election on 26.03.2006 for electing the Managing Committee for the next three years. As per schedule number of nominations were filed for different posts and after scrutiny and withdrawal on 26.03.2006, the date of election was notified by the Returning Officer. Consequently, Shivdev Singh Kang(respondent No.4) was elected as a President, while petitioner-Jasmail Singh was declared as Senior Vice President of the society. The petitioner was stated to have issued a letter without any authority to the Vice Chancellor, Panjab University Chandigarh that he assumed and taken over the charge of the office of the President of the society. 6. As soon as, respondent No.4 came to know, he lodged a criminal case against the petitioner vide FIR No.244 dated 13.12.2006, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 470 and 120-B IPC, in the Police Station Samrala, District Khanna. The revision petition filed by the petitioner to the impugned order passed by the Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, was dismissed by this Court by means of order dated 20.05.2008 (Annexure R3/2). Listing the variety of instances of misconduct of the petitioner, the respondents claimed that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is false and frivolous. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the written statement and prayed for its dismissal. 7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone Civil Writ Petition No.9384 of 2010 4 through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant writ petition. 8. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that since respondent No.2 has not decided the representation of the petitioner in view of Section 24 etc. of the Act, so, the impugned order(Annexure P-9) is arbitrary and illegal, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 9. As is evident from the record that in pursuance of the order (Annexure P-8) of this Court, respondent No.2 has decided the representation of the petitioner vide impugned order(Annexure P-9). The operative part of which is, as under:- “Where as in this regard, it is submitted that the Registrar of Firms and Societies, Punjab has no powers under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to interfere in the Election Process/validity of the elected member of the society and the voter list etc. However, the aggrieved party may approach the Civil Court for the redressal of their grievances. Now, therefore, I, Daljit Singh Sidhu, Registrar of Firms and Societies, Punjab, after considering the representation of the petitioners in detail and perusal of record and submissions put-forth by the petitioners at the time of hearing and provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 have come to the conclusion that the Registrar of Firms and Societies has no power to interfere in such matters as mentioned in para 5 above, therefore, the representation of the petitioner is hereby rejected.” 10. As is clear from the written statement of respondent No.2 that Section 24 of the Act is not at all notified/applicable to the State of Punjab, which was introduced by the Uttar Pradesh Government by means of Act No.11 of 1984. Therefore, respondent No.2 did not have the jurisdiction to interfere with the internal matter, voter list and the election process of the society, as urged on behalf of the petitioner. Such disputes can only be decided by the Courts. 11. Meaning thereby, respondent No.2 has recorded the valid reasons, passed a speaking order and rightly rejected the representation of the petitioner vide impugned order(Annexure P-9). Such order, containing the valid reasons, Civil Writ Petition No.9384 of 2010 5 cannot possibly be interfered with, in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court, unless the same is perverse and without jurisdiction. As no such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the impugned order(Annexure P-9) deserves to be and is hereby maintained in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 13. In the light of aforesaid reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed as such. March 23, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No.9384 of 2010 6