The Allahabad High Court has directed to conduct the election of Meerut’s Supreme Tower Apartment Association within two months.
A Single Bench of Justice Kshitij Shailendra passed this order while hearing a petition filed by Supreme Tower Apartment Owner Associates.
The petition has been filed substantially with a prayer that fresh elections be held, whereas petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.12.2021 whereby the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut, after making an observation to the effect that the elections dated 03.10.2021 conducted under the supervision of an Observer J.P Uppal, who was appointed by the office of the Deputy Registrar, are valid and raising doubts on the elections dated 15.09.2021 set up by the petitioner and declaring the same as without any competence, it has been observed that since under the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, it is the Prescribed Authority, i.e the Sub-Divisional Officer of the concerned area, who has competence to adjudicate upon the dispute with regard to elections, let the parties may approach the Prescribed Authority as per the requirement of 1/4th members as mentioned in Section 25(1) of the Act.
A further observation has been made that in case any proceedings are pending in relation to the Board of Management, the same shall be subject to the decision which shall be finally taken by the Sub Divisional Officer.
As per the case of the parties, Supreme Tower Apartment Owner Association is an owners’ Association registered with the Registrar of the Societies as communicated by letter dated 16.02.2016.
There is no dispute about the Bye-laws governing the elections of the Board of Management. The dispute is with regard to the elections held from time to time and, presently, with regard to the elections dated 15.09.2021 in which one Shiv Ram Sharma claims to have been elected as President of the Association and other elections dated 03.10.2021 in which one Sadhana Sandhu claims to have been elected.
The contention of Sadhana Sandhu is to the effect that her elections were lawfully held after the Deputy Registrar had nominated and appointed an election Observer as per the material placed before this Court along with intervener application sent by registered post to the Registrar General of the Court, whereas the submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that the said elections were invalid as the same were held without there being any list of members duly registered in the office of Assistant Registrar.
The Court noted that,
From perusal of the order sheet of the case, I find that the Deputy Registrar was directed to file an affidavit in relation to some elections held on 10.10.2020 and also to the effect as to whether the list of office bearers on the basis whereof the said elections were held, was registered in his office or not.
Pursuant to the order dated 12.05.2022, the Deputy Registrar personally appeared before the Court and filed an affidavit of compliance and with regard to the query of the Court, he stated on oath as well as in person that since after 2016, no list of office bearers has ever been registered under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1860.
The aforesaid interim order is on the lines that in case the Deputy Registrar was satisfied that the power to adjudicate upon validity of any elections vests in the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, as per the decision referred to in the interim order, the Deputy Registrar was not justified in attaching validity to any elections pressed before him.
Various arguments have been advanced by Shashi Kiran who was elected as President in elections dated 10.10.2020 and Sadhana Sandhu who was elected as President in elections dated 03.10.2021 stating that the petitioner and persons under his control, are causing interference in the management of the affairs of the society and whenever the lawful elections were sought to be held with the assistance of the Deputy Registrar, they caused interference not only by filing the petition before the Delhi High Court but also a civil suit and, later on, withdrew both proceedings and now have challenged the order dated 13.12.2021 before the Court.
They have also argued that they being ladies are being harassed and the petitioner and his men do not want that they may come into power.
The Court further noted that,
Various other intervener applications filed in this case are on behalf of the residents of the campus and it appears that their grievance is also to the effect that on account of a dispute amongst the persons striving to constitute Board of Management, their lives have become hell and, therefore, this Court should pass appropriate orders for maintenance of proper amenities and even the directions issued under the order dated 12.05.2022 have become merely a piece of paper and nothing more.
In so far as the validity of order impugned is concerned, the submission of the counsel for the petitioner as well as State side as also some of the interveners is to the effect that once the Deputy Registrar made a statement before the Court on oath as well as by appearing in person that no list under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1860 has been registered before him after 2016, any elections held thereafter by either side on the basis of any list prepared by them at their own, loose their significance.
However, reliance has been placed on behalf of intervener Sadhana Sandhu upon a judgment of the Court in the case of Committee of Management, Pratibha Shikshan Samiti and another Vs State of U.P and others.
The Court observed that,
I have perused the said judgment and I find that the ratio of the said judgment is that though the Committee after expiry of term has been held to be empowered to convene a meeting, in the same judgment it has been held that the said right continues till such time the Registrar passes an order under Section 25(2) of the Act.
Further, I find that the facts of the case are not identical to the case of Committee of Management (supra) inasmuch as there was no such issue before the Court in the said case as to whether the list on the basis of which the elections were held was registered or not in the office of Deputy Registrar.
Having heard the counsel for the parties, I find that once no list is registered after 2016 under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1860 and, even otherwise, drastic amendments have been made in Section 4 and 4-B of the Act, as applicable in the State of U.P, the Court cannot ignore the aspect of purity of the list of office bearers and the said purity would stand reflected only when the Deputy Registrar, during the course of exercising his power under Section 25(2) of the Act, finalizes the list, i.e the electoral college, for the purposes of holding elections.
In view of the clear stand taken by the Deputy Registrar, as noted herein above, coupled with the fact that the Deputy Registrar in the order impugned was himself of the opinion that with regard to the disputed elections the matter can be examined by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act while setting aside both the findings with regard to any of the elections held by the respective parties and also to make a reference at this stage to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, the Court disposed the petitions in the following terms:-
(a) The order impugned dated 13.12.2021 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut is set aside, into.
(b) The Deputy Registrar is directed to prepare a tentative list of members calling upon the parties and after inviting objections and dealing with the same, the Deputy Registrar shall attach finality to the list and shall register the same in his office in exercise of power under the relevant provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860.
(c) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the Deputy Registrar within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him by any of the parties.
(d) As soon as the list is finalized, the Deputy Registrar shall exercise his power under Section 25(2) of the Act to hold elections in accordance with the Bye-laws, applicable as on today, in a democratic way by nominating an Observer within a period of next two months.
(e) The Sub-Divisional Officer who has acted in teeth of the directions issued by the Court under the order dated 12.05.2022 is directed to forthwith visit the premises and take over the control over the basic amenities and all aspects associated thereto so that the residents may not face any difficulty in so far as their habitation quality and comfortable in the apartment is concerned.