The Committee of Management of Rashtriya Junior High School (Society) Through Its Manager/Mantri, Vijai Bahadur Yadava Vs. the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- land acquisition act, 1894 [c.a. no. 1/1894]. section 4; [sushil harkauli, s.k. singh & krishna murari, jj] acquisition of land held, court cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the state authorities to acquire a particular land. land acquisition is not purely ministerial act to be performed by executive no direction in nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by court under article 226 necessarily to acquire particular land in public interest. land acquisition is not a purely ministerial act to be performed by the executive and therefore, no mandamus can be issued by the court in exercise of its power under article 226 of the constitution, whether suo motu or otherwise, whether in public interest litigation or otherwise directing acquisition of land under the provisions of land acquisition act, 1894. it would, however, be open to the court in exercise of that power to invite the attention of the executive to any public purpose and the need for land for meeting that public purpose and to require the executive to take a decision, even a reasoned decision, with regard to the same in accordance with the statutory provisions, perhaps even within a reasonable time frame. however, the power of the court under article 226 must necessarily stop at that. thereafter, if the decision taken by the executive is capable of challenge and, there exist appropriate legal grounds for such challenge, it may also be open to the court to quash the decision and to require reconsideration. but no direction in the nature of mandamus whether interim or final can be issued by the court under article 226 to the executive to necessarily acquire a particular area of a particular piece of land for a particular public purpose. section 4; compulsory acquisition of land powers of state government held, renewal of lease in favour of petitioners would not take away power of state government of compulsory acquisition of land. renewal of lease would at best be taken into consideration for determining quantum of compensation. - he must, simply put, be satisfied that there is something to refer and he is not merely sending litigations before the prescribed authority, without there being even a shadow of real cause for litigation. we are of the clear opinion that the power of grant of also renewal implies the power of withdrawal of such grant also, provided good and proper cause is shown therefor. 7. it is the well known law that with the proof of a supporting claim by at least a quarter of the members of the society in the general body, a reference can be as of right made as of right under section 25 of the societies registration act to the prescribed authority directly.ajoy nath ray, c.j. and ashok bhushan, j.1. we are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by hon'ble mr. justice rakesh tiwari, in his lordship's order dated 20.5.2003. in the writ petition filed on behalf of the appellant, who, in reality is mantri, vijai bahadur yadava deseriting(sic) himself the manager of the committee of management of rashtriya junior high school (society), babhaniyaon, challenged the order passed by the assistant registrar on 25.5.2000, whereby he recalled the earlier grant of renewal of the certificate of the soceity made by him on 24.3.1999. the disputes arose before him since the group of birendra kumar shukla and others raised the point that yadava was not entitled to obtain the renewal of the grant on behalf of the soceity, as he was not an office bearer and in a hopeless minority.2. the learned assistant registrar's finding is on record and from one portion (see page 83 of the paper book before us), it may be seen that all founder members of the soceity, namely; laxmi narayan shukla, shitla prasad yadava, suresh kumar yadava and raghuraj singh were placing confidence and reliance upon birendra kumar shukla. and the appellant, yadava although a founder member, was alone in his own camp.3. there is also a finding that no original document could be produced for substantiating before the registrar any election which gives the managerial post to yadava, and the consequential finding was that the case of the appellant appeared to be fictitious and, therefore, in the interest of justice the renewal granted to him should be withdrawn.4. it is the standard law that if any bona fide dispute as to two rival committees of managements is shown to be inexistence to the registrar or assistant registrar, a reference by him of the dispute to the prescribed authority follows as a matter of course. but a bona fide dispute does come into existence merely because one member, even if he is a founder member, chooses simply to he has say or assert that he has a rival committee and therefore, a bona fide dispute as to management exists. sufficient prima facie material must be produced before the registrar before he can validly exercise his jurisdiction of referring the dispute. he must, simply put, be satisfied that there is something to refer and he is not merely sending litigations before the prescribed authority, without there being even a shadow of real cause for litigation. 5. the hon'ble judge has refused to interfere with the order of recall passed by the assistant registrar; we are of the clear opinion that the power of grant of also renewal implies the power of withdrawal of such grant also, provided good and proper cause is shown therefor.6. this implied power was used by the assistant registrar in this case; the learned single judge in his lordship's discretion has found such use of power by the assistant registrar to be valid and not vitiated; we in the court of appeal cannot find anything to interfere with his lordship's judgement and decision.7. it is the well known law that with the proof of a supporting claim by at least a quarter of the members of the society in the general body, a reference can be as of right made as of right under section 25 of the societies registration act to the prescribed authority directly. on the other hand, as we have mentioned above, the genuine existence of a bona fide dispute might give rise to a reference to the prescribed authority through the registrar. that these courses exist in law, does not mean that we should give liberty to the appellant to avail himself of any of these courses; he cannot avail himself of these courses on the basis of the appeal court's liberty; he has to show the existence of a rival body with sufficient clarity before the appropriate authority before he can exercise the rights given to some persons in accordance with law; if the appellant has achieved the status or the support of a group of disputants then only the can dispute, otherwise not.8. the appeal is dismissed. no order as to costs.