1. ' This is a suit filed by the Life Members of Ali Garh University Old Boys Association against the office-bearers of the said Association and certain government officials seeking rendition of accounts of Association and also seeking declaration and injunctions related to the election held on 13-9-1997.
2. Even though the matter on 16-12-1998 was fixed for hearing of Injunction Application in connection with the elections but during the course of arguments the parties agreed that the entire suit can be disposed of as parties did not wish to lead evidence. The main contention of the Plaintiffs is that this is a prestigious society and that it controls Real Estate of great value and has interests in various other organisations. The affairs of the Society were being mismanaged by the Executive Committee. They also state that there is considerable misappropriation of the funds of the Society.
3. In particular, their objection is directed to the new Memorandum and Articles and Association of the Society (hereinafter referred to as the "Constitution"), which they say was passed in the Extraordinary General Meeting where there was no quorum. According to them, original articles of association still continue to be the article of association of the Society. They further state that since according to the original Article of Association, the Members of Executive committee are shown to be only 15 and since in the new election held in 1997, the members elected were 18, there is clear violation of the by-laws of the Society and therefore the elections are void and they would therefore want that executive committee, that is presently running the association must be restrained from performing their function. The Plaintiffs have agitated their grievance against the association for a long time, firstly, before the Registrar Joint Stock Companies who is defendant No,2 in these proceedings and also before Hon'ble Ombudsman, but they were advised by all concerned, and even by Ombudsman that they must agitate their grievance before a Court of law.
4. ' On the other hand the President and Hon'ry Secretary General of the Association i,e, defendant No,3 and defendant No,7 have filed their written statement and have denied the allegations of the plaintiff. They maintain that the accounts are properly audited and have been constantly approved by the Annual General Meeting of which requisite notices were sent to the members as per Rules. As far as the amending of the constitution is concerned, they say that this was done in an Extraordinary General Meeting dated 30-9-1995 as per rules and hence this is the current Constitution of the Society. In so far as the elections are concerned, defendants state that these were held in Annual General Meeting on 13-9-1997 strictly in accordance with the amended constitution and office-bearers have already taken office. They say in fact the plaintiff No,1 had participated in these elections and had lost.
5. ' I find that the entire dispute in the suit revolves around the question as to which is the valid constitution of the Society. Whether it is the constitution that was adopted at the time of registration of the Society i,e, 21-5-1948 and is annexed as P.1 to the plaint or it is the constitution adopted in the extraordinary general meeting held on 13-3-1995 and is annexed as Annexure "A" to the written statement filed by the Defendant No,3 and Defendant No,7, the two office bearers of the Society. A perusal of the two constitutions would show that these differ from each other greatly. The major difference between the two relates to the number of members in the Executive Committee and also as to when annual year of the Society would end. There are also differences as to how elections are to be held and how various functions are to be performed by the office-bearers.
6. Earlier constitution is also strict about amendments to the Constitution whereas in the new Constitution the procedure is considerably lax. A perusal of the Order Sheet shows that learned Judge who had heard this case earlier had in fact directed the Registrar Joint Stock Companies, the defendant No,2 to produce correct constitution of the association. However, it seems that the Registrar was unable to produce the constitution resulting in the learned Judge remarking that it will now be for the Court to decide as to which of the two constitutions before the Court is the correct one. The 'dispute referred to in the Plaint regarding the number of the members in the Executive Committee and the procedure for amendment of the constitution and the mode of functioning of the office-bearers all arise from the reliance being placed by the plaintiffs, and defendant on different constitutions. Nevertheless, a perusal of the Plaint and the documents annexed .Thereto would show that all is not well with the Association and that a number of members of the association have grievance with regard to the manner in which the association has been run by certain office-bearers in the past. Now an association is a private organization meant to bring together people who have something in common so that they can collectively work to the benefits of its members. If the office-bearers or some members start striking out on separate paths of their own to the detriment of the interest of the Society as a whole then obviously the society would be able to function. It is necessary that there must be complete harmony in the running of the society. Differences of opinion always arise and in fact these are necessary for proper functioning of any organization, but the differences must be addressed in the manner provided in the rules and must not result in different groups being formed within the society for that will be negation of the society itself. The Courts have always declined to interfere in disputes between members of a Society because it is the considered opinion of the jurists that a Society must be allowed to resolve its dispute through consultation without outside interference. However, if acrimony has developed amongst the members of the society and it is not possible for the members to resolve their own dispute, I am of the view that Court should only interfere remaining within the four corners of the constitution and the members should be cajoled into resolving their own disputes.
7. ' Considering that in this case dispute exists and there is considerable acrimony between the parties, and certain members challenge the right of the office-bearers to hold the office because they feel that the election held in 1997 which has brought the present office-bearers in office was illegally conducted. It is obvious that something ought to be done.
8. I would therefore of course decline to declare the election already held as a result of which the office-bearers have been in office for the last two years, as illegal. Nevertheless I would certainly want that the controversy as to which is the correct Constitution must be resolved. I, therefore, in the interest of justice direct that:-
(i) An extraordinary general meeting is to be called within three months from the date of this order as per the provision of second constitution which, is amended up to 1996 and during this meeting this constitution will be proposed as the new constitution and an approval of the members would be sought for it. Till the members decide as to whether they accept this constitution or not this will continue to be the constitution of the Society.
(ii) The present office-bearers will continue to hold office till, the Annual General Meeting, to be held in the year 2000 when, whether the elections are due or not, such elections will be held as per the bylaws of the constitution that would be approved in Extraordinary General Meeting directed to be held as per No,(i) above.
9. ' I, therefore, dispose of this suit in terms hereinabove.