Dismissed

C/M Sri Sardar Patel U.M. Vidyalay Samiti and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2018WRIC/1182/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court rejected the writ petition challenging the Deputy Registrar's determination of an electoral college. Finding no good reason to interfere, the court affirmed reliance on a prior contested decree over a compromise order due to lack of meritorious adjudication in the latter and absence of statutory records.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was disposed of with liberty to institute a civil suit for declaration of rights.

C/M Sri Sardar Patel U.M. Vidyalay Samiti and… — Company and Corporate | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1182 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Sri Sardar Patel U.M. Vidyalay Samiti And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vashishtha Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anupam Kulshreshtha,Dinesh Kumar

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.

¶5

Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Vashishtha Tiwari, for the petitioners; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1 to 4; Sri Anupam Kulshreshtha and Sri Dinesh Kumar for the respondents 5 and 6; and perused the record.

¶6

The present petition has been filed assailing an order dated 09.11.2017 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Agra whereby the electoral college of a Society named Sri Sardar Patel U.M. Vidyalay Samiti, Dev Nagar, Mathura (in short the Society) for the purpose of holding election, under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short the Act), has been determined.

¶7

It appears that in respect of the institution established by the Society, an authorised controller was appointed. A Suit No. 655 of 1998 was instituted by few life members of the Society, who were also members of the general body of the institution, against the authorised controller of the institution for declaration that the persons mentioned in the list supplied by the plaintiffs are members of the general body and entitled to participate in the election. The said suit was dismissed by the trial court against which Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2004 was filed in the Court of Additional District Judge, Court No. 3, Mathura which was allowed in part by judgment and decree dated 30.10.2013 whereby the persons in list provided by the plaintiffs were declared members and entitled to participate in the election of the Society with an observation that it shall not prejudice other members of the Society.

¶8

It appears that another Suit was instituted by Dr. Mahipal Singh Verma (the second petitioner) bearing No. 646 of 2014. The said suit was instituted against the authorised controller and was referred to the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat, on the basis of a compromise between the plaintiffs and the authorised controller, declared a separate list of members of the Society.

¶9

As it is not in dispute that the term of the office-bearers of the Society had expired and election was required to be held, proceedings in respect of determination of the electoral college came before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra Region, Agra.

¶10

In the proceedings, one set of the claimants placed reliance on the list of members declared by judgment and decree passed in Original Suit No. 655 of 1998 and the other set of members, like the petitioners, placed reliance on a list of members declared under the order passed by the Lok Adalat.

¶11

From the judgment dated 30.10.2013 passed in Civil Appeal No. 16 of 2004, it appears that while declaring the list of members constituting the

¶12

general body of the Society, the Court had observed that the judgment shall not prejudice other members of the Society, if any.

¶13

Taking a clue from the observations made in the judgment dated 30.10.2013, it appears, the petitioners set up a claim of induction as member of the general body of the Society and instituted Suit No. 646 of 2014 against the authorised controller.

¶14

The Deputy Registrar while determining the electoral college observed that the list of members of the general body of the Society, as declared by the Lok Adalat, was not acceptable because there was no adjudication on merits and the order was passed on the basis of a compromise whereas the order passed in favour of the other set of claimants was passed on a contested hearing and therefore was more acceptable. That apart, the Deputy Registrar observed that the minutes register; agenda register; cash book; ledger; membership register; bank statement; and other relevant documents which are needed for an authoritative determination of membership in a Society, as mandated by section 4-B of the Act, 1860, were not produced and therefore he found it appropriate to place reliance on the decree passed in Civil Appeal No. 15 of 2004 for determining the members of the general body of the Society.

¶15

It is not in dispute that the petitioner no.2 who had set up a claim in Original Suit No. 646 of 2014, was not one of the members in the list finalised under the order dated 30.10.2013.

¶16

This Court finds that both decree were against the Authorised Controller. The decree set up by the other side is prior in point of time. Therefore, it bound the Authorised Controller. In later suit, the persons who were declared members were not impleaded. Therefore, the subsequent decree does not bind the rival group which assailed the membership of those who were not in the list declared in the earlier suit. Hence, the claim that there were additional members could very well be disputed and, in which case, the additional members ought to have backed their claim with documents.

¶17

Under the circumstances, in absence of production of necessary record, as contemplated by section 4-B of the Act, 1860, if the claim of the petitioners has been rejected, the appropriate course for the petitioners is to institute a suit for declaration of their right by impleading appropriate parties.

¶18

This Court therefore finds no good reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar at the instance of the petitioners. However, it is left open to the petitioners to institute a civil suit for declaration of their right.

¶19

With the aforesaid liberty, the petition stands disposed of .

¶20

Order Date :- 23.1.2018 Sunil Kr Tiwari

C/M Sri Sardar Patel U.M. Vidyalay Samiti and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Sri Sardar Patel U.M. Vidyalay Samiti and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S C/M Damber Singh Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Agra Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Om Hari Aheer Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Shiv Shakti Mahavidyalaya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Principal Subhagi Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Principal Shri Pahasesware Vidya Mandir Inter College and Anr. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Principal Sri Rajendra Nath Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others