Dismissed

Kishan Vidhya Prasar Sabha v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC9 Jul 2018WRIC/21595/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the Deputy Registrar's order approving a society's list of general body members. The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Registrar's findings regarding missing prior records and the petitioner's access to those records were factual determinations under Article 226 that could not be interfered with.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was found devoid of merits and dismissed.

Kishan Vidhya Prasar Sabha Vs State of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21595 of 2018 Petitioner :- Kishan Vidhya Prasar Sabha Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶3

Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

¶4

The present petition is directed against the order dated 25.04.2018 passed by the Deputy Registrar in determining the list of general body of the society under Section 4(B) of the Societies Registration Act' 1860 and further to renew the registration of the society. The petitioner herein is manager of the committee of management of the society. It appears that papers for renewal of the society with the list of managing committee for the year 2015-16 were presented by the manager on 04.07.2016. Alongwith the application for renewal, a list of general body of the society comprising of 131/111 members was submitted by him.

¶5

On the said list, objections were submitted by three persons namely Jangbeer Singh, Nepal Singh and Jagdish Singh on 02.08.2016 with the assertion to recognize the list of 126 members of general body of the society.

¶6

On the said dispute, the record of the society was summoned by the Deputy Registrar and after perusal thereof, it is recorded that as per the record, total number of members of general body was 33 uptill the year 1995. Thereafter, in the year 1995-96, 133 new members were inducted. Out of the same, four died till the year 1998. As a result of it, 162 members remained till 1998. 36 members had died during the further period and as on the date of presentation of the list, 126 members of the general body were alive.

¶7

It was thus, recorded that the manger had illegally submitted list of 109 members by deleting names of 17 members of the general body. Out those 17, six namely Sri Gajendra Singh, Hoshiyar Singh, Ashok Kumar, Jagdish Singh, Jaswant Singh and Kehar Singh remained office bearers and members of the managing committee from time to time. It was further recorded that the manager cannot raise any objection with regard to their membership on the basis of minutes of the managing committee dated 12.07.1998 to the effect that no records of society prior to August 1995 were available.

¶8

Resultantly, the list of 126 members of the General body by including 17 members whose membership was disputed by the petitioner was approved while exercising the power under Section 4(B) of the Act.

¶9

This order is under challenge in the present petition with the assertion that objectors were required to file the records of their induction in the society. As they had failed to place any material on record alongwith their objections dated 02.08.2016, it was not open for the Deputy Registrar to include them in the list of general body.

¶10

This submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is found misconceived, in as much as, the petitioner being manager of the society has access to the records of the society. It was the duty of the petitioner to place the entire records of membership of the society i.e. induction of members so as to dispute the stand taken by above noted six persons that they were valid members of the society.

¶11

It is further relevant to note that out of these 17 persons, whose names were deleted from the list submitted by the manager, two namely Jaswant Singh and Hoshiyar Singh are founder members and remaining 15 are life members of the society who were inducted between the year 1982 to 1992. As per own contention of the petitioner, the records of the society prior to August 1995 are missing. There is no record of their removal from the society at any point of time.

¶12

The Deputy Registrar has categorically recorded that out of 17, five were office bearers and members of the managing committee from time to time i.e. between the year 1994-95 and 2014.

¶13

These findings of fact returned by the Deputy Registrar cannot be interfered with in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

¶14

The writ petition is found devoid of merits and hence dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 9.7.2018 Himanshu

Kishan Vidhya Prasar Sabha v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kishan Vidhya Prasar Sabha 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

Krishna Bihari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Roop Kishor and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Murari Tiwari Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Ramji and 39 Others Vs Union of India and 5 Others

Phool Dei Vs Civil Judge (S.D) District Jaunpur and Another

Vinod Kumar Bhalotia Vs Uco Bank and Another