Dismissed

Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2019SPLA/545/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

An intra-Court Special Appeal was filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge that dismissed a Writ Petition. The High Court held that the appeal lacked merit, upholding the lower court's view on res judicata due to subsequent events and the disposal of the earlier related petition.

What did the court decide?

The Special Appeal was dismissed as it lacked merit.

Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma and 6 Others Vs State of… — Cooperative Societies | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 545 of 2019

¶4

Appellant :- Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 7 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Kumar Sharma,Vikas Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava,Anand Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for appellant, Sri Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava, Advocate for respondent-4, Sri Anand Kumar Singh, Advocate for respondents- 5 and 6 and learned Standing Counsel for State of U.P.

¶7

This intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen against judgment dated 01.04.2019 passed by learned Single Judge, dismissing appellant's Writ Petition No. 3139 of 2016.

¶8

It is admitted that against order dated 23.02.2008 passed by Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Agra, appellant-2 Sudhir Kumar Sharma filed Writ Petition No. 31474 of 2008 seeking following reliefs:-

¶9

“a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 23.02.2008 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition).

¶10

b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to refer the dispute regarding election of office bearers of the society (as displayed vide meetings dated 11.03.2007 and 10.06.2007) to the Prescribed Authority for proper adjudication under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act.”

¶11

The said writ petition was pending for about five years and dismissed in default vide order dated 07.05.2013. In the meantime, due to passage of time, renewal of Societies and Firm and further elections were held. Since earlier writ petition involving dispute of

¶12

¶13

election having already been dismissed, taking into account subsequent events, Deputy Collector passed order dated 02.01.2016 recognizing Committee of Management elected in February, 2010 and allowing it to function.

¶14

Counsel for appellant contended that in Writ Petition No. 3139 of 2016, relief was different but learned Single Judge has found that order dated 02.01.2016 was passed taking into consideration subsequent events having arisen after dismissal of appellant-2 earlier Writ Petition No. 31474 of 2008, which operated as resjudicata.

¶15

We do not find any fault in the judgement of learned Single Judge.

¶16

Appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

Order Date :- 5.12.2019 Siddhant Sahu

Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Kailash Chandra Sharma and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 7 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Kumar Agrawal Vs State of U.P. and Others

Seema Devi and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mohd Amir Siddiqui and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shahid Vs State of U.P. and Others

Islam Khan Vs State of U.P. and Others

Rohit Singh and 3 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.