Dismissed

Heeralal Verma and 15 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC16 Jul 2019SPLA/661/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed a Special Appeal filed by members of a society challenging a Single Judge's order denying a writ of mandamus. The appeal argued that the Registrar could be compelled to make a reference under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Court held the Registrar could not be compelled as statute provided an alternative reference mode by members.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed as lacking merit.

Heeralal Verma and 15 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 34

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 661 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Heeralal Verma And 15 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Mritunjay Mohan Sahai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vimal Chandra Mishra

¶4

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

¶5

Heard Sri M.M. Sahai, learned counsel for appellants and learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri Vimal Chandra Mishra, Advocate for respondents.

¶6

This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen from judgment and order dated 25.04.2019 whereby learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ Petition No. 14564 of 2019 observing that under Section 25(1) of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1860”) reference can be made to Prescribed Authority in two ways, i.e., firstly by Registrar himself and secondly by 1/4 Members of Society and, therefore, even if the Registrar has power to make reference, by issuing writ of mandamus he cannot be compelled since the Members have option of making reference on their own but the only condition is 1/4 Members of Society must sign the resolution and make reference.

¶7

Learned counsel for appellants submitted that once the finding has been recorded by Registrar that appellants were wrongly denied membership, it was incumbent upon Registrar to make reference since this power is vested in Section 25(1) of Act, 1860 and placed reliance on Division Bench decision in Shailendra Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2017(6) ADJ 602 where in para 25 Court has recognized the power of Registrar to make reference to Prescribed Authority

¶8

once satisfaction is recorded in respect of conditions provided in said provision.

¶9

However, aforesaid judgment nowhere compels that if Registrar does not exercise its power to make reference then a writ of mandamus can be issued by Court particularly when statute itself provides another mode of reference i.e., by the Members itself, subject to condition that 1/4 Members must pass resolution.

¶10

Last but not least, the common law right of appellants with regard to membership of Society, if has been adversely affected, they can always seek remedy in common law since proceedings under Section 25(1) are summary in nature and remedy in common law is always available.

¶11

In these facts and circumstances, in our view, learned Single Judge has not committed any fault in denying to issue a writ of mandamus, as prayed for.

¶12

Appeal lacks merit. Dismissed accordingly.

¶13

Order Date :- 16.7.2019 AK

Heeralal Verma and 15 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Heeralal Verma and 15 Others v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Javitri Devi Vs Phool Singh

Manish Kumar Sharma Vs Smt. Mamta Sharma

Tushar Pratap Tiwari Vs Smt. Kshma Tripathi

Harish Kumar Vs Savitri @ Juli

Om Prakash Sharma and 5 Others Vs Collector/District Magistrate Gorakhpur and 3 Others

Uday Salhotra Vs Megha Abrol