Allowed

C/M Vaishya Society v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Apr 2019WRIC/22917/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the Deputy Registrar's order referring the society's election dispute to the Prescribed Authority. The court held that the statutory conditions for reference were not met as the complaint came from only one member and the order lacked application of mind.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 27.01.2016 passed by the Deputy Registrar referring the election matter to the Prescribed Authority was set aside.

C/M Vaishya Society Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Cooperative Societies | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 46

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 22917 of 2016

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Vaishya Society Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anoop Trivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Kumar Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶6

The present writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management, Vaishya Society Khair, Aligarh through its Manager Vijay Kumar Gangal challenging the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, respondent no.2 whereby he has referred the matter in respect of election of Committee of Management of the Society namely Vaishya Society Khair, Aligarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Society') to the Prescribed Authority by exercising power under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1860').

¶7

It so happened that the election of the Committee of Management of the Society was held held on 14.06.2015 and the result of the same was declared on 02.06.2015 in which Vijay Kumar Gangal was elected as Manager. The papers of election were forwarded by the Election Officer to the Deputy Registrar for registration of list of members under Section 4 of the Act, 1860 for the year 2015-16.

¶8

It appears that Punit Govil respondent no.4 submitted a complaint with respect to the election of Committee of Management to one Ram Babu Singh Chauhan, Senior Leader of Samajwadi Party, who with his letter dated 07.07.2015 forwarded the complaint to the Deputy Registrar to look into

¶9

the matter. The Deputy Registrar, thereafter, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860.

¶10

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that none of the conditions which are essential for invoking the powers under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 are present. He contends that the matter can be referred only by the Registrar or by 1/4th member of the society under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 and not on the behest of one member of the society to the Prescribed Authority. He further submits that the order of the respondent no.2 is without application of mind and has been passed under the influence of letter of a political leader, and thus, the order is illegal and not sustainable.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the order of the respondent no.2 is just and proper inasmuch as the elections were held without following the due procedure and in fact the complaint was made to the Deputy Registrar pointing out the illegality in the election held on 14.06.2015. Thus, he submits that it is a case where the matter may be remanded back to the respondent no.2 to decide afresh.

¶12

I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record.

¶13

The necessary condition for invoking the powers under Section 25 (1) of the Act 1860 is that reference shall be made by 1/4th member of the society or by the Registrar if there is any dispute of election of Committee of Management. In the case in hand, there is only one member of the society who has submitted a complaint through a political leader to the Deputy Registrar and on his complaint, the matter has been referred to the Prescribed

¶14

Authority.

¶15

A perusal of the order indicates that no reason has been recorded by the Deputy Registrar respondent no.2 as to why the election was bad and further it has not taken into consideration the fact that list of members under Section 4 of the Act, 1860 had been registered by the respondent no.3 and which is still in existence.

¶16

So far as the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the matter may be remanded is concerned, the same is devoid of merit for the reason that list of members for the year 2015-16 had been registered and the was not challenged and as such has become final.

¶17

Thus, in the present case, no condition for the invocation of power under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 are present and consequently, the order dated 27.01.2016 passed by respondent no.2 being illegal, is set aside.

¶18

The writ petition is allowed .

¶19

Order Date :- 24.4.2019 Sattyarth

C/M Vaishya Society v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Vaishya Society v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Guljar and 22 Others Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Laxmi and Another Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Aastha Agrawal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kailash Prakash and 3 Others Vs the State of U.P. and 15 Others

Rajendra Prasad Gupta and Others Vs Smt. Vimla Devi and Others

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Rajendra Prasad Singh and Another