Quashed

C/M Beenapara Minority and Another v. State of U.P. and 22 Others

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2020WRIC/4555/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging the quashing of an election. It held that including deceased names in the member list by the Prescribed Authority was perverse since the Assistant Registrar had excluded them. The election was remanded to the authority.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 9.12.2019 quashed; matter remitted to the authority for fresh proceedings.

C/M Beenapara Minority and Another Vs State of U.P. and 22… — Election Law | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4555 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Beenapara Minority And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 22 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Singh,Ashok Khare(Senior Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Birendra Kumar,Om Prakash Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

This petition is directed against an order dated 9.12.2019, passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. This order records that in the list of 89 members finalised by the Assistant Registrar names of dead persons were also included. It has, therefore, been observed that the list finalised by the Prescribed Authority itself is a defective list since it contains names of dead persons and for such reasons. The election itself has been set aside, while accepting the reference.

¶6

It is not in dispute that all earlier undisputed elections were held to constitute the managing committee of the society from a list of 89 admitted members. The term of the outgoing committee expired but no fresh election was held and, therefore, the Registrar intervened in the matter under Section 25(2) of the Act of 1860. It is for this reason that the admitted list of 89 members was finalised for holding the elections. A specific contemplation existed in the order of Assistant Registrar that only surviving members from the list of 89 members would participate in the election to be held under section 25(2) of the Act of 1860. It is thus apparent that electoral college consisted of surviving 89 members. Previous elections were held in the Society for period of three years on 10.10.2015. It was also recognised. The term of the election has also expired and the claim of fresh election held on 5.4.2019 is engaging attention of this Court in another writ petition. The prescribed Authority, therefore, is not justified in holding the elections to be bad in law only for the reason that the list of members finalized also included names of dead persons. This reasoning is absolutely perverse inasmuch as the Assistant Registrar clearly excluded names of dead persons. No other ground has been pressed for challenging the election.

¶7

In the event the prescribed authority was of the view that the electoral college had not been determined correctly, it was open for the authority concerned to have determined the electoral college and this cannot be a ground to nullify the election, particularly when no independent finding is returned with regard to invalidity of election.

¶8

Writ petition, consequently, succeeds and is allowed. Order impugned dated 9.12.2019 is quashed. The matter stands remitted to the authority concerned for proceeding afresh.

¶9

Order Date :- 7.2.2020 n.u.

C/M Beenapara Minority and Another v. State of U.P. and 22 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Beenapara Minority and Another v. State of U.P. and 22 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

C/M Shri Thakurji Maharaj Virajman Balikarneshwar Utthan Samiti and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Akash Sharma and 19 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M Sanatan Dharam Junior High School and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Chandra Jeet Singh Nikku Vs Commissioner Saharanpur Division and 3 Others

C/M Dr Lohiya Inter College Sagarpur and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Subhash Chandra and 7 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others