Quashed

C/M Halim Muslim English School and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC13 Feb 2020WRIC/5019/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court quashed orders by the District Magistrate and State Government that intervened in a dispute over management and property of a registered minority educational society. The court held such authorities lacked jurisdiction under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, remitting the matter to the appropriate forum.

What did the court decide?

The orders dated 14.8.2019 and 14.1.2020 passed by the District Magistrate and State Government are quashed for being without jurisdiction.

C/M Halim Muslim English School and Another Vs State of… — Property and Title | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 39

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5019 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Halim Muslim English School And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhanu Pratap Singh,Gajendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶5

This petition is directed against an order dated 14.8.2019, passed by the District Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar, constituting a three member committee, as also an order of the State Government dated 14.1.2020, contained in Annexure-8 and 12 to the writ petition, respectively. The order of the State Government takes note of the grievance raised by the contesting respondent no.6 and directs the concerned administrative and police authorities to take needful action.

¶6

Muslim Association, Kanpur Nagar is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which is running a number of minority educational institutions. According to petitioner, he has been elected as Manager of one of the institutions i.e. Halim Muslim English School, Chamanganj, District Kanpur Nagar. Communication of respondent no.6 is relied upon in support of such contention. It is stated that respondent no.6 is attempting to usurp the property of the institution concerned and in that regard he has approached the District Magistrate and the State Government who have intervened without there being any jurisdiction vested in them to do so.

¶7

On behalf of the respondents it is pointed out that though petitioner was elected as Manager in 2015, but he was removed in the year 2016 itself, and thereafter fresh elections were conducted in the year 2018 in which petitioner is no longer elected as office bearer. It is also stated that an order of the Deputy Registrar passed in that regard on 1.6.2018 has already been challenged in pending writ petition but no interim protection has been granted.

¶8

So far as affairs of the Society are concerned it is not in issue that the Managing Committee will have to be constituted as per bye-laws and the competent authority to examine such issues would be the authority under the Act of 1860. The District Magistrate or the State Government would not be the competent authority to entertain the grievance with regard to unauthorized occupation of a person over the institution run by the Society. It has to be the educational authorities or the authorities under the

¶9

Act of 1860. The intervention of the District Magistrate and the State Government is not shown to be referable to any provision of law.

¶10

In view of the above, the orders impugned dated 14.8.2019 and 14.1.2020 being without jurisdiction, cannot be sustained and are quashed. So far as rights of petitioner or respondent no.6 are concerned, the authorities competent under the Act of 1860 would have to look into those issues. Interference in the present writ petition will not be construed as recognition of any of the rival factions who claim to be the valid management and interference with the orders impugned are made only because of the fact that such authorities do not exercise any jurisdiction under the Act of 1860. Considering the order passed by this Court on 12.9.2019 in Writ Petition No.28541 of 2019, whereby prima facie the allegations made against the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Nagar have been entertained, it is provided that the Registrar shall either himself look into petitioner's grievance or depute any other officer so that possibility of bias in future may be avoided.

¶11

Leaving it open for the parties to agitate their grievances before the appropriate forum, which shall be dealt with all expedition and in accordance with law, this petition is disposed of.

¶12

Order Date :- 13.2.2020 Ashok Kr.

C/M Halim Muslim English School and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Halim Muslim English School and Another 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

Km. Poonam and 17 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Rajiv Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Thakur Das and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Surya Kala Gautam Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

C/M Madarsa Khanam Jan Arabic School and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

C/M Madarsa Khanam Jan Arabic School Orderly Bazar and 32 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others