Dismissed

Arya Samaj Lko. Thru. Secy. Abhishek Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Institutional Finance, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC9 May 2022/192/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed an intra-court appeal against a Single Judge rejecting a writ petition challenging the renewal of a Society's registration. The court held that renewal under Section 3-A is a summary, non-person-specific exercise aimed at preventing lapse, and findings therein do not prejudice other disputes.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal dismissed; no interference with Single Judge's order denying writ petition for renewal registration.

Arya Samaj Lko. Thru. Secy. Abhishek Tiwari… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 2

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 192 of 2022

¶3

Appellant :- Arya Samaj Lko. Thru. Secy. Abhishek Tiwari And Another

¶4

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Institutional Finance, Civil Sectt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Kumar,Apoorva Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Atul Kumar Dwivedi

¶5

Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya,J. Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Apoorva Tewari and Mr. Vivek Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 and Dr. L.P. Mishra and Mr/ Atul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.

¶7

This intra-Court appeal seeks to impeach the judgment and order dated 01.04.2022, passed by learned Single Judge in WritC No.1859 of 2022 filed by the appellants, whereby a challenge was made to an order dated 30.12.2021, passed by Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Lucknow Division, Lucknow renewing the registration of the Society known as "Arya Samaj Lucknow, Ganeshganj, Lucknow".

¶8

Various arguments have been raised on behalf of learned counsel representing the appellants stating that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in not considering all the arguments raised on behalf of the appellants-petitioners and has rather dismissed the petition only on one ground. Thus, the course adopted by learned Single Judge is vitiated.

¶9

It has also been argued that the observations made by learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order under

¶10

appeal to the effect that the specific finding recorded in para 7 of the order dated 30.12.2021, passed by the Deputy Registrar was not challenged in the writ petition, needs to be considered in the light of the fact that before the learned Single Judge prayer was made on behalf of the appellants-petitioners to file a supplementary affidavit meeting the said finding recorded by the Deputy Registrar in his order dated 30.12.2021.

¶11

It has thus been argued that the learned Single Judge has erred in law in not considering the other grounds laid by the appellants-petitioners challenging the order passed by the Deputy Registrar and that certain findings have been recorded by learned Single Judge in the order under appeal, which may prejudice the parties in other proceedings relating to the dispute concerning the Society / its Committee of Management/General Body.

¶12

On the other hand, learned counsel representing the respondent no.3 has vehemently argued that the finding recorded in para 7 of the order dated 30.12.2021, passed by Deputy Registrar was not rebutted in the writ petition and that as a matter of fact the appellants-petitioners were not in a position to rebut the same. Drawing attention of the court to the finding recorded in the order dated 30.12.2021, passed by Deputy Registrar, it has been stated on behalf of the respondent no.3 that the appellantspetitioners were given notice to furnish the original documents in support of their case, however since they failed to do so, the Deputy Registrar has correctly recorded the finding in the order dated 30.12.2021 that the appellants-petitioners did not produce any original document, as such, their claim was not established.

¶13

In rejoinder, Mr. Anil Kumar Tewari, learned Senior Advocate espousing the cause of the appellants-petitioners submits that admittedly the original documents relating to the Society were

¶14

and are in the custody of respondent no.3 and that the appellant no.2 was appointed as Administrator of the Society namely "Arya Samaj Lucknow, Ganeshganj, Lucknow" by the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and since the respondent no.3 has been unlawfully withholding the documents and other assets of the Society as such he did not and, in fact, he could not produce the original documents. It has thus been submitted that as a matter of fact he could not have done so.

¶15

Having heard learned counsel representing the respective parties and perusing the records available before us on this special appeal, we need to notice certain facts of the case.

¶16

Arya Samaj Lucknow, Ganeshganj, Lucknow is a Society which is said to have been registered on 18.11.1919 by the Registrar Firms Societies and Chits at File No.I-392. It is said that the Registration of the said Society was renewed on 10.10.2015 for a period of five years on the basis of documents / papers produced by respondent no.3.

¶17

On 18.10.2020 the respondent no.3 made an application to the Deputy Registrar intimating him that the election of the Committee of Management of the Society had taken place on 4.10.2020 and on the basis of the documents being submitted by him the registration of the society be renewed. Prior to the said application dated 18.10.2020 submitted by respondent no.3, the petitioner no.2 appears to have moved an online application dated 5.10.2020, seeking renewal of the registration of the Society. On the application submitted by respondent no.3, the appellant no.2 filed objections vide his letters dated 6.11.2020 and 21.11.2020. On the said objections, as is apparent from the perusal of the order dated 30.12.2021 passed by Deputy Registrar, a notice was issued to the respondent no.3 on 23.03.2021 requiring him to present/furnish the original

¶18

documents such as membership register, agenda register, minutes of the meeting, cash book, bank pass book, original membership receipts etc. It is also recorded in the order dated 30.12.2021, passed by Deputy Registrar that a copy of such notice dated 23.03.2021 was furnished to the appellant no.2 as well requiring him to furnish the original documents pursuant to the objections raised by him by means of his letters dated 6.11.2020 and 21.11.2020. The date fixed for the said purpose as communicated to the appellant no.2 was 16.04.2020.

¶19

It appears that the Deputy Registrar on consideration of the facts available before him passed order on 30.12.2021, whereby he has renewed the registration of the Society and while doing so he has recorded a finding that the submissions made by appellant no.2 vide his application / letters dated 5.10.2020, 6.11.2020 and 21.11.2020 could not be proved by him in absence of documents and as such on the basis of the application submitted by the respondent no.3, dated 18.12.2020 the registration of the Society was ordered to be renewed.

¶20

Before considering the submissions of learned counsel representing the respective parties, we may reflect upon the purpose of renewal of the registration certificate of a Society. Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act as applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh provides that a certificate of registration shall remain in force for a particular period as described therein. Sub Section (2) of Section 3-A of the Act provides that registration certificate shall be renewed on an application to be made in this respect to the Registrar. Sub Section (3) of Section 3-A of the Act requires deposit of some fee and additional fee at the time of making of the application. Sub Section (4) of Section 3-A of the Act provides that every such application seeking renewal of certificate of registration is

¶21

to be accompanied by the list of members of the managing body elected after the registration of the Society or after the renewal of the certificate of the registration. It also requires that application seeking renewal of the certificate of registration shall also accompany the certificate sought to be renewed unless this requirement is dispensed with by the Registrar on the ground of the same having been lost or destructed or for any other sufficient cause.

¶22

Thus, as per the Scheme of Section 3-A of the Act, renewal of the certificate of the registration of a Society appears to be an exercise which is summary in nature and the purpose is to ensure continued registration of the Society so that the registration does not lapse. Such an exercise, in our considered opinion, does not decide any dispute if two individuals start claiming renewal of the registration of the Society on the basis of their documents or submissions. Renewal of the registration of a Society is society-specific and it has nothing to do with the individual who either claims to be the member of the general body or member of the Executive Body of the Society. As to whether on the basis of the documents submitted by one individual renewal of registration has been done or it has been done on the basis of the documents submitted by any other individual, is immaterial so far as the statutory requirement and exercise contemplated in Section 3-A of the Act for renewal of the registration of the Society is concerned. The registration of a Society is renewed, as observed above, to ensure that the Society is not rendered with registration. It only signifies the continued existence of registration of a Society.

¶23

Accordingly, we are of the opinion that on whose application or on presentation of papers by which individual registration has been renewed does not bear any significance. The significant

¶24

fact or incident is renewal of registration of certificate of the Society which is not person-specific.

¶25

If we examine the submissions made by learned counsel representing the respective parties in this special appeal in the light of the purpose for which renewal of registration of a Society is required and done in terms of Section 3-A of the Act, what we find is that the issues raised by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in this appeal do not have any bearing so far as the renewal of the registration of the Society is concerned.

¶26

Even otherwise what we find is that the observation made by learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition that the finding recorded in para 7 of the order passed by Deputy Registrar dated 30.12.2021 were not rebutted by the appellantspetitioners, is not incorrect for the reason that a submission has been made before us on behalf of the appellants-petitioners that in fact the appellants-petitioners were not in a position to furnish the documents for the reason that the document were in the custody of respondent no.3.

¶27

Accordingly, having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case, especially the scheme and purpose of Section 3-A of the Act and the object of renewal of registration of a Society, we do not find it appropriate to interfere in order passed by learned Single Judge which is under appeal before us.

¶28

It has been informed by learned counsel representing the respondent no.3 that on 5.1.2022 some application has been made by the petitioners-appellants on the basis of some elections of Committee of Management said to have been held on 12.09.2021. So far as the renewal of registration of the Society is concerned, in our opinion such exercise has nothing

¶29

to do with the elections or any dispute in relation to the election of Members of the Committee of Management. If any such issue is raised, that may be considered and decided by the appropriate authority / forum / Court independent of the findings recorded in the order dated 30.12.2021, passed by Deputy Registrar which was under challenge before learned Single Judge in the writ petition as also in the order dated 01.04.2022 passed by learned Single Judge.

¶30

The findings recorded in the order dated 30.12.2021, passed by the Deputy Registrar are only and only for the purposes of renewal of the registration certificate of the Society and not for any other purpose. The proceedings drawn for renewal of certificate of registration of Society are summary in nature and hence any finding recorded or observation made in an order which precipitates on the basis of summary proceedings will have no bearing on any other proceeding which has been drawn or which may be drawn under any provision of Societies Registration Act including the proceedings under Section 4 of the said Act. Such findings will have no impact or bearing on any other proceedings which are or which may be drawn before any other Court / forum as well.

¶31

With the aforesaid observations, special appeal is hereby dismissed .

¶32

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.)

¶33

Order Date :- 9.5.2022 Ram.

¶34

Digitally signed by RAM SINGH Date: 2022.05.10 12:41:25 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Arya Samaj Lko. Thru. Secy. Abhishek Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Institutional Finance, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arya Samaj Lko. Thru. Secy. Abhishek Tiwari and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Institutional Finance, Civil Sectt. Lko. and 2 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

Parmeshwar Deen Verma Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.Deptt. of Food and Civil Supplies Civil Secrtt. Lko. and 3 Others

State of U.P.Thru.Prin.Secy.Forest Dep.Lko.and Others Vs Roop Lal Verma and Others

Smt. Archana Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Basic Education Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Smt. Meghna Agarwal Vs Prin. Commissioner of Income Tax Lko. and Others

M/S Cipel Partnership Firm Thru. Its Partner Parvez Khan Lko. Vs Chief Commissioner Goods and Services Tax (Gst) Central Excise Lko. Zone and Another

Ravindra Pratap Singh and Another Vs D.M. Sultanpur and 3 Others