Partly allowed

Smt. Afsana Katoon and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Finance, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC22 May 2024/4548/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an appeal filed under Section 25-D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 against the Deputy Registrar's order finalising an electoral list. Holding that Section 25-D allows appeals only against specific orders under Section 4, the Court ruled the appeal unlawful as it challenged an order not covered by that section.

What did the court decide?

Appeal No. C-2024100000000 under Section 25-D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and whole proceedings quashed; Writ petition allowed at admission stage.

Smt. Afsana Katoon and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Company and Corporate | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:38756

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4548 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Afsana Katoon And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Finance, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Bahadur Singh,Vikas Singh

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shishir Chandra

¶6

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shishir Chandra, for oppose party no. 4 and Sri Nitin Mathur, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel for opposite party nos. 1 to 3.

¶8

Notices to opposite party nos. 5 and 6 are here by dispensed with as the matter is decided at the admission stag, being pure question of law.

¶9

Challenge is made to the proceeding of Appeal No. C- 2024100000000 filed under Section 25-D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1860') as well as the order dated 7th March 2024.

¶10

Contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that vide order dated 5th February 2024, the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow published the final list of the general body and by means of annexure no. 7, the date of election was also fixed on 7th March 2024, and subsequently, the election was taken place and the petitioner no. 1 was declared as Manager, Committee of Management. He submits that against the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 5th February 2024, the opposite party no. 4 filed Writ-C No. 1986 of 2024, and during the pendency of the writ petition, they also approached the Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow while preferring an appeal under Section 25-D of the Act, 1860 and once some orders was passed in appeal, they very cleverly approached this Court by saying that since they have filed an appeal under Section 25-D and therefore, the writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn. He next added that, the fact with respect to filing of the writ petition was not disclosed by the opposite party no. 4 before the Commissioner Lucknow Division Lucknow and therefore, the opposite party no. 4 is not with the clean hands.

¶11

Further contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that since,

¶12

the appeal can only be preferred before the Commissioner under Section 25-D in the exigency that if the prescribed authority on reference made by the Registrar or at least one fourth of the members of the society raised it but the order passed by the Deputy Registrar finalising the electoral list cannot be challenged under the provision of the Section 25-D of the Act, 1860. He also added that in view of the above, the whole proceeding of the appeal is unlawful and therefore, the proceeding of appeal maybe quashed.

¶13

On the other hand, Sri Shishir Chandra, learned counsel for the opposite party no. 4 have vehemently opposed the contention aforesaid and submits that so far as the provision of Section 4(1)A of the Act, 1860 is concerned, the same provides the provision with respect to challenge to any order passed by the Deputy Registrar before the Commissioner of the division concerned and thus, it is wrong to say that the appeal could not have been filed.

¶14

Considering upon the submission of the counsel for the parties and after perusal of the material placed on record, it transpires that the appeal under Section 25-D has been preferred by the opposite party no. 4, assailing the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, though the provision is very clear on its terms that the appeal under Section 25-D can only be filed against, the order passed by the prescribed authority under the two exigencies provided therein.

¶15

The plea which has been taken by the counsel for the opposite party no. 4 that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar can be challenged before the Commissioner of the division concerned, is unsustainable, as admittedly, the appeal is filed under Section 25-D not under section 4(1)A of the Act, 1860.

¶16

In this view of the matter, the whole proceeding of the appeal is against the scheme of the provision of Act, 1860.

¶17

Consequently, the Appeal No. C-2024100000000 filed under Section 25-D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the whole proceeding are hereby quashed at this stage. It is open for the opposite party no. 4 to 6 to approach the appropriate Court/forum, under the relevant provision of law.

¶18

The petition is hereby allowed at the admission stage itself.

¶19

Order Date :- 22.5.2024 Anurag, PS Gr-I

¶20

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Afsana Katoon and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Finance, Lucknow and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Afsana Katoon and Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Finance, Lucknow and 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

C/M Sri Saraswati Sanskrit Pathshala Thru Its Manager Sushee Vs State of U.P.Thru Prin.Secy.Secondary Edu.Civil Sectt.and Ors.

Ram Krishna Chauhan Vs State of U.P. through Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. and Ors.

Rajendra Kumar Singh Vs Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya and Others

Km. Vandana Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Basic Edu.Govt.of Up and Ors.

Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin./Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others

Bhushan Kumar Gupta Vs Union of India Thru. Its Secy. Ministry of Communication New Delhi and 2 Others