Dismissed

Sarvajeet Singh Kohli and 2 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC16 Oct 2024WRIC/12936/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the Assistant Registrar's order affirming his removal as President of a society. The Court held that since the petitioner's removal was undisputed and the dispute regarding the election of his successor was not bona fide or genuine, no referral was mandated under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The writ petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with no order as to costs.

Sarvajeet Singh Kohli and 2 Others vs State of Up… — Company and Corporate | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:187042

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12936 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Sarvajeet Singh Kohli And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Rajesh Kumar Shukla

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- Arun Kumar Singh,C.S.C.,Rama Goel Bansal

¶6

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶7

Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthia, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.1 & 2 and Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent No.3.

¶8

The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have assailed the order dated 18.03.2024 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi by which he has removed the petitioner from the post of President from the Society namely Shri Guru Nanak Darbar, Guru Singh Sabha, Gurudwara, Jhokanbagh, District Jhansi.

¶9

It appears that there was serious allegations against the petitioner with regard to misuse of funds of the Society and other irregularities, therefore, the members of the Society decided to remove the petitioner from the post of President. Consequently, a meeting of General Body dated 26.12.2023 at 11:00 a.m. was called which according to the petitioner was chaired by the Vice President and in the said meeting, it was decided that since the petitioner is involved in the activities detrimental to the interest of the Society, therefore, the petitioner be removed from the post of

¶10

President and Sri Amandeep Singh was elected as President in place of the petitioner.

¶11

It appears that the Committee of the Society was constituted on 05.01.2024, and the proceeding of constitution of the committee was submitted by Sri Rinki Sharma, Secretary on 08.01.2024.

¶12

After removal of the petitioner from the office bearer of the Society and election of Amandeep Singh, the matter was referred to the Assistant Registrar who by order dated 18.03.2024 held that the meeting was convened, and there ware 30 members in the Society and 25 members of the Society have filed affidavit to the effect that the meeting was held on 26.12.2023 in which it was decided by majority to remove the petitioner from the post of President, and in the said meeting, Amandeep Singh, respondent No.3, was elected as President. Accordingly, it affirmed the Resolution of the Committee of the General Body dated 26.12.2023 removing the petitioner from the post of President and appointing the respondent No.3 as President.

¶13

Challenge to the impugned order dated 18.03.2024 has been laid on the ground that there was a dispute of office bearer of the Society for the election of President, therefore, it was incumbent upon the Assistant Registrar to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short 'the Act, 1860'). It is contended that the impugned order is without jurisdiction and is not sustainable in law.

¶14

It is further contended that in the instant case, though the petitioner has been removed from the post of President by Resolution of the General Body of the Society, but the question involved in the present writ petition is about the continuance of the

¶15

petitioner as President of the Society and the election of the respondent No.3 as President of the society, therefore, the dispute comes within the periphery of Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860.

¶16

Thus, it is contended that the Assistant Registrar was under obligation to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgements of this Court in the cases of Committee of Management, Jagdamba Shiksha Evam Vikas Sansthan and another Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2016 (2) ESC 795 (All) and Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul Almin, Allahganj and another Vs. State of U.P. & Others (2014) 1 UPLBEC 233.

¶17

It is also submitted that under the bye-laws of the Society, the President is supposed to chair the General Body Meeting whereas in the present case, the President did not chair the General Body Meeting dated 26.12.2023, therefore, the meeting dated 26.12.2023 was illegal.

¶18

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the contention which has been raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is not raised before the Assistant Registrar, therefore, the contention cannot be raised for the first time in the present petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not raised the contention that the meeting was not called by the incompetent person before the Assistant Registrar, and the question as to whether the meeting dated 26.12.2023 was called upon by a incompetent person under the bye-laws of the Society is a question of fact which cannot be determined at this stage as the said contention is being raised for the first time before this Court.

¶19

It is further contended that Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 is not

¶20

applicable in the facts of the present case inasmuch as it is not a dispute about the election of office bearer of the Society but removal of the President of the Society, therefore, there was no occasion for the Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act, 1860.

¶21

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

¶22

The facts have already been delineated above, and therefore, this Court proceeds to consider the contention advanced by the parties.

¶23

So far as the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that the dispute is about the continuance of the petitioner as President and the election of the respondent No.3 as President is involved in the facts of the present case, therefore, the Assistant Registrar ought to have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act 1860, it is pertinent to note that it is evident from reading of Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 that the Assistant Registrar is under obligation to refer the dispute of office bearer of the Society where there is any doubt or dispute in respect to election or continuance in the office or office bearer of the Society.

¶24

In the present case, there was no dispute with regard to the election of the petitioner as President as the election of the petitioner has already been recognized by the Assistant Registrar.

¶25

Since there are serious allegations against the petitioner by the members of the Society that the petitioner is involved in activities detrimental to the interest of the Society and he was involved in

¶26

misusing the funds of the Society, therefore, the General Body decided to remove the petitioner from the post of President and in this respect, a meeting of General Body was called on 26.12.2023 and the General Body passed a Resolution by majority that the petitioner's continuance as President of the Society is detrimental to the interest of the Society, and therefore, his removal is necessary.

¶27

In such view of the fact, in the present case there was no dispute about the election of the petitioner as office bearer of the Society. Further, a finding has been returned by the Assistant Registrar that 25 members of the Society have filed affidavit stating therein that the Meeting of General Body dated 26.12.2023 took place in which by majority it was decided to remove the petitioner from the post of President of the Society. The finding in this respect is a finding of fact, and learned counsel for the petitioner could not demonstrate that the said finding is perverse or against the record. In such view of the fact, the contention advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner in this respect is rejected.

¶28

So far as the judgement of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Jagdamba Shiksha Evam Vikas Sansthan (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, this Court may note that this Court while holding that if there is dispute of election of office bearer of the Society or continuance of office bearer of the Society, the Assistant Registrar is under obligation under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority.

¶29

However, this Court in the said case held that the Assistant Registrar shall not act as a post office while referring the dispute

¶30

and he has to apply his mind to ascertain as to whether the dispute raised with regard to the election or continuance of office bearer of the Society is bona fide or genuine, and in case he finds that the dispute is not genuine or documents filed alongwith objection raising the dispute are frivolous, he can always refuse to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority.

¶31

In the instant case, since this Court has held that the petitioner has been rightly removed from the post of President by holding General Body Meeting dated 26.12.2023, therefore, the dispute raised by the petitioner with regard to the election of the respondent No.3 as President is not genuine dispute for the reason that once he has been removed from the post of President, the challenge to the election of the respondent No.3 by the petitioner is on misconceived ground.

¶32

This Court may further note that learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out what was the objection of the petitioner against the election of the respondent No.3 nor any such averment has been made by the petitioner in the writ petition. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has not made any averment in the objection as to what are the grounds based on which, he asserts that election of the respondent No.3 is illegal. In absence of any ground raised by the petitioner in his objection challenging the election of the respondent No.3, this Court finds that the Assistant Registrar was under no obligation to refer the dispute with regard to the election of the respondent No.3 inasmuch as the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the objection raised by the petitioner was bona fide or genuine.

¶33

In such view of the fact, the judgement relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Committee of

¶34

Management, Jagdamba Shiksha Evam Vikas Sansthan (supra) is not applicable in the facts of the present case for the aforesaid reason.

¶35

So far as other judgement in the case of Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul Almin, Allahganj (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, the said judgement is also not applicable in the facts of the present case.

¶36

So far as the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the meeting was not summoned by a competent person, in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon paragraph No.3 of the objection which reads as under:-

¶37

"3. यहउपररकस स थथममककससपकथरकथकववथदनहहहहजरकववथदबतथयथजथरहथहहवशस अमनभथकटयथउररनवलभथकटयथवअनयछछलरगगदथरथपथयरकचतहह।जबककहरस स थथमम ककछनककछमतकभनतथयमहरतसहहजरआपसममबहठकरकनपटथलसजथतसहह। "

¶38

From the reading of paragraph No.3 of the objection, it is evident that there was no specific averment made by the petitioner in his objection that the meeting dated 26.12.2023 was called by incompetent person. In such view of the fact, the Assistant Registrar was not under obligation to return any finding on the point whether the meeting dated 26.12.2023 was called by authorized person or not.

¶39

For the reasons given above, this Court does not find any merit in the writ petition. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶40

Order Date :- 28.11.2024 SS

¶41

Digitally signed by :- SUNIL KUMAR SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sarvajeet Singh Kohli and 2 Others v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarvajeet Singh Kohli and 2 Others v. State of Up 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Munna vs State of Up and 3 Others

Committee of Management Janta Sahayog Inter College Mai Kharagpur Lalganj and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Committee of Management Shri Shankar Adarsh Inter College and Another vs State of Up and 6 Others

Anguri Devi vs State of Up and 4 Others

Committee of Management Roop Kishor Chaturvedi Inter College vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sreya Pathak and Another vs Union of India and 3 Others