Disposed

Committee of Management Hindustani Education Society and Another v. State of Up and 2 Others

Allahabad HC31 Aug 2024WRIC/28615/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition against a Deputy Registrar's order recalling registration of a society's office bearers' list and recognising a rival committee. Petition admitted; respondents to file counter affidavit; operation of the impugned order stayed until further orders.

What did the court decide?

Petition admitted; counter/rejoinder timelines fixed; effect and operation of the Deputy Registrar's order dated 24.07.2024 stayed until further orders.

Committee of Management Hindustani Education Society… — Cooperative Societies | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 28615 of 2024

¶3

Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Hindustani Education Society And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Syed Mohd. Fazal,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohd. Parvez

¶4

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 and Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mohd. Parvez, learned counsel for respondent no.3.

¶6

The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra, by which he has recalled the order dated 21.07.2022, registered the list of office bearers of the petitioner and has recognised the Committee of Management of respondent no.3.

¶7

According to the petitioner, the election of the Society took place on 08.05.2022. The proceeding of election was forwarded to the respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra for approving the same. The respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra by order dated 21.07.2022 registered the list of office bearers submitted by the petitioner for the Year 2022-23.

¶8

It transpires that thereafter, respondent no.3 filed objection against the election of the petitioner, on which notice was issued to the petitioner and petitioner submitted reply to the notice

¶9

contending inter alia that there is no power of review with the Deputy Registrar, and after the list of office bearers has been registered, the Deputy Registrar becomes functious officio , and if there is a dispute of office bearers of Society, the Deputy Registrar is only empowered to refer the dispute under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

¶10

Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar by order dated 24.07.2024 recalled the order dated 21.07.2022 and recognised the election of respondent no.3.

¶11

Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that once the Deputy Registrar has registered the list of office bearers by order dated 21.07.2022, he does not have any power to review its order dated 21.07.2022, inasmuch as there is no Provision in the Societies Registration Act, 1860 granting power to the Deputy Registrar to review its order. He submits that in the objection filed by the respondent no.3, there is no reference of the election of respondent no.3, and in such an event, since there was no proceeding of the election of respondent no.3, the Deputy Registrar acted illegally in recognising the Committee of Management of respondent no.3.

¶12

To fortify the aforesaid submission, he submits that it is evident from the order impugned that the Deputy Registrar has neither assigned any reason nor recorded any finding in recognising the election of respondent no.3, and since, the order being nonspeaking, therefore, the order impugned cannot be sustained in law.

¶13

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that in the present case, it is not a case of substantive review rather,

¶14

it is a case of procedural review. In this regard, he has placed reliance upon the Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which contemplates that since the list of office bearers submitted by the petitioner did not contain the signature of Vice President of erstwhile Committee of Management, therefore, it was incumbent upon Deputy Registrar to issue public notice inviting objections within a specified period.

¶15

Accordingly, it is submitted that since the procedure contemplated in the Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 was not followed by the Deputy Registrar in registering the list of office bearers of the petitioner, therefore, he has jurisdiction to review its order. In this respect, he has placed reliance upon the judgements of this Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Haushala Prasad 2019 (8) ADJ 166 as well as in the case of Committee of Management, Adarsh Krishak Junior High School, Mauima, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. & Others 2009 (9) ADJ 270 (D.B.).

¶16

He further submits that the impugned order is in three parts inasmuch as in first part of the order, the Deputy Registrar has annulled the order dated 21.07.2022, thereafter, the Deputy registrar has held that expulsion of three members of the Committee of Management of the petitioner illegal and lastly, he recognised the Committee of Management of the petitioner. In such view of the fact, he submits that power to review of its earlier order by the Deputy Registrar is just and he has acted within his jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

¶17

He has also submitted that it is not a case of genuine dispute of office bearers of the Society, and therefore, it was not incumbent upon the Deputy Registrar to refer the matter to the Prescribed

¶18

Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In this respect, he has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court in the case of Committee of Management of Rashtriya Junior High School (Society) through its Manager/Mantri, Vijay Bahadur Yadava Vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region 2005 (3) U.P.L.B.E.C. 2817.

¶19

To the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the respondents, it is submitted by Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not a case where any concealment has been made inasmuch as if any procedural irregularity has been committed by the Deputy Registrar in registering the list of the office bearers of the petitioner, petitioner can be faulted with inasmuch as there is no allegation of fraud or misrepresentation against the petitioner.

¶20

He further submits that the Deputy Registrar while deciding the objection of respondent no.3 against the election of petitioner had no jurisdiction to decide the validity of expulsion of the members nor he had jurisdiction to recognise the Committee of Management of respondent no.3 when in the objection, no case was set up by the respondent no.3 with regard to their election.

¶21

Prima face, the petitioner has made out a case for admission.

¶22

Admit.

¶23

All the respondents are granted four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Four weeks, thereafter, is allowed to the petitioner to file rejoinder affidavit.

¶24

List on 17.12.2024.

¶25

Until further orders of this Court, the effect and operation of the order dated 24.07.2024 passed by the respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra shall remain stayed.

¶26

Order Date :- 22.10.2024 NS

¶27

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

Committee of Management Hindustani Education Society and Another v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Committee of Management Hindustani Education Society and Another 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Central Board of Trustees Epfo vs the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench and Another

Central Board of Trustees Epfo vs the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench and Another

Ghanshyam Prasad Kesarwani vs State of Up and 5 Others

Central Board of Trustees Epfo vs the Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad Bench and Another

Committee of Management Hindustani Education Society and Another vs State of Up and 2 Others