Maulana Syed Qalbe Jawad Naqvi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Institutional Finance, Lko. and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9287

Court No. - 19

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1281 of 2025

Petitioner :- Maulana Syed Qalbe Jawad Naqvi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Secy., Institutional Finance, Lko. And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Agendra Sinha,Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Apoorva Tewari,Vivek Kumar

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no.1 & 2 and Mr. Apoorva Tewari, learned counsel for opposite parties no.3 & 4 whose power filed today in Court is taken on record.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging the entire election process from its inception and consequential registration of list under Section 4-B of the Society Registration Act by order dated 08.10.2024 passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow Division Lucknow. Further prayer for a direction to Deputy Registrar to prepare and finalize electoral college (member list) and conduct election under his strict supervision and guidance has also been sought.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Society known and registered as the Board of Trustees of Shia College and School and other connected Institution has been registered on 06.03.1918 and comprises a General Body and a Governing Body. It is submitted that upon finalization of the list of General Body, elections to the Office Bearers of Governing body is required to be held. It is also submitted that the term of Office Bearers is five years from the date of previous election. It is also submitted that the General Body Members/Trustees also hold post for a period of five years only whereafter new Members are required to be inducted whereafter they are required to be considered for re-election or for fresh induction of Truestees.

¶10

It is submitted that the last undisputed election to the Board of Trustees was held on 15.11.2009

¶11

and on that basis, one faction to which the petitioner belongs held an election on 11.10.2014 with the other faction holding election on 14.11.2014 on the basis of list of Members of the Board of Trustees approved on 17.10.2014.

¶12

It is submitted that by means of order dated 03.01.2015, the elections held on 14.11.2014 as per the list of Trustees dated 17.10.2014 was approved by the Deputy Registrar.

¶13

It is submitted that against the said order dated 17.10.2014, Writ Petition No.71 (M/S) of 2015 and 7042 (M/S) of 2014 was filed by the faction which held the election on 11.10.2014. The said writ petitions were connected and were jointly disposed of by means of judgment and order dated 01.07.2015 whereby the list of Trustees relied upon in the Election of Board of Trustees on 15.11.2009 as approved on 31.03.2010 was held to be the basic final list of Member-ship of the Society for purpose of fresh Election. The Registrar was also directed to revise the whole list by deleting only those persons who died till the date of judgment and for issuance of a new list including all the Members who were elected during the years 2010 till 2013 or before 10.10.2014 by either of the parties. It is submitted that essentially the order under challenge was quashed in the said writ petitions.

¶14

It is also submitted that two Special Appeals Bearing No.261 of 2015 and 263 of 2015 were thereafter filed against judgment rendered by learned Single and the said special appeals were also conjointly allowed by means of judgment and order dated 07.01.2016. Special Leave Petitions converted into Civil Appeals No.5420-5421 of 2017 were filed in which initially an interim protection was granted but subsequently by means of judgment and order dated 17.01.2024, the appeals were disposed of primarily on the ground that they had practically lost all their utility.

¶15

The Supreme Court also made it clear that no observation on merits of the case was being made while leaving open the question of law.

¶16

It is therefore submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that since the question of law was left open by the Supreme Court, the aspect of validity of list of Trustees pertaining to the list finalized in 2009 and the other one in 2014 was required to be re-adjudicated. He has also adverted to judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in which it has been noticed that a fresh election was thereafter held on 22.09.2019 and submits that subsequently also another election for the Office Bearers has been held on 30.06.2024 but in view of leave granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, it was incumbent upon the Deputy Registrar to have first finalized the list of Trustees and then to have adjudicated upon the list submitted by one of the factions which has been approved by the impugned order.

¶17

It is submitted that in terms of liberty granted by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, petitioner had filed objections dated 23.05.2024, 18.06.2024 and 04.07.2024 in which it was specifically prayed that conflict between two sets of Members pertaining to Election to the Governing Body held in the years 2009 and 2014 be adjudicated upon prior to any fresh elections pertaining to the Office Bearers of Society.

¶18

It is therefore submitted that the impugned order has been passed without considering or deciding aforesaid representations filed by petitioner and therefore makes a reference to Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act to submit that it was incumbent upon Deputy Registrar to have made a reference thereunder for finalization of the list of Trustees as well as of Office Bearers.

¶19

Learned State counsel and learned counsel for opposite parties no.3 and 4 have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that once the order dated 17.10.2014 pertaining to approving the list of Board of Trustees and the Elections to the Office Bearers held on 14.11.2014 was under challenge in Writ Petitions No.71 (M/S) of 2015 and 7042 (M/S) of 2014 with the same being quashed but special appeal there against being allowed, the

¶20

issue itself attained finality with the list of trustees as determined vide order dated 17.10.2014 becoming final, there was no occasion for the Deputy Registrar to have made any reference under Section 25 of the Act. It is submitted that it is more so in view of the fact that Civil Appeal filed against judgment rendered in Special Appeal was disposed of without setting aside the order passed in Special Appeal.

¶21

It is submitted that although the question of law was kept open but the same has to be seen in the light of judgment rendered in Special Appeal, which attained finality.

¶22

It is further submitted that even otherwise, in none of the objections/representations made by petitioner, has any ground been taken to challenge the Elections in terms of proviso to Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860 and in the absence thereof, there was no occasion for the Deputy Registrar to have made any reference.

¶23

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that there are two rival factions pertaining to Trustees and Office Bearers of the Society concerned. It also transpires that two separate factions held separate elections with one faction of which petitioner was a member holding an election to the Office Bearers of the Governing Body on 11.10.2014 and the other faction being represented as opposite parties no.3 & 4 on 14.11.2014. The faction to which petitioner belongs held its elections on the basis of the list finalized on 15.11.2009 whereas the faction represented by opposite parties no.3 & 4 held its election on the basis of the list finalized on 17.10.2014.

¶24

It is also evident that the order dated 17.10.2014 approving the list of Trustees which forms the basis of faction led by opposite parties no.3 & 4 was challenged in the writ petitions before learned Single Judge which was practically allowed by means of judgment and order dated 01.07.2015 whereby directions as indicated herein above were also issued. It is also admitted that

¶25

special appeals filed against judgment and order dated 01.07.2015 were allowed by means of judgment and order dated 07.01.2016 and Civil Appeals filed there against were disposed of by Hon'ble the Supreme Court without interfering with the judgment passed in Special Appeal although leaving open the question of law.

¶26

In such circumstances, it is quite evident that in the earlier round of litigation, the primary dispute being agitated was the list of trustees or the General Body which was under adjudication and has been finalized by the Special Appeal by means of judgment and order dated 07.01.2016 whereby the order dated 17.10.2014 passed by Deputy Registrar was upheld whereby the list of Trustees and Office Bearers of the faction represented by opposite parties no.3 & 4 was approved by the Deputy Registrar.

¶27

It is therefore clear that the judgment and order dated 07.01.2016 pertaining to the list of Trustees and Office Bearers of the faction led by opposite parties no.3 & 4 has attained finality.

¶28

So far as question of law being left open by Hon'ble the Supreme Court is concerned, it is evident that the Supreme Court declined to enter into merits of the dispute while noticing the fact that subsequently a fresh election was held in 2019 in which the appellant i.e. the faction to which petitioner belongs himself participated in the meeting in which election took place. It was in these circumstances that the Supreme Court held that appeals had practically lost all their utility.

¶29

Even if we consider the aspect of question of law being left open, the same would nonetheless have reference to Sections 4 and 25 of the Act of 1860.

¶30

With regard to registration of list of General Body Member-ship and of Office Bearers, it is Sections 4(1) and Section 4(B) of the Act which are relevant while Section 25 of the Act pertains to dispute regarding Election of Office Bearers.

¶31

In the present case, by means of impugned

¶32

order dated 08.10.2024, the list of Trustees/General Body as well as the list of Office Bearers of the Governing Body of the Society concerned has been approved.

¶33

In the considered opinion of this Court, so far as the list of Trustees/General Body is concerned, the same has already attained finality due to passing of judgment in Special Appeal, which was not interfered with by Supreme Court in Civil Appeals and therefore there was no requirement of making any reference with regard to that by Deputy Registrar.

¶34

So far as the aspect pertaining to reference under Section 25 for the Election of Office Bearers of the Governing Bodies is concerned, it is evident from a perusal of Section 25 of the Act that disputes regarding Election of Office Bearers can be set aside only in terms of grounds indicated in proviso to Section 25(1) of the Act which pertains to any corrupt practice being committed by any Office Bearer or improper rejection of nomination of any candidate or the result of Election being materially affected by improper acceptance of any nomination or rejection or refusal of any vote or reception of any vote. The aspect of corrupt practice has thereafter been defined in explanation I thereto.

¶35

Therefore it clearly follows that for a reference to be made under Section 25(1) of the Act, the grounds indicated as (a),(b) and (c) to proviso to Section 25(1) of the Act is necessarily required to be specifically stated and agitated by the person seeking such a reference.

¶36

In the present facts, in none of the objections/representations made by petitioner has any ground been taken which can be construed to come under clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the proviso to Section 25 (1) of the Act with the only ground being raised by petitioner of a secret ballot not being conducted, absence of Secretary of the Society during the Election and otherwise general allegations of corruption in the Society. In the representations dated 23.05.2024 and 18.06.2024 again objections have been raised for finalization

¶37

of list of Trustees after the Elections held in 2014.

¶38

As observed herein above, Registrar was not required to make any reference under Section 25(1) of the Act pertaining to list of Trustees/ General Body which already stood approved by Division Bench of this Court in the Special Appeals.

¶39

So far as the other grounds raised by the petitioner are concerned, they do not pertain to the aspects indicated in the proviso to Section 25 (1) of the Act.

¶40

In view thereof, this Court finds that there was no occasion for the Deputy Registrar to have entertained the objections/ representations filed by petitioners and therefore there was no occasion for him to pass any orders thereupon since even otherwise the said objections were misconceived.

¶41

In view of aforesaid, petition being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage itself . Parties to bear their own cost.

¶42

Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Subodh/-

¶43

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

Maulana Syed Qalbe Jawad Naqvi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Institutional Finance, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maulana Syed Qalbe Jawad Naqvi v. State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Institutional Finance, Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ms Banasree Chakraborty Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Medical Education, Lko. and Others

Nishkarsh Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education, Lko. and Others

Neetu @ Neetu Kumari Pathak Vs Pawan Kumar

Vijai Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko and 3 Others

Ramkishor Prasad vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and 2 Others

Ram Dhani vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Public Work Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others