Dismissed

Ankit Kumar Agarwal v. Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Another

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2025WRIC/1671/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of reference regarding removal of petitioner as Treasurer. Court held reference infructuous due to expired term of Committee of Management and subsequent elections, dismissing petition without interfering with pending challenge to subsequent elections.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ankit Kumar Agarwal Vs Deputy Registrar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:10976

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1671 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Ankit Kumar Agarwal Respondent :- Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies And Chits, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Sayyed Farooq Ahmad,Vinod Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Samarth Agarwal

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard Mr. Sayyed Farooq Ahmad, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1 and Mr. Samarth Agarwal with Ms. Anchal Gupta, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 13.01.2025 whereby petitioner's dispute pertaining to his removal from office of Treasurer of Society referred under Section 25(1) of Registration of Societies Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1860) has been rejected as having been rendered infructuous. A direction has also been sought to Deputy Registrar for referring the matter to Prescribed Authority for decision afresh.

¶8

Learned counsel for opposite party no.2 on the basis of impugned order submits that it has been clearly indicated and admitted that earlier election to Committee of Management of the Society in which petitioner had been elected Treasurer was held on 19.10.2018 and as per bye-laws applicable upon the Society, the term of said Committee of Management was only five years and thus it came to an end on 18.10.2023 whereafter a fresh election was held which list was submitted for approval before the Deputy Registrar which has also been subsequently approved.

¶9

It is further submitted that due to vacancy created on account of removal of petitioner from the post of Treasurer of the

¶10

Society, election to fill vacancy was held on 02.04.2023 only for the remaining period of the term of Committee of Management, which has also expired due to term of Committee of Management itself coming to an end and therefore it is submitted that the order impugned has been rightly passed.

¶11

Learned counsel for petitioner does not dispute the factum as recorded in the impugned order that the earlier election in which he was elected Treasurer of the Committee of Management was held on 19.10.2018 with its term only for a period of five years which has also expired.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, particularly, the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner has not raised any challenge to subsequent elections held on 18.10.2023 primarily on ground that he was not informed or given any prior notice with regard to such election despite fact that he is a member of the General Body of the Society.

¶13

It is also evident from impugned order and undisputed that the term of the Committee of Management of which petitioner had been elected Treasurer was only for a period of five years from 19.10.2018 which expired on 18.10.2023 whereafter fresh election has also been held on 18.10.2023.

¶14

In view thereof, admittedly the term of Committee of Management of which petitioner was a member having expired, the Reference under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860 has been rightly rejected as having been rendered infructuous.

¶15

It is also admitted by learned counsel for petitioner that subsequent election held on 18.03.2023 has not been challenged till date but the petitioner intends to challenge the same.

¶16

In view of aforesaid submissions by learned counsel for the parties, there is no occasion to interfere with the order

¶17

impugned.

¶18

The petition therefore being devoid of merit is dismissed at the admission stage itself. The parties to bear their own costs.

¶19

However, dismissal of this petition shall not preclude any challenge by petitioner to subsequent election which may be considered and decided on its own merit.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.2.2025 kvg/-

¶21

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ankit Kumar Agarwal v. Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ankit Kumar Agarwal v. Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Jss Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi East Thru. Director Shiv Pratap Singh Vs Ajay Kumar Singh

Sanjay Kumar and Anr. Vs Smt Lotika Gargary (died) represented by Ram Krishna Mission Thru. Secy. and Ors.

Sharad Verma vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare and 6 Others

Ram Dulari and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 3 Others

Shanti Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate, Barabanki and Others

Shiv Autar Sharma and 10 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 2 Others