Gaurav Pratap Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Lko. and 4 Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:26422

Court No. - 8

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2355 of 2025

Petitioner :- Gaurav Pratap Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Lko. And 4 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Singh,Anuj Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi Along with

¶6

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 2054 of 2025

¶7

Petitioner :- Madhumati Singh Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance, Lko. And Others

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anuj Kumar Gupta,Abhishek Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi

¶9

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶10

This is a batch of two petitions. One filed by Smt. Madhumati Singh bearing Writ-C No. 2054 of 2025 and the other has been filed by Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh and Mohd. Luqman which is Writ-C No. 2355 of 2025.

¶11

For the purposes of convenient, the Court shall be referring to the facts as borne out in Writ-C No. 2355 of 2025.

¶12

The Court has heard Sri Abhishek Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in both the petitions, Sri S.K. Khare, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents and Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5.

¶13

The controversy in issue is regarding the validity of membership in so far as the present petitioners in both the petitions are concerned and they claim to be the life members of the Society having been inducted in the year 2018.

¶14

The undisputed facts are that the Hukum Singh Inter College, Kaiserganj, Bahraich is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1860) and the said society was lastly renewed on 12.10.2020 for

¶15

a period of five years.

¶16

There is no dispute between the learned counsel for the parties to the effect that the last election of the society was held on 07.09.2018. It is also not disputed between the parties that the term of the said Society is five years.

¶17

In this context, once the last admitted elections took place on 07.09.2018 and the term of the society was five years, accordingly, it came to end in the year 2023.

¶18

In the aforesaid backdrop, Smt. Madhumati Singh had instituted proceedings by filing objections before the Deputy Registrar, Societies Chits and Funds indicating inter alia that the Society had come to an end and had become time barred and there were certain misgivings in the Society as such it would be in larger interest that the elections be held.

¶19

Considering the objections filed by Smt. Madhumati Singh, the Deputy Registrar by means of impugned order 16.01.2025 found that the elections held on 05.09.2018 were not valid, consequently, the Society was declared as time barred and thereafter it has finalized a tentative list of members comprising of 31 members noticing that out of the General Body of 80 members, 49 members had expired and therefore the active strength would be of 31 members.

¶20

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that initially Smt. Madhumati instituted Writ-C No. 2054 of 2025 wherein her basic contention was that she was one of the newly inducted life member. Apart from her, there were 9 other members who were also inducted in the year 2018 as life members and their names have not been included, accordingly, the order passed by the Deputy Registrar is bad.

¶21

Taking cue from the aforesaid, Sri Gaurav Pratap Singh and Sri Mohd. Luqman filed a petition bearing Writ-C No. 2355 of 2025 wherein they have also raised a specific plea that they were also inducted as life members in the year 2018 and as such by means of the impugned order, neither any notice was issued to the petitioners and their names have been struck off and not included in the the list of General Body Members and thus they have been deprived of their rights in the Society.

¶22

In the aforesaid factual backdrop, the instant two petitions were filed challenging the order passed by the Deputy Registrar

¶23

primarily on the ground that the petitioners were life members of the Society and without noticing and affording any opportunity, their names have been struck off which in turn would impact the constitution of the Electoral College since the initial General Body comprised of 80 members out of which 49 had expired and with the remaining 31 members a sizeable composition of the members amounting to 10 who are life members have been excluded which would impact the outcome of the elections if held without permitting the petitioners to participate.

¶24

The aforesaid submissions are refuted by Sri Rajeiu Tripathi, the learned counsel for the private respondents no. 5- Vishva Pal Singh.

¶25

It is urged that the petitioners along with 9 other members who alleged themselves to have been inducted were never inducted in the Society and the present petitioners also have no right. One of the said allegedly elected member namely Ajay Kumar has already left for his heavenly abode.

¶26

It is further urged that the plea raised by the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was not granted also is not correct as Smt. Madhumati Singh was already represented and it was on her objections that the proceedings had been initiated by the Deputy Registrar who had considered the relevant documents and has concluded with the findings that the 10 alleged members could not have been inducted, apart from the fact there was no adequate material on record to substantiate their bonafide induction in the Society, accordingly, taking the undisputed General Body of the 80 members and noticing that 49 members had expired, he has finalized a tentative list which was subject to the objections filed by the members and in this way the elections in context with Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act shall take place and an election schedule had been issued indicating that the election would be held on 05th May, 2025.

¶27

The said order as well as the election schedule which was issued on 08th April, 2025 has been brought on record by means of a supplementary affidavit filed today by learned counsel for the petitioner which is taken on record.

¶28

This Court in its order dated 11.04.2025 had sought written instructions from the Additional Chief Standing Counsel to

¶29

indicate as to whether any notice was issued to the present petitioners or the 10 newly inducted members before passing of the impugned order and in furtherance thereof, the Additional Chief Standing Counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 16.04.2025 under the Signatures of the Deputy Registrar, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya wherein in paragraph 7 of the written instructions, it has been stated that no notice was issued to the 10 inducted members primarily because one of the member namely Smt.Madhumati Singh was already contesting and it was on her objections that the proceedings were considered. It was also noticed in the said instructions that since the other members were closely related, hence, for the said reason, no notice was issued nor it was necessary.

¶30

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, apparently, a fact that could not be disputed is that the last election of the Society was held on 07.09.2018. The term of the Society was five years which came to be end in the year 2023. Nothing could be substantiated from the record to indicate that post the year 2023 any elections were held by the alleged Committee which had been elected in the year 2018. Since the election could not be held within time, apparently, as per the mechanism and the scheme of the Act, as per Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, the election could only be conducted by the Deputy Registrar.

¶31

In so far as the holding of elections and the power of the Deputy Registrar to hold the elections in case if the elections of the last session was not done within time is concerned, there is no dispute.

¶32

In the instant case, the dispute is confined to the issue of membership which prior to holding the elections was required to be considered by the Deputy Registrar. Even though, the proceedings were started at the behest of Smt. Madhumati Singh, but the fact remains that 10 newly inducted members have stake in the society since 2018. Whether they were appropriately inducted in terms of the bye-laws is a question that had to be determined. This determination could not have been made without the affected parties being made a party and they being put to notice for seeking their version.

¶33

Admittedly, as far as the present petitioners in Writ-C No. 2355 of 2025 is concerned, the same was not noticed nor they

¶34

had an opportunity to present their case before Deputy Registrar nor there was any representation on their behalf. Even if Smt. Madhumati Singh may have initiated proceedings and her case was only considered but then without putting the other members to notice who have their own distinct in separate rights could not have been prejudiced without issuing the notice to them.

¶35

It is one thing to say that the members would be closely related but it is another thing that in compliance of the principles of natural justice, whenever a decision is taken, which impacts the rights of an individual, it is necessary to put him to notice.

¶36

In the instant case, had the notice been sent and after due service, the parties would not have turned out, it could not prevent the Deputy Registrar from proceeding ahead or passing the order but a fact which comes on record including in the written instructions is the fact that none of the ten alleged newly inducted members were sent any notice except Smt. Madhumati Singh who was the person at whose behest, the proceedings were initiated.

¶37

This Court in writ petition bearing Misc. Single No. 25151 of 2020 (Smt.Shashi Bala & Ors. Vs. R egistrar Firms, Societies & Chits and Others) along with one connected matter i.e. Misc. Single No.. - 25284 of 2020 (Virendra Ratnam & Ors. Vs.Registrar Firms, Societies & Chits and Others) decided on 02nd February, 2021 had the occasion to consider this issue and after taking note of the several decisions of the Apex Court has held as under:-

¶38

"The Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. Debasis Das reported in 2003 (4) SCC 557 has held in para 19 as under:-

¶39

"19... Even an administrative order which involves civil consequences must be consistent with the rules of natural justice."

¶40

This Court has elaborated the expression "civil consequence" by observing that (Debasis Das case, SCC pg.572, para 19) "encompasses infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages". This Court has further stated, that, "in its wide umbrella comes everything that affects a citizen in his civil life."

¶41

and in Para 15 held as under:-

¶42

"15. The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilised States is of supreme importance when a quasi-judicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative order, which involves civil consequence must be consistent with the rules of natural justice."

¶43

The Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Ratan Sinha Vs. State of

¶44

Bihar and others reported in 2009 (14) SCC 690 in paras 13 and 14 has held as under:-

¶45

"13. The law in this regard has been settled by several decisions of this Court. The principle that emerge from the decisions of this Court is that, if there is a power to decide and decide detrimentally to the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in exercise of such a power and that the rule of natural justice operates in areas not covered by any law validly made.

¶46

14. Corollary principles emanating from these cases are as to what particular rule of natural justice should apply to a given case must depend to an extent on the facts and circumstances of that case and that it is only where there is nothing in the statute to actually prohibit, the giving of an opportunity of being heard and on the other hand, the nature of the statutory duty imposed on the decision maker itself implies an obligation to hear before deciding. These cases have also observed, whenever an action of public body results in civil consequences for the person against whom the action is directed, the duty to act fairly can be presumed and in such a case, the administrative authority must give a proper opportunity of hearing to the affected person."

¶47

The Supreme Court in Nisha Devi Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others reported in 2014 (16) SCC 392 in para 5 held as under:-

¶48

"5. Trite though it is, we may yet again reiterate that the principle of audi alteram partem admits of no exception, and demands to be adhered to in all circumstances. In other words, before arriving at any decision which has serious implications and consequences to any person, such person must be heard in his defence. We find that the High Court did not notice the violation and infraction of this salutary principle of law. Accordingly, on this short ground, the impugned Judgments and Orders require to be set aside, and are so done. The matter is remanded back to the Divisional Commissioner for taking a fresh decision after giving due notice to the Appellant and affording her an opportunity of being heard. The Divisional Magistrate, Kullu, shall complete the proceedings expeditiously, and not later than six months from the date on which a copy of this Order is served on him."

¶49

In view of the aforesaid decisions and as it has not been disputed by the parties that the petitioners have not been granted any opportunity of hearing before passing of the order dated 21.11.2020, this Court is of the view that without entering into the merits or commenting upon any of the allegations or counter allegations made by respective parties but only for the reason that opportunity of hearing has not been provided to the petitioners of both the petitions, this Court is of the firm view that the impugned order cannot be sustained and deserves to be set aside." 25. Considering the aforesaid undisputed fact, this Court is satisfied that the order impugned dated 16.01.2025 has been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the affected parties and for the said reason cannot be sustained. The impugned order dated 16.01.2025 is accordingly quashed and set aside. It will be open for the Deputy Registrar to issue notice to the concerned alleged ten inducted members and after affording them with a reasonable opportunity of hearing but without granting any unnecessary adjournments shall decide the matter afresh and thereafter proceed to hold the elections of the Society as early as possible, preferrably the entire exercise must

¶50

be completed within a period of three months from today.

¶51

In case if any of the parties tries to misuse the liberty or protract the litigation, the Deputy Registrar concerned would be well within his rights to proceed accordingly.

¶52

With the aforesaid, both petitions are allowed . Costs are made easy.

¶53

Order Date :- 2.5.2025 Asheesh/-

¶54

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

Gaurav Pratap Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gaurav Pratap Singh and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Finance Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Huzaifa Khan Thru. Father Quayum Khan and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education, Lko. and 3 Others

Laxman and 24 Others vs Shri Ajay Chauhan, the Prin. Secy. Pubilc Work Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Smt. Genda Vs Rama Kant and Others

Noor Mohammad Vs U.P. Waqf Tribunal Lko. and Others

Thakur Ramjanki Birajman Mandir Thru. Sarbarahkar Mahant Narayan Achari and Anr. Vs Shatruhan Singh and Ors.

Pooja Pandey and 43 Others vs Sri Parth Sarthi Sen Sharma Addl. Chief Secy. Medical and Health Lko. and Another