Hirdesh Bihari Yadav and 9 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Heard Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Nikhil Anand and Shri Himanshu Singh for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Vashishtha Dhar Shukla for respondents no. 3, 4 and 5.

¶11

The present appeal is directed against order dated 18.11.2025 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ-C No. 39118 of 2025 filed by the appellants.

¶12

The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 24.09.2025, whereby the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra Region, Agra, had approved a list of 22 members of Janta Vidyalaya Samiti, Alinagar, Kenjra, Firozabad ('the Society') with a further indication that

¶13

2

¶14

SPLA No. - 1305 of 2025

¶15

election programme would be separately issued. The Deputy Registrar has further declared the appellants as rank outsiders to the Society.

¶16

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has made submissions that the appellants were enrolled as members in the year 1997 and since thereafter, their rights and status as such have been successively recognized over a period of time and when, in 2018, at the instance of private respondents, a dispute was raised and notices were issued on 04.08.2018 and 29.11.2018 by the Deputy Registrar calling upon the appellants to attend proceedings, this Court, in Writ-C No. 42507 of 2018, stayed proceedings in pursuance of the said notices. Submission is that the said writ petition being still pending, the Deputy Registrar was not competent to entertain identical complaints moved by the respondents and, therefore, for this reason alone, the order dated 24.09.2025, impugned in the writ petition, was liable to be set aside.

¶17

It is further submitted that the Deputy Registrar, without any cogent basis, declared the appellants as the rank outsiders and the reason for arriving at such conclusion is some proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 ('the Act') allegedly instituted in the year 1989 and allegedly decided in 1992 and since the very enrollment of the appellants is subsequent in point of time and, even otherwise, at this stage, the impugned decision could not be based upon more than 30 years old proceedings, the order of the Deputy Registrar could not be sustained and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred in dismissing the writ petition.

¶18

Further submission has been made that the basis for declaring the list of 22 members as valid is an order dated 18.09.2020 which was passed by Basic Education Officer, who had no jurisdiction to determine membership of the Society and since the Deputy Registrar has not independently adjudicated upon the dispute qua membership, the order passed by him is bad. Further submission has been made that by an order dated 16.03.2020, a list of 30 members presented by Babu Ram Yadav had been declared valid by the Assistant Registrar and though the said

¶19

3

¶20

SPLA No. - 1305 of 2025

¶21

order was set aside by order dated 27.03.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 1753 of 2023, fresh determination, if any, was to be made in accordance with law and, hence, adjudication could not be made based upon proceedings of 1989 but based upon the status of the appellants as of today.

¶22

Per contra, Shri Khare has made submissions that no relief can be granted to the appellants at this stage when, in furtherance of order dated 24.09.2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, elections of the society have already been held for the year 2025-26; list of office bearers has been registered on 22.01.2026 and the office bearers so elected are in control of the affairs of the society.

¶23

On merits, it is submitted by Shri Khare that the Deputy Registrar, by referring to a reference sought to be made to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, in the year 1989, arrived at a conclusion that one Babu Ram Yadav had surreptitiously got renewal of the society and the exercise of carrying out amendment in the Bye-laws, by placing before the Assistant Registrar a forged order dated 21.07.1992 allegedly passed by the Prescribed Authority/SDM, Firozabad as if the reference under Section 25(1) had been decided. Further submission has been made that Babu Ram Yadav was none other than the father of the appellant no. 1 and once the enrollment of the appellants was done by Babu Ram Yadav, who grabbed the society based upon forged and fabricated proceedings, the Deputy Registrar has rightly discarded the membership of the appellants.

¶24

It is further submitted that as far as the order dated 18.09.2020 passed by the Basic Education Officer is concerned, he was exercising powers as an Authorized Controller over the Institution run by the Society and in the said order, indications were made that a tentative list of 71 members of the general body had been provided to him by the Deputy Registrar and, in furtherance of certain orders passed in writ petition and contempt petition, and after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, a final list of 33 members after excluding the dead members, was notified.

¶25

4

¶26

SPLA No. - 1305 of 2025

¶27

Further submission has been made that the order dated 18.09.2020 having attained finality, if the Deputy Registrar has taken aid of the said decision in the light of other material available on record before him, no error can be found in such determination and, therefore, neither the Deputy Registrar nor the learned Single Judge has erred in discarding the claim set up by the appellants.

¶28

In so far as the pendency of Writ-C No. 42507 of 2018 is concerned, submission has been made that after the said writ petition, various writ petitions were filed by the appellants themselves such as Writ-C Nos. 249 of 2021, 13859 of 2022, 18674 of 2023, 1753 of 2023 and 14090 of 2020, and various directions were issued by this Court for determination of dispute of membership and, therefore the appellants cannot place reliance on the order passed in the year 2018 in a previous writ petition.

¶29

We have considered the submissions made and perused the material available on record.

¶30

When the matter was heard on 09.03.2026, this Court, having noticed the findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar regarding a forged letter dated 18.07.1992, passed following order:-

¶31

"1. The entire basis of the finding recorded by the Deputy Registrar in his order dated 24.09.2025 pertains to the fact that though a reference was made on 25.10.1989 under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the same never got decided, however, based on a forged letter dated 18.07.1992 pertaining to the disposal of the said reference, further actions have been taken which have been held to be void. However, apparently, the letter dated 18.07.1992 is not on the record of the writ petition.

¶32

Learned Standing Counsel is directed to produce the letter dated 18.07.1992, which has formed the basis for finding that the said order was forged and as a consequence, the order impugned has been passed.

¶33

Needful may be done before the next date.

¶34

List on 24.03.2026, as fresh."

¶35

In furtherance of the said order, learned Standing Counsel has produced before us a copy of the proceedings/order/endorsement dated 18.07.1992 qua attestation of signatures of Babu Ram Yadav as Manager

¶36

5

¶37

SPLA No. - 1305 of 2025

¶38

of the Inter College run by the Society. For a ready reference, the said document is reproduced as under:-

¶39

A perusal of the above document makes it clear that on 18.07.1992, Collection Amin, Firozabad had identified Babu Ram Yadav and his signatures and stated that he knows him and so far as the Prescribed Authority/SDM, Firozabad is concerned, endorsement reads as 'Sing. Attested of Sri Babu Ram Yadav Manager' .

¶40

6

¶41

SPLA No. - 1305 of 2025

¶42

Apart from the afore-depicted endorsements, no order of the Prescribed Authority allegedly passed on 18.07.1992 has been produced before us. In light of the same, if we peruse the findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar as also noted by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned, we find that non-sending of file containing 321 pages since 1989 pursuant to a communication dated 25.10.1989 sands reflected and, therefore, finding was recorded by Deputy Registrar that as to when the file was not sent to the Prescribed Authority, production of a fabricated order dated 18.07.1992 allegedly signed by the Prescribed Authority/SDM, Firozabad was a fraudulent act of Babu Ram Yadav for coming in power and the very induction/enrollment of the appellants as members in the society by Babu Ram Yadav is tainted.

¶43

The Deputy Registrar has further observed that though sanctity of membership documents could be ascertained after perusing the membership register, proceedings register, agenda register, cash book, bank statements, passbook etc., however, the same, despite orders passed by the High Court, had not been made available by the appellants and, therefore, their claim could not be sustained.

¶44

Once there is nothing on record to establish that SDM, Firozabad in the capacity of the Prescribed Authority had ever passed any order dated 18.07.1992 or on any other date allegedly deciding a reference which even appears has not reached him, attestation of signatures of Babu Ram Yadav by the SDM clearly appears to be manufactured.

¶45

Even otherwise, we fail to understand as to in what capacity and under what statutory powers, the SDM, Firozabad had attested the signatures of Babu Ram Yadav as Manager of educational Institution run by the Society. As per law, the power to attest the signatures of a Manager lies with District Inspector of Schools and not with the Prescribed Authority, who has no jurisdiction in relation to affairs of a Committee of Management of an Institution. For this reason also, the endorsement allegedly made by SDM, Firozabad on 18.07.1992 does not have any sanctity.

¶46

7

¶47

SPLA No. - 1305 of 2025

¶48

As far as the order dated 18.09.2020 passed by the Basic Education Officer, we find that in relation to the elections of the Committee of Management of Inter College run by the Society, the Deputy Registrar published a tentative list of 71 members and, in furtherance of the directions issued by this Court and based upon the tentative list published by the Deputy Registrar, decision was taken by the Basic Education Officer as the elections of the Committee of Management were directed to be held based upon the list of members of general body of the Society. Consequently, based upon the tentative list of 71 members, and excluding 38 members who had died, the Basic Education Officer declared a list of 33 members and directed for holding of elections in furtherance of the directions of the writ court and the order passed in contempt proceedings.

¶49

In view of the above, if the Deputy Registrar, in the order dated 24.09.2025 took aid of the determination made by the Basic Education Officer in the order dated 18.09.2020, which order was never challenged, we do not find any error in such determination as the Deputy Registrar is under obligation to go into the record position and once, after providing due opportunity of hearing to the parties and dealing with objections etc. filed by them, he has arrived at a reasonable conclusion, the order passed by him cannot be set aside on technicalities.

¶50

As far as the order impugned in the present special appeal is concerned, we find that the learned Single Judge, having considered the submissions made and the findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar, particularly the production of forged document by the appellants and their associates, arrived at a conclusion that the writ petitioners had not come with clean hands and, consequently, declined to interfere with the order passed by the Deputy Registrar.

¶51

In the totality of facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that determination made by the Deputy Registrar under the order dated 24.09.2025 was based upon a thoughtful consideration of material available on record and if the learned Single Judge has declined to

¶52

8

¶53

SPLA No. - 1305 of 2025

¶54

interfere with the same for the reasons assigned in the order, we do not find any good ground to take a different view of the matter.

¶55