Dismissed¶97

Committee of Management Baba Raghunandan Das Vidyalay Vaishnav Nagar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 May 2026WRIC/10721/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Societies Registration Act 1860 Section 4-B; Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits Kanpur Region; validity of General Body members' list; cancellation of society election dated 30.07.2023; induction of 21 new members and deletion of 19 members; life member Daya Shankar Mishra affidavit declaring him alive; bye-law Clause 6-Ga and Clause 16-Gha; power of Deputy Registrar to recall own earlier order; election on defective list unsustainable; pairokar affidavit sworn by stranger; authorization contrary to bye-laws vesting Manager; cost Rs. 50,000/-; Committee of Management Baba Raghunandan Das Vidyalay; Ashok Kumar Katiyar; Shiv Nath Katiyar; Writ-C Nos. 10721 and 13322 of 2026; Writ-C No. 36738 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

None ¶97

Committee of Management Baba Raghunandan Das Vidyalay Vaishnav Nagar and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None

¶97

Issue for consideration

Whether the Deputy Registrar, exercising powers under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, had jurisdiction to find the list of 69 Members of General Body incorrect and to cancel the election conducted on its basis. +2 more

¶76

Court's answer

Since the election was conducted on a defective list of General Body Members, it cannot be legally sustainable and was rightly set aside by the impugned order.

¶96

Ratio / Principle

The argument that the Deputy Registrar had no power to recall his earlier order is incorrect; the earlier registration carried no specific condition permitting recall upon discovery of improper deletion or induction of Members, but that does not bar reconsideration.

¶79

Key takeaways

Petitioners failed to discharge the burden of proving due process for induction of new Members and deletion of only dead Members; the Deputy Registrar committed no illegality in holding the disputed list defective in the absence of relevant documents.ratio¶96
Life Member Daya Shankar Mishra's notarized affidavit dated 20.08.2025 declaring that he is alive was not denied in the writ petition except by the plea in paragraph 31 that his name was deleted for non-deposit of yearly subscription.ratio¶84
The reason in paragraph 31 of the writ petition (deletion for non-deposit of yearly subscription) does not sustain; no such clause in the bye-laws was referred and no proceeding to that effect was placed on record.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.) dismissed two connected writ petitions (Writ-C Nos. 10721 and 13322 of 2026) challenging the order dated 23.01.2026 of the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Region, passed in compliance of this Court's order dated 20.11.2025 in Writ-C No. 36738 of 2025, whereby the General Body lists for 2020-21 (69 members) and 2025-26 (51 members) were again found defective, the election of the Committee of Management held on 30.07.2023 and the registered Managing Committee list for 2025-26 were declared invalid, and the list dated 20.06.2017 (2016-17, 59 members) of former Manager Shiv Nath Katiyar was upheld. Held: (i) the plea that the Deputy Registrar had no power to recall his earlier order dated 04.09.2025 is incorrect; (ii) under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 the petitioners bore the burden of proving due process for induction of 21 new members and deletion of 19 members, which they failed to discharge — the life membership of Daya Shankar Mishra, who swore a notarized affidavit dated 20.08.2025 that he was alive, could not be cancelled for non-payment of subscription absent any such bye-law, and bye-law Clauses 6-Ga and 16-Gha furnished no valid ground for deletion; (iii) an election held on a defective list is not legally sustainable and was rightly set aside. Writ-C No. 10721 of 2026 was separately dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- each on the President and the deponent for swearing an affidavit through a stranger/pairokar contrary to the bye-laws authorising the Manager to represent the Committee.

¶1

Reserved on 28.04.2026 Delivered on 06.05.2026

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶3

WRIT - C No. - 10721 of 2026

¶4

Committee Of Management Baba Raghunandan Das Vidyalay Vaishnav Nagar And Another

¶5

…..Petitioner(s)

¶6

State Of U.P. And 3 Others

¶7

Versus …..Respondents(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Yogesh Kumar Saxena Counsel for Respondent(s) : Alok Dwivedi, C.S.C.

¶9

Along with :

¶10

Writ - C No. 13322 of 2026:

¶11

Committee of Management and Another 1.

¶12

Versus

¶13

State of U.P. and 3 others

¶14

Court No. - 32

¶15

HON’BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

¶16

1 . This is a bunch of two writ petitions whereby same order is under challenge, i.e., an order dated 23.01.2026 passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Region, Kanpur.

¶17

¶18

Writ C No. 10721 of 2026

¶19

2 . First writ petition, being Writ-C No. 10721 of 2026 was filed on 12.03.2026 by Committee of Management, Baba Raghunandan Das Vidyalay Vaishnav Nagar, Billhor, Kanpur Nagar through its President, Dr. Rajendra Katiyar and it is supported by an affidavit sworn by one, Gyanendra Awasthi declaring himself to be a pairokar without any further declaration that under what capacity he is connected with petitioners’ Committee of Management. The writ petition is accompanied by a resolution dated 08.02.2026 whereby the said deponent was authorized to do pairavi. There is an earlier resolution dated 02.09.2025 whereby Dr. Rajendra Katiyar was authorized to file writ petition instead of Sri Ashok Kumar Katiyar, the Manager of Committee of Management.

¶20

3 . Second writ petition, being Writ-C No. 13322 of 2026 was filed on 28.03.2026, i.e., subsequent to above referred writ petition by same Committee of Management but now through its Manager, Ashok Kumar Katiyar. This writ petition is accompanied by an affidavit of said petitioner. In this writ petition there is no reference, whether petitioner was authorized to file this writ petition even after earlier writ petition was filed challenging same impugned order through its President.

¶21

4 . The aforesaid circumstances are explicit example that it was necessary that a conscious decision be taken by Committee of Management not only to challenge any adverse order but to authorize a person, i.e., Office Bearer or Member of Committee of Management as per bye laws. In no circumstance a stranger can be appointed to sworn an affidavit on behalf of Committee of Management and its Office Bearers since in no circumstance it can be assumed that he would be aware with affairs of Committee of Management.

¶22

5 . In aforesaid circumstances, both writ petitions can be dismissed with cost though at this stage the Court is dismissing only first petition, i.e., Writ-C No. 10721 of 2026 filed by Committee of Management through its President since it is accompanied by an affidavit of a stranger though the Court takes note that there was an authorization but said

¶23

¶24

Writ C No. 10721 of 2026

¶25

authorization cannot be treated to be a proper authorization being contrary to its bye-laws whereby Manager is authorized to represent Committee of Management in legal cases. A cost of Rs. 50,000/- each is imposed on the President of Committee of Management and deponent of referred writ petition.

¶26

6 . Now only the second writ petition, i.e., Writ-C No. 13322 of 2026 survives wherein petitioners are represented by Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.N. Pandey and Sri Y.K. Saxena, Advocates, Respondents-1 and 2 are represented by learned Standing Counsel and Respondents-3 and 4 are represented by Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Alok Dwivedi, Advocate.

¶27

7 . This is a case arising out of a dispute of list of Members of General Body of petitioners’ Committee of Management. Earlier a dispute of list of Members was considered by this Court in Writ-C No. 36738 of 2025, wherein an order dated 04.09.2025 was challenged whereby the Deputy Registrar, Kanpur has passed an order that a list dated 30.07.2023 submitted by Ashok Kumar Katiyar (Petitioner herein) being last election of Committee of Management on basis of list of 69 Members of General Body was found to be defective and accordingly election for year 2025-26 which was earlier registered on 30.07.2025 submitted by Sri Ashok Kumar Katiyar, Manager was also cancelled on a complaint of private respondents.

¶28

8 . Aforesaid Writ-C No. 36738 of 2025 was finally disposed of vide an order dated 20.11.2025 and this Court has directed Deputy Registrar, Kanpur to pass a fresh order after hearing parties and decide the dispute of list of Members. Accordingly a fresh order dated 23.01.2026 was passed whereby a list submitted by Sri Ashok Kumar Katiyar (petitioner herein) of the years 2020-21 and 2025-26 were again found defective and list of Members of General Body for the year 2025-26 submitted by petitioners was not approved and list dated 20.06.2017 submitted by earlier Manager, Sri Shiv Nath Katiyar was declared to be valid. Said order is impugned herein and it’s relevant part is mentioned hereinafter:

¶29

¶30

Writ C No. 10721 of 2026

¶31

" मेरे्ቛ ाराउभयप्ቌोकोसुनागयातथाप्ቔावलीमेंउपलब्ध अभिभलेखोसहि�त्ቚ स्तुतसाቌኚयोकाभलीभांतितपरिरशीलनहिकयागया।

¶32

सस्थाकं े तत्कालीन्ቚ बन्धक्ቦ ीभिशवनाथकहि+यार्ቛ ारा्ቚ स्तुत 23.09.2017 को शुल्कव्ቚ प्ቔोकेआधारपरसस्थाकानवीनीकरणहि/नां कं हिकयागयाथा।तत्कालीन्ቚ बन्धक्ቦ ीभिशवनाथकहि+यार्ቛ ारासस्थाकं े 20.06.2017 नवीनीकरण�तु्ቚे स्तुतअपन्ቚे त्याव/नहि/नाे कं केमाध्यमसे 59 2016-17 सस्थाकीं स/स्यीयसाधारणसभाकीसूचीव्ቧ 5 स्तुतकी्ቚ 56 गयीथी।जि7समंकुले स/स्योको7ीहिवत�ोनेकाउ्ቤे खहिकयागयाथा। उभयप्ቌोके मध्यउपरो्ሹ स/स्यतासूचीकोलकरहिववा/े न�ीं�।्ቦै ी भिशवनाथकहि+यार्ቛ ारासस्थाकं े नवीनीकरण�तुपुनःअपना्ቚे त्याव/ने 19.08.2020 हि/नाकं स्तुतहिकयागयाथा।जि7सक्ቅे ममंसे स्थाकां ्ቚ 03.09.2020 नवीनीकरण्ቚ माणप्ቔ हि/नाकं हिनगतहिकयागयाथा।7ोहिक5 31.07.2020 से05 । हि/नाकं व्ቧ> केलिलयेहिवतिधमान्यर�ा

¶33

ीअशोककुमारकहि+यार्ቛ ाराअपनेप्ቔ हि/नांक ्ቦ27.06.2025 के माध्यमसेसंस्थाकी्ቚ बन्धसहिमतितवसाधारणसभाकीसूचीव्ቧ5 2025-26 ारा पं7ीकृतहिकये7ानेकेअनुरोधकेसाथ्ቚ स्तुतकीगयी।जि7सेकाया5लय्ቛ हि/नांक30.06.2025 केआ/ेशकेमाध्यमसेइसशत5केसाथपं7ीकृतहिकया गयाहिक्ቚ स्तुत्ቚ प्ቔोंमेंकोईतथ्यभिEपानेयागलततथ्य्ቚ स्तुतहिकये7ाने कीबातभहिवष्यमेंयहि/्ቚ काशमेंआती�ैतोइसकापूण5उ्ቈर/ातियत्वआपका �ोगातथापं7ीकृतअभिभलेखपं7ीकरणकीतितभिथसेअमान्यएवंहिवतिधशून्य �ोगें।

¶34

69 उभयप्ቌोकेमध्यहिववा/ कीቝኌस्थतित स/स्यीयसाधारणसभाकी 2020-21 2025-26 सूचीव्ቧ 5 वप7ीकृतकीगयीसाधारणसभाकीसूचीव्ቧं 5 कोलकर�े ।्ቦै ीअशोककुमारकहि+यारडा०रा7ेन ् कहि+यारका/ावा�ैहिक 69 उपरो्ሹ स/स्यीयसाधारणसभाकीसूचीकोआपके कायालयम5 ंे तत्कालीन्ቚ बन्धक्ቦ ीभिशवनाथकहि+यार्ቛ ाराअपने आव/नप्ቔे हि/नाकं 19.08.2020 केमाध्यमस्ቚे स्तुतहिकयागयाथा।7बहिकभिशकायतकतागण5 69 ीयोगेन ् जिस�कहि+यारकीभिशकायते य��ै हिकउपरो्ሹ ्ቦ स/स्यीय ारा साधारणसभाकीसूचीकोतत्कालीन्ቚ बन्धक्ቦ ीभिशवनाथकहि+यार्ቛ 19.08.2020 अपनेआव/नप्ቔे हि/नाकं केमाध्यमस्ቚे स्तुतन�ींहिकयागया 69 �ैतथाय�कथनहिकयागया�ैकभिथत स/स्यीयसाधारणसभाकीसूची 2020-21 व 51 2025-26 ी व्ቧ 5 स/स्यीयसाधारणसभाकीसूचीव्ቧ 5 मं्ቦे ाराफाडकरके21 अशोककुमारकहि+यार्ቛ नयेस/स्योकेनामहिबनाहिकसी 19 हि्ቅयाकोअपनाये�ुए7ोड़हि/यागया�ैतथा्ቚ आ7ीवनसर्ቌकस/स्यों को�+ाहि/यागया�ै7ोहिकपूणतयाःअव5 धाहिनक�ै ।उनके्ቛै ाराय�अनुरोध

¶35

¶36

Writ C No. 10721 of 2026

¶37

हिकयागया�ैहिकव्ቧ5 2020-21 एवं 2025-26 कीसाधारणसभामें 21 नये अवैधस/स्योकेनाम�+ाते�ुए 19 पुरानेववैधआ7ीवनस/स्योकेनाम 7ोड़ते�ुएसाधारणसभाघोहि्ቧतकी7ाये। अपने कथनोके समथनम5 ं्ቦे ी योगेन ् िሺस�कहि+यार्ቛ ारामो०सई/ अ�म/ इलिलयास, ी7ाव/े ्ቦकमर रिर7वी, ीशा/ाब�ुस्ቦ नै , ीयोगेन ् कुमारकहि+यारके नो+रीशपथप्ቔ्ቦ स्तुतहिकयेगयेजि7समंउनके ्ቛे ाराय�कथनहिकयागया�ैहिकहिबनासूचना्ቚ एवंए7ेण्डाकरायेतथाउनकोहिबनासूतिचतहिकयेउन्�ेस/स्यतासे�+ाहि/या गया�।उनकीस/स्यताकोब�ालहिकया7ायै ।्ቦे ी/याशकरहिम्ቦं कानो+री 20.08.2025 शपथप्ቔ हि/नाकं भी्ቚ स्तुतहिकयागयाजि7समंउनके ्ቛे ारास्वयं । को7ीहिवत�ोनेकीघो्ቧणाकीगयी�ै

¶38

काया5लयआ/ेशहि/नांक 30.06.2025 केमाध्यमसे्ቦ ीअशोक कुमारकहि+यार्ቛ ारासंस्थाके्ቚ बन्धककी�ैजिसयतसे्ቚ स्तुत 51 स/स्यीय साधारणसभाकीसूचीव्ቧ52025-26 कोपं7ीकृतहिकयागयाथा।जि7समेंय� /ावाहिकयागयाथाहिकव्ቧ5 2020-21 की 69 स/स्यीयसाधारणसभाकी 02 सूचीमेंसेमृतकोकोअलगकरते�ुएतथामा्ቔ नयेस/स्य7ोड़ेगये�ै। 69 य�ाँपरय�उ्ቤेखनीय�ैहिकउपरो्ሹ स/स्यीयसाधारणसभाकीसूची कोलेकरतत्समयकोईभिशकायत्ቚ ा्቎ न�ीथी। कायालयम5 ंव्ቧे 5 2020-21 कीसाधारणसभाकीसूचीकोलकरसे स्थाकं े वधस/स्यो्ቛै ाराअपनी 2020आपलि्ቈया्ቚं स्तुतकीगयी।जि7नमेसेकतितपयस/स्यो्ቛ ाराजि7न्�ेव्ቧ 5 21 कीसाधारणसभाकीसूचीमंन�ी/शाे यागया�5 , ै ाराअपने्ቛनो+री शपथप्ቔ्ቚ स्तुतकरते�ुएस्वयंकोस/स्यतासे�+ाये7ानेकोगलतबताया गया�ैतथाय�कथनहिकयागया�ैहिकइससम्बन्धमंकोईभीए7े ेण्डा7ारी न�ींहिकयागया�ैवकोईभीमीिሡ+गन�ीं�ुई�।उनकै ्ቛे ाराअपनीस/स्यता कोब�ालहिकये 7ाने काअनुरोधहिकयागया�।्ቚै ा्቎ भिशकायतोक्ቅे ममंे उभयप्ቌोकोसुनकरभिशकायतोंकाहिनस्तारणकायालयआ/5 शहि/नाे कं 04.09.2025 केमाध्यमसेहिनस्तारणहिकयागयाथा।जि7सकेहिवरू्ቍ मा०उ्ሴ न्यायालयइला�ाबा/ मेंरिर+ यातिचकासंख्या 36738/2025 योजि7तकीगयी थी।जि7सपरमा०उ्ሴ न्यायालय्ቛ ारापारिरतअपनेआ/ेशहि/नांक 20.11.2025 केमाध्यमसेकाया5लयआ/ेशहि/नांक 04.09.2025 को अपास्तकरते�ुए्ቚ करणकोहिनस्तारिरतहिकये7ानेकेहिन/Zशहि/येगये�ै।

¶39

य�भीउ्ቤेखनीय�ैहिकसाधारणसभाकीसूचीव्ቧ5 2015-16 जि7से तत्कालीन्ቚ बन्धक्ቦ ीभिशवनाथकहि+यार्ቛ ारासंस्थाकेनवीनीकरणके समयकाया5लयमें्ቚ स्तुतहिकयागयाथाकोलेकरउभयप्ቌोकेमध्यकोईभी हिववा/ न�ीं�ै।उभयप्ቌोकेमध्य 69 स/स्यीयसाधारणसभाकीसूचीव्ቧ5 2020-21 7ोहिकतत्कालीन्ቚ बन्धक्ቦ ीभिशवनाथकहि+यार्ቛ ारा�स्ता्ቌरिरत

¶40

¶41

Writ C No. 10721 of 2026

¶42

�ै, कोलेकर�ैतथाइसी्ቅ ममेंपं7ीकृतकीगयीसाधारणसभाकीसूचीव्ቧ5 2025-26 केसम्बन्धमेंभीभिशकायते्ቚ ा्቎ �ै।काया5लय्ቛ ाराव्ቧ5 2020-21 कीसाधारणसभाकीसूचीकोसोसा०रजि7०अतिध० 1860 कीधारा 4 बीके अन्तग5तपूं7ीकृतन�ींहिकयागया�ै।भिशकायतकता5गणो्ቛ ारा/ावाहिकयागया हिकहिनብኌववा/ साधारणसभाकीसूचीव्ቧ5 2015-16 के19 आ7ीवनसंर्ቌक स/स्योकोव्ቧ5 2020-21 एवं 2025-26 कीसाधारणसभासेहिबनाहिकसी हि्ቅयाकोअपनाये�+ाहि/यागया�ैतथाहिबनाहिकसी्ቚ हि्ቅयाकोअपनाये्ቚ 21 नयेअवैधस/स्योको7ोड़हि/यागया�ै।भिशकायतकता5गणोकीउपरो्ሹ का ारा भिशकायतो हिवहिन्ቐय अधो�स्ता्ቌरी्ቛ रिर+ यातिचका संख्या 36738/2025 मेंमा०उ्ሴ न्यायालय्ቛारापारिरतआ/ेशहि/नांक20.11.2025 केअनुपालनमेंहिकया7ानाअपेति्ቌत�ै।

¶43

सोसा०रजि7०अतिध० 1860 कीधारा- 4 बीके्ቚ ावधानहिनम्नवत�ै-

¶44

4-B. (1) At the time of registration/renewal of a society, list of members of General Body of that society shall be filed with the Registrar mentioning the name, father's name, address and occupation of the members. The Registrar shall examine the correctness of the list of members of the General Body of such society on the basis of the register of members of the General Body and minutes book thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee and bank pass book of the society.

¶45

(2) If there is any change in the list of members of the General Body of the society referred to in sub-section (1), on account of induction, removal, registration or death of any member, a modified list of members of General Body, shall be filed with the Registrar, within one month from the date of change.

¶46

(3) The list of members of the General Body to be filed with the Registrar under this section shall be signed by two office bearers and two executive members of the society.

¶47

Amendment of section 4-B:-

¶48

For sub-section (2) of section 4-B of the principal Act, the following sub-section shall be substituted, namely:-

¶49

(2) If there is any change in the list of members of the General Body of the society referred to in sub-section (1), on account of

¶50

¶51

Writ C No. 10721 of 2026

¶52

induction, removal, registration or death of any member, a modified list of members of General Body. shall be filed with the Registrar, within one month from the date of change.

¶53

Any change in the list of General Body shall not be valid unless it is approved by the Managing Body.

¶54

ीअशोककुमारकहि+यारव्ቦ ीरा7ेन ् कहि+यार्ቛ ाराव्ቧ5्ቦ2020-21 की69 स/स्यीयसाधारणसभाकीसूचीकोवैधबताया7ार�ा�ै।7बहिक ा्቎ भिशकायतोसे य�हिवहि/त�ै हिकसस्थाकीहिनብኌववा/ं साधारणसभाकी्ቚ 2015-16 सूचीव्ቧ 5 मं/ቦኌशतव7ीहिवतकईस/स्योको�+ाते े�ुएतथाकुE 2020-21 नयेस/स्योको7ोड़करसाधारणसभाकीसूचीव्ቧ 5 गहि^त/शायी5 गयी�।इस्ቚै कारसेहिकयेगयेपरिरवतनोंक5 ेसम्बन्धमंसोसा०रजि7०अतिध०े 1860 कीधारा 4 बीमं/ቦኌशतसे स्थाकं ेमूलअभिभलखोंकापरी्ቌणकीगयीे भिशकायतोकेआलोकमंहिकया7ानाआवश्यक�ो7ाता�े ैतथाइसबातकी भीपुहि` सस्थाकं े मूलअभिभलखोसे े हिकया7ानाआवश्यक�ोता�ै हिक परिरवतनोकोल5 करहिनयमानुसारअनुमो/नसे स्थाकी्ቚं बन्धसहिमतितसेहिकया 1860 कीधारा 4 बीके गया�ै अथवान�ी।याचीगणसोसा०रजि7०अतिध० 2020-21 ावधानोकेअन्तगतव्ቧ5 5्ቚ कीसाधारणसभामंहिकये ेगयेपरिरवतनो5 कीशु्ቍताकी7ाच�ं तुवाे भिEतसं स्थाकं े मूलअभिभलखधाराे 4 बी(1) मंे हिकयागया�, ै को्ቚ स्तुतन�ीकरसके �।7बहिकसाधारणसभासै म्बन्धी स्वयंके/ावोकीवधताको्ቚै माभिणतकरनेका/ातियत्वयाचीगणोमं�ीहिनहि�ते 69 �।वቦኌणतቝኌस्थतितमै ंसाधारणसभाकीे स/स्यीयसाधारणसभाकीसूची 2020-21 व्ቧ 5 कीशु्ቍतायाचीगण्ቚ माभिणतन�ीकरसके�ैतथाइसी्ቅ ममंे 2025-26 कायालय्ቛ5 ाराप7ीकृतसाधारणसभाकीसूचीव्ቧं 5 कीशु्ቍताभी । माभिणतन�ीं�ोती�्ቚ ै

¶55

/ डा० उपरो्ሹ तथ्योएवं उनकीहिववचनाके े आधारपरयाचीगणों रा7ेन ् कहि+यार, ीअशोककुमारकहि+यारकेसाधारणसभाकीसूचीव्ቧ्ቦ 5 2020-21 व 2025-26 कोलकरहिकये े गये /ावे बल�ीन�ोने के कारण अमान्यहिकये7ाते�ैतथाकायालय्ቛाराप5 7ीकृतसाधारणसभाकीसूचीव्ቧं 5 2025-26 कोएत्ቛाराहिनरस्तहिकया7ाता�।परिरणामस्वरूपउनकीहिनवाै चन5 30.07.2023 कायवा�ीहि/ना5 कं भीअमान्य�ैतथातत ् ममंपे 7ीकृत्ቚं बन्ध 2025-26 । सहिमतितकीसूचीव्ቧ 5 कोभीअमान्यघोहि्ቧतहिकया7ाता�ै

¶56

काया5लयप्ቔावलीपरउपलब्ध्ቚ प्ቔोंएवंभिशकायतकता5 एवंयाचीगणों के्ቛ ारा्ቚ स्तुत्ቚ प्ቔोंकेआधारपर्ቚ थमदृष ् ाकाया5लयप्ቔावलीपर उपलब्धसाधारणसभाकीसूचीव्ቧ5 2020-21 कीपुहि` हिकसीभीअभिभलेखों

¶57

¶58

Writ C No. 10721 of 2026

¶59

के्ቛ ारान�ीं�ोसकी�ै।ऐसीቝኌस्थतितमेंपरिरቝኌस्थतित7न्यसाቌኚयोंएवंउभयप्ቌों केमध्यहिववा/�ीनसाधारणसभाकीसूचीव्ቧ5 2016-17 7ोकाया5लय व 93 ी प्ቔावलीकेपृ्቗ संख्या-92 परउपलब्ध�ै, जि7सेपूव5्ቚ बन्धक्ቦ भिशवनाथकहि+यार्ቛ ाराकाया5लयमेंहि/नांक 20.06.2017 को्ቚ स्तुतहिकया गया�ै, कोअनቝኌन्तमरूपसेमान्यघोहि्ቧतहिकया7ाता�ै।

¶60

तनुसाररिर+ यातिचकासंख्या 36738/2025 मेंमा०उ्ሴ न्यायालय ारापारिरतआ/ेशहि/नांक ्ቛ20.11.2025 केअनुपालनमें्ቚ करणको हिनस्तारिरतहिकया7ाता�ै।" (Emphasis supplied)

¶61

9 . Learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners submitted that Deputy Registrar has no power to review its earlier order and by reviewing it, he has committed a legal error. Deputy Registrar by means of impugned order has not only cancelled the list of Members of General Body of the year 2025-26 but also cancelled the election conducted on 30.07.2023 and disapproved the list of Members of Committee of Management for the year 2025-26. Said directions were not only contrary to material on record but beyond the jurisdiction also since there is no provision to cancel entire list of Members of General Body.

¶62

10 . Learned Senior Advocate by referring Section 4-B of Societies Registration Act, 1860 submitted that Registrar can examine the correctness of list of General Body of a Society on basis of register of Members of said Body and minutes book thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee and bank pass book of Society, however, in impugned order there is no such consideration.

¶63

11 . Per contra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondents-3 and 4 has supported the impugned order that it was passed strictly in compliance of provisions of Section 4-B of Societies Registration Act. It was incumbent upon petitioners to submit documents, such as, resolution that how the list of 59 Members of General Body of 2016-17, was increased to 69 in the year 2021 and subsequently why name of 10 Members were deleted and 11 new Members were added. However, no document was placed on record before concerned respondents, therefore, there is no illegality in impugned order.

¶64

¶65

Writ C No. 10721 of 2026

¶66

12 . I have considered the aforesaid submissions and perused the record.

¶67

13 . On basis of above referred facts, there is no dispute to the list of Members of General Body of petitioners-Committee of Management of the year 2015-16 of 59 Members with further disclosure that three Members were died, i.e., a final list of 56 Members.

¶68

14 . The next election of General Body appears to be conducted on 19.08.2020 on basis of said list only and registration was renewed from 31.07.2020 to 31.07.2025, i.e., for five years. In between petitioners have conducted an election of Committee of Management on 30.07.2023 on basis of a list of 69 Members of General Body. This list is germane of dispute.

¶69

15 . According to petitioners, name of dead Members and Members who have not paid Membership fees or remained absent in meetings were removed and some new Members were added and subsequently a list of 69 Members of General Body and later on a list of 51 Members of General Body of 2025-26 was presented which has finally deleted names of 19 deceased/ disqualified Members and 21 Members were newly inducted.

¶70

16 . In aforesaid circumstances, an order dated 04.09.2025 was passed whereby election dated 30.07.2023 was not declared valid and accordingly list of 2025-26 was also cancelled as at that stage also petitioners have not submitted relevant documents in support of deletion of Members as well as inclusion of Members.

¶71

17 . Said order was challenged before this Court by way of filing WritC No. 36738 of 2025 and impugned order dated 04.09.2025 was set aside on ground that petitioners were not given ample opportunity to place their case and said order was passed only on basis of contentions of complainant.

¶72

18 . In aforesaid circumstances, a fresh order dated 23.01.2026 was passed after hearing both parties and earlier order was reiterated that

¶73

¶74

Writ C No. 10721 of 2026

¶75

petitioners were failed to provide relevant documents that how names of 19 Members were deleted being deceased/ disqualified and how names of 21 Members were newly inducted.

¶76

19 . The contention of learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners is mainly that in the garb of fresh consideration under Section 4-B of Societies Registration Act, not only list of 69 Members of General Body was found to be incorrect but election conduction on its basis was also cancelled which was beyond the jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar under Section 4-B and for that there must be another proceeding.

¶77

20 . Per contra, crux of argument of learned Senior Advocate appearing for private respondents is that since petitioners were not able to show requisite documents in order to prove how new Members were inducted as well as that even the Members who were not dead were shows as dead, therefore, Deputy Registrar has rightly passed impugned order.

¶78

21 . In aforesaid circumstances, the Court takes note of Section 4-B of Societies Registration Act, 1860, which has already referred in earlier part of this judgment that Registrar can examine the correctness of list of General Body of a Society on basis of register members of said Body and minutes book thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee and bank pass book of Society.

¶79

22 . Earlier when list was registered there is no reference, whether such exercise was undertaken and list was registered with a specific condition that if subsequently it came to knowledge that there was improper deletion and induction of Members, then order can be recalled, therefore, any argument that Deputy Registrar has no power to recall its order is incorrect.

¶80

23 . In aforesaid circumstances, now the Court has to see, whether petitioners who have to discharge the burden of proof that exercise for induction of new Members was undertaken by a due process as well as

¶81

¶82

Writ C No. 10721 of 2026

¶83

name of only dead Members were deleted have discharged the burden or not.

¶84

24 . There is a specific affidavit of a Member, whose name was deleted on ground that he expired, whereby he has declared that he is still alive, which has been specifically mentioned in impugned order that one Daya Shankar Mishra by a notarized affidavit dated 20.08.2025 has declared that he is alive. This declaration has not been denied in writ petition except in paragraph no. 31 that his name was deleted on account of non deposit of yearly subscription. However, petitioners have not referred any such clause in bye laws that if a Member failed to deposit yearly subscription, his life Membership can be cancelled. Therefore, the reason referred in para 31 of writ petition itself does not sustain and proceeding to that effect is also not placed on record.

¶85

25 . Similarly, petitioners have not annexed any document in support of their claim about induction of 19 new Members. Neither proceeding was placed before this Court nor before Deputy Registrar, as specifically mentioned in impugned order and for the sake of repetition relevant finding in this regard as mentioned in impugned order is reproduced hereinafter:

¶86

" 1860 कीधारा 4

¶87

याचीगणसोसा०रजि7०अतिध० बीक्ቚे ावधानोकेअन्तगत5 2020-21

¶88

व्ቧ 5 कीसाधारणसभामंहिकये ेगयेपरिरवतनोकीशु्ቍताकी7ा5 चं �तुवाे भिEतसं स्थाकं े मूलअभिभलखधाराे 4 बी (1) मंहिकयागया�े , ै को "

¶89

स्तुतन�ीकरसके्ቚ�।ै

¶90

26 . There is no specific denial to said finding so much as that it can be considered perverse as well as, as referred above, petitioners have not placed any document. The Court also takes note of averments made in para 31 of writ petition that name of 19 life Members were not shown in the list of 2014-15 though it is not specifically denied that their names were recorded in list of 2015-16 and this is also not the reason for their removal.

¶91

27 . Court also takes note of a communication dated 11.09.2025 wherein an objection was filed that names of 11 Members were deleted

¶92

¶93

Writ C No. 10721 of 2026

¶94

in terms of Clause 6-Ga of bye laws since they have failed to deposit subscription for their Membership and remained absent without information. However, Court finds that Clause 6-Ga does not provide any reason for deletion of name, rather it provides how a new Member of General Body would become eligible to cast vote.

¶95

28 . So far as Clause 16-Gha of bye laws is concerned, it provides that in case any Member remained absent in three continuous meeting of General Body, he would be an ineligible for becoming a Member. However, even in such condition there must be a proposal adopted by 2/3 Members of General Body but there is no document to this effect.

¶96

29 . Therefore, the Court finds that Deputy Registrar while conducting inquiry about deletion of name of life Members and induction of new Members, in absence of relevant documents has not committed any illegality when such disputed list was found defective and since election was conducted on a defective list, therefore, the same cannot be legally sustainable and it was rightly set aside by impugned order.

¶97

30 . In view of above, I do not find any reason to interfere with impugned order. The second writ petition, i.e., Writ-C No. 13322 of 2026, is also accordingly dismissed.

¶98

May 06, 2026 AK

¶99

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

¶100

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

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Fresh order dated 23.01.2026 passed by the Deputy Registrar in compliance of this Court's order dated 20.11.2025 in Writ-C No. 36738 of 2025, whereby the lists of Members of General Body for 2020-21 and 2025-26 submitted by Ashok Kumar Katiyar were again found defective, the list of Members of General Body for 2025-26 was not approved, the election dated 30.07.2023 and the registered Managing Committee list for 2025-26 were declared invalid, and the list dated 20.06.2017 submitted by earlier Manager Shiv Nath Katiyar was declared valid.¶16
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Region, Kanpur · 23.01.2026
Prior proceeding
Order dated 04.09.2025 of Deputy Registrar, Kanpur: election dated 30.07.2023 held on the basis of a list of 69 Members of General Body was not declared valid and the list of 2025-26 was cancelled, on a complaint of private respondents.¶70
Prior proceeding
Writ-C No. 36738 of 2025 challenged the order dated 04.09.2025; this Court set it aside on 20.11.2025 on the ground that petitioners were not given ample opportunity, and directed the Deputy Registrar to pass a fresh order after hearing parties.¶71
Prior proceeding
Election of Committee of Management conducted on 30.07.2023 on the basis of a list of 69 Members of General Body; registration had been renewed from 31.07.2020 to 31.07.2025.¶68
Prior proceeding
Undisputed baseline: list of Members of General Body for 2015-16 comprised 59 Members, three of whom died, leaving a final list of 56 Members.¶67
Prior proceeding
First writ petition (Writ-C No. 10721 of 2026) filed on 12.03.2026 through President Dr. Rajendra Katiyar with affidavit of pairokar Gyanendra Awasthi; second writ petition (Writ-C No. 13322 of 2026) filed on 28.03.2026 through Manager Ashok Kumar Katiyar.¶19
Prior proceeding
Communication/objection dated 11.09.2025 claiming deletion of names of 11 Members under Clause 6-Ga of the bye-laws for non-deposit of subscription and absence without information.¶91

Committee of Management Baba Raghunandan Das Vidyalay Vaishnav Nagar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Committee of Management Baba Raghunandan Das Vidyalay Vaishnav Nagar and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 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

Dr Jag Prasad Chaturvedi Vs State of Up and 2 Others

Desh Raj Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Nasiruddin Vs U.P. State Sugar Corporation and Others

Rama Rani Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Gaurav Singh Vs State of Up and 3 Others

Sushil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others