Allahabad High Court
Madan Chandra Sachan vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 11 November, 2013
Bench: Dilip Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 60977 of 2013
Petitioner :- Madan Chandra Sachan
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bipin Bihari
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
The Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Region, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the 'Deputy Registrar') has, by the order dated 27th September, 2013, prepared a list of members entitled to participate in the election to be held under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') pursuant to the directions issued by the Court on 21st March, 2013 in Writ Petition No.16786 of 2013. It is this order that has been assailed in this petition.
The operative part of the order passed by the Court on 21st March, 2013 is quoted below:-
"In the facts of the present case it is provided that the list of persons who had participated in the elections of the year 2002 shall be treated to be tentative list and the Assistant Registrar shall invite objections thereto, both in the matter of inclusion and exclusion of the new names by publication of notice in the newspaper. The objections if any with regard to the said list shall be decided by means of a reasoned and speaking order after affording opportunity to the parties aggrieved by the tentative list. This exercise shall be completed within four weeks' from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Assistant Registrar. The elections shall be held from the electoral college so determined, preferably within a further period of one month.
All consequential actions shall be taken immediately thereafter.
In respect of all other grievances the petitioners are at liberty to seek their remedy under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act or by way of Civil Suit.
The writ petition is disposed of."
It is clear from the aforesaid order that the Court had directed that the elections shall be held from the electoral college so determined within one month.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that objections filed by the petitioner have not been taken into consideration by the Deputy Registrar while finalising the list and, therefore, the order finalising the list deserves to be set aside. It is, however, stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that the election is scheduled to be held on 12th November, 2013.
It is seen that the list was finalised pursuant to the order passed by the Court on 21st March, 2013 and a further direction was issued that the election shall be held on the basis of the list so finalised. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the finalisation of the list, it is for the petitioner to approach the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act in accordance with the procedure prescribed therein after the election is held and the result is declared.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.11.2013
SK
