Allahabad High Court
Appropriate Technology Devt. ... vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 1 August, 2019
Bench: Sangeeta Chandra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 25
Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 20986 of 2019
Petitioner :- Appropriate Technology Devt. Asso. (Atda) Thru. Life Member/
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institution & Finance Lko.&O
Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd. Waris Farooqui
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
(Oral)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 17.6.2019 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow and have prayed for issuance of a direction to the Deputy Registrar to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act for deciding the Managerial dispute in respect of Committee of Management of the registered Society by the name of Appropriate Technology Development Association.
This Court has perused the order dated 17.6.2019 passed by the Deputy Registrar, impugned in this writ petition and also the order dated 27.10.2018 passed by the Deputy Registrar by which, the Deputy Registrar has observed that the petitioners could not produce any documentary evidence to show that the alleged election held by them on 20.4.2017 was in accordance with law. He has accepted the application submitted by Sri Mudit Mathur, General Secretary of the Society and has renewed the registration of the Society by the order passed under Section 3A of the Societies Registration Act.
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No.10141 (MS) of 2019: Appropriate Technology Development Association, through Life Members vs. State of U.P. and others. The Court dismissed the said writ petition on 11.4.2019 by making certain observations, which are quoted hereinbelow:
"The legal position is very well settled that mere renewal of registration of Society and issuance of renewal certificate by itself does not enure to the benefit of any person claiming to be an office bearer of the Society if the same is challenged. If any other person has a grievance and seeks to challenge the claim of such person as an office bearer of the Society then it is open for the aggrieved person to take recourse of the proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or to file a civil suit. Merely because the list of office bearers submitted by Shri Mudit Mathur has been taken on record in the circumstances mentioned in the impugned order in the renewal proceedings and in terms of Section 4 of the Act, 1860 no right accrues to the petitioner to approach this Court against such an order.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, as even under Section 4 the Deputy Registrar can not decide any genuine dispute pertaining to the Management of the Society or its office bearer, therefore, any observation made in the impugned order has to be understood in the context in which it has been made, within the limits of the scope of the provisions referred hereinbove, which does not come in the way of the petitioner in raising any dispute under Section 25 or before the Civil Court or if there is a cause under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860.
In this view of the matter, this writ petition is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed without prejudice to the rights aforesaid."
It is apparent that this Court has observed that any aggrieved person can take recourse of the proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, by filing a Reference with affidavits of 1/4th members of the Society or may file a civil suit.
In this case, the petitioners, instead of filing a civil suit or filing a Reference with 1/4th members of the Society under Section 25(1) of the Act before the Prescribed Authority, have filed an application before the Deputy Registrar to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority by exercising his power under Section 25(1) of the Act.
The Deputy Registrar in his order dated 27.10.2018, which has been upheld by this Court, has observed that the petitioners could not produce any documentary evidence to show that they had conducted a valid election on 20.4.2017. There is no election dispute, therefore, the Deputy Registrar has not referred the matter earlier and has accepted the papers submitted by Sri Mudit Mathur, private respondent no.4 herein.
This Court does not find any good ground to show interference in the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on the said application made by the petitioners.
It is always open to the petitioners to file a Reference with 1/4th members of the Society or they may file a civil suit, if they are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.8.2019
Sachin
