Deepak Malviya And Another vs Suryabhan Singh And 2 Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 7617 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 39
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 130 of 2023
 

 
Appellant :- Deepak Malviya And Another
 
Respondent :- Suryabhan Singh And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vineet Tiwari,Rajendra Prasad Tiwari,Vinay Kumar Tiwari
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Shiv Bahadur Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

The special appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2023, at the instance of the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 herein, a direction has been issued to the respondent no.2 namely Registrar Firms Societies & Chits, U.P. to decide the representation moved by the petitioner/respondent no.1, if there is no legal impediment.

The appellants herein are life members of the Society Sri Tulsi Inter College Rajapur Banda (now Chitrakoot) on 26.03.1958. They claim that the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 herein is a teacher of the institution namely Sri Tulsi Intercollege Rajapur Banda (now Chitrakoot) which is being run by the Society in the name of Sri Tulsi Inter College and his officiating Principal as such.

The submission is that the challenge in the writ petition is to the list of the general body of the Society approved by the Assistant Registrar vide order dated 21.12.2017 that too in writ petition filed in the year 2022.

It is further pointed out that neither the Society had been impleaded in the writ petition nor the petitioner had locus to maintain the writ petition to raise the dispute with regard to the general body of the Society.

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 has relied upon the judgment and order of the Apex Court in Fertilizer corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sindri Another vs Union of India and others reported in 1981 AIR 344 to submit that the question of locus cannot be raised by the appellant herein inasmuch as, it has been held by the Apex Court in the said decision that even an employee of an institution can raise his voice in the wrongs committed by the management in the public sector.

Having gone through the said decision, we find that the ratio of the said judgment does not come to the rescue of the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 herein, inasmuch as, the dispute in the instance case was raised with regard to the list of the office bearers registered in the year 2017, after a period of approximately five years without any explanation and, moreover, without impleading the member/office bearer/general body/Society in the writ petition.

Moreover, the writ petitioner being teacher, an officiating Principal, cannot be permitted to challenge the list of the general body of the Society. Further, any dispute in relation of the general body of the Society can only be examined in a civil suit.

No direction, as such, could have been given by the writ court to make an inquiry by the Assistant Registrar at the instance of the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 herein.

For the aforesaid, we find good ground to sustain the challenge to the judgment and order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge at the instance of the appellants who are the life members of the Society.

It may also be noted that outsider cannot be allowed to enter into the affairs of the Society by challenging the list of the general body.

While setting aside the judgment and order dated 06.02.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appeal is allowed.

Order Date :- 16.3.2023

Harshita