Sunit Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 21385 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sunit Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 1 July, 2024

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


1
 

 
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:106061
 
Reserved
 
A.F.R.
 
Court No. - 38
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 62734 of 2015
 

 
Petitioner :- Sunit Kumar Verma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Alok Dwivedi
 

 
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla,J.
 

 

1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5.

2. Petitioner through this writ petition has assailed the order dated 24.08.2015 passed  by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, (Headquarter), U.P. at Lucknow whereby claim of Respondent No. 5 in respect of the renewal of registration of Manav Vikas Siksha Samiti has been accepted and direction has been issued to the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Kanpur Nagar to issue necessary order for renewal of registration of the society in terms of Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and further to register the list of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Society filed by Mr. Gyan Chandra Tripathi and Mr. Vinod Chandra Srivastava.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Mahatama Gandhi Shiksha Samiti, Kanpur was registered on 16.11.1951 and was assigned Registration No. 127/1951-52. Later on name of the aforesaid society was changed on 09.05.1976 to Manav Vikash Shiksha Samiti. The said society continued to perform its work and its registration remained valid till 10.10.1995, thereafter the registration of the society could not be renewed.

4. It appears that taking advantage of non renewal of the registration of Manav Vikas Siksha Samiti, petitioner got one society registered in the name of Manav Vikas Shiksha Sansthan, Kanpur Nagar having Registration No. 331 of 1989 and thereafter claimed that the said Manav Vikas Shiksha Sansthan has been merged in Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti and thereby presented proceedings of the elections of the Committee of Management of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Region, Kanpur. Another election proceeding was also placed before the Deputy Registrar by the actual office bearers of the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti before the Deputy Registrar.

5. Since there were two rival claims in respect of elections of the Committee of Management of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti, the Deputy Registrar, Kanpur Nagar referred the matter for decision to Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Kanpur Nagar under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 16.11.2005.

6. The Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Kanpur Nagar decided the aforesaid reference vide order dated 17.03.2008 wherein  he has recorded a finding that present petitioner i.e. Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma could not produce the documents regarding registration of his society and also could not produce any document to show that at any point of time merger of Manav Vikas Shiksha Sansthan in Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti has taken place and thereby it was held that election proceedings filed by Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma are not in respect of the elections of the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti. The Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 17.03.2008 further directed Mr. Vinod Chandra Srivastava to file application for renewal of the registration of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Nagar with a direction that Deputy Registrar may decide the said application.

7. Though the claim of the present petitioner was rejected by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar but the Deputy Registrar in a very cursory manner passed an order on 05.02.2011 whereby he accepted the claim of Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma and renewed the registration of the society in his favour and also registered the list of the members of the general body of the society for the year 2010-11 provided by Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma. In the aforesaid circumstances, Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti challenged the order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Nagar by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011 (Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) and this Court decided the writ petition vide order dated 23.02.2011 wherein categorical finding has been recorded that once the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 17.03.2008 had rejected the claim of Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma, the Deputy Registrar cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the Prescribed Authority and therefore the Deputy Registrar was only required to pass order for renewal of registration on the basis of application filed by Mr. Vinod Chandra Srivastava. The aforesaid judgment and order dated 23.02.2011 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011 has attained finality as no one has raised any challenge against the said judgment.

8. Pursuant  to the judgment and order dated 23.02.2011 passed in Civil  Misc Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011 proceedings started before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Nagar but an application was filed by Mr. Gyan Prakash Tripathi Manager of the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti on 20.06.2014 before the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, (Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow for transfer of the case from the Deputy Registrar, Kanpur Nagar to any other Deputy Registrar on the ground that the Deputy Registrar, Kanpur Nagar is relative of Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma. The Registrar on the said application passed an order on 01.07.2014 whereby he directed for transfer of the aforesaid case to the Headquarter at Lucknow.

9. Pursuant to the order dated 01.07.2014 passed by the Registrar, all the concerned parties appeared before the Deputy Registrar (Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow and contested their matter without raising any issue in respect of the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar (Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow. The Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits (Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow after hearing all the parties had passed a detailed order on 24.08.2015 whereby direction was given to renew the registration of the society on the basis of the papers filed by Mr. Gyan Prakash Tripathi and Mr. Vinod Chandra Srivastava and also a direction for registration of the list of the office bearers and the members of the Committee of Management of the society. The petitioner has challenged the aforesaid order dated 24.08.2015 by filing this writ petition.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the Deputy Registrar under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 exercises the same powers which are exercised by the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, therefore the Registrar was not empowered to transfer the case from the Deputy Registrar, Kanpur Nagar to the Deputy Registrar (Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow, accordingly the order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits (Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow is without jurisdiction and thus cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of his arguments has relied on the judgment rendered by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Jai Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2016 (1) UPLBEC 368, wherein it has been held that under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits does not have power to transfer a case pending before one Deputy Registrar to another Deputy Registrar.

12. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has thus vehemently argued that his case is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Jai Bahadur Singh (Supra) and therefore, this writ petition is liable to be allowed.

13. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 4 has argued that the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 17.03.2008 had declared that the petitioner is a rank trespasser in respect of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti and the said order has already been affirmed by this Court vide judgment and order dated 23.02.2011 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011 wherein it has been categorically held that petitioner has no concern with the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti. The Judgment and order dated 23.02.2011 has attained finality, therefore by no stretch of imagination registration of the society in question can be renewed in favour of the petitioner and further his list of office bearers for managing affairs of the society cannot be registered.

14. Learned Standing Counsel has vehemently argued that even if this court comes to the conclusion that transfer of the case from the Deputy Registrar, Kanpur Nagar to the Deputy Registrar (Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow was without jurisdiction and thereby the impugned order dated 24.08.2015 cannot sustain in the eyes of law, this court may not interfere in the matter as by interfering in the impugned order dated 24.08.2015 only illegality shall be perpetuated as it has already been held by this court vide judgment and order dated 23.02.2011 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011 that petitioner has no concern with the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti.

15. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 has argued that the case was transferred from Deputy Registrar, Kanpur Nagar to Deputy Registrar, (Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow vide order dated 01.07.2014 passed by the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, (Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow but petitioner at no point of time has challenged the said order and even the said order is not under challenge in the present writ petition and further petitioner himself participated in the proceedings before the Deputy Registrar (Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow without raising any protest in respect of his jurisdiction, therefore now the petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the impugned order dated 24.08.2015 only on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

16. It has further been argued by the learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 that petitioner has no concern with the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti and he is just trying to enter in the affairs of the society by creating fake paper work and once this court by recording categorical findings in the judgment and order dated 23.02.2011 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011 had held that the registration of the society cannot be renewed in favour of the petitioner and he has not challenged the said order till date, there may not be any occasion for this Court to interfere in the impugned order dated 24.08.2015 on the ground of lack of jurisdiction as the said interference will only perpetuate illegality.

17. Learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5 has vehemently argued that if interference by this Court in an order leads to perpetuating an illegality, then this Court may deny to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, even if the order under challenge is without jurisdiction.

18. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 5 has thus concluded his arguments and has submitted that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable to be dismissed by this Court.

19. I have considered the rival arguments advanced by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, and I find that petitioner claims himself to be the office bearer of the Committee of Management of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti on the strength that another society which was registered in the name of Manav Vikas Shiksha Sansthan having petitioner as member was merged in Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti and therefore as as result of the said merger petitioner became member of the general body of the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti.

20. The aforesaid claim raised by the petitioner has not been accepted by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate vide his order dated 17.03.2008 on the ground that the petitioner could not produce any document to show that at any point of time merger of Manav Vikas Shiksha Sansthan with Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti has taken place. The Prescribed Authority negated the claim of the petitioner and vide order dated 17.03.2008 directed the Deputy Registrar to renew the registration of the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti on the application filed by Mr. Vinod Chandra Srivastava. In spite of the categorical order passed by the Prescribed Authority negating the claim of the present petitioner, the Deputy Registrar in the garb of the proceedings for renewal of registration of the society entertained the application given by present petitioner i.e. Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma and renewed the registration of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti in his favour and also registered the list of members of the general body of the society provided by him vide order dated 05.02.2011.

21. The Committee of Management of the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti challenged the order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the Deputy Registrar by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011 ( Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) and the said writ petition has been allowed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 23.02.2011. The relevant paragraphs of the order dated 23.02.2011 are extracted as under :-

"The challenge is to the order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Kanpur Nagar, dated 5.2.2011, whereby on a request for renewal of the Society known as Manav Vikas Samiti of the petitioners has been rejected and the Society has been renewed through the respondent No.3 as an office-bearer of the Society. The petitioners have come up questioning the correctness of the said order primarily on the ground that it is without jurisdiction and that it proceeds on a presumption as if the respondent No.3 was the rightful claimant to get the Society renewed through him. It is urged by Sri Dwivedi that this procedure adopted by the Assistant Registrar virtually accepts a rank trespasser as an office-bearer which is also in teeth of the final order passed by the Prescribed Authority on 17.3.2008 in relation to the same Society. The contention, therefore, in short is that the Respondent No.3 had virtually no right to get the renewal of the Society made in his favour that too even after the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 17.3.2008.

Sri Saxena contends that as a matter of fact the Assistant Registrar has taken into consideration all the documents that were on record to conclude that the answering respondent was the rightful claimant and therefore there being no error, the petitioners should, if aggrieved, raise the dispute elsewhere and the same cannot be gone into by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Learned Standing Counsel has also adopted the same arguments.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the dispute relating to the validity of the elections and office-bearers was allegedly raised before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority called for comments and objections and it was ultimately found that there was no dispute which remained to be decided, on the premise that the claim of the petitioners was in respect of Manav Shiksha Samiti whereas the claim of Sunit Kumar Verma emanated on the strength of a Society by the name of Manav Vikas Sansthan that had ultimately merged with Manav Vikas Samiti. The Prescribed Authority found that no document was produced by Sunit Kumar Verma to establish the alleged merger and, therefore, the order dated 17.3.2008 virtually rejected the claim of Sunit Kumar Verma and directed the petitioner - Vinod Chandra Srivastava to approach the Deputy Registrar for renewal after payment of late fee. The said order dated 17.3.2008 remained unchallenged and in pursuance thereof, the petitioners appears to have approached the Deputy Registrar for renewal which remained pending for the past 3 years.

The impugned order proceeds to accept the claim of Sunit Kumar Verma, which, in the opinion of the Court, had already been rejected by the Prescribed Authority under the order dated 17.3.2008. In this view of the matter, the Deputy Registrar has virtually sat in Appeal over the order of the Prescribed Authority which is impermissible in law. The Deputy Registrar could have proceeded to decide the claim of renewal only under the provisions of Section 3A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, but it was not open to the Deputy Registrar to have ignored the impact of the order dated 17.3.2008.

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 5.2.2011 is unsustainable and is hereby quashed. All the consequential actions pursuant to the impugned order are also quashed. The Deputy Registrar - Respondent No.2 shall now proceed to pass fresh orders in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made herein above."

22. The Co-ordinate Bench of this court in its order dated 23.02.2011 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011 has recorded a categorical finding that present petitioner i.e. Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma could not prove merger of Manav Vikas Shiksha Sansthan in the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti and therefore, his claim in respect of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti stood rejected, as such the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Nagar while renewing the registration of the society in favour of Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma and registering the list of the members of the general body of the Society provided by him has acted illegally and thereby this Court quashed the order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the Deputy Registrar.

23. This Court finds that order dated 17.03.2008 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Kanpur Nagar and judgment and order dated 23.02.2011 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011 have not been challenged by the present petitioner. Once the petitioner has not challenged the aforesaid orders wherein it has been categorically held that petitioner has no connection with the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti then he cannot be allowed to raise any claim in respect of the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti.

24. So far as the argument advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the Registrar does not have any jurisdiction under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to transfer any case from one Deputy Registrar to another Deputy Registrar and thereby the Registrar while transferring the case in question from the Deputy Registrar, Kanpur Nagar to Deputy Registrar (Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow has acted without jurisdiction and consequently the impugned order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow is without jurisdiction is concerned, this Court finds that issue as to whether the Registrar can transfer a case from one Deputy Registrar to another has already been thrashed out by a co-ordinate Bench of this court vide its judgment rendered in the case of Jai Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2016 (1) UPLBEC 368 wherein it has been held that the Registrar does not have power to transfer the case from one Deputy Registrar to another Deputy Registrar.

25. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered in the case of Jai Bahadur Singh (supra) are extracted as under :-

"So far as the Registrar is concerned, the Legislature itself by enacting the Act has vested certain authority and power in him, however, it is the Legislature itself which has empowered the State Government for conferring the functions of Registrar to an Additional Registrar or a Joint Registrar or a Deputy Registrar or an Assistant Registrar. The Additional Registrar or other such officers who are administratively subordinate to the Registrar, thus, can not exercise any of the functions assigned to the Registrar under the Act merely because they are appointed in the department to hold such posts. They will have their jurisdiction or power vested in them to exercise the functions of Registrar under the Act only and only when the State Government confers such power or authority on these officers by a general or special order. Once conferment by the State Government by a general or special order is made on these officers to discharge the functions and powers of Registrar under the Act, these officers no more remain subordinate to the Registrar so far as discharge of statutory functions under the Act is concerned. Once conferment by the State Government has been made upon these officers, the powers and functions to be exercised by the Additional Registrar/Joint Registrar/Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar become co-extensive with the powers and functions of the Registrar. Thus, these subordinate officers, in so far as the statutory functions under the Act as conferred by the State Government are concerned, cannot be termed to be subordinate to the Registrar. The proceedings relating to a Society are drawn and conducted by the Deputy Registrars and such officers under the Act only when the State Government confers such powers on these officers and they conduct their authority and proceedings under the Act and not administratively.

The proceedings which in the present case are pending consideration and for decision before the Deputy Registrar are statutory in nature and they are to be decided as per the requirement and in terms of the provisions contained in Sections 4-B and 15 of the Act. Thus, the Deputy Registrar while dealing with the proceedings in question between the parties in this case is not acting in his capacity as an ordinary administrative officer, rather he has to consider and decide the matter statutorily.

Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that since there is only one Registrar in the State of Uttar Pradesh and all the Deputy Registrars are his subordinate, as such the Registrar will have ample power, authority and jurisdiction to transfer the proceedings, in my considered opinion, is not tenable for the reason that the nature of proceedings, as observed above, are not administrative in their terms, rather the same are statutory in nature as the proceedings are to be decided as per the requirement of the Act. It may be true that the Registrar in certain administrative matters may exercise certain powers over the Deputy Registrars, however, when it comes to the proceedings under the Act, it cannot be said that the Registrar will have supervisory jurisdiction or power. I may reiterate that the Deputy Registrar and such other officers as are mentioned in Section 21 of the Act are conferred with the powers of the Registrar under the Act by the State Government and once such conferment is in existence, they have the same authority which is at par with that of the Registrar under the Act, in other words, the powers of the Deputy Registrar are co-extensive with those of the Registrar

It may also be noticed that the State Government by a notification dated 20.07.1981 has established three regional offices in addition to the office of Registrar at Lucknow. These regional offices have been set up at Varanasi, Bareilly and Meerut. The said notification further states that the functions being discharged by the Registrar pertaining the districts falling in the Divisions mentioned in the said notification will be discharged by the offices mentioned in the said notification. The State Government by means of another notification dated 07.01.1982 issued under Section 21 of the Act conferred the powers of Registrar on all the Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars. The said notification dated 07.01.1982 is quoted below:

"सोसाइटी रजिस्ट्रीकरण अधिनियम 1860 (अधिनियम संख्या 21 सन 1860) की धारा 21 के अधीन शक्ति का प्रयोग करके राज्यपाल रजिस्ट्रार, फर्म और सोसाइटी, उत्तर प्रदेश के संगठन के समस्त उप रजिस्ट्रार और सहायक रजिस्ट्रार को उपर्युक्त अधिनियम के अधीन रजिस्ट्रार की समस्त शक्तियों प्रयोग प्रदान करते है, जिनका प्रयोग वे अपनी-अपनी अधिकारिता के क्षेत्र के भीतर करेंगे"

By means of another notification dated 31.07.1985, apart from Varanasi, Bareilly and Meerut, regional offices at Kanpur, Agra and Gorakhpur as well were established and the territorial jurisdiction was, thus, distributed. According to said notification, the Registrar at the headquarter at Lucknow was to exercise his jurisdiction on all the districts of Lucknow and Faizabad Divisons, that is to say the Registrar at Lucknow was to exercise his jurisdiction on all the disputes relating to the Societies Registration Act arising in all the districts of Lucknow and Faizabad Divisions. The said jurisdiction of the regional offices was altered by a notification dated 24.01.1987. By means of another notification dated 29.10.1991, the territorial jurisdiction of regional offices was further altered and determined, according to which, the regional office of the department at Faizabad is to exercise the jurisdiction relating to all the districts of Faizabad Division. There was some discrepancy in the english version of the notification dated 07.01.1982 which was rectified by another notification dated 28.07.1994 which reads as under:

"In exercise of the powers under Section 21 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act no.XXI of 1860) the Governor is pleased to confer on all the Deputy Registrars and Assistant Registrars of the organization of the Registrar of firms and Societies, Uttar Pradesh, all the powers of the Registrar under the aforesaid Act to be exercised within the area of their respective jurisdiction."

On the basis of the occurrence of the words 'इनके अधीनस्थ क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों का कार्यक्षेत्र निम्नानुसार निर्धारित करने की सहर्श स्वीकृति प्रदान करते है' in the notification dated 29.10.1991, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that all the regional offices are subordinate to the office of Registrar and hence, the officers working in the regional offices will be subordinate to the Registrar as well.

The aforesaid submission of learned counsel for the petitioners may be true but only in respect of and in regard to the general administrative powers which are exercised by the Registrar while working as the Head of the Department, however, the said submission cannot be taken to be correct in so far as the statutory functions under the Act, as conferred by the State Government on these officers including the Deputy Registrar under Section 21, are concerned. The distinction between the statutory functions under the Act and general administrative functions are to be kept in mind while dealing with the submissions being advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners. There are various functions assigned to the Registrar as Head of the Department in his organization. He will have all the authority and power to exercise his administrative control over the Deputy Registrars. However, unless and untill the Legislature while enacting the Act vests an express authority in the Registrar to transfer the proceedings being drawn and continued under the Act by the Deputy Registrar, in my considered opinion, the Registrar will have no source of power or authority backed by the legislation to withdraw the proceedings from one Deputy Registrar and transfer the same to some other Deputy Registrar.

A close scrutiny of the scheme of the Act does not leave any room of doubt that the Legislature has not vested any authority on the Registrar to transfer the proceedings under the Act from one Deputy Registrar to the other Deputy Registrar. The Registrar may only exercise certain control over the Deputy Registrars administratively such as issuing certain instructions and circulars for the guidance of the Deputy Registrars or taking departmental action in case he receives any complaint.

Assuming that the Registrar, being the highest authority in the department/in his organization, is vested with the power to transfer the statutory proceedings under the Act from one Deputy Registrar to the other Deputy Registrar, it will amount to vesting an authority in the Registrar which the Legislature never intended to vest in him.

26. This Court is in complete agreement with the aforesaid judgment rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this court in the case of Jai Bahadur Singh (supra) but certain issues which are peculiar in the case in hand are to be taken note of i.e. case in question was transferred by the Registrar vide his order dated 01.07.2014 from the Deputy Registrar, Kanpur Nagar to the Deputy Registrar (Headquarter) at Lucknow but petitioner did not challenge the said order rather he appeared before the Deputy Registrar (Headquarter) at Lucknow and contested the matter. Even till today petitioner has not challenged the order dated 01.07.2014 passed by the Registrar whereby the case was transferred. The petitioner has only challenged the order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar (Headquarter) at Lucknow on the ground that the said order is without jurisdiction. Apart from the ground of jurisdiction the petitioner has not taken any other ground on merits to challenge the aforesaid order dated 24.08.2015.

27. Once the petitioner did not challenge the order of transfer of the case passed by the Registrar and in fact contested the matter before the authority where the case was transferred, that changes the complete texture of the case that too when the petitioner even in this writ petition has not challenged the order dated 24.08.2015 on merits and the challenge is based on only on the ground of jurisdiction.

28. This Court finds that once the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 17.03.2008 had declared petitioner to be a rank trespasser in respect of the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti and even the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in its judgment and order dated 23.02.2011 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011 had recorded a finding that petitioner has no concern with the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti and the said judgment had attained finality, there cannot be any occasion for the Deputy Registrar to revisit the matter and by hook and crook induct the petitioner in the affairs of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti.

29. Though this Court finds that the impugned order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits (Headquarter) at Lucknow may be an order without jurisdiction but if the said order is interfered by this Court at this stage that may lead to perpetuating an illegality and it is settled proposition of law that this court may refuse to interfere with an order if the said interference leads to perpetuating an illegality, even if the order is patently illegal.

30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its judgment rendered in the case of Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (2003) 6 S.C.C. 545 had categorically held that the High Court can refuse to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the cases where such exercise of jurisdiction may lead to perpetuating an illegality.

31. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Chandra Singh (supra) are extracted as under :-

" 42. In any event, even assuming that there is some force in the contention of the appellants, this Court will be justified in following Taherakhatoon vs. Salambin Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635 wherein this Court declared that even if the appellants contention is right in law having regard to the overall circumstances of the case, this Court would be justified in declining to grant relief under Article 136 while declaring the law in favour of the appellants.

43. Issuance of a Writ of Certiorari is a discretionary remedy. [See Champalal Binani vs. CIT, AIR 1970 SC 645]. The High Court and consequently this Court while exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India may not strike down an illegal order although it would be lawful to do so. In a given case, the High Court or this Court may refuse to extend the benefit of a discretionary relief to the applicant. Furthermore, this Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India which need not be exercised in a case where the impugned judgment is found to be erroneous if by reason thereof substantial justice is being done. [See S.D.S. Shipping (P) Ltd. vs. Jay Container Services Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. [2003 (4) Supreme 44]. Such a relief can be denied, inter alia, when it would be opposed to public policy or in a case where quashing of an illegal order would revive another illegal one. This Court also in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India is entitled to pass such order which will do complete justice to the parties."

32. This court is of the categorical view that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had already considered the petitioner's case in detail and vide judgment and order dated 23.02.2011 rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011 had affirmed that the petitioner is a rank trespasser in respect of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti, Kanpur Nagar and the said judgment had attained finality, therefore, even if the impugned order dated 24.08.2015 may be without jurisdiction, this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere in the said order as the same will lead to perpetuating an illegality and the consequence of setting a aside the order dated 24.08.2015 would give leverage to the petitioner to raise his claim before the concerned Deputy Registrar even though the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had already rejected the petitioner's claim.

33. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this writ petition lacks merit and accordingly is dismissed.

Order date:- 01.07.2024

Gaurav