Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management And Another vs State Of U.P. And 17 Others on 11 August, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:135972-DB
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 482 of 2025
Appellant :- Committee of Management and another
Respondent :- State of U.P. and 17 others
Counsel for Appellant :- Arvind Srivastava, Bindeshwari Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Yatindra
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
Re:- Delay Condonation Application No. 1 of 2025
1. The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 47 days.
2. In the affidavit accompanying the application seeking condonation of delay, it is stated that the appellant was unaware of the order dated 25.04.2025 (impugned in the present appeal) and counsel for the appellant informed him about the order during summer vacations and, then, the appellant arranged the expenses for filing the appeal.
3. A counter affidavit against the application has been filed stating therein that since the order dated 25.04.2025 giving rise to the appeal was passed after hearing the counsel for the appellants, knowledge of the order was very much there to them and, therefore the application is liable to be rejected.
4. Having heard the learned counsel, we find that though it is true that the order dated 25.04.2025 was passed when the appellants were duly represented by their learned counsel before the learned Single Judge, considering the fact that the delay is only of 1 and a half month and statement contained in second paragraph of the affidavit has been sworn on personal knowledge of appellant no. 2, the Court cannot completely disbelieve the said statement regarding non-communication of the order by the counsel to the appellants. The fault, if any, in not communicating the order to the appellants has also been accepted by the learned counsel who represented the appellants before the learned Single Judge and who is also representing the appellants in this appeal.
5. Applying the proposition that no litigant should suffer on account of lapses/fault on the part of his counsel and, further, that matter of condonation of delay should be liberally construed, particularly when delay is of a very short period, this Court deems it appropriate to condone the delay in filing the present special appeal.
6. Accordingly, the application seeking condonation of delay is allowed. Delay of 47 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
Re: Appeal
1. Heard Shri Arvind Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Shri Yatindra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 to 18.
2. The present appeal at the instance of respondents in Writ-C No. 12670 of 2025 (Shyam Sundar Kaushik and 15 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) assails validity of an interim order dated 25.04.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge, while inviting response from the respondents in the writ petition (appellants herein), has stayed renewal of registration of the Society done on 07.09.2024.
3. Brief facts are that the respondent nos. 3 to 18 have filed the aforesaid writ petition challenging an order dated 27.01.2025, whereby the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra had rejected their objections/complaint in relation to certain election proceedings as well as list of office bearers submitted based thereupon.
4. Learned Single Judge considered the arguments advanced from the petitioners' side that the Deputy Registrar, by an order dated 27.08.2024, granted two weeks time to file objections against the renewal of Society, which period had expired on 10.09.2024 but, before expiry of the said period, the Deputy Registrar renewed registration of the Society on 07.09.2024. After noting certain other arguments advanced by both sides, the learned Single Judge passed the impugned order, operative portion whereof reads as under:-
"Until further orders of this Court, renewal of registration of the Society dated 07.09.2024 shall remain stayed."
5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there was no prayer, either final or interim, questioning renewal of registration of the Society, which was done on 07.09.2024; rather the writ petitioners had assailed validity of the order dated 27.01.2025, whereby their objections against election proceedings vis-a-vis submission/registration of list of office bearers of the appellants were rejected. Short submission, therefore, is that the learned Single Judge has gone beyond the prayers made in the writ petition. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a judgment of Coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Shiksha Prasar Samiti Vs. Registrar, Societies, Chits and Firms: 1998 (1) UPLBEC 399, to buttress his submission that no party can be said to be aggrieved by renewal of registration of Society, which is always for the benefit of all the members and office bearers of the Society.
6. Per contra, Shri Yatindra, learned counsel for the private respondents, submits that since registration of the Society has been renewed at the instance of the appellants based upon irregular proceedings, the learned Single Judge did not err in granting stay against renewal of registration. He otherwise submits that, in case, this Court is of the view that staying renewal of registration is beyond the prayers made before the writ court, the impugned interim order may be modified and the appellants be restrained from interfering in the management of the Society.
7. We have considered the submissions made before us and have perused the material available on record.
8. On perusal of the writ petition, we find that mainly two reliefs were claimed by the respondents (writ petitioners) before the writ court, firstly, seeking quashing of the order dated 27.01.2025, whereby their objections were rejected by the Deputy Registrar and, secondly, a mandamus was sought commanding the Deputy Registrar to conduct election of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society after finalizing the electoral college of the same.
9. In so far as the interim relief claimed vide stay application is concerned, the petitioners had sought stay of effect and operation of the order dated 27.01.2025, as well as list of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society relating to year 2024-25 and also restraining the respondent no. 4 therein, i.e. the appellant no. 2 in this appeal, from interfering in the affairs of the Society; however interim order staying renewal of registration of the Society done on 07.09.2024 was granted.
10. We find that there is no order dated 07.09.2024 on record. What was done on the said date is that a certificate of renewal of Society under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 was issued by the Registrar of Societies, U.P, whereby registration of the Society was renewed for a period of five years with effect from 04.05.2024; as such, the registration of the Society is valid upto 03.05.2029.
11. On the one hand the learned Single Judge stayed renewal of registration of the Society, though not prayed for, on the other hand, we also fail to understand as to what benefit the writ petitioners would get out of the interim order of that nature. We are inclined to follow the view taken by Coordinate Bench of this Court in Shiksha Prasar Samiti (supra), wherein it has been held that renewal of registration of Society is granted by the authority concerned and it is for the benefit of all the members and office bearers of the Society. It has further been observed in the judgment that there may be a situation where two rival factions of the same Society may apply for renewal separately and the renewal may be granted at the instance of one of them, but the ultimate beneficiary would be the Society as a whole and not the individuals alone seeking renewal.
12. In the facts of this case, the writ petitioners may be aggrieved by the elections conducted by the appellants or the list of office bearers based thereupon, as might have been submitted by them before the Deputy Registrar. In any case, if renewal of registration of Society is suspended, as has been done by the learned Single Judge, a situation would arise that there would be no existence of a registered Society for theoretical and/or practical purposes. The said situation would not be in the interest of rival claimants to the office bearership of the Society and none of the parties would get anything out of it.
13. In view of above discussion, we find that the interim order of the nature that has been passed in the writ petition, was neither warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case nor was any prayer, either interim or final, made in the writ petition. Therefore, we are of the view that the operative portion of the impugned interim order dated 25.04.2025, as contained in 8th paragraph thereof, cannot be sustained.
14. The appeal is partly allowed. The operative portion of the impugned interim order dated 25.04.2025, contained in 8th paragraph thereof, is hereby set aside.
15. Writ-C No. 12670 of 2025 is remitted to the learned Single Judge to consider the stay application afresh.
Order Date :- 11.8.2025
AKShukla/-
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
