Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management Deen Dayal ... vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 9 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109162-DB
Reserved
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 427 of 2025
Appellant :- Committee of Management Deen Dayal Upadhyay Samaj Kalyan Samiti and another
Respondent :- State of U.P. and 4 others
Counsel for Appellant :- G.K.Singh, Sr. Advocate, Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Sankalp Narain
Counsel for Respondent :- Rajiv Singh, S.C., Ashok Khare, Sr. Advocate, Prabhakar Awasthi
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.
(Per : Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice)
1. This appeal is directed against order dated 19.3.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ - C No. 7931 of 2025 whereby the writ petition filed by respondent no. 3/Committee of Management, Pandit Deen Dayal Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Tala Nagri, Ramgarh Road, District - Aligarh through its Secretary/Manager Kumari Parnika Chauhan against order dated 24.12.2024 passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra has been allowed, the order impugned has been set aside and the matter has been referred to the prescribed authority to decide the dispute expeditiously within a period of three months.
2. The appeal has been filed along with an application for leave to appeal, with the submission that respondent no. 3 in the writ petition was impleaded as Committee of Management, Pandit Deen Dayal Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Tala Nagri, Ramghat Road, District - Aligarh through its alleged Manager Smt. Padma Chauhan whereas the appellant no. 1 - Committee of Management is that of Deen Dayal Upadhyay Samaj Kalyan Samiti, Tala Nagri, Ramghat Road, Aligarh, which has not been impleaded as party.
3. The order impugned in the writ petition dated 24.12.2024 was passed in favour of the appellants - Committee of Management whereby the elections of the society held on 04.01.2024 were validated and the list of office bearers stood registered for the year 2024 -2025.
4. The sum and substance of the application is that as the appellants - Committee of Management was impleaded in incorrect name, with the correct name it may be permitted to file appeal.
5. Submissions made in this regard have not been contested.
6. Consequently, the application is allowed.
7. The appellants are permitted to question the validity of the order passed by learned Single Judge in Writ - C No. 7931 of 2025.
8. The appeal is barred by 40 days.
9. An application seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been filed along with affidavit seeking to explain the delay in filing the appeal.
10. The application seeking condonation of delay has also not been contested.
11. Consequently, the application is allowed.
12. The writ petition was filed by the respondent no. 3 inter-alia questioning the validity of order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra on the principal ground that the petitioners in the writ petition had also set up election of committee of management along with the appellants herein and as there was a dispute of office bearers of the society, the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to enter into the validity of the election and in terms of provisions of Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 ('Act'), the dispute should have been referred to the prescribed authority and as such, the order impugned being without jurisdiction, the same was liable to be set aside.
13. The appellants, who were represented through counsel before the learned Single Judge, though did not dispute the proposition of law, as submitted, however, contended that the order may not be interfered with.
14. Learned Single Judge by the order impugned, in so far as the renewal of the Society, which was granted by the order impugned, was concerned, affirmed the same, however, as noticed here-in-before, holding the election of appellants being in teeth of provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act, set aside the same and referred the matter to the prescribed authority.
15. Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that the learned Single Judge was not justified in setting aside the order impugned only on account of the claim made by the respondent no. 3 - petitioner that there was dispute pertaining to the office bearers of the society and therefore, the order impugned was in teeth of provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act. Submissions were made that it was a specific case of the appellants that the claim made by the respondent no. 3 was absolutely bogus and frivolous, which fact was found by the Deputy Registrar in the order impugned, however, learned Single Judge, without even adverting to the said findings, has set aside the order, which is not justified.
16. Submissions were made that only in case there is bona fide dispute between two sets of committee of management, the dispute is required to be referred to the prescribed authority under Section 25(1) of the Act and in case the Deputy Registrar comes to a contrary conclusion regarding bona fide involved, there is no necessity to refer the dispute to the prescribed authority.
17. Reliance was placed on Committee of Management, Rashtriya Junior High School (Society), Babhaniyan, Jaunpur v. The Asistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and others : [2005] 3 UPLBEC 2817 and Shailendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others : [2017] 6 ADJ 602.
18. Learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submissions. It was submitted that the dispute raised was bona fide and the plea raised in this regard apparently has no substance.
19. Further submissions were made that the appellants had produced the proceedings dated 15.02.2023 on 02.03.2023 for the purpose of getting the same registered qua which, objections were filed and during pendency of the said proceedings before the Deputy Registrar, the respondents also filed proceedings pertaining to the society in question. The Deputy Registrar, only on account of rejection of the claim set up by the respondents, without adjudicating the plea raised by the appellants, ordered for registration of the committee of management for the year 2024-25, which action even otherwise was illegal and not justified and therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference.
20. Submissions were made that the law pertaining to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act is settled that the Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar has no power, in case of rival claims, to decide the same and is bound to refer the same to the prescribed authority regarding which before learned Single Judge a specific submission was made accepting the position of law and therefore, learned Single Judge was justified in setting aside the order impugned, which indeed is in teeth of provisions of Section 25 of the Act and therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference.
21. Reliance was placed on All India Council v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi : AIR 1988 Alld. 236, Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul Almin, Allahganj and another v. State of U.P. and others : 2014 ADJ 44, Committee of Management, Jagdamba Shiksha Evam Vikas Sansthan and another v. State of U.P. and others : 2016(2) ADJ 623 and Committee of Management, Kshetriy Shri Gandhi Aashram Maghar and another v. Prescribed Authority/S.D.M., Khalilabad and others : 2018(2) ADJ 422.
22. We have considered the submissions made counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
23. A perusal of the order impugned passed by learned Single Judge reveals that submission made on behalf of the respondent regarding proposition of law on Section 25 of the Act was noticed and it was indicated that counsel for the respondent does not dispute the said proposition of law and contest on part of the respondent was noticed regarding the order impugned, however, while a part of the order impugned by which renewal of the society was granted, was affirmed, without any further consideration of the order impugned on merits, by indicating that determination made by the Deputy Registrar was in teeth of provisions of Section 25(1) of the Act, the order impugned was set aside.
24. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shailendra Singh (Supra), which judgement takes into consideration the judgements in the case of All India Council (Supra) and Anjuman Kherul Almin (Supra) cited by counsel for the respondent on the said proposition, wherein the writ petition was allowed by setting aside the order passed by the Assistant Registrar and referring the dispute to the prescribed authority, it was inter-alia observed as under :
"19. Based on these judgments, that have been cited at the Bar, mention is being made that in the present case dispute in question has rightly been directed to be referred to the Prescribed Authority as dispute in question was a bonafide and genuine dispute whereas from the side of defendant appellants it has been sought to be contended that present dispute is totally ingenuine dispute and had the order impugned been examined then this Court certainly would have proceeded to refuse to exercise its authority of judicial review.
20. We have proceeded to examine the judgment and order dated 25.4.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court and what we find from the same that learned Single Judge, at no point of time, has proceeded to even examine the order dated 19.1.2017 passed by the Assistant Registrar and learned Single Judge has proceeded to make a mention that once rival claims are submitted the Registrar is required to refer to dispute to the Prescribed Authority and he has no jurisdiction to decide such a dispute himself. The proposition of law may not be absolutely correct as Section 4 of the Act provides that a list of members of the managing body of a Society shall be filed with the Registrar. That list is maintained by the Registrar for the purpose of performing his administrative functions as a Registrar. Section 25 of the Act provides that whenever any doubt or dispute is raised regarding the election of members of a managing body of a society, the Registrar may refer such doubt or dispute to the Prescribed Authority for his decision. But when one fourth members of the Society raise a doubt or dispute relating to the election of the members of managing body or Society, the matter automatically goes to the Prescribed Authority for decision and in such a case the Registrar does not come into the picture. In exercising this power whether to refer or not any doubt or dispute relating to the election of members of the managing body of a Society to the Prescribed Authority, the Registrar has to apply his mind to the facts of the case and take a decision. In such a situation the decision of Registrar/Assistant Registrar is required to be looked into by the learned Single Judge as to satisfy himself on prima facie basis as to whether the dispute that is sought to be referred is a genuine dispute or it is merely a pretence or a fabricated dispute, in such a situation and in this background, once the matter has travelled before the Registrar/Assistant Registrar and in this direction requisite exercise has been undertaken, then unless and until the finding, that has been recorded by the Registrar/Assistant Registrar is perverse, unreasonable, contrary to record the artificial and ingenuine, disputes are not required to be referred.
25. The powers conferred under the aforesaid sections clearly demonstrate that the Registrar is the principal Executive Officer to exercise his power in respect of the affairs of the Society. Thus, his power under Section 4 cannot be divested only on the ground that under Section 25 he has the authority to refer the dispute pertaining to election and continuance of office bearers and, accordingly, even if some frivolous dispute is raised in respect of the election or continuance of the office-bearers, the same should be mandatorily referred. If there is a dispute of two parallel groups of the society, the Registrar can always examine whether the persons of rival group, who have raised the dispute, are member of the society or not. He can record his prima facie satisfaction in this regard as to who has the authority to convene the meeting and hold elections; persons who have participated are valid members of society; elections have been held as per bye-laws of society and if he is satisfied that the dispute is genuine and it is a dispute inter se between the members of the society, then he can refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority.
27. Coming to the facts of the present case as the order passed by the Assistant Registrar has not even been looked into by the learned Single Judge, as such, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is hereby quashed and set-aside and the learned Single Judge is requested to decide the matter afresh after hearing the parties as to whether the case in hand is of a ingenuine dispute and it would be an exercise in futility to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority and in case it has got any semblance of truthfulness, then the dispute can be referred to the Prescribed Authority."
25. A perusal of the determination made by the Division Bench would reveal that in the said case as learned Single Judge at no point of time examined the order passed by the Assistant Registrar and proceeded to hold that once rival claims are submitted, the prescribed authority has no jurisdiction to decide such a dispute, it was laid down that the said proposition of law may not be absolutely correct. The Division Bench laid down that if there is a dispute of two parallel groups of the society, the Registrar can always examine whether persons of rival group who have raised the dispute are members of the society or not and if he is satisfied that the dispute is genuine and it is an inter se dispute between the members of the society, he can refer the dispute to the prescribed authority.
26. The determination made by the Division Bench, appears to be in consonance with the general principle wherein, it is incumbent for the Court to examine the nature of determination made by the Deputy Registrar before coming to the conclusion that there is a genuine dispute between the rival committee of managements. It cannot by way of a thumb rule be laid down that on any dispute being raised irrespective of its genuineness, the Registrar is bound to refer the dispute to the prescribed authority. The said aspect was laid down by this Court in Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District - Basti and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and another : 1995(2) UPLBEC 1242 by observing that Assistant Registrar is not a post office and he has to apply his mind and only bona fide dispute can be referred to the prescribed authority and not a frivolous dispute.
27. As the judgements cited by counsel for the respondent, have been considered by the Division Bench in the case of Shailendra Singh (Supra), the later judgement having considered the previous judgement would be a binding precedent.
28. However, there is substance in the submissions made by counsel for the respondent that the Deputy Registrar, by making the determination by the order impugned has only dealt with claim of the respondent and the challenge laid to the claim made by the appellants was not even adverted to. However, even the said aspect, was required to be considered by learned Single Judge and only by referring the proposition of law without adverting to the case, the matter could not have been decided.
29. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The order impugned dated 19.03.2025 passed by learned Single Judge is set aside.
30. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge to decide the matter afresh, after hearing the parties keeping in view the observations made hereinbefore.
31. Looking to the nature of dispute, it is expected that petition shall be heard and decided with expedition.
Order Date :- 09-07-2025
nd
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
