Allahabad High Court
Pramod Chandra Seth vs Vijay Pratap Singh And 7 Others on 9 July, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109373-DB
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 367 of 2025
Appellant :- Pramod Chandra Seth
Respondent :- Vijay Pratap Singh and 7 others
Counsel for Appellant :- Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, Rishi Bhushan Jauhari
Counsel for Respondent :- Meenakshi Singh, A.C.S.C., Yogesh Kumar Saxena
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.
In Re:- Civil Misc. Application No. 2 of 2025
1. Heard Shri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 and Ms. Meenakshi Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, for respondent nos. 7 and 8 and perused the material available on record.
2. The present application has been filed by the appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 read with Section 151 CPC with prayer to take on record the affidavit and various documents and for consideration of the same in the present special appeal.
3. In the affidavit supporting application, it is stated that on 22.05.2025, when the appeal was taken up for consideration, time was granted to the appellant to place on record the material to indicate the elections said to have been held since 2013, as the learned Single Judge had come to the conclusion that no elections of Committee of Management had taken place since 2013.
4. By the documents appended along with the affidavit, it is sought to be established before this Court that, time and again since 2009 onwards, elections were held.
5. The application has not been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents, however, doubts have been raised on the validity of the documents with a further submission that such documents do not establish holding of valid election proceedings.
6. We have considered the submissions made and we find that since the dispute in the instant appeal revolves around holding or not holding elections after 2013 and this Court, while entertaining the appeal at first instance, had permitted the appellant to place on record the material in that regard, we deem it appropriate to allow the application.
7. Accordingly, the application is allowed.
8. The affidavit supporting the application and the documents appended thereto are taken on record and the same shall be considered while deciding the appeal.
Order on Appeal
1. The present special appeal raises a challenge to the order dated 19.03.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed Writ-C No. 41329 of 2019 (Vijay Pratap Singh and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) setting aside the order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly Mandal, Bareilly (in short 'the Assistant Registrar'). A further direction has been issued by the learned Single Judge to the Assistant Registrar to hold elections of the Society by invoking power under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short 'the Act') within a period of three months.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, claiming themselves to be life members of the Society in question, the respondent nos. 1 to 6 filed the said writ petition with contention that no elections of the Society had been held after 2013 and when a complaint was moved before the Assistant Registrar with a submission that no list of office bearers was ever registered under Section 4 of the Act and, hence, the Committee had become time barred and, therefore, elections should be held under Section 25(2) of the Act, the Assistant Registrar passed an ex-parte order dated 08.11.2019 approving the list of office bearers submitted by the present appellant under Section 4-B of the Act and rejected the complaint filed by the writ petitioners.
3. The writ petition was contested by the appellant, who was respondent no. 3 therein, as well as by State respondents and affidavits were exchanged between the parties. Stand was taken regarding holding of election proceedings and submission of papers before the Assistant Registrar from time to time.
4. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition after recording a finding that no elections were held since the year 2013. The said finding is based upon consideration of paragraph nos. 6 and 7 of the writ petition, their response contained in paragraph nos. 5 and 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents and those contained in paragraph nos. 30 and 31 of the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no. 3 therein (the appellant in the present appeal). The learned Single Judge was of the view that since the specific plea raised by the writ petitioner regarding holding of no elections since 2013 had not been specifically denied in the said counter affidavits, it was found that there was no valid Committee of Management in existence since 2013 and no elections were held since then.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the learned Single Judge has not properly considered the stand of the respondents, i.e. the appellant as well as the State-respondents, contained in their respective counter affidavits. It is urged that in paragraph nos. 30 and 31 of the counter affidavit filed by the appellant, the petitioners' plea to the effect that elections were not held since 2013 was specifically denied and it was further stated that detailed facts had already been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the appellant before the writ court, submission has been made that on a composite reading of paragraph nos. 7 and 10 thereof, clarity of specific stand would emerge in relation to holding of elections and the same was also substantiated by the documents filed as Annexure No. CA-2 to the counter affidavit which included the election proceedings as well as list of office bearers.
6. By referring to the Annexures to the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, which has been allowed by us today itself, submission has been made that, based upon the election proceedings held w.e.f. 2012 onwards, registration of the Society was lastly renewed for a period of five years on 29.03.2016 with effect from 10.10.2015. Various lists of office bearers elected from time to time have also placed before this Court as Annexure No. 3 to the application for additional evidence and submission has been made that whenever papers were submitted before the Assistant Registrar, the same were supported by compilation of all the previous proceedings and other necessary documents. It is, therefore, contended that the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that no elections were held since the year 2013, is perverse.
7. It is further urged that except the respondent no. 1, no other private respondent ever filed a complaint before the Assistant Registrar and, in the complaint submitted by the respondent no. 1, he had stated that he was enrolled as life member in 1979. Contention is that there was specific pleading in the writ petition to the effect that year of birth of the respondent no. 1 was 1978 and, therefore, he could not have been enrolled in 1979 when he was only aged about one year, however, the learned Single Judge, by placing reliance upon certain receipts of 2015 as a proof of alleged acquisition of membership in the Society, turned down the said plea of the appellant ignoring the fact that the respondent no.1 had himself stated in his complaint the year of acquisition of alleged membership as a life member of the Society, as 1978.
8. By referring to Section 3-A (4) of the Act, submission has been made that whenever an application for renewal of the registration certificate is filed before the Assistant Registrar, the same has to be accompanied by a list of members of the managing body elected and since the registration of the Society has been renewed in 2016 on the steps taken by the appellant, it, in itself, is sufficient to establish that valid election proceedings were produced before the Assistant Registrar while seeking to get the registration renewed. In this regard, stand taken by the State-respondents, in paragraph no. 5 of their counter affidavit filed in writ proceedings has also been emphasized, wherein the State had come up with a specific assertion that, though the list of Committee of Management was not registered under Section 4 of the Act, despite the same, during renewal proceedings, election of Committee of Management was shown to the officer.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant has also argued that the term 'election' is a general word of art and it carries with it the idea of choice in an appointment and is generally made by one person or by a limited number of persons acting with delegated power and, in the entire Scheme of the Act of 1860, there is no requirement that election of office bearers of the Society must be held only by casting of vote by members. It is further urged that no such provisions have been made in the bye-laws of the Society in question and, therefore, when there was no dispute since the year 1962 as regards managing Committee of the Society, elections were held from time to time with consensus of all the members of the general body which fact stands reflected from the documents on record. Clause 6 of bye-laws of the Society was also pressed before this Court which provides that elections will be held after every three years and the members of the Executive Committee shall hold office till the new elections take place and new office bearers are elected.
10. In support of his submission, as regards the nature of elections in which the appellant was elected, reliance was placed on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dinesh Prasad Yadav Vs. State of Bihar and others: 1995 Supp (1) SCC 340 and judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Shri Ram Chandra Mission and others Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2016 (3) ADJ 180.
11. In sum and substance, the gist of arguments of learned counsel for the appellant is that the complainant-respondent no. 1, being a stranger to the Society having not established his valid membership and there being continuous election proceedings in accordance with law as brought on record before the learned Single Judge and also before this Court, the order of learned Single Judge holding that no elections were held since 2013 and consequential direction issued to the Assistant Registrar to hold elections under Section 25(2) of the Act, cannot be sustained.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 6 submits that the election proceedings relied upon by the appellant have no sanctity in law and, in fact, no lawful elections were held nor, at any point of time, list of office bearers allegedly elected was ever registered under Section 4-B of the Act. Submission has been made that not only the respondent no. 1 but all other affected persons had agitated the grievance before the Assistant Registrar and, in so far as the dispute regarding membership of the respondents is concerned, the same has no legs to stand on in view of various receipts establishing acquisition of membership in the Society. Learned counsel further submits that in so far as the year 1978 mentioned in the complaint is concerned, the same is a typographical error and the respondents were enrolled as life members of the Society in the year 2015.
13. It is further submitted that unless a list of office bearers is recognized by the Assistant Registrar, validity to any alleged elections cannot be attached and since there is nothing on record to demonstrate that list of office bearers allegedly elected was ever registered in the office of Assistant Registrar, the appellant cannot claim any rights based upon alleged elections. As far as the direction to hold elections under Section 25(2) of the Act, submission has been made that while conducting the said exercise, the Assistant Registrar is also under an obligation to examine the validity of list of members and, therefore, the appellant should not feel shy in participating the election proceedings to be conducted by the Assistant Registrar under Section 25(2) of the Act.
14. It is further contended that the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition not only on the ground that elections were not held after 2013 but also for the reason that the order impugned before the writ court had been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. Submission is that certain papers were produced by the appellant before the Assistant Registrar on 21.09.2019, which was not even a date fixed in the matter before him and, without granting any opportunity to the respondents to rebut the documents, order dated 08.11.2019 was passed directing registration of list of office bearers.
15. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has adopted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for private respondents and submission has been made that once the matter has been sent to the Assistant Registrar to exercise powers under Section 25(2) of the Act, both the contesting parties may appear before him with their respective cases.
16. We have considered the submissions advanced and have carefully perused the material on record.
17. In the matter before us, there is a multifold dispute between the parties. The same can be summarized as under :-
(i) Whether the respondent nos. 1 to 6 had any locus in the Society with reference to the plea of life members raised by them ?
(ii) Whether issuance of receipts regarding membership fees by one Ram Singh has any sanctity ?
(iii) Whether lawful elections were held after 2013 ?
(iv) Whether list of office bearers based upon any election for any period was ever registered under Section 4-B of the Act ?
(v) How many validly enrolled members are there in the Society and valid effect ?
18. We find that the order of learned Single Judge is based upon non-consideration of all these aspects and the principal contention raised before the learned Single Judge qua holding or not holding of elections since 2013 appears to have not been appropriately adverted to by the learned Single Judge. We also find that the paragraphs of counter affidavits filed on behalf of the appellant as well as State-respondents have not been completely and thoroughly perused nor have the documents attached thereto been taken into consideration.
19. Once, documents have been filed before this Court to demonstrate holding of election proceedings from time to time and we are of the view that unless a critical analysis of valid elections held from time to time is made by the authority, no concrete finding could have been or can be recorded to hold that elections have not been held since 2013 or otherwise. Therefore, the finding of the learned Single Judge to that effect is clearly unsustainable.
20. We may observe here that it is not the case of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 that they have also set up some elections. Therefore, there are no two sets of elections in the present case.
21. As far as non-registration of list of office bearers under Section 4-B of the Act, vis-a-vis renewal of the Society based upon documents produced by the appellant, is concerned, even the said issue has to be given due consideration by the Assistant Registrar as we find no clear discussion of the Assistant Registrar in his order dated 08.11.2019, impugned before the writ court.
22. So far as the contest qua valid membership of the private respondents (writ petitioners) is concerned, even if we find that holding of elections under Section 25(2) of the Act may be a just and proper exercise to be undertaken at this stage, nevertheless, the same cannot be undertaken unless the validity of membership as well as locus of the respondent nos. 1 to 6 is established before the Assistant Registrar, inasmuch as it were they who have succeeded to get the order dated 08.11.2019 set aside by the writ court, though there is a serious dispute raised before us as regards their locus qua the Society.
23. As far as the plea regarding violation of principles of natural justice is concerned, since we are of the view that a decision on all the above aspects has to be taken by the Assistant Registrar before holding of elections under Section 25(2) of the Act, we deem it appropriate to provide opportunity to both rival parties to submit their claim and counter claim before the Assistant Registrar, who would be obliged to adjudicate the aforesaid issues after providing full opportunity of hearing to the parties.
24. In view of above discussion, we find that the manner in which the writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge recording a finding on alleged non-holding of elections since 2013, appears to be not justified and, hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed with certain directions.
25. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with following directions:-
(A) The order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.03.2025 as well as the order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the Assistant Registrar are set aside.
(B) The Assistant Registrar is directed to decide the following issues:-
(i) Whether the respondent nos. 1 to 6 had any locus in the Society with reference to the plea of life members raised by them ?
(ii) Whether issuance of receipts regarding membership fees by one Ram Singh has any sanctity and valid effect ?
(iii) Whether lawful elections were held after 2013 (there being no two sets of elections) ?
(iv) Whether list of office bearers based upon any election for any period was ever registered under Section 4-B of the Act ? If yes/ no, its effect.
(v) How many validly enrolled members are there in the Society ?
(C) For the aforesaid purposes, the appellant and the respondent nos. 1 to 6 shall appear before the Assistant Registrar at the first instance on 30.07.2025 with their respective representations accompanied by documents.
(D) The Assistant Registrar shall facilitate exchange of copies of representations inter se parties and shall fix a date for hearing in the matter in the month of August, 2025 with due intimation to the parties.
(E) For the purposes of decision, the Assistant Registrar shall also take aid of the record of the Society concerned already available in his office.
(F) Decision on all above aspects shall be taken by passing a reasoned and speaking order before the end of September, 2025.
Order Date :- 9.7.2025
AKShukla/-
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
