C/M Vidya Bhawan Narainpur Educational ... vs State Of U.P. And Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 11633 ALL

Allahabad High Court

C/M Vidya Bhawan Narainpur Educational ... vs State Of U.P. And Others on 16 October, 2025

Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:186500
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - C No. - 49422 of 2011   
 
   C/M Vidya Bhawan Narainpur Educational Association And Others    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State of U.P. and Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
: Vinod Kumar Singh
 
   
 
 
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
: P.N. Ojha
 
   
 
 
 
   
 
     
 
 With 
 
WRIT C No. 36005/2025 
 
Court No. - 32
 
   
 
 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.      

Restoration Application No. 7/2024

1. Heard Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners-applicants.

2. Cause shown is sufficient.

3. In view of above, order dated 20.11.2023 is hereby recalled and writ petition is restored to its original number.

4. Restoration Application is allowed.

Order on Writ C No. 49422/2011

1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioners and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.N. Ojha, learned counsel for respondents.

2. In present case, the then Committee of Management of petitioner-association has filed this writ petition to challenge the order dated 17.08.2011 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh whereby proceedings to induct 10 new members was found illegal and was not proved and, therefore, a direction was passed to conduct elections on basis of electoral collage of 32 members.

3. This Court has passed following orders on 30.08.2011 and 20.12.2011 :-

"30.08.2011

Learned Standing counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 1 and 2. Sri Ashok Khare,Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Y.K.Singh, Advocate has accepted notice on behalf of respondent no. 3.

Each one of the respondents is accorded four weeks time to file counter affidavit. Two week's time is thereafter accorded for filing rejoinder affidavit.

List this petition after expiry of aforesaid period.

It has been sought to be contended on behalf of petitioner that in the present case totally unwarranted presumption has been drawn by the Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits on the question of membership whereas other members whose membership has been enrolled in the same way and manner has been accepted. Further it has been contended that once election has been set up by the both the parties and the dispute specially in regard to election and continuance of office bearers has to be referred to Prescribed Authority as per the judgment in the case of Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti, Junior High School Sikandra, District Kanpur Dehat and another Vs. Registrar, Firm, Societies and Chits U.P. Lucknow and others reported 2010 (7) ADJ 643 (DB).

Arguments advanced requires consideration of this Court, as such it is hereby directed that till the next date of listing election as directed, shall not be held except with the leave of this Court."

"20.12.2011

The interim order has been granted by this Court on 30.08.2011 and the same has been extended on 17.10.2011. On 21.11.2011 it has not been extended. Since it has not been extended on 21.11.2011 it has not been extended on 13.12.2011.

Now an application has been moved by learned counsel for the petitioners for the extension of the interim order. In para 3 and 4 of the application it is stated that since the aforesaid case was taken as a stay extension matter, he was under the bonafide belief that the stay would be extended. In para 5 of the application, it is stated that on 13.12.2011 this case was marked as stay extension matter, when the aforesaid case was taken up, the petitioners' counsel was informed that the interim order was not extended on 21.11.2011, as such interim order could not be extended.

On the facts and circumstances, the Court is of the view that let the interim order granted on 30.08.2011 be continue till the next date of listing.

Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchange. List in the second week of January, 2012."

4. Thereafter, present writ petition remained pending and interim order remained in operation, however, present writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 20.11.2023.

5. In aforesaid circumstances, rival members approached the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh to pass a direction to conduct elections on basis of electoral collage of 32 members in terms of order dated 17.08.2011.

6. Accordingly, said respondent has passed an order dated 19.09.2025 to conduct fresh elections on basis of electoral collage of 32 members.

7. Aforesaid order is impugned in connected Writ C No. 36005/2025.

8. Learned Senior Advocate for petitioners submits that impugned order dated 17.08.2011 passed by concerned respondent was in regard to dispute of members and office bearers of petitioner-association which could be passed by said respondent only under Section 4(B) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 which was inserted in October, 2013 whereas present order was passed much prior to it i.e. in the year 2011, therefore, impugned order was passed beyond jurisdiction.

9. Learned Senior Advocate also submits that even reasons assigned in impugned order to reject proposal to induct 10 members are very vague and without taking note that in similar circumstances, earlier also, members were inducted as well as that only an averment that signature of Manager was different, without recourse of an any expert opinion, also makes the impugned order illegal.

10. In support of his submissions, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance upon a judgment of coordinate Bench of this Court in Lachi Ram Yadav and others vs. Asst. Registrar, Firms, Chits and Societies and others, 2014:AHC:226340 and its relevant paragraphs are quoted below :-

"As far as the judgment rendered in Jamia Razjviya Merajul Uloom, Chilmapur, Gorakhpur and another vs. State of U.P. and others (supra) is concerned, in the said case a Division Bench of this Court took the view that as the Assistant Registrar maintained a list of the members of the society under Section 4, he could take cognizance and apply his mind to the facts and declare whether a member is a valid member or not. With great respect the list which is required to be maintained under Section 4 of the Act 1860, is the list of office bearers and not of the members of the general body of the society. Shri Singh, learned counsel for respondent no.3 also fairly accepted during the course of arguments that the said judgement was not applicable. Moreover, it was also a case where the dispute which was sought to be raised therein, was primarily regarding office bearers of the society. It is only in October 2013 that Section 4(b) has been inserted in the Act of 1860 requiring the submission of list of the members of the general body of the society. Prior to it there was no such requirement nor any such list was submitted, therefore, the said judgment is not applicable in this case.

Now coming to the third ground of challenge based on denial of reasonable opportunity, Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned senior counsel for the petitioners has demonstrated that the representative of Shri Sudarshan Singh Yadav, i.e., Shri Sandeep Kumar Singh was present on 9.12.2009 before the Assistant Registrar yet a recital to the contrary has been recorded in the impugned order. Moreover, the records also reveal that Shri Sudarshan Singh Yadav had sought adjournment of the matter on the ground of his ill health. These facts have not been denied by the official respondents in the counter affidavit. The irresistible conclusion is that the original petitioner no.22, who is now no more, was not heard and the matter was decided on 31.7.2010 behind his back rejecting the list of 104 members submitted by him and accepting the list of 63 members which was the basis for the election held in the year 2004 as valid. I am of the view apart from the other illegalities mentioned hereinabove, the impugned action also suffers from denial of reasonable opportunity to defend and violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover, the Assistant Registrar issued notice only to the original petitioner no.22. No notice was issued to the petitioner no.1 to 21 whose membership was allegedly in dispute.

In view of the above discussion, the impugned order dated 31.7.2010 cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the same is quashed. The consequential orders dated 19.8.2010 and 25.8.2010 issued by the District Inspector of Schools which are impugned in the connected writ petition no.58206 of 2010 are also not sustainable, the same are also quashed.

Both the writ petitions are allowed in the aforesaid terms."

11. Per contra, learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents submits that in given circumstances, even if it is a case of dispute of membership, still concerned respondent has authority to look into it. Present writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution, therefore, interim order was vacated and thereafter concerned respondent proceeded further and an order was passed to conduct election, therefore, there is no illegality in the impugned order.

12. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.

13. In present case, dispute is of induction of 10 members. In view of judgment of Lachi Ram Yadav (supra), concerned respondent does not have jurisdiction to consider such dispute as it was prior to Amendment of 2013 whereby Section 4(B) was inserted.

14. There is merit in the other argument of learned Senior Advocate appearing for petitioners that even if said respondent has jurisdiction, nature of impugned order is not legal. Findings returned are not only vague but without any substance. Petitioners' stand was also not taken note of.

15. In view of overall circumstances, this Court is of the view that impugned order dated 17.08.2011 being illegal, hence, it is set aside.

16. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh is directed to proceed to conduct fresh elections on basis of electoral collage including 10 new members after verifying their present status.

17. In consequence to above, order impugned dated 19.09.2025 passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh is also liable to set aside, hence, it is set aside and its legal consequence shall follow.

18. Both writ petition stand disposed of with above observations.

(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)

October 16, 2025

N. Sinha