[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Academic Quest Through The Secretary ... vs The State Of Jharkhand on 2 December, 2025
Author: Sujit Narayan Prasad
Bench: Sujit Narayan Prasad
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.648 of 2025
------
Academic Quest through the Secretary Jitendra Kumar Singh, S/O-
Late Ram Dhani Singh, Aged about 68 years, R/O-Indian School of
Learning, Sector-12/C Bokaro, P.O & P.S.-Bokaro Steel City, District-
Bokaro. .... .... Petitioner/Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Secretary Department of Revenue, Registration and Land
reforms having office at Project Bhawan, P.O-Dhurwa, P.S-
Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.
3. The Inspector General, Registration having office at Project
Bhawan, P.O-Dhurwa, P.S-Jagannathpur, District-Ranchi.
4. The Deputy Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Dhanbad, P.O & P.S-
Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad.
5. The District Sub-Registrar, Dhanbad, P.O & P.S-Dhanbad, District-
Dhanbad.
6. Kamleshwar Prasad Singh, S/O-Late Sheo Sharan Singh, R/O-
Lalbani, Kali Mandir Road, P.O-I.S.M, P.S-Barwadda, District-
Dhanbad. ..... .... Respondents/Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahavir Pd. Sinha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate
------
02/Dated: 02.12.2025
Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section
5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 22 days in
preferring the instant appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Considering the sufficient cause as has been referred in the
interlocutory application, the delay of 22 days in preferring the appeal
is hereby condoned.
4. Accordingly, I.A. No.11656 of 2025 stands allowed.
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
Prayer
5. The instant appeal under Clause-10 of Letters Patent is
directed against the order/judgment dated 25.03.2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.6620 of 2024, by
which, the learned writ court has refused to interfere with the order
dated 20.06.2024 passed by the respondent no.3 by dismissing the
writ petition, however, directing the respondent 3. to refer the election
dispute so raised by the petitioner to the Principal Court of original
civil jurisdiction, where the petitioner's society is situated.
Factual Matrix
6. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the
memo of appeal, required to be enumerated, which read as under: -
7. It is the case of the appellant-writ petitioner that the Society
was originally registered in State of Bihar in the year 1973 and after
coming into existence of Jharkhand State, it has been re-registered
on the same name and same by-laws of the Society registered in
Bihar along with the same executive body and members from the
office of Respondent no.3. The writ petitioner Society, after its
registration, has elected its executive body on November, 2007 for a
term of 5 years as per by-laws, i.e., up to November 2012. The same
executive body has continued for a further term of 5 years, i.e., Nov.
2012 to Nov. 2017 unanimously. The death of certain office bearer
during this term has necessitated the replacement which has been
done accordingly as per by-laws from the existing members of the
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
Society, that too unanimously.
8. It is the further case that the petitioner-Society is engaged in
running Schools in the name of Indian School of Learning and has
branches spread in far flung areas and for managing the School
effectively and handling the day to day affairs of the School, the
executive body of the Society has established local managing
committee for such Schools and Bank Accounts were handed by
such committee as per instruction and guidance of the Executive
body.
9. During the intervening period the Society has to close one of its
schools running in the premises of Indian School of Mines Dhanbad
after expiry of the lease period. This School branch has, during its
running has got furniture, Books and other School items and the
school branch's Bank Account has deposit of about Rs.75 lakhs and
after closer of the branch all these were to be handed over to the
Executive body of the Society, but, the Secretary of the local
Managing Committee of the School, who was also the Vice President
of the Society Executive body, was not interested in doing so, has
assembled a meeting, dated 20/03/2016, meeting of group of the
local persons including the Respondent no.6 and in connivance with
another Executive members of the Society M.M. Arora Elected a new
Executive body of the Society, and applied for registration of this
body and change in office address before the Respondent no.3
claiming that the petitioner Society is not working after registration
since, 2007-2008.
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
10. The tracking report printed out from the Web site of Application
Tracking for Society firm registration clearly shows how the
concerned respondent has allowed the amendment of the office
address and registration of Executive body elected on 20/3/2016.
This report shows that no objection of the existing members who
have been removed in the Executive body was required but
respondents have not issued notice to such members nor any notice
to its registered office of the society was send nor notice to the
general public was published in the Newspapers. The concerned
respondents have, for some extraneous consideration, misused their
official power in the garb of writ petition filed in this Court.
11. Thereafter, when the petitioner got information of the same,
immediately made a complaint before the office of the Respondent
no.3 on 14/06/2016 along with all the relevant documents praying for
cancellation of amendment in the Societies registered on
06/06/2016.
12. The respondent no.3 issued letter no.738 dated 11/07/2016
requesting the respondent no.4 to conduct an enquiry on the
complaint made by the writ petitioner.
13. The enquiry conducted by the officials of Respondent no.4
clearly mentioned that private Respondent no.6 has sworn false
Affidavits for obtaining the amendment dated 06/06/2016 and he was
never found to be a member of Academic Quest Society, since 2007
to 2016.
14. In spite of having definite finding in the enquiry report regarding
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
the fraud and fabrication of false documents through false Affidavit
for obtaining the amendment dated 06/06/2016 in members list and
Office address, no action has been taken neither the amendment
was cancelled nor any proceeding or action initiated against the
persons including Respondent no.6 involved in this fraudulent acts
and creating false documents by the Respondent no.3 purposely in
connivance with the respondent no.6.
15. Thereafter, the Respondent no.6 has preferred a writ petition
being W.P. C. No. 1917/2017 for concluding the enquiry pending
against the petitioner which has been disposed of by the terms of the
order dated 15/11/2019 in which concerned respondents has been
directed to conclude the enquiry.
16. The concerned respondent after conclusion of the enquiry
against the respondent no.6 in which it has been clearly stated
regarding the fraudulent acts and fabrication of false documents and
the stipulation that though the General Body meeting or Election was
not held only Executive body meeting were held and office bearers
were nominated unanimously. The petitioner has provided all the
documents regarding the Society to be enquiry committee and has
informed to the Enquiry officer as well as to the office of the
concerned respondent that Society has got very limited numbers of
members and all members are part of its Executive body. But the
concerned respondents have not taken any action and not decided
the complaint of the petitioner as they were fully aware that they
have to cancel the amendment dated 06/06/2016 under the
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
provisions of section 20 and 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
17. The writ petitioner continuously approached and appeared
before the concerned respondents for hearing of his complaint and
submitted all the relevant documents.
18. Lastly, on 20/06/2024 an order was passed which has been
communicated vide letter no. 916 dated 14/08/24 in which
amendments allowed on the basis of the false and fabricated
documents has not been cancelled and respondents have granted
sanctity to the Executive body constituted in violation of the
registered by-laws that too by the non-members of the Society
without issuing any notice to the Existing members whose names
were registered at the time of the registration of Society in the year
2007-08 without any kind of notice served to its registered office.
19. The respondent no.3 has patronized and legalized the illegal
actions of the respondent no.6 and while passing the above order
totally ignored the registered by-laws of the Society, the findings of
enquiry report, and documents showing continues activities of the
Society since 2007-08 to till date and ignoring the fact that non-
members of the Society have been made office bearers by the
amendment dated 06/06/2016. The concerned respondent has for
some vested reasons has chosen to exercise his Quasi-Judicial
power in favour of the persons including respondent no.6 who are
found to be involved in furnishing false Affidavit, falsehood,
misrepresentation for obtaining the amendment dated 06/06/2016
and rejected the complaint of the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
aforesaid, writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6620 of 2024 was filed,
which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge, hence, the
instant appeal.
20. It is evident from the factual aspect that the writ petitioner has
made a complaint regarding internal affairs of the society in question,
the writ petitioner herein, by alleging the several irregularities
primarily pertaining to continuation of the members without election
after death of the duly elected member of the Society. It has also
been complained that the respondent no.6 herein claiming himself to
be the secretary of the Society but the others who have not been
selected as per the system carved out in the by-laws of the society,
have taken over the entire administrative and Managerial control of
the society.
21. It appears from the material available on record, particularly,
Annexure-8, one writ petition was filed by the Society through its
Secretary, Kamleshwar Prasad Singh, being W.P.(C) No.1917 of
2017 claiming therein a direction upon the respondents not to
interfere in the day-to-day affairs of the petitioner's Society and to
conclude the enquiry which is pending against the Society.
22. The said writ petition was disposed of on 15.05.2019 with a
direction to the Inspector General, Registration, Govt. of Jharkhand
to complete the said enquiry within the period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of copy of the order.
23. The Inspector General, Registration has passed an order on
20.06.2024 by taking into consideration the rival submission of the
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
party aggrieved and the writ petitioner also, who has claimed himself
to be the Secretary of the Society. The said enquiry was concluded
with the following orders, as has been referred in the order dated
20.06.2024, for ready reference, the relevant part of the order is
being referred as under: -
"(क) संस्था के द्वारा गठन की तिथथ से लेकर वितमान
तिथथ िक सभी वैधातनक प्रावधानों का अनुपालन करिे हुए
सभी प्रतिवेदन 15 ददनों के अन्दर ऑनलाईन पोर्त ल के
माध्यम से जमा ककया जाएगा।
(ख) संस्था के द्वारा वैधातनक प्रावधानों का ससमय
अनुपालन नह ं करने के ललए 10,000/- (दस हजार रूपये)
का दण्ड अथधरोपपि ककया जािा है ।
(ग) संस्था के चुनाव संबंधी पववाद के तनपर्ारा हे िु तनबंधक
(तनबंधन महातनर क्षक) सक्षम प्राथधकार नह ं होने के कारण
संबंथधि पक्ष व्यवहार न्यायालय में पहल करने के ललए
स्विंत्र हैं।
(घ) संस्था के संचालन में उपायुक्ि, धनबाद का पत्रांक-620
/ गो०, ददनांक 12.05.2017 के द्वारा प्रतिवेदन एवं अन्य
बबन्दओ
ु ं के आलोक में रालि गबन इत्यादद के बबंदु पर थाना
काण्ड संख्या- 374/16 में सक्षम न्यायालय के अंतिम
तनणतय के पश्चाि पवचार ककया जाएगा।
(ड) संस्था के द्वारा कंडडका (क) एवं (ख) के अनुपालन के
पश्चाि ् अधोहस्िाक्षर को सूथचि करें गे अन्यथा संस्था के
तनबंधन को रद्द करने की कारत वाई की जा सकिी है ।
(च) संस्था के संचालन में भपवष्य में वैधातनक प्रावधानों के
अनुपालन में अतनयलमििा पाए जाने पर संस्था का तनबंधन
रद्द कर ददया जाएगा। संस्था को कठोर चेिावनी द जािी
है कक भपवष्य में तनयमों का अक्षरिः पालन सुतनश्श्चि
ककया जाएगा।"
24. The said order has been challenged by the present writ
petitioner in writ petition being W.P.(C) No.6620 of 2024, claiming
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
himself to be the Secretary of the Society.
25. The respondent no.6, namely, Kamleshwar Prasad Singh, the
party through whom, the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1917 of 2017
was filed, as would be evident from Annexure-8 has also been
noticed and in pursuant thereto, he has appeared and contested the
case by taking the plea that the body, which is being represented by
him in the capacity of Secretary, is the genuinely elected body.
26. This Court, on consideration of the rival submissions of the
parties and particularly considering the nature of dispute in between
the two faction of the Society, has refused to interfere with the
impugned decision by directing the respondent no.3 to refer the
election dispute so raised by the writ petitioner to the Principal Court
of original civil jurisdiction where the petitioner-society is situated,
which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant
27. Mr. Mahavir Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant
has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned judgment:
(i) It has been contended that the learned Single Judge has not
appreciated the fact that the claim which was made by the
Kamleshwar Prasad Singh claiming himself to be the Secretary of
the Society who has got such status on the basis of the fraud
committed basically by submitting the fraudulent document before
the concerned authority.
The aforesaid aspect of the matter ought to have been taken
into consideration by the learned Single Judge in order to go into the
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
roots of the issue but having not done so, the proper appreciation of
the factual aspect has not been given by the learned Single Judge
and as such, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of
law.
(ii) It has further been contended that the said Kamleshwar
Prasad Singh, respondent no.6 in the instant appeal, although was
the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.1917 of 2017, but in the said writ
petition, the order was passed in absentia of the present petitioner
due to the vested reason and unilaterally, the said order was passed
by the learned Single Judge.
(iii) It has been submitted that if the Secretary of the Society,
namely, Jitendra Kumar Singh would have been impleaded as party,
then all the facts would have been brought to the notice of this Court
and in such circumstances, there would not have been any order
directing the Inspector General, Registration to conduct the enquiry
and conclude it.
28. Learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid
grounds, has submitted that the judgment impugned, therefore,
needs interference.
Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent-State
29. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State
has taken the following grounds in defending the impugned
judgment: -
(i) Even if the argument of the appellant, will be taken into
consideration in entirety, then, the said argument itself clarifies that it
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
is a case of dispute for the purpose of claiming the command upon
the Society, since, one Kamleshwar Prasad Singh, respondent no.6
to the writ petition is claiming to be the genuinely elected Secretary
and as such, having full command and control over the Society.
While on the other, the appellant herein is also claiming himself to be
the Secretary of the Society and as such, the learned Single Judge,
on consideration of the aforesaid disputed question of fact regarding
the rival claim of election as Secretary said to be genuine claim by
both the parties, is only to be adjudicated by the competent court of
civil jurisdiction and not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(ii) Learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the
aforesaid aspects of the matter and putting reliance upon the various
provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 if has refused to
interfere with the impugned Judgment passed by the Inspector
General, Registration, the same cannot be said suffer from an error.
(iii) It has been contended so far as the argument advanced on
behalf of the appellant that the present appellant had not been
impleaded as party in the writ petition being W.P.(C) No.1917 of
2017, even accepting the same, no prejudice will be said to be
caused, since, the Inspector General, Registration has already
noticed the present petitioner and in pursuant thereto, he has
appeared and defended his case. The Inspector General,
Registration, after taking into consideration the rival submission of
the parties including the writ petitioner of W.P.(C) No.1917 of 2017,
as also, the claim which has been raised by the writ
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
petitioner/appellant herein, has considered all aspects of the matter
and thereafter, certain direction has been given, but, the said
direction has not accepted by the present writ petitioner and that is
the reason, he has challenged the said order by filing the writ petition
being W.P.(C) No.6620 of 2024.
(iv) It has been contended that if the Inspector General,
Registration has initiated the proceeding on the basis of the
complaint made by the present appellant and if certain directions
have been given, there was no need, as has been shown by the writ
petitioner to challenge the said order claiming himself to be the party
aggrieved.
30. Learned counsel, based upon the aforesaid grounds,
particularly, on the ground that two persons were claiming to have
hold upon the Society, the same being the dispute, private in nature,
therefore, the learned Single Judge if on consideration of the
aforesaid fact, has dismissed the writ petition by directing the
respondent no.3 to refer the dispute for its adjudication before the
competent court of civil jurisdiction, the same cannot be said to suffer
from an error.
Analysis
31. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
through the averment made in the memo of appeal as also the
finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment.
32. The issue which requires consideration in the present appeal is
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
that:
"as to whether considering the factual aspect as
involved in the present case, in a case of dispute
in between the two factions claiming himself to
be the Secretary of the Society, the said disputed
can be adjudicated by the learned writ court."
33. This Court, in order to consider the aforesaid issue, deems it fit
and proper to refer some undisputed fact, i.e., prior to filing of the writ
petition on behalf of the appellant, claiming himself to be the
Secretary of the Society running in the name of Academic Quest
being W.P.(C) No.6620 of 2024.
34. One another writ petition was preferred by one Kamleshwar
Prasad Singh claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society, i.e.,
the Academic Quest, being W.P.(C) No.1917 of 2017.
35. The dispute raised in the said writ petition was that prohibitory
order has been sought for prohibiting the respondents not to interfere
with the proceedings of day-to-day affairs of the petitioner/Society
and to conclude the inquiry, against the petitioner which is pending
before the respondent-authority. The writ petition was disposed of
directing the I.G Registration, Jharkhand, Ranchi, respondent no.3,
to conclude the enquiry within the period of eight weeks from the
date of receipt of copy of the order.
36. The enquiry was concluded and final decision was taken in
terms of the direction passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.1917 of
2017 as on 20.06.2024(Annexure-9) to the paper book.
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
37. The Inspector General Registration, Government of Jharkhand
has also issued notice to the petitioner, namely, Jitendra Kumar
Singh, who has filed the writ petition, claiming himself to be the
Secretary of the Society.
38. Due appearance was made and the Inspector General
Registration has considered the same and enquiry was conducted as
available at Annexure-7 and based upon that enquiry and on
consideration of the complaint and defence, the directions was
passed as recorded under Annexure-8 to the writ petition passed by
the Inspector General Registration.
39. It has been found by the Inspector General Registration that
there is internal dispute amongst the members, reason behind is
that, there was no timely election and no annual report. The Society
is also running some of the schools.
40. The Inspector General Registration has found the charge of not
running the Society as per law, found to be proved.
41. The Inspector General Registration, based upon the aforesaid
consideration, while disposing of the complaint, has passed the
following directions, i.e.,
(i) All the reports from the date of constitution of the Society till
date are to be submitted through online portal.
(ii) The Society since has not followed the statutory provision in
time and as such, a sum of Rs.10,000/- has been inflicted as a
penalty.
(iii) The dispute pertaining to election is not to be adjudicated
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
by the Inspector General, Registration, rather, the same is to be
decided by the competent court of civil jurisdiction and as such, the
parties are at liberty to move before the competent court of civil
jurisdiction.
(iv) The FIR which was instituted being Case No.374/2016 on
behest of the Deputy Commissioner, Dhanbad in the light of letter
no.620/go dated 12.05.2017 will be considered after the final
decision of competent court of civil jurisdiction.
(v) The Society has been directed to comply with the direction
as contained in direction no.(क) and (ख) of the Inspector General
Registration, failing which, steps will be taken for cancellation of the
registration of the Society.
(vi) In case of any future complaint, if has been reported to the
Inspector General Registration showing the functioning of the
Society contrary to the statutory provision, then, the registration of
the Society will be cancelled.
(vii) The strict caution has been given to the Society to ensure
compliance of the statutory provision in functioning of the Society in
future.
42. The Society, being represented by the present writ petitioner,
namely, Jitendra Kumar Singh considering himself to be the party
aggrieved with the said order, has preferred writ petition being
W.P.(C) No.6620 of 2024, which is the subject matter of the present
appeal, questioning the said order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
Inspector General Registration, respondent no.3 herein, said to be
passed without taking into consideration the factual aspect and
solely relied upon the contention raised on behalf of the body, which
has illegally been constituted on 06.06.2016.
43. The Writ Court has considered the rival submission of the
parties, including the respondent no.6, who was the writ petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.1917 of 2017.
44. Learned Writ Court has relied upon the provision as contained
under Section 23 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act, 1860') for the purpose of showing the power
conferred to the Inspector General Registration to cancel the
registration of any Society registered under the Act, 1860 after
making due enquiry regarding the facts that its office has ceased to
be in the State of Bihar by reason of the reorganization of States or
change of the office from the State of Bihar by reason of the
reorganization of States or change of the office from the State of
Bihar to another State, or whose activities are subversive to the
objects of the Society, meaning thereby, the order passed by the
Inspector General Registration since was challenged and as such,
the learned Writ Court has thought it proper first to consider the
conferment of power which has been conferred under the provision
of Section 23 of the Act, 1860 without proceeding further.
45. The learned Writ Court has further referred the provision of
Rule 12 Bihar (now Jharkhand) Societies Registration Rules, 1965
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules, 1965') for the purpose of
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
showing the scope of enquiry which is to be conducted by the
Inspector General Registration and if the Inspector General
Registration has come to the conclusion with the activities if found to
be subversive to the object, it is well available to the Inspector
General Registration to initiate the proceeding to cancel such
registration.
46. The learned Writ Court has also referred the provision of
Section 13 of the Act, 1860 which confers power of dissolution of
Societies and adjustment of their affairs.
47. The learned Writ Court, therefore, has come out with the
conclusive finding based upon the consideration of the provision, as
available under Sections 13 and 23 of the Act, 1860 and Rule 12 of
the Rules, 1965 for the purpose of coming to the conclusion that the
Inspector General Registration has got competency to look into the
issues in order to see the functioning of the society not to allow to
function subversive to the object of the Society.
48. The ground which has been raised on behalf of the learned
counsel, who is representing the present appellant, the Secretary of
the Society that the body which is being run by him in the capacity of
the Secretary of the Society is the genuinely elected body and the
body which is being claimed to be run by Kamleshwar Prasad Singh,
the respondent no.6 is not the genuine body said to be elected
genuinely by following the rules.
49. The Inspector General Registration has made a specific
observation in the order dated 20.06.2024 that the Inspector General
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
Registration is only competent to look into the issue of
mismanagement or alleged irregularities which is alleged to be
committed in the Society and for that, the Inspector General
Registration while considering the inquiry report, the complaint and
the defence has found the irregularities available in the Society and
that is the reason, certain directions have been passed so that the
Society may run as per law for the purpose of achieving its object.
50. The Inspector General Registration has further commanded
that in case of non-observance of the statutory provision action will
be taken for cancellation of registration of Society.
51. The writ petitioner, namely, Jitendra Prasad Singh representing
the Society has approached to this Court challenging the said order
dated 20.06.2024, in entirety.
52. The question of genuine elected body is the core of the issue
before the learned Writ Court.
53. The learned Writ Court, in the aforesaid premise, taking into
consideration the rival claim of two parties, i.e., (i) Jitendra Kumar
Singh claiming himself to be the Secretary of the Society and
another, Kamleshwar Prasad Singh, the respondent no.6, claiming
himself to be the Secretary of the Society and in that view of the
matter, the learned Writ Court has come to the conclusive finding
that the issue of genuinely elected body cannot be considered under
the Writ jurisdiction and what has been observed by the Inspector
General Registration that such dispute can only be adjudicated by
the Principal Court of original civil jurisdiction.
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
54. We are conscious that the Writ proceeding is the summary
proceeding and the adjudication can be made under the Writ
jurisdiction in a case of undisputed fact by issuance of either Writ of
Mandamus or even by showing interference by the decision taken by
the Administrative Authority by issuance of Writ of Certiorari and in
addition thereto, the Writ of Prohibition, Writ of Quo Warranto or Writ
of Habeas Corpus.
55. However, it is not a case where the question is to be
considered by issuance of either the Writ of Prohibition or Writ of
Quo Warranto or Writ of Habeas Corpus, rather, it is the case of
issuance of Writ of Mandamus with the issuance of Writ of Certiorari.
56. The learned Writ Court, according to our considered view, is
correct in taking the view that when two rival factions are claiming to
be the genuinely elected Secretary then, in such a disputed question
of fact where the requirement is to lead evidence on behalf of the
rival parties, is not to be adjudicated in the summary proceeding like
the Writ jurisdiction in exercise of power conferred under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
57. The same view has been taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of Nagri Pracharini Sabha & Anr. Vrs. Vth Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Varanasi & Ors., 1991 Supp. (2)
SCC 36 particularly at paragraphs-2 and 5, wherein, it has been held
as under:
"2. A litigant having a grievance of a civil nature
has, independently of any statute, a right to
institute a suit in the civil court unless its
2025:JHHC:35975-DB
cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.
The position is well settled that exclusion of
jurisdiction of the civil court is not be readily
inferred and such exclusion must be either
express or implied.
5. We pointed out to Mr. Mukhoty that the relief
against election of office bearers must have
become infructuous with the passage of time as
the election is annual. It is for the trial court now to
dispose of the suit taking into consideration the
changes in the situations that may be brought
before it. We dismiss the appeal and direct the
trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit. No
costs."
58. This Court, considering the factual aspect as referred
hereinabove and taking into consideration the finding so recorded by
the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment, is of the view
that impugned judgment passed by the learned Writ Court requires
no interference.
59. Accordingly, the instant appeal fails and is, dismissed.
60. In consequent to dismissal of this appeal, pending Interlocutory
applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
(Arun Kumar Rai, J.)
02.12.2025
Rohit/-A.F.R.
Uploaded on 06.12.2025
