WPMS/2332/2014
2021 Latest Caselaw 1399 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                       COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No. 8514 of 2019)
                                  Review Application (MCC No. 560 of 2019)
                                  In
                                  WPMS No. 2332 of 2014
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

There is no representation for the petitioner.

Mr. Vinod Nautiyal, Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for review applicant/respondent no.5.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocate for intervener.

Reasons furnished in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application are sufficient to condone the delay.

Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the review application is condoned.

Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel for review applicant submits that in view of the subsequent development, which has taken place, he does not want to press the review application.

On his submission, review application is dismissed as not pressed.

Delay Condonation Application (CLMA No. 8516 of 2019) Review Application (MCC No. 562 of 2019) Reasons furnished in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application are sufficient to condone the delay. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the review application is condoned.

This application has been filed seeking review of the final order dated 08.04.2019.

From perusal of the record, it is revealed that the review applicant had challenged the judgment sought to be reviewed, by filing Special Appeal No. 680 of 2019, which was disposed of vide judgment dated 26.07.2019. Operative portion of the judgment rendered by Division Bench in the aforesaid Special Appeal is reproduced below:-

14. In the present case, the test laid down by the Supreme Court, in Radhey Shyam and another vs. Chhabi Nath and others : (2015) 5 SCC 423, is fulfilled, since the order passed by the Registrar of Societies is on the assumption of a jurisdiction which he did not have. Since Section 25(1) only confers on him, the power to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority (Sub- Divisional Magistrate), and not to undertake the task of determining the validity of the election of members, both the order under appeal, and the order impugned in the writ petition, are set aside. The Registrar of Societies shall refer the matter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate who shall, after affording an opportunity of being heard to all the parties concerned, pass an order in accordance with law.

In such view of the matter, the review application has become infructuous. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 08.04.2021 Navin