Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/1003/2014 on 8 April, 2021
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. 8513 of 2019)
Review Application (MCC No. 559 of 2019)
In
WPMS No. 1003 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. 9386 of 2019)
Review Application (MCC No. 647 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,
whereby the writ petition filed by review
applicant was dismissed.
Perusal of the said order reveals that
three writ petitions were dismissed by this
Court vide order dated 08.04.2019. One of
the petitioners in the connected writ petition
namely, Dharamveer challenged the said
order by filing Special Appeal No. 680 of
2019, which was allowed by Division Bench of
this Court. Operative portion of the judgment
rendered by Division Bench 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.
This Court has been informed by
learned counsel for respondents that in terms
of the judgment rendered by Division Bench,
the Registrar Chits, Firms and Societies,
Uttarakhand, Dehradun referred the dispute
to the Prescribed Authority/S.D.M,
Bhagwanpur under Section 25 of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. The prescribed
Authority has finally decided the dispute and
subsequently Vikas Tyagi (applicant herein)
has challenged the decision of Prescribed
Authority by filing a writ petition, which is still
pending before this Court.
In view of this subsequent development,
this Court does not find any reason to review
the order dated 08.04.2019.
Accordingly, review application is
dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
08.04.2021
Navin
