[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/9/2026 on 10 January, 2026
Author: Ravindra Maithani
Bench: Ravindra Maithani
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
SL. proceedings or
Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
D1-
06 WPMS No.9 of 2026
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the
petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Bisht, Brief Holder for the
State.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate for the
respondent no.4.
Mr. Vaibhav Singh Chauhan, Advocate
for the caveator.
Heard.
Admit.
Learned C.S.C. takes notices for the
respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3.
Mr. Neeraj Garg, Advocate takes notices
for the respondent no.4.
Respondents may file counter affidavit
within four weeks.
Two weeks, thereafter, rejoinder
affidavit, if any, may be filed.
List this matter on 18.04.2026.
Heard on Stay Application, IA No.1 of
The challenge in this petition is made to
the order dated 20.11.2025, passed by the
respondent no.3/The Deputy Registrar
Firms, Societies and Chits, Dehradun ("the
Deputy Registrar"), by which an earlier order
dated 18.11.2025, passed by the Deputy
Registrar has been stayed. The challenge is
also made to the order dated 04.12.2025,
passed by the respondent no. 2/Registrar,
Firms, Society and Chits, Dehradun ("the
Registrar"), by which, it was held that the
proceedings for renewal of the society may be
continued as the situation has related back
to the year 2016.
Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the respondent no.4 had
manipulated the will of Hansraj, the founder
member of the society; a civil suit was filed,
in which the will has been cancelled; an FIR
was lodged, based on which Criminal Case
No.140 of 2013 (New No.Criminal Case
No.1211 of 2018, State Vs. Ravindra
Brahmchari and Others, was proceeded in
the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri
Garhwal) ("the case"), in which the
respondent no.4 has been convicted. His
Criminal Appeal No.67 of 2022, Ravindra
Brahmchari Vs. State ("the appeal"), has also
been dismissed. Earlier non-bailable warrant
was issued against the respondent no.4, but
when in the Criminal Revision No.559 of
2024, Ravindra Brahmchari and Another Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another ("the
revision"), preferred against his conviction, by
the respondent no.4, the original record was
requisitioned and the warrant has been
recalled.
It is argued that the order recalling
warrant is to be challenged by the petitioner;
the respondent no.4 has nothing to do with
the society; he is ineligible to be the member
of the society under Section 16(A) of the
Societies Registrations Act, 1860 ("the Act"),
and accordingly the Deputy Registrar has
rightly passed the order on 18.11.2025
holding that the membership of the
respondent no.4 may not be accepted. It is
submitted that the Registrar has intervened
in between on 19.11.2025. Thereafter, the
Deputy Registrar has further stayed the
operation of his order dated 18.11.2025, by
virtue of the impugned order dated
20.11.2025. It is argued that, in fact, the
Registrar has no jurisdiction to interfere in
the order that was passed by the Deputy
Registrar on 18.11.2025.
He further submits that without
jurisdiction, the Registrar has passed the
impugned order on 04.12.2025, while
directing for the renewal of the society and
observing that the position has related back
to 2016. He submits that this observation
has been made based on the averment that
the non-bailable warrant issued by the court
of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal,
against the respondent no.4 has been
recalled, and the criminal revision is pending.
Learned counsel for the respondent
no.4 submits that the petitioner has no locus
to file the petition; the respondent no.4 is
nowhere, in no manner, connected with the
activities of the society; in fact, pursuant to
the order dated 04.12.2025 of the Registrar,
the society has already been renewed; the
dispute is not covered by the provisions of
Section 25(2) of the Act. Therefore, the order
dated 18.11.2025, passed by the Registrar is
satisfactory.
It is not disputed that the society has
already been renewed.
Section 16-A of the Act is as follows:-
"Section 16-A Disqualification for holding
office in society- A person who is an undischarged
insolvent or who has been convicted of any offence
in connection with the formation, promotion,
management or conduct of the affairs of a society,
or of a body corporate, or of an offence involving
moral turpitude shall be disqualified for being
chosen as, and for being a member of the governing
body or the President, Secretary, or any other
office-bearer of a society."
Admittedly, the respondent no.4 is
convicted and sentenced under Sections 420,
467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC, on
17.12.2022, in the case. The judgment has
been filed as Annexure No.4 to the writ
petition.
It is further the case of the petitioner
that, in fact, the appeal has already been
dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions
Judge, Tehri Garhwal, on 24.07.2024.
Against it, the respondent no.4 had filed the
revision.
It is admitted that the respondent no.4
has yet not been surrendered to custody. He
is not on bail.
Merely, if the trial court record is
summoned, how could the operation of the
impugned order dated 18.11.2025, passed by
the respondent no.3/The Deputy Registrar be
stayed?
How could non bailable warrants be
recalled? This is an issue, which will fall for
consideration at some stage, but it is not an
issue in the instant case. Fact remains that
the respondent no.4 is a convict and he is not
in custody. He is not on bail.
The Deputy Registrar had passed the
order of his disqualification on 18.11.2025,
which has subsequently been interfered by
the Registrar. How could it be interfered and
why it should be interfered? It would require
deliberation.
Having considered, this Court is of the
view that as an interim measure, till the next
date of listing, the operation of the impugned
order dated 20.11.2025, of the Respondent
no.3/ The Deputy Registrar shall remain in
abeyance. The effect and operation of the
impugned order dated 04.12.2025, passed by
the Respondent no.2/The Registrar, shall
remain in abeyance to the extent when it
observes that the position of the society
remains, as it was in the year 2016.
Stay application stands disposed of,
accordingly.
(Ravindra Maithani J.)
10.01.2026
RV
