# Adare Madarsa Ziaul-ul-um, Gontha, District Mau and others v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh and another

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 240
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2005-02-04
- **Case number:** THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16836 of 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/adare-madarsa-ziaul-ul-um-gontha-district-mau-and-others-v-assistant-registrar-40433
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Societies Registration Act- 1860-S-25 (2)
Election held on dated 7.10.2000 found
illegal
by
Asstt.
Registrar-Society
became unregistered society under the
provision of Section 3-A of the Act-within
five years election could not held-except
the Registrar no other person can hold
election.

Held: Para 12 & 13

Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act
provides that where any election of
office bearers of the Society has not
been held within the time specified, i.e.,
within 5 years, the Registrar may call
meeting of general body of the Society
for electing the office bearers.

In view of the facts and circumstances of
the case, the impugned order dated
26.2.2001 deserves to be set aside and it
is expedient in the interest of justice that
the Registrar may be directed to hold
election of the Society in accordance
with law in exercise of powers under
sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act.
Case law discussed:
1995 (2) UPLBEC-1242
1998 (2) UPLBEC 1000
2000 (III) UPLBEC 2063

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[2005
 240
must pay heed that it is a responsible
Government owned Corporation and it
should watch every step with care and
concern and take measures consistent
with the urgency of situation and its
responsibility
so
that
unwarranted
frivolous litigations do not gain ground.

In view of the above, the second
appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16836 of 2001

Adare
Madarsa
Ziaul-ul-um,
Gontha,
District Mau and others ...Petitioners
Versus
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh and
another

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.N. Singh
Sri Dharam Pal Singh
Sri P.K. Dubey
Sri M.A. Siddiqui

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri J.A. Azami
S.C.

Societies Registration Act- 1860-S-25 (2)
Election held on dated 7.10.2000 found
illegal
by
Asstt.
Registrar-Society
became unregistered society under the
provision of Section 3-A of the Act-within
five years election could not held-except
the Registrar no other person can hold
election.

Held: Para 12 & 13

Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act
provides that where any election of
office bearers of the Society has not
been held within the time specified, i.e.,
within 5 years, the Registrar may call
meeting of general body of the Society
for electing the office bearers.

In view of the facts and circumstances of
the case, the impugned order dated
26.2.2001 deserves to be set aside and it
is expedient in the interest of justice that
the Registrar may be directed to hold
election of the Society in accordance
with law in exercise of powers under
sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Act.
Case law discussed:
1995 (2) UPLBEC-1242
1998 (2) UPLBEC 1000
2000 (III) UPLBEC 2063

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard counsel for the parties and
perused the record.

2. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 26.2.2001
passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies & Chits, Azamgarh Region,
Azamgarh (respondent no. 1) whereby
certificate of renewal of the Society has
been granted on the basis of the yearly list
for 2000-2001 in exercise of powers
under Section 3-A of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (in short the Act).
By the order dated 26.2.2001 Sri Iltaf
(respondent no. 2) is held to be the
Secretary of the Society and the list of
office bearers for the year 2000-2001
submitted by respondent no. 2 is held to
be valid. By the aforesaid order the
election held on 7.10.2000 alleged to have
been conducted by petitioner no. 3 has
been held to be illegal and has been
cancelled.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] Adare Madarsa Ziaul-ul-um & ors. V. Asstt. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits & anr. 241
3. Sub-section (4) of Section 3-A of
the Act is reproduced as under: -
"(4) Every application for renewal of
the certificate shall be accompanied by a
list of members of the managing body
elected after the registration of the society
or after the renewal of certificate of
registration and also the certificate sought
to be renewed unless dispensed with by
the Registrar on the ground of its loss or
destruction of any other sufficient cause."

4. Brief facts of the case are that
Adare Madarsa, Ziaul-ul-um, Gontha,
District Mau is a society registered under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is
not in dispute that the said society was
registered in the year 1962 and was
renewed from time to time. It is also
admitted to the parties that the Society
was last renewed w.e.f. 10.10.1995 for a
period of five years. Thus, it is not in
dispute that the Society was renewed up
to 10.10.2000. After 1995 the annual list
sent by the managing body was registered
by the office of Assistant Registrar in
exercise of powers under Section 4 of the
Act. It appears that there was some
dispute between the petitioners and
respondent no. 2 with regard to the annual
list for the year 1998-99 which was
decided by the Assistant Registrar vide
order dated 28.8.1998. The order was
challenged by one Ishtiyak Ahmad by
means of Writ Petition No. 522 of 1999
which was pending at the time of filing of
the present writ petition. The aforesaid
writ petition has since been dismissed as
withdrawn on 20.3.2003.

5. In October 2000 a controversy
arose regarding renewal of the Society
when petitioner no. 3 as the Secretary of
the
Society
submitted
papers
of
proceedings of election held on 7.10.2000
and other relevant papers along with the
application for renewal of the Society.

6. Respondent no. 2 also applied for
renewal of the Society along with a list of
office bearers for the year 2000-2001.

7. It is submitted by the counsel for
the petitioners that respondent no. 2, Iltaf,
neither alleged nor filed any document to
establish that election of the Society was
held as claimed by him and he only
prayed for renewal of the Society on the
basis of the list of office bearers for the
year 2000-01. It is further submitted that
in
the
counter
affidavit
filed
by
respondent no. 2 a plea has been taken to
the effect that the petitioners concealed
the fact that against the impugned order
dated 26.2.2001 they had already filed an
appeal before the Commissioner which
has been dismissed on 16.3.2001 holding
that appeal was not maintainable in law
against the order dated 26.2.2001. He
submits that in these circumstances the
petitioners have no other alternative
remedy but to file the present writ petition
challenging the impugned order dated
26.2.2001. It is further submitted that
non-mentioning/disclosing in the writ
petition the facts and circumstances in
which the Commissioner held that the
order dated 26.2.2001 was not appealable
cannot be said to be any concealment of
fact.

8. It is also submitted that in the
counter affidavit much emphasis has been
placed on the resignations submitted by
some of the members of the Society and
also on the fact that some new members
have been inducted. It is stated that
although the Assistant Registrar has relied
upon the version of respondent no. 2 but
in so far as the facts of the present writ
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
[2005
 242
petition are concerned it makes no
difference, as the petitioners are not
challenging the annual list of any year.

9. The submissions of the petitioners
against
the
impugned
order
dated
26.2.2001
passed
by
the
Assistant
Registrar are as under: -

(i) Even if the election held by
petitioner no. 3 was illegal as held by the
Assistant
Registrar
the
renewal
of
certificate of the registration cannot be
granted in favour of respondent no. 2 in
the absence of any election of the
managing body. Since respondent no. 2
neither alleged nor submitted any papers
regarding the election of the managing
body after the last renewal of registration,
the renewal cannot be granted on the basis
of annual list submitted by respondent
no.2.

(ii) In the order impugned passed by
the Assistant Registrar, there is no
mention that any election was held or
submitted by respondent no. 2, as such
naturally there could be no finding by the
Assistant Registrar regarding any election
alleged to have been held by respondent
no. 2.

(iii) The Assistant Registrar has no
authority in law to grant renewal of
certificate of registration to any society
without the election of the managing body
after renewal of the certificate. Since there
is no allegation that after the year 1995
there was any election by respondent no.2
prior to the submission of application for
renewal, the Assistant Registrar has no
jurisdiction or authority in law to grant
renewal of the certificate of registration to
the body represented by respondent no. 2.

10. The counsel for the respondents
submits that the earlier Writ Petition No.
522 of 1999 filed by the petitioners
challenging the order dated 28.9.1998
passed by respondent no. 1 accepting the
list of office bearers submitted by Iltaf for
the year 1998-99 has been subsequently
dismissed as withdrawn. No interim order
was granted at any point of time and the
order dated 28.9.1998 has become final.
He further submits that the petitioners
have no locus standi to file the present
writ petition, as they are not even the
members of the Society. Appeal No. 46
of 2001 filed by the petitioners against the
impugned order dated 26.2.2001 has been
dismissed by order dated 16.3.2001 which
fact has been concealed by the petitioners.
The rival claims of both the parties have
already been settled by respondent no. 1
by means of orders dated 28.9.1998 and
26.2.2001. The signatures of respondent
no. 2 have been attested by the District
Minority Welfare Officer as the Secretary
and he is in actual physical control of the
institution. The learned counsel for the
respondents has placed reliance upon the
decisions rendered in Committee of
Management Kishan Shiksha Sadan,
Banksahi District Basti and another Vs
Assistant Registrar, Gorakhpur Region,
Gorakhpur and another, 1995 (II)
U.P.L.B.E.C. 1242 (D.B.); Committee of
Management
Anjuman
Islamia
Mariyadih Allahabad and another Vs
Assistant Registrar, Chits and Funds
Allahabad
and
others,
1998
(II)
U.P.L.B.E.C. 1000; and Sri Ram Laxmi
Narain Marvadi Hospital, Godaulia
Varanasi
and
others
Vs
Assistant
Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits and
others, 2000 (III) U.P.L.B.E.C. 2063 in
support of his case.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All]
M/s Somdutt Builders Ltd. V. State of U.P. and others
243
11. From the facts narrated above
and deducible from the contention of the
parties, the net result is that the election
dated 7.10.2000 alleged to have been held
by petitioner no. 3 has been held to be
illegal by the Assistant Registrar. There is
neither any other election nor even any
allegation of any election of any other
body. The renewal of the Society has been
granted by the Assistant Registrar on the
basis of annual list of the officers which
apparently is illegal. Thus, the Society has
become unregistered society within the
meaning of sub-section (5) of Section 3-A
and the only remedy now available is of
holding a fresh election of the Society.

12. Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of
the Act provides that where any election
of office bearers of the Society has not
been held within the time specified, i.e.,
within 5 years, the Registrar may call
meeting of general body of the Society for
electing the office bearers.

13. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the case, the impugned
order dated 26.2.2001 deserves to be set
aside and it is expedient in the interest of
justice that the Registrar may be directed
to hold election of the Society in
accordance with law in exercise of powers
under sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the
Act.

14. For the reasons stated above, the
writ petition is allowed and the impugned
order is set aside/quashed. The Registrar
is directed to hold fresh election of the
Society within a period of two months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order before it by the
petitioners.
Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.02.2005

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5738 of 1995

M/s Somdutt Builders Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.N. Tripathi
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri S.P. Gupta

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Lal Ji Sinha
Sri Sanjay Goswami
C.S.C.

(A) Indian Stamp Act 1899-S. 33 Nature
of
the
Document-petitioner
being
highest bidder-Nazul Plot No. 10 Block
15-area 6910 Sq. Meters-Settled for Rs.
6.10 Crores-agreement executed on Rs.
7/- Stamp-whether such document can
be termed as agreement to sale and the
stamp duty is payable?-held--No title or
ownership
transferred-except
the
possession-hence is deed of license.

Held: Para 10

It is true that the document in question
was titled as "agreement to lease" but
since no proprietary rights had been
transferred in favour of the petitioner
and only the possession had been
handed over to the petitioner with
permission to raise construction along
with a large number of stipulations and
conditions as well as contingencies on
the occurrence of which, even the
agreement itself could be terminated,
and also the fact that a further provision
had
been
made
in
the
said
document/agreement for execution of