# Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow Thru Pradhan Devendra Pal Verma & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 9 ILRA 690
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-09-18
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 3418 of 2022
- **Bench:** Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arya-pratinidhi-sabha-lucknow-thru-pradhan-devendra-pal-verma-anr-v-state-of-u-52508
- **Pages:** 36

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860- Sections 4-B & 25 - Election dispute
- genuine and bona fide dispute regarding
the
election
of
the
committee
of
management -Deputy Registrar is not to
act as a rubber stamp authority. Deputy
Registrar is required to apply his judicial
mind to the facts and circumstances to
determine whether there is any genuine
and bona fide dispute regarding the
election of the committee of management
or relating to the continuance in office of
any office bearer of such committee - In
order to thwart a duly elected committee,
few erring members can create rival
elections and stake a claim before the
Registrar. In such a situation, if the
9 All. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow Thru Pradhan Devendra Pal Verma & Anr. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
691
Registrar, merely noticing that there are
multiple claims, refers such disputes to
the Prescribed Authority in a mechanical
manner, it may have an adverse impact on
a duly elected committee. To avoid such a
situation, it is required that the Deputy
Registrar, even if referring the matter to
the Prescribed Authority, must apply his
mind to ensure that the complaints before
him actually reflect some bona fide
dispute relating to the elections before
referring the matter to the Prescribed
Authority for adjudication. (Para 98, 100,
111, 114)

B.
Societies
Registration
Act,
1860-
Section 25 - Issue of membership - The
Prescribed Authority, while dealing with
an issue of an election, can, as an ancillary
issue, examine, determine, and adjudicate
the issue of membership, as it would
impact the electoral college and affect
whether
there
has
been
a
rightful
reception of votes or the denial of a bona
fide vote, which would influence the result
of the election. (Para 97)

C.
Societies
Registration
Act,
1860,
Sections 4-B &. 25 - Election dispute - In
the instant case, the impugned order
passed by the Deputy Registrar was
completely bereft of reasoning. There was
no finding as to whether the conflicting
claims had some basis to refer the matter
to the Prescribed Authority. Whether the
claim, prima facie, made by the four
warring factions had any substance should
have been noticed at the threshold. It
should
have
been
initially
examined
whether there was compliance with the
bye-laws in holding the alleged elections
to test the veracity of the elections
claimed by the four warring factions, only
for the purpose of satisfying itself whether
there was a bona fide dispute or not.
(Para 98, 111, 114)

Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,491 of 121,282. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39491 for what follows._

690 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before whom the petition was presented
may himself not be available. Thirdly,
once there is an adjudication of the
Election petition on merits, then, it will
be highly inequitable to allow such a plea
or objection to be raised at the
Revisional level or before the High Court
under Section 226 of the Constitution,
especially when, the Election Petition has
succeeded. It will therefore have to be
treated as waived, as has been held in
Devendra Yadav's case (supra)."

17. In the instant matter, the objection
regarding presentation of the election
petition has admittedly not been raised
during
trial
before
the
Prescribed
Authority, accordingly, the issue was not
framed before the Prescribed Authority.
The objection regarding presentation of the
election petition for the first time has been
taken in revision after conclusion of trial by
the Prescribed Authority by which the
election petition was allowed and the
election of the petitioner was held to be
void.

18. In view of the ratio of law laid
down by the Full Bench of this Court in
Sumitra Devi (supra), there is no illegality
in
the
impugned
order
passed
by
respondent no.3/Prescribed Authority/Sub
Divisional Magistrate.

19. The writ petition is dismissed.

20. Interim order granted earlier by
this
Court
on
6.8.2024
by
which
declaration of election result was stayed,
stands vacated.

21. No order as to costs.

22. The Registrar (Compliance) is
directed to communicate this order to
respondent
no.5/District
Election
Officer/District Collector, District Rampur,
forthwith.
----------
(2024) 9 ILRA 690
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED LUCKNOW 18.09.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Writ - C No. 3418 of 2022
With
Writ - C No. 14794 of 2021

Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow Thru
Pradhan Devendra Pal Verma & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Lalta Prasad Misra, Sri Atul Kumar
Dwivedi, Sri Vineet Bihari Patel

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, Maria Fatima,
Sri Nadeem Murtaza, Sri Nakul Pathak, Sri
Ratnesh Chandra, Sri Santosh Kumar
Tripathi, Sri Sharad Dwivedi, Sonal Bajpai

A. Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860- Sections 4-B & 25 - Election dispute
- genuine and bona fide dispute regarding
the
election
of
the
committee
of
management -Deputy Registrar is not to
act as a rubber stamp authority. Deputy
Registrar is required to apply his judicial
mind to the facts and circumstances to
determine whether there is any genuine
and bona fide dispute regarding the
election of the committee of management
or relating to the continuance in office of
any office bearer of such committee - In
order to thwart a duly elected committee,
few erring members can create rival
elections and stake a claim before the
Registrar. In such a situation, if the
9 All. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow Thru Pradhan Devendra Pal Verma & Anr. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
691
Registrar, merely noticing that there are
multiple claims, refers such disputes to
the Prescribed Authority in a mechanical
manner, it may have an adverse impact on
a duly elected committee. To avoid such a
situation, it is required that the Deputy
Registrar, even if referring the matter to
the Prescribed Authority, must apply his
mind to ensure that the complaints before
him actually reflect some bona fide
dispute relating to the elections before
referring the matter to the Prescribed
Authority for adjudication. (Para 98, 100,
111, 114)

B.
Societies
Registration
Act,
1860-
Section 25 - Issue of membership - The
Prescribed Authority, while dealing with
an issue of an election, can, as an ancillary
issue, examine, determine, and adjudicate
the issue of membership, as it would
impact the electoral college and affect
whether
there
has
been
a
rightful
reception of votes or the denial of a bona
fide vote, which would influence the result
of the election. (Para 97)

C.
Societies
Registration
Act,
1860,
Sections 4-B &. 25 - Election dispute - In
the instant case, the impugned order
passed by the Deputy Registrar was
completely bereft of reasoning. There was
no finding as to whether the conflicting
claims had some basis to refer the matter
to the Prescribed Authority. Whether the
claim, prima facie, made by the four
warring factions had any substance should
have been noticed at the threshold. It
should
have
been
initially
examined
whether there was compliance with the
bye-laws in holding the alleged elections
to test the veracity of the elections
claimed by the four warring factions, only
for the purpose of satisfying itself whether
there was a bona fide dispute or not.
(Para 98, 111, 114)

Allowed. (E-5)
List of Cases cited:
1. C/M, Raja Tej Singh Vidyalaya & anr. Vs
D.I.O.S., Mainpuri & ors., (2002) 2 UPLBEC 993;
2. T.P. Singh Vs Registrar/Assistant Registrar
Firms, Chits & Societies, (2019) 37 LCD 186;

3. C/M, Shri Swami Vivekanand Madhyamik
Vidyalaya Vs St. of U.P., (2015) 33 LCD 2383

4. C/M, Kisan Siksha Sadan Bakshi District Basti
Vs Assistant Registrar Firms, Chits & Societies,
Gorakhpur, (1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242.

5. Mani Mandir Sewa Nyas Samiti, Ayodhya Vs
Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, (2014) 32
LCD 1857;

6. Chris Church MeConaghy School Society Vs
Registrar Firms, Societies & Chits, (2015) 33
LCD 2454;

7. Shri Ram Laxmi Narayan Marwadi Hindu
Hospital, Varanasi - 23 - Vs Assistant
Registrar Firms, Societies & Chits, (2000) 3
UPLBEC 2063;

8. Umesh Chandra & ors. Vs Mahila Vidyalaya
Society & ors., (2006) 24 LCD 1373;

9. Ayaaub Khan Noor Khan Pathan Vs St. of
Maharashtra & ors., (2013) 4 SCC 465

10. Literacy House Staff Welfare Asso. & ors. Vs
Registrar Firms, Societies & Chits, U.P. & ors.,
(2006) 29 LCD 1439

11. C/M, Jay Ram Verma Kisan Siksha Samiti Vs
U.P. Zilaadhikari/Prescribed Authority, Ambedkar
Nagar passed in Writ Petition No.2203 (M/S)
2015, decided on 18.04.2016;

12. C/M, Unchahar Madhyamic Vidyalaya,
Nevadiya Vs St. of U.P. & ors., passed in
WRIT-C
No.1492/2020,
decided
on
25.02.2020

13. Indrajit Barua & ors. Vs Election Commission
of India, (1985) 4 SCC 722

14. Commissioner Karnataka Housing Board Vs
C. Muddaiah, (2007) 7 SCC 689

15. Committee of Management Shri Vidur Sewa
Ashram & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & 4 other, 2018 (5)
ADJ 717
692 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
16.

Kishan
National
Education
Trust,
Pratapgarh & anr. Vs Prescribed Authority
(S.D.M.)
&
ors.,
WRIT-C
No.23628/2014,
decided on 14.09.2018

17. C/M Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj & anr.
Vs St. of U.P. & ors., Special Appeal Defective
No.1286/2013, decided on 18.12.2013

18. C/M Al-Jamiatul Ghausiaarabic College
Samiti Utraula & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2017(35) 2018 LCD 2080

19. Prabhu Narayan Union Club & anr. Vs St. of
U.P. and 3 others, WRIT-C No.10742/2020,
decided on 15.10.2020

20. C/M Baba Prem Das Junior High School
through Manager & ors. Vs Registrars, Firms,
Societies & Chits & ors., Writ Petition No.28607
(M/S) of 2021, decided on 07.12.2021

21. Sarv U.P. Gramin Bank Vs Manoj Kumar
Sinha, (2010) 3 SCC 556

22. Surendra Kumar Verma Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2002 SCC OnLine All 188

23. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat & ors. Vs Director,
Health Services, Haryana & ors., (2013) 10 SCC
136

24. Mathevan Padmanabhan @ Ponnan (Dead)
through LRs Vs Parmeshwaran Thampi & ors.,
1995 Suppl (1) SCC 479

25.Ajai Kumar Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Special
Appeal No.337 of 2022 dated 10.08.2022

26.The committee of management Shri Vidhur
Sewa Ashram & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2018
(5) ADJ 717

27. Cyril Lasrado (Dead) by LRs & anr. Vs
Juliana Maria Lasrado & anr., (2004) 7 SCC 431,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. The instant two petitions have been
filed by Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, a society
registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860 (for short, "the Act of 1860")
having its registered office at 5, Meerabai
Marg, Lucknow. However, in both the
petitions, the society is represented by
different officer bearers inasmuch as in
WRIT-C No.3418/2022, it is represented
by its alleged President Shri Devendra Pal
Verma, who is the petitioner No.2 whereas
in
WRIT-C
No.14794/2021,
it
is
represented through its Secretary namely
Shri Bhuwan Tiwari, who is impleaded as
petitioner No.2, therein.

2. There is an internal conflict
relating to the management of the society
and as such four set of factions have
claimed rights on the basis of four separate
alleged elections. One faction has set up
their rights on the basis of an election said
to have been held on 21.03.2021 wherein
Shri Devendra Pal Verma is said to have
been elected as a President, who has filed
WRIT-C
No.3418/2022.
The
second
faction is led by Shri Bhuwan Tiwari, who
has filed WRIT-C No.14794/2021 wherein
he claims rights on the basis of his election
allegedly held on 20.02.2021. The third
faction is led by Shri Vivek Singh, who
alleges that his election was held on
07.03.2021, though Shri Vivek Singh is not
a party in WRIT-C No.14794/2021 but he
is impleaded as respondent No.5 in WRITC No.3418/2022. The fourth faction is led
by Shri Ram Ratan Chaturvedi, who claims
rights on the basis of an alleged election
dated 27.11.2021. Shri Chaturvedi has not
been
impleaded
in
WRIT-C
No.14794/2021, but he is respondent No.6
in WRIT-C No.3418/2022.

3. Since, contesting parties are all
represented in WRIT-C No.3418/2022 and
it encompasses all the warring factions,
hence,
this
Court
for
the
sake
of
convenience shall consider and refer to the
9 All. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow Thru Pradhan Devendra Pal Verma & Anr. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
693
parties as they are impleaded in WRIT-C
No.3418/2022. The issue involved in both
the petitions is common, hence, by
deciding the controversy in terms of
WRIT-C No.3418/2022, it shall also
dispose
of
WRIT-C
No.14794/2021.
Accordingly, both the petitions are being
decided by this common judgment.

4. The faction led by Shri
Devendra Pal Verma, the petitioner of
WRIT-C No.3418/2022 is represented by
Dr. L.P. Misra and Shri Atul Kumar
Dwivedi, learned counsel. The faction of
Bhuwan Tiwari is represented by Shri
Ratnesh Chandra, who is the counsel for
the petitioner in the connected WRIT-C
No.14794/2021. The third faction led by
Shri Vivek Singh, who is respondent No.5
and is represented by Shri Nadeem
Murtaza, Advocate and the fourth faction
led by Shri Ram Ratan Chaturvedi, who is
respondent No.6, is represented by Shri
Gaurav Mehtrotra, Advocate.

5. Under challenge in WRIT-C
No.3418/2022 is the order passed by the
respondent No.2 dated 23.04.2022 whereby
the Deputy Registrar, Society, Chit and
Fund, Lucknow Region has referred the
matter to the Prescribed Authority in terms
of Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860. While
doing so, the Deputy Registrar noticed that
four separate factions have set up their own
separate elections and in terms of the
legislative
prescription,
the
Deputy
Registrar is mandated to refer the matter to
the Prescribed Authority who is the
competent authority to decide the validity
of the rival elections set up by the four
separate factions.

6. In the connected WRIT-C
No.14794/2021 which was filed prior in
time to the WRIT-C No.3418/2022, a
challenge has been made to the order
impugned and said to have been passed by
the Deputy Registrar registering the list of
Members of Managing Committee of the
Society in context with an election
allegedly held on 26.03.2021 wherein Shri
Devendra Pal Verma (who is the petitioner
No.2 in WRIT-C No.3418/2022) was
elected as the President and a further prayer
has been made to register the names of the
Committee Members of the faction led by
Bhuwan Tiwari in pursuance of the election
said to have been held on 20.02.2021.

7. This ongoing litigation between
the warring factions has a chequered and a
long drawn history. Several writ petitions
have been filed and were decided by this
Court from time to time. In order to
appreciate the controversy involved in the
instant two petitions, it will be worthwhile
to take a glimpse in the past through the
background facts:-

BACKGROUND FACTS

8. Historically, Arya Samaj was
founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in
the year 1875 with the prime objective to
promote
social,
spiritual,
cultural
upliftment of the society. The aforesaid
Arya Samaj has a four tier composition
namely (i) Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidi
Sabha (ii) Pradeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha
(iii) Zila Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (iv) Arya
Samaj Units.

9. The Arya Pratinidhi Sabha was
formed in the State of Uttar Pradesh on
03.07.1987 and was duly registered under
the provisions of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. The Arya Pratinidhi Sabha has
its own registered bye-laws which regulate
and governs the functioning of the Society.
The bye-laws also define the constitution of
694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and further
elucidates the powers and duties of the
General Body, the Governing Body as well
as the office bearers of the Governing
Body. The registered office of Arya
Pratinidhi Sabha is situate at Narayan
Swami Ashram at 5 Meera Bai Marg,
Lucknow.

10. There are approximately 300
units of Arya Samaj spread over the various
districts within the State of Uttar Pradesh
which constitutes the electoral units of the
Arya Pratinidh Sabha to elect its general
body. The General Body of the Arya
Pratinidh Sabha elects its own Governing
body which is known as 'Antrang Sabha'.
The Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha at
New Delhi has its own rules which are
known as Rules-Sub Rules of Arya Samaj.
The aforesaid rules are binding over every
Arya Samaj Unit which is affiliated with
the Pradeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha.

11. The last undisputed elections
of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha was held on
27.03.2016. Term of the said Committee of
governing body was of 5 years and it
expired
on
26.03.2021.
In
the
last
undisputed election, a Committee of 90
Members was constituted wherein Shri
Devendra Pal Verma was elected as the
President while one Dr. Dheeraj Singh
(now deceased and in the instant context he
belonged to the faction of the privaterespondent No.6 namely Ram Ratan
Chaturvedi).

12. It is soon after the election on
27.03.2016 that the disputes emerged and
certain
charges
were
leveled
against
Devendra Pal Verma and the Deputy
Registrar vide his order dated 09.11.2016
restrained Shri Verma from performing his
duties as the President of Arya Pratinidhi
Sabha and by the said order charge was
handed over to Dr. Dheeraj Singh.

13. Shri Devendra Pal Verma
preferred a writ petition before this Court at
Lucknow bearing Writ Petition No.10563
(MS) of 2017. In the meantime, the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits passed
an order dated 16.01.2017 whereby the
charge which was given to Dr. Dhiraj Singh
was modified as a result the charge was now
directed to be given to Smt. Gayatri Dixit.

14. Now, it was the turn of Dr.
Dhiraj Singh to prefer a Writ Petition bearing
No. 1829 (MS) of 2017 wherein he assailed
the order dated 16.01.2017 bye means of
which the charge of the Pradhan which was
given to him was directed to be handed over
now to Smt. Gayatri Dixit.

15. During this period, another
interesting event took place, inasmuch as, the
General Body of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha
by means of its Resolution dated 26.03.2017
expelled Shri Devendra Pal Verma from the
post of President as well as from the
membership of the Society for a period of 6
years for various irregularities committed and
as the actions of Shri Verma were not found
to be in the interest of the Society.

16. Shri Devendra Pal Verma
preferred a complaint before the Deputy
Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits against
the said Resolution dated 26.03.2017 and
challenging
his
expulsion
from
the
membership of the Society upon which the
Deputy Registrar by means of its order
dated 30.03.2017 stayed the proceedings
and the operation of the resolution dated
26.03.2017.

17. Dr. Dhiraj Singh preferred
another writ petition bearing Writ Petition
9 All. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow Thru Pradhan Devendra Pal Verma & Anr. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
695
No.7613 (M/S) of 2017 assailing the order
passed by the Deputy Registrar dated
30.03.2017 staying the resolution dated
26.03.2017 by which Shri Devendra Pal
Verma was expelled.

18. Again in a meeting of the
Governing Body held on 23.07.2017, the
petitioner Dr. Dhiraj Singh was elected as
Pradhan for the remaining term up to
26.03.2021 and in the same meeting the
membership of Smt. Gayatri Dixit was also
terminated on the ground that she was
ineligible for membership in terms of
Clause 2 (e) (b) (1) and (2) of the bye-laws.
19. Now, Smt. Gayatri Dixit filed
a complaint dated 25.07.2019 before the
Deputy Registrar against the decision
terminating her membership taken by the
Governing Body in the meeting held on
23.07.2017.

20. All the three petitions bearing
Writ Petition No.1829 (MS) of 2017, Writ
Petition No.10563 (MS) of 2017 and Writ
Petition No.7613 (MS) of 2017 were
clubbed together and decided by means of
order dated 30.07.2019. As a result, the
orders impugned in the aforesaid three writ
petitions were set aside and the matter was
remitted to the Deputy Registrar, Firm
Societies and Chits to decide the matter
afresh and till such decisions, the parties
were directed to maintain status-quo. The
relevant portion of the said order dated
30.07.2019 passed by this Court on the
three clubbed petitions, is being reproduced
hereinafter.

 "4. So far as impugned orders
dated
09.11.2016,
16.01.2017and
30.03.2017 are concerned, counsels for
both the parties agree that the aforesaid
order may be set aside. However, the issue
as to whether Shri Devendra Pal Verma is
entitled to hold any post in the society or
not be left to be reproduced decided after
decision of the Deputy Registrar with
regard to reproduced membership.

 5. In view of aforesaid, following
order is being passed:-

 (i) The impugned orders dated
09.11.2016, 16.01.2017 and 30.03.2017 are
set aside.

 (ii) All the parties may approach
the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Lucknow within a period of two
week
from
today
raising
all
their
submissions including with regard to
membership of Shri Devendra Pal Verma
and Smt. Gaytri Dixit. The said matters
shall be decided by the Deputy Registrar by
a
reasoned
and
speaking
order,
in
accordance with law, after hearing all the
parties concerned, within a period of two
months from the date a certified copy of
this order is placed before him.

 (iii) It is provided that authority
of Shri Devendra Pal Verma to hold any
post including the post of president in the
society will depend upon the final order
passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Lucknow with regard
to membership.

 (iv) Till final decision of the
Deputy Registrar, parties shall maintain
status-quo.

 6. With the aforesaid, all these
writ petitions are disposed of."

21. In furtherance and as per the
directions given by this Court in its
judgment dated 30.07.2019, the Deputy
Registrar called upon the parties concerned
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to file their respective pleadings and
submissions.

22. While the matter was still
pending before the Deputy Registrar, in the
meantime, the elected Secretary of the
Society namely Swami Dharmeshwaranand
Saraswati expired on 23.10.2019.

23. Soon thereafter, the Deputy
Registrar after considering the submissions
and the pleadings of the respective parties
passed its final order dated 02.11.2019. By
means of the said order, the Deputy Registrar,
Firms Societies and Chits, did not find any
error in the Resolution expelling Shri
Devendra
Pal
Verma
as
his
primary
Membership had been terminated. It also
noted that Smt. Gayatri Dixit had already
submitted that her termination has already
been revoked, thus, no further adjudication
was required on her representation/complaint,
hence, in effect the order dated 02.11.2019
primarily focused on the issue of the expulsion
of Shri Devendra Pal Verma and the same was
upheld by the Deputy Registrar.

24. Shri Devendra Pal Verma
assailed the said order dated 02.11.2019 by
means of Writ Petition No.4515 (MS) of
2020. He also assailed the consequential
order dated 07.11.2019 whereby the list of
office bearers as submitted by Dr. Dhiraj
Singh was registered by the Deputy Registrar.

25. Dr. Dhiraj Singh in capacity as
President circulated an agenda calling for
the meeting of the Society to be convened
on 01.12.2019 primarily to fill up the post
of the Secretary of the Society which had
fallen vacant on account of death of Shri
Dharmeshwara Nand Saraswati.

26. The meeting of the Governing
Body was held on 01.12.2019, however, no
business was transacted and after offering
due condolences on account of demise of
late Shri Dharmeshwara Nand Saraswati,
the meeting of the Governing Body was
adjourned for 15.12.2019.

27. In the meeting held on
15.12.2019 for the purposes of filling up
the vacancy of the Secretary, the names of
the Deputy Secretaries were discussed and
Shri Gyanendra Singh's candidature was
discussed and by majority he was found
suitable
and
was
nominated
as
the
Secretary of the Society.

28. The nomination of Shri
Gyanendra Singh as Secretary of the
Society was duly ratified by the other office
bearers including the Treasurar and the
President. The said Resolution was also
communicated to the Bank where the
Society held its accounts attesting the
signatures of Shri Gyanendra Singh. The
nomination of Shri Gyanendra Singh as
Secretary was also duly published in the
Hindi weekly news letter "Arya Mitra"
published by the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha for
wide circulation and information to all
members and persons concerned.

29. On 28.12.2019, the petitioner
Dr. Dhiraj Singh also sent a copy of the
Minutes of the meeting dated 15.12.2019,
the agenda dated 05.11.2019 as well as
information regarding nomination of Shri
Gyanendra Singh as the Secretary of the
Society to the Deputy Registrar.

30. One Shri Vishal Singh in his
representation/complaint dated 03.01.2020
depicted
himself
as
the
Officiating
Secretary of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. It
was alleged by him that though he was the
Deputy Secretary but upon the death of
Shri Dharmeshwara Nand Saraswati, he
9 All. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow Thru Pradhan Devendra Pal Verma & Anr. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
697
automatically
became
the
officiating
Secretary of the Society, hence, the entire
proceedings initiated by the meeting dated
01.12.2019, 15.12.2019 as well as the
Agenda dated 05.11.2019 issued by Dr.
Dhiraj Singh was unlawful and void.

31. Shri Vishal Singh also
complained to the Deputy Registrar that
upon the death of Shri Dharmeshwara
Nand Saraswati, the post of Secretary was
lying vacant and as such directions be
issued for calling upon a meeting for filling
up the post of the Secretary in due
accordance with the rules and bye-laws of
the Society.

32.

Upon
the
representation/complaint of Shri Vishal
Singh, the Deputy Registrar passed an
order dated 09.01.2020 addressed to Dr.
Dhiraj Singh and directed him to call for a
meeting of the "Antrang Sabha" of Arya
Pratinidhi Sabha and fill the post of
Secretary in accordance with the bye-laws
and within 15 days inform the Deputy
Registrar of it.

33. Dr. Dhiraj Singh upon
receiving the said notice/order dated
09.01.2020 submitted a detailed reply
before the Deputy Registrar on 17.01.2020
informing him of the entire exercise
undertaken for nominating the Secretary
and that Shri Gyanendra Singh had already
been appointed as the Secretary. It was also
informed that the minutes of the meeting
and other relevant documents were already
submitted before the Deputy Registrar on
28.12.2019. It was also stated that Shri
Vishal Singh who had attended the meeting
dated 15.12.2019 wherein his candidature
was considered but as the majority found him
unsuitable as he was holding a post with the
State Government, hence, all these facts had
been concealed by Shri Vishal Singh and he
has mislead the Deputy Registrar to issue the
said order dated 09.01.2020. Hence, it was
prayed that the order dated 09.01.2020 be
recalled.

34. Shri Vishal Singh in his alleged
attempt to usurp control of the Society moved
another representation/complaint before the
Deputy Registrar alleging that the meeting
called by Dr. Dhiraj Singh as President on
01.12.2019, 15.12.2019, 02.02.2020 and
14.03.2020 were void and impermissible and
the same may not be accepted or given effect
to. Shri Vishal Singh levelled various
allegations against Dr. Dhiraj Singh that few
members and office bearers had also filed
affidavits raising a protest against Dr. Dhiraj
Singh and a meeting of the Governing Body
be called, to be supervised by the Deputy
Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits.

35. Once the Deputy Registrar
received complaint dated 31.01.2020, he
issued another letter to Dr. Dhiraj Singh on
01.02.2020 calling upon Dr. Dhiraj Singh to
submit his reply.

36. Shri Dhiraj Singh informed that in
the meeting dated 02.02.2020 vide Resolution
No. 11, Shri Vishal Singh was expelled from the
membership as well as from the post of Deputy
Secretary. Shri Vishal Singh did not challenge
the said decision dated 02.02.2020 regarding his
expulsion, however, in order to browbeat, he
issued an illegal agenda on 03.02.2020 while
ante-dating the same to 30.01.2020 for
convening a meeting on 16.02.2020 at the head
office of the Society at Lucknow mainly for
considering a 'No Confidence Motion' against
Dr. Dhiraj Singh and also for filling up the
vacancy for the post of Secretary.

37. As in the alleged meeting
dated 02.02.2020 the Governing Body of
698 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Society had expelled Shri Vishal Singh,
hence, Dr. Dhiraj Singh also sent another
amended list of members to the Deputy
Registrar on 05.02.2020. Shri Vishal Singh
by means of his letter dated 14.02.2020
addressed to the Registrar sought an
Observer for supervising the alleged
meeting
slated
for
16.02.2020.
The
Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits by
means of his order dated 14.02.2020 and
addressed to the Assistant Registrar required
the Assistant Registrar to do the needful for
appointing an Observer for the meeting dated
16.02.2020. In furtherance thereof the Deputy
Registrar informed the Registrar that as per
his request from Deputy Registrar, Faizabad,
Deputy
Registrar,
Kanpur
,
Assistant
Registrar, Azamgarh and Assistant Registrar,
Gorakhpur anyone may be appointed as the
Observer.
Accordingly,
the
Assistant
Registrar,
Firms
Societies
and
Chits,
Azamgarh was appointed as Observer under
whose
supervision
the
meeting
dated
16.02.2020 was to be held.

38. As per Dr. Dhiraj Singh on the
alleged date 16.02.2020 on account of
commotion and ruckus created by the
members at the behest of Shri Vishal
Singh, the meeting could not take place, so
much so, that the head office of the Society
was locked by the police and the Observer
so appointed also noticed the same while
submitting its report to the Registrar that no
meeting was held for the said reason.

39. As per Shri Vishal Singh, the
meeting took place on 16.02.2020 and a
resolution was passed by means of which
the President Dr. Dhiraj Singh was
removed as the No Confidence Motion was
passed successfully by the members.

40. It is in furtherance thereof that
the alleged list of office bearers was
submitted by Shri Vishal Singh before the
Deputy Registrar on 17.03.2020 upon
which the Deputy Registrar passed an order
dated 19.03.2020 directing the said list to
be registered.

41. It is this order dated
19.03.2020 which was assailed by the Dr.
Dhiraj Singh in Writ Petition No. 9735
(MS) of 2020 as well as the consequential
order dated 20.03.2020 by means of which
amended list of office bearers of the
Governing Body of the Society has been
registered for the year 2019-2020.

42. In light of the aforesaid
disputes, this Court by means of its detailed
judgment and order dated 07.06.2021
allowed the petition filed by Dr. Dheeraj
Singh and dismissed the petition filed by
Shri Devendra Pal Verma.

43. The order passed by this Court
dated 07.06.2021 was made the subject
matter of a Special Appeal No.217/2021
wherein the Division Bench of this Court
by means of the judgment and order dated
01.07.2021 disposed of the special appeal
with the following observations, which
have been reproduced hereinafter for ready
reference.

 "Mr. Gaurav Mehrotra, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent
no.1 has taken the Court to the judgment
under challenge, particularly paragraph 117
to point out that the matter has been
remitted by learned Single Judge to the
Deputy Registrar with a direction that
Deputy Registrar shall after affording full
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned, shall reconsider the entire
matter in the light of the observations made
in the order, which may not be taken as an
expression on merit of the case and on the
9 All. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow Thru Pradhan Devendra Pal Verma & Anr. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
699
basis of material on record decide the
matter afresh on merit by passing a
reasoned and speaking order, strictly in
accordance with law, preferably within four
months from the date an authenticated copy
of the judgment is placed before the
authority concerned."

44. Shri Devendra Pal Verma had
also filed a Civil Misc. Review Application
No.94/2021 against the judgment of this
Court dated 07.06.2021 passed in WRIT-C
No.4315 of 2020 whereby the petition of
Shri Verma had been dismissed.

45. Initially the said review
petition was also clubbed with the instant
petitions, however, a request had been
made that the review petition be decided
first in point of time before considering
these two petitions. Accordingly, after
hearing the parties on review, this Court by
means of the order dated 16.08.2023
dismissed the review application and the
relevant portion thereof reads as under:-

 "23. Considering the aforesaid
submissions which though on the first
blush may sound attractive but there are
certain chinks in the said armour of
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the review-petitioner which are noticed
as under:-

 (a) It is not disputed that by
means of order dated 30.07.2019, the order
dated 09.11.2016 along with orders dated
06.01.2017 and 30.03.2017 were set aside
by a coordinate Bench of this Court on 30th
July, 2019. Thus, apparently, since then the
order dated 09.11.2016 ceased to exist, but
at the same time, the coordinate Bench in
its order dated 30.07.2019 had directed the
parties to maintain status-quo and had
directed the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Lucknow to decide all
issues including the issue of membership of
Devendra Pal Verma as well as his
authority to hold a post in Arya Pratinidhi
Sabha.

 (b) What is significant to note is
that after the order passed by this Court on
30.07.2019 and while the matter was seized
by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies
and Chits, Lucknow who was conducting
the hearings in light of the directions issued
by this Court on 30.07.2019. It was also
brought to his notice that the primary
membership of Devendra Pal Verma had
been
terminated
in
meeting
dated
24.07.2019 (prior to the order passed by a
coordinate Bench of this Court dated
30.07.2019). This is perhaps the reason that
the coordinate Bench while issuing the
directions in its order dated 30.07.2019
categorically provided that the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Lucknow
would
consider
all
issues
regarding the membership of Sri Devendra
Pal Verma and the issue whether Devendra
Pal Verma would have the authority to hold
any post of President in the Society would
depend on the final orders to be passed by
the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Lucknow. It is for the said reason
that till the final decision of the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Lucknow, the parties were directed to
maintain status-quo.

 (c) The very fact that if a person
looses his primary membership in a District
Arya Samaj then he is not entitled to hold a
post in the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha which is
the apex body. Thus, once the primary
membership of Devendra Pal Verma had
been terminated on 24.07.2019, hence, he
could not be permitted to hold the post of
President and all these issues were yet to be
700 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decided by the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Lucknow, accordingly,
the Court had safeguarded the rights of the
respective parties by directing them to
maintain status-quo.

 (d) Admittedly, the order dated
30.07.2019 has not been set aside nor
challenged rather it was acceeded to by the
parties who participated in the proceedings
before
the
Deputy
Registrar,
Firms,
Societies and Chits, Lucknow. It is in the
aforesaid factual backdrop, the issue before
the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Lucknow was two fold;

 (i) the correctness of removal of
Devendra Pal verma in pursuance of the
order dated 09.11.2016 which had been set
aside and its effect;

 (ii) the removal of Devendra Pal
Verma from the primary membership of
Arya Samaj, Muzaffarnagar on 24.07.2019
and its effect.

 (e) Taking a complete view of the
matter including the various pleadings and
contentions, the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Lucknow by a detailed
order
dated
02.11.2019
rejected
the
representation of Sri Devendra Pal Verma.
This was challenged in W.P. No. 4515
(MS)
of
2020.
This
Court
while
considering W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020
was required to adjudge the correctness of
the order dated 02.11.2019 and 07.11.2019
in exercise of its power of judicial review.
It may be reminded that this Court does not
act as an Appellate Authority. Taking the
consideration and looking into the facts
which were brought before the Deputy
Registrar,
Firms,
Societies
and
Chits,
Lucknow at the relevant point of time when
the order was passed, this Court concluded
that no error could be found in the order
passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Lucknow, therefore to
that extent this Court does not find that there
is any merit in the submissions of the learned
counsel for the review-petitioners in so far as
they have tried to link up the entire issue of
membership with that of the order dated
09.11.2016.

 (f) In so far as the issue raised
regarding the restoration of the membership
of Devendra Pal Verma is concerned, it
would be found that the primary membership
of Devendra Pal Verma was terminated on
24.07.2019, as noticed above, prior to the
order
dated
30.07.2019.
The
reviewpetitioner in his rejoinder affidavit dated
18.03.2021 in paragraphs 10 to 14 stated that
the Arya Samaj, Muzaffarnagar has reversed
the resolution dated 24.07.2019 and has
restored the primary membership of the
review-petitioner by means of resolution
dated 19.07.2020 and this resolution has
further been affirmed by the Arya Pratinidhi
Sabha on 26.09.2020. It will also be relevant
to notice that these two orders regarding
restoration of primary membership is post
order dated 02.11.2019 and thus this could
not have been taken as a ground to hold that
the order dated 02.11.2019 passed by the the
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Lucknow was bad. Nevertheless, the Court
was cautious of this fact and already in
paragraph 129, 130 and 131 of the judgment
dated 07th June, 2021, it recorded its
observations that if the membership of
Devendra Pal Verma has been restored, the
same will have its own consequences and
since that was not the subject matter before
the Court then, hence, it refrained from
making any observations in respect thereto.

24. Thus, any apprehension as
allayed by the review-petitioner on this
9 All. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow Thru Pradhan Devendra Pal Verma & Anr. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
701
count is also misfounded as it is well
settled that an impugned order and in this
case the order dated 02.11.2019 and
07.11.2019 were to be adjudged by this
Court on the basis of material before it and
the order impugned could not have been
improved upon merely on the basis of some
subsequent events. However, the fact
remains that even if at all the membership
has been restored, it still is open for the
review-petitioner to participate in the
proceedings and raise his objections on the
strength of the same and the same would be
considered but it cannot be said that the
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Lucknow while passing the order
dated 02.11.2019 had committed any error.

 25. It is also another aspect to be
noted that a membership of a person can be
terminated for a limited time and once the
membership is restored, he gains back his
status from the date of restoration but that
does not mean that the order dated
02.11.2019 was bad since the order by
which the membership was terminated
dated 24.07.2019 was actually never
challenged seriously, by Sri Devendra Pal
Verma, before any appropriate competent
forum. Thus, taking care of the aforesaid
situation,
the
Court
had
made
the
observations
as
noticed
above
and,
therefore, to that extent, the submission of
learned counsel for the review-petitioner
does not find favour with the Court.

 26. Lastly, what has been argued
that the effect of elections which were held
on
21.03.2021
has
also
not
been
appropriately considered by the Court for the
reason that in the order it has been mentioned
that no material was brought on record by the
review-petitioner in its rejoinder affidavit
dated 18.03.2021 whereas the elections were
held only subsequent thereto on 21.03.2021.
This also does not impress the Court for the
reason that for any elections it is not the date
of polling alone which is important since the
review-petitioner had filed his rejoinder
affidavit on 18.03.2021, he could have very
well brought on record certain documents
regarding the notification of elections and
other ancillary documents indicating the
various stages of an election leading up to the
polling but that was not brought on record.

 27. Even otherwise, it will be
noticed that the hearing of the petitions
continued on a number of dates and finally
the matter was reserved as late as on
23.03.2021 and in case if the elections had
been held on 21.03.2021, it was always open
for the review-petitioner to have informed the
Court apart from the fact that despite
assistance sought from the learned Standing
Counsel, he also did not inform the Court and
this has also been recorded in the judgment
dated 07.06.2021.

 28. Thus, for all the aforesaid
reasons, this Court is of the clear view that
the judgment dated 07.06.2021 does not
require a review and the entire endevour
made by the review-petitioner is to get a rehearing on merits which this Court is unable
to persuade itself to permit and nevertheless it
would also be against the settled legal
principles relating to review as this Court
does not find any error apparent on the face
of the record.

 29. For all the aforesaid reasons,
this Court is of the humble opinion that the
instant review-petition is sans merit and is
accordingly dismissed. In the facts and
circumstances, there shall be no order as to
costs. "

46.