# Ashok Verma & Anr v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1372
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-09-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.48536 of 2013
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ashok-verma-anr-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42706
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Societies Registration Act 1960-Section
24(5) and 25 (2)-power of Registrar-during
investigation-it found that for last 5 years
no election took place-not the accounts
were properly checked-by impugned order
appointment of Ad-hoc committee to took
the day by day affairs till formation of new
committee-ousted member by general body
meeting spell out those members of Ad-hoc
committee-held-word
"any
officer
authorized by him"-includes appointment of
Ad-hoc committee in such circumstancesrequires no interference by writ courtresolution
of
management-without
jurisdiction-quashed.

Held: Para-18 & 19

## Text

1372 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
merely for the reason that his name finds
place in the wait list."

7. This Court in taking the aforesaid
view relied upon the decision in Ved
Prakash Tripathi Vs. State of U.P.,
2001(1) ESC 317 and Surinder Singh
and others Vs. State of Punjab & Anr.,
(1997) 8 SCC 488 and held that even a
select list candidate has no indefeasible
right to claim appointment. In para 31 of
the judgment in U.P. Public Service
Commission, Allahabad and Anr. (supra)
this Court has further held as under:

"Moreover, even in the case of a select
list candidate, the law is well settled that such
a candidate has no indefeasible right to claim
appointment merely for the reason that his
name is included in the select list as the State
is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of
the vacancy and it can always be left vacant
or unfilled for a valid reason."

8. In view of the aforesaid law laid
down in Shankarsan Dash (supra) and
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission
Allahabad & Anr. (supra), I am of the
opinion that petitioner has no legal or
statutory right to enforce.

9. The writ petition lacks merit and
it is accordingly dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.48536 of 2013
and W.P. 47944 of 2013

Ashok Verma & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare, Sri Manish Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Irshad Husain
Sri Sanjeev Singh

Societies Registration Act 1960-Section
24(5) and 25 (2)-power of Registrar-during
investigation-it found that for last 5 years
no election took place-not the accounts
were properly checked-by impugned order
appointment of Ad-hoc committee to took
the day by day affairs till formation of new
committee-ousted member by general body
meeting spell out those members of Ad-hoc
committee-held-word
"any
officer
authorized by him"-includes appointment of
Ad-hoc committee in such circumstancesrequires no interference by writ courtresolution
of
management-without
jurisdiction-quashed.

Held: Para-18 & 19
18. Consequently, the Court is of the
opinion that the formation of the adhoc
committee by an order of the Registrar
dated 1st August, 2013 was justified in
the given circumstances, which requires
no interference.

19. The adhoc committee was required
to manage the affairs of the Society on a
day to day basis under the supervision of
the Registrar. The adhoc committee was
not required to take any major decisions
like
expulsion
of
any
permanent
members of the Society. Such resolution
passed
by
the
Committee
of
Management was ex-facie illegal and the
Registrar's
action
in
the
given
circumstances was justified in staying
the said resolution by an order of 20th
August, 2013. The Court finds that the
adhoc committee exercising its power in
expelling its members was wholly illegal
and that the Registrar was competent to
put the clock back and restore the
membership of the expelled members.
3 All] Ashok Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1373
(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Prabhu Narain Union Club,
Varanasi is a society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1960, which
was created with the object of providing
suitable means of social recreation and
feeling of unity, cordiality and sociality
amongst respectable persons of all caste
and creeds. Under the memorandum of
the Association, the term of Committee of
Management is one year.

2. On the basis of a complaint, the
Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies & Chits,
Varanasi issued a letter dated 17th July, 2013
initiating investigation into the affairs of the
Society under Section 24 of the Societies
Registration Act. Upon investigation, the
Assistant Registrar passed an order dated 1st
August, 2013 holding that no election of the
Society was held for the past 5 years, and that
the accounts were not being properly
maintained and that the affairs of the Society
were not being carried out in accordance with
the objects of the Society. The authority,
accordingly, directed that the election of the
Society would be held under its supervision
pending finalization of the members list and
till such time the election was not held, the
Assistant Registrar directed formation of an
adhoc committee to manage the affairs of the
Society on a day to day basis.

3. Based on the said direction, the
adhoc committee took charge and, by an
order dated 14th August, 2013 expelled
certain members from the Society. These
expelled members being aggrieved by the
action of the adhoc committee made a
representation before the Registrar, who by
an order dated 20th August, 2013 stayed the
resolution of the adhoc committee. The
adhoc committee, being aggrieved by the
order of the Assistant Registrar dated 20th
August, 2013 filed Writ Petition No. 47944
of 2013, which was entertained and an
interim order was passed staying the effect of
the order of the Assistant Registrar. As a
result of the interim order, the expelled
members filed Writ Petition No. 48536 of
2013 questioning the order of the Assistant
Registrar dated 1st August, 2013 and the
resolution of the committee of management
date14th August, 2013.

4. Since both the writ petitions are
interconnected and is one of urgency
since in the meanwhile the Assistant
Registrar has fixed 29th September, 2013
for holding the election, the matter is
being decided at the admission stage itself
without calling for a counter affidavit
with the consent of the parties.

5. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Counsel and Sri Manish Singh on
behalf of the expelled members in Writ
Petition No. 48536 of 2013 and Sri
Sanjeev Singh, the learned counsel for the
adhoc committee, who has filed Writ
Petition No. 47944 of 2013 and is
representing the Club in the writ petition
filed by the expelled members.

6. The learned Senior Counsel
contended that the Assistant Registrar while
investigating the affairs of the Society under
Section 24 of the Act had no power to issue
any order for formation of an adhoc
committee. The committee so formed was
wholly illegal and was liable to be set aside.
The learned counsel submitted that the
powers of the Registrar under Section 24(5)
was only to give such direction upon
conclusion of the investigation to remove
any defects or irregularities found in such
investigation or may proceed to take action
under Section 12D or under Section 13B of
the Act, as the case may be, but had no power
1374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
to appoint an adhoc committee. The learned
senior counsel further contended that the
adhoc committee was only appointed to look
after the day to day affairs and was not entitled
to make major decisions such as expelling
members of the Society. The learned counsel
submitted that the action of the adhoc
committee in passing such a resolution was
wholly illegal and unwarranted.

7. On the other hand, the learned
counsel for the adhoc committee supported
the order of the Registrar passed under
Section 24(5) of the Act, contending that it
had all the powers to form an adhoc
committee
for
the
purpose
of
good
governance and that the words "as he may
think fit" was wide enough to include the
power to appoint an adhoc committee. The
learned counsel further submitted that since
the members was not adhering to the notices
sent by the adhoc committee and were
interfering with the affairs of the Society, it
became imperative for the adhoc committee to
issue the expulsion order in accordance with
the bye-laws.

8. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, the Court finds that in
order to settle the issue, it would be
appropriate to have a look at certain
provisions of the Act, namely, Section 24
and Section 25(2) of the Societies
Registration Act as applicable in the State
of Uttar Pradesh. For ready reference,
Section 24 and 25(2) of the Act are
extracted hereunder:

24. Investigation of affairs of a
society. - (1) Where on information
received under section 22 or otherwise, or
in circumstances referred to in sub-section
(3) of section 23, the Registrar is of opinion
that there is apprehension that the affairs of a
society registered under this Act are being so
conducted as to defeat the objects of the
society or that the society or its governing
body, by whatever name called, or any
officer thereof in actual effective control of
the society is guilty of mismanaging its
affairs or of any breach of fiduciary or other
like obligations, the Registrar may, either
himself or by any person appointed by him
in that behalf, inspect or investigate into the
affairs of the society or inspect any
institution managed by the society.

(2) It shall be the duty of every officer
of the society when so required by the
Registrar or other person appointed under
sub section (1) to produce any books of
account and other records of or relating to the
society which are in his custody and to give
him all assistance in connection with such
inspection or investigation.

(3) The Registrar or other person
appointed under sub-section (1) may call
upon and examine on oath any officer,
member or employee of the society in
relation to the affairs of the society and it
shall be the duty of every officer, member
or employees, when called upon, to
appear before him for such examination.

[(3A) The Registrar or other person
appointed under sub-section (1), may, if
in this opinion it is necessary for the
purpose of inspection or investigation,
seize any or all the records including
account books of the society:

Provided that any person from whose
custody such records are seized shall be
entitled to make copies thereof in the
presence of the person having the custody
of such records.]

(4) On the conclusion of the
inspection or investigation, as the case
may be, the person if any appointed by
3 All] Ashok Verma & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1375
the Registrar to inspect or investigate
shall make a report to the Registrar on the
result of his inspection or investigation.

(5) The Registrar may, after such
inspection or investigation, give such
directions to the society or to its
governing body or any officer thereof, as
he may think fit, for the removal of any
defects or irregularities, within which as
may be specified and in the event of
default in taking action according to such
directions, the Registrar may proceed to
take action under section 12D or section
13B, as the case may be.

25. Dispute regarding election of
office-bearers.-

(1) .....................

(2) Where by an order made under subsection (1), an election is set aside or an
office-bearer is held no longer entitled to
continue in office or where the Registrar is
satisfied that any election of office-bearers of
a society has not been held wihtin the time
specified in the rules of that society, he may
call a meeting of the general body of such
society for electing such office-bearer of
office-bearers, and such meeting shall be
presided over and be conducted by the
Registrar or by any officer authorized by him
in this behalf, and the provisions in the rules
of the society relating to meeting and
elections shall apply to such meeting and
election with necessary modifications.

9. A perusal of Section 24 indicates
that the Registrar or any person appointed
by him can suo motu or on a complaint,
investigate into the affairs of the Society
or inspect any institution managed by the
Society. On the conclusion of the inspection
or investigation, the Registrar upon perusal
of such report would give such direction to
the Society or to its governing body or any
officer as he may think fit for the removal of
any defects or irregularities and, in the event
of default in compliance of the directions
given by the Registrar, the Registrar may
proceed to take action under Section 12D or
Section 13B of the Act.

10. Section 12D gives power to the
Registrar to cancel the registration of the
Society in certain circumstances and 13B
gives power for dissolution of the Society
by a Court.

11. Section 25(2) provides that where
the Registrar is satisfied that any election of
the office bearers of the Society has not been
held within the time specified in the rules of
that Society, the Registrar may call a meeting
of the general body of the Society for
electing such officers or office bearers and
such meeting shall be presided over and be
conducted by the Registrar or by any officer
authorized by him in this behalf. Here the
words "or by any officer authorized by him
in this behalf" is of importance which will be
considered hereinafter.

12. From a perusal of the impugned
order dated 1st August, 2013, the Court
finds that it is a composite order of the
Registrar passed under Section 24(5) read
with Section 25(2), namely, that the
affairs of the Society was not being
managed in accordance with the bye-laws
of the Society and that the election had
not been held for a long time.

13. The Registrar, accordingly,
directed appointment of an adhoc committee
to manage the affairs of the Society on a day
to day basis rather than allowing the old
committee to continue and further took upon
itself the task of holding the election.
1376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. During the course of arguments,
the learned counsel for the adhoc
committee submitted that the list of
members has been finalized by the
Registrar and 28th September, 2013 has
been fixed for holding the election.

15. From a perusal of the order of
1st August, 2013, the Registrar had
clearly indicated in the said order for
appointment of an adhoc committee to
manage the day to day affairs till such
time such election of the office bearers of
the Society are not held.

16. In the light of the aforesaid
provisions, and the order of the Registrar
dated 1st August, 2013, the Court finds that
the order of the Registrar dated 1st August,
2013 does not suffer from any manifest error
of law. The Registrar after investigation found
that the affairs of the Society was not being
managed in accordance with the bye-laws of
the Society and was therefore justified in
appointing an adhoc committee and in holding
an election. The order for appointing an adhoc
committee is not an order under Section 24(5)
of the Act but is an order under Section 25(2)
of the Act. The Registrar has taken a decision
to hold an election, and till such time such
election was not held, the Registrar was
competent to conduct the affairs of the society
himself or by any officer authorized by him in
this behalf. The words "any officer authorized
by him" in the given circumstances would
include an ad hoc committee.

17. The purpose of appointing the ad
hoc committee was to remove the outgoing
members of the committee of management
as they were holding the post for several
years and were not conducting the election
in accordance with the bye-laws of the
society. The action taken by the Registrar
was
thus
justified,
in
the
given
circumstances. It would have been a
different matter if the adhoc committee was
allowed to continue and manage the affairs
of the Society, without calling for an
election, but in the instant case, the Court
has been informed that the election would
be held on 28th September, 2013.

18. Consequently, the Court is of the
opinion that the formation of the adhoc
committee by an order of the Registrar
dated 1st August, 2013 was justified in
the given circumstances, which requires
no interference.

19. The adhoc committee was required
to manage the affairs of the Society on a day
to day basis under the supervision of the
Registrar. The adhoc committee was not
required to take any major decisions like
expulsion of any permanent members of the
Society. Such resolution passed by the
Committee of Management was ex-facie
illegal and the Registrar's action in the given
circumstances was justified in staying the
said resolution by an order of 20th August,
2013. The Court finds that the adhoc
committee exercising its power in expelling
its members was wholly illegal and that the
Registrar was competent to put the clock
back and restore the membership of the
expelled members.

20. In the light of the aforesaid, the
order of the Registrar dated 1st August, 2013
appointing an adhoc committee and directing
holding of the election does not suffer from
any error of law. The resolution of the adhoc
committee
dated
14th
August,
2013
expelling its members is patently without
jurisdiction and cannot be sustained and is
quashed. The order of the Assistant Registrar
dated 20th August, 2013 staying the effect of
the resolution dated 14th August, 2013 was
perfectly justified in the given circumstances.
3 All] Smt. Rani Dixit and Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors.
1377

21. In the result, the Writ Petition
No. 48536 of 2013 is partly allowed. The
order dated 1st August, 2013 is affirmed
and the resolution dated 14th August,
2013 passed by the adhoc committee of
management is quashed.

22. The Writ Petition No. 47944 of
2013 is dismissed. Interim order, if any, is
vacated. In the circumstances of the case
parties shall bear their own cost. Let a
certified copy of the order be issued to the
learned counsel for the parties within a
week on payment of usual charges.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.09.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PANKAJ MITHAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.49386 of 2013

Smt. Rani Dixit and Anr. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sanjay Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Art.-226- Petitioners
alleging themselves as husband and wifeseeking protection being major-enterned
into contract of marriage-no where pleaded
regarding
performance
of
marriage
according
to
Hindu
rits
or
marriage
registered under special marriage Act-can
not be given recognition by writ court as
husband and wife-petition dismissed.

Held: Para-12
It has not been pleaded to have been
performed according to any other law in
force governing the marriages between the
Hindus
namely
Arya
Samaj
Marriage
Validation Act etc. No law recognizes
marriage of Hindus through any agreement
or a contract, as marriage amongst the
Hindus is not a contract but a sacrament.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.)

1. Heard leaned counsel for the
petitioners.

2. Petitioners who have jointly filed
this writ petition supported by the
affidavit of petitioner no. 2 have claimed
the following reliefs:-

I. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to take any coercive
action against the petitioners in the
peaceful
matrimonial
life
of
the
petitioners.

II. Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondent's no. 2 and 3 to provide the
security to peacefully matrimonial life of
the petitioners.

III. Issue any suitable order or
direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper under the circumstances of
the case.

IV. Award cost of the petition in
favour of the petitioner."

3. The petitioners in the writ petition
allege that both of them are major and
have entered into a marriage contract on
15.6.2012
before
the
Notary
Commissioner at Civil Court, Hathras.
They are living as husband and wife but
as the parents of petitioner no. 1 have not
liked their decision of marriage, they with
the help of police are interfering in their
married life.