# B.M. Education And Social Institute v. State Of U.P - **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 561 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2025-07-21 - **Case number:** Writ C No. 8282 of 2025 - **Bench:** Manish Kumar Nigam - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/b-m-education-and-social-institute-v-state-of-u-p-53594 - **Pages:** 3 ## Headnote Matter pertains to challenge against the order dated 21.1.2025 passed by the District Judge, Banda, rejecting the application under S. 5A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 declining permission to the society to execute a sale deed of its property on the ground that original resolution and accounts of the society were not placed before the court below. Headnotes Societies Registration Act, 1860 - S.5A - Sale of immovable property of society - Requirement of prior permission of District Judge - Maintainability - Necessary parties - Members of the Society - Application filed without impleading members of the society not maintainable. Held: Purpose of obtaining permission under S. 5A before the sale of property is to protect interest of members of the society - Application was filed without impleading necessary parties i.e. members of the society, it was not maintainable - District Judge rightly rejected it - Liberty granted to the petitioner to move a fresh application after impleading all necessary parties, and if such application is made, the District Judge shall consider and decide it in accordance with law, expeditiously, and uninfluenced by earlier findings.(Paras 6,7,8,9,10) (E-7) Case Law Cited Kisan Education Society v. District Judge and others, 2008 (10) ADJ 524; Raj Nath Misra v. The Xth Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1991 ALJ 486. List of Acts Societies Registration Act, 1860 List of Keywords Society - Property - Permission - interest of members - Members of the Society - Maintainability - Impleading Necessary Parties. Case Arising From Order dated 21.1.2025 passed by the District Judge, Banda under Section 5A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Punit Kumar Gupta Advs. for the Respondent: C.S.C. ## Text 7 All. B.M. Education And Social Institute. Vs. State of U.P. 561 bound to ensure that no child is left out because of any action taken by the State. 65. It will be the duty of the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to ensure that no child is left out for being educated and all steps as are necessary shall be taken as and when required in accordance with law. ---------- (2025) 7 ILRA 561 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.07.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J. Writ C No. 8282 of 2025 B.M. Education And Social Institute ...Petitioner Versus State Of U.P. ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Punit Kumar Gupta Counsel for the Respondent: C.S.C. Issue for Consideration Matter pertains to challenge against the order dated 21.1.2025 passed by the District Judge, Banda, rejecting the application under S. 5A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 declining permission to the society to execute a sale deed of its property on the ground that original resolution and accounts of the society were not placed before the court below. Headnotes Societies Registration Act, 1860 - S.5A - Sale of immovable property of society - Requirement of prior permission of District Judge - Maintainability - Necessary parties - Members of the Society - Application filed without impleading members of the society not maintainable. Held: Purpose of obtaining permission under S. 5A before the sale of property is to protect interest of members of the society - Application was filed without impleading necessary parties i.e. members of the society, it was not maintainable - District Judge rightly rejected it - Liberty granted to the petitioner to move a fresh application after impleading all necessary parties, and if such application is made, the District Judge shall consider and decide it in accordance with law, expeditiously, and uninfluenced by earlier findings.(Paras 6,7,8,9,10) (E-7) Case Law Cited Kisan Education Society v. District Judge and others, 2008 (10) ADJ 524; Raj Nath Misra v. The Xth Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and others, 1991 ALJ 486. List of Acts Societies Registration Act, 1860 List of Keywords Society - Property - Permission - interest of members - Members of the Society - Maintainability - Impleading Necessary Parties. Case Arising From Order dated 21.1.2025 passed by the District Judge, Banda under Section 5A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Petitioner: Punit Kumar Gupta Advs. for the Respondent: C.S.C. (Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar Nigam, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 21.1.2025 passed by District Judge, Banda rejecting the application under Section 5A of the Society Registration Act, 1860 declining the permission to the society to execute a sale deed of the property of the society on the ground that original resolution and accounts of the society were not placed before the court below. 562 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the District Judge, Banda has erred in law in rejecting the application filed by the society under Section 5A of the Society Registration Act, 1807. There was no objection on behalf of any of the members of the society to the sale of the property of the society and therefore the application filed by the Society ought to have been allowed by the District Judge, Banda. 4. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that application was filed impleading public at large as opposite party in the said application without impleading the members of the society who may probably have any objections to the sale of the property of the society. This Court in case of Kisan Education Society Vs. District Judge and others reported in 2008 (10) ADJ 524 has held in paragraph 6 and 7 of the judgment which are quoted as under : "6. Section 5-A of the Societies Registration Act, as applicable in the State of U.P. provides- 5. Property of society how vested- The property, movable and immovable, belonging to a society registered under this Act, if not vested in trustees, shall be deemed to be vested, for the time being, in the governing body of such society, and in all proceedings, civil and criminal, may be described as the property of the governing body of such society by their proper title. 7. The aforesaid provision has been incorporated in order to protect the properties of the Society and the interest of its members. This Section places an embargo on the Society from transferring its immovable properties without previous permission from the District Judge. The idea behind this is that the Court should be satisfied that the transfer of the property of the Society was being made in the larger interest of the Society and not to the detriment of the members of the Society." 5. Similar view was taken in case of Raj Nath Misra Vs. The Xth Addl. District Judge, Varanasi and others reported in 1991 ALJ 486, wherein the Court has held: "The said Section has been enacted for putting a check on the society from transferring its immovable properties without the previous approval of the Court so that the Court may also look into it and give permission only if the Court is satisfied that the transfer of any immovable property is being made in the interest of the society and not in the manner which is detrimental to the interest of the society. This is the entire scope of said section. The only objection which is contemplated within the purview of the aforesaid Section is that the governing body of the society is proposing to transfer its immovable property which is contrary to the interest of the institution. It is not within the scope of the said Section to examine as to whether the society has ceased to be the owner of its immovable property." 6. In view of law laid down by this Court, the purpose of obtaining permission before the sale of property of the society by the society is to protect the interest of members of the Society. In the present case, the application was filed without impleading any member of the society and therefore, it cannot said that there was no objection on behalf of the members of the society as contended by learned counsel for 7 All. Ishak Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 563 the petitioner as they are not impeaded as opposite party in the aforesaid proceedings. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that records of the Society was already placed but the same were not looked into by the District Judge. 8. In my view, since the application filed by the petitioner is itself not maintainable for want of necessary parties i.e. members of the society, the court below has not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 9. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner be given liberty to move a fresh application after impleading all the necessary parties i.e. members of the society for redressal of their grievance as the members of the society were not made party in the earlier proceedings. It has also been prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner that society may be permitted to file evidence in support of that application. 10. In veiw of the prayer made by the petitioner, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application for redressal of his grievance after impleading all the necessary parties i.e. members of the society. In case, such an application is moved by the petitioner, the same shall be considered and decided by the District Judge, Banda, in accordance with law, expeditiously after ensuring service upon all the respondents and after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned provided that there is no other legal impediment without being influenced by finding recorded in order dated 21.1.2025 passed by the District Judge earlier. ---------- (2025) 7 ILRA 563 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Writ C No. 18408 of 2025 Ishak ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Akhilesh Kumar Singh Counsel for the Respondents: C.S.C. ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION Whether a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable for protection of life and property of a senior citizen under Rule 21 of the U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014, where the grievance relates to obstruction by neighbours in construction of a gate on his private property. HEADNOTE A. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, Sections 4, 5, 20, 21 - U.P. Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2014, Rule 21 - Scope - Jurisdiction of Maintenance Tribunal - Dispute regarding obstruction by private neighbours in