# Baba Guru Saran Das Chela Baba Guru Charan Das v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 451
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-23
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1002728 of 1992
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/baba-guru-saran-das-chela-baba-guru-charan-das-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49851
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Ceiling Law - Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960 - S. 10(2) -
Declaration of land as surplus land - Land
was recorded in the name of petitioner,
not in the name of Math or Trust - Effect -
Claim of land being used as Math and
income thereof being used for religious
purpose - Reliability - Benefit u/s 6(1)(f),
how far can be claimed - Held, this could
not be proved that the property in
question was being utilized for charitable
and religious purposes, being a 'Math'
before 01-05-1959 -

Petitioner has also failed to show any
document with respect to any 'Math' or
'Trust', recorded in the name of 'Baba
Guru Sharan Das', which prima-facie,
shows that it is a personal property and it
is not being used for any religious or
charitable purposes - Even if the part of
the income of land is not utilized for the
charitable purposes, then the benefit of
the provisions of section 6(1)(f) of the 'Act
1960' cannot be given. (Para 25, 26 and
27)

Writ petition dismissed . (E-1)

List of Cases cited :-

## Text

3 All. Baba Guru Saran Das Chela Baba Guru Charan Das Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
451
perusing the relevant provisions of the Act,
it was ruled as under:

"Now, the certificate of enrolment
being an instrument falling under Article 30 of
Schedule I, it is compulsorily chargeable with
stamp duty under Section 3 of the Act. And
since "chargeable" means, under Section 2(6)
of the Act, chargeable when the instrument in
question is executed, it is clear that the crucial
date which determines the law in force is the
date of the execution of instrument."

7. Sub-section (6) of Section 2 which
defines the term chargeable, no amendment has
been made by the State of Uttar Pradesh,
therefore, the decision in the case of Sri Kirti
Ram, (supra) is fully applicable to the facts of
the present case. Similar view was taken by a
Full Bench of Madras High Court in the case in
ILR (5) Mad Series 394 (FB), wherein it was
observed that duty should be calculated with
reference to the requirement of law at the time
of execution of the document."

28. Question no.(iv) as such is answered
affirmatively in favour of petitioner.

29. In view of aforesaid, the answers to the
questions are as follows:-

(i) limitation period of four years as
prescribed in the Proviso to Section 33(5) of the
Act, 1899 would be inapplicable where a
document is impounded under Section 33(1) of
the Act of 1899.

(ii) evidently, limitation as envisaged
under Section 33(5) of the Act would be
applicable only from the date when an
instrument/document
is
produced
in
proceedings as indicated under Section 33(1) or
33(4) of the Act, 1899 and not from the date of
its execution.

(iii) Proceedings under Section
33/40/47A of the Act of 1899 are maintainable
even if no benefit has been derived from the
unregistered instrument of transfer.

(iv) Valuation of the instrument of
transfer/document and deficiency of stamp duty
thereupon is to be assessed as on the date of
execution of such instrument and not from the
date when proceedings are initiated under the
Act of 1899.

30. In view of the answers to aforesaid
questions,
particularly
regarding
question
no.(iv), it is evident that the authorities have
erred in determining valuation of the instrument
of transfer and deficiency thereupon from the
date when it was impounded while it should
have actually been taken from the date of its
execution on 12.08.1985.

31. Considering aforesaid, the petition
succeeds to aforesaid extent. The case is
remitted to the Prescribed Authority for
determination of valuation and deficiency of
stamp duty required to be paid as on
12.08.1985.

32. Accordingly, the petition is partly
allowed and findings recorded by the
authorities regarding valuation, deficiency of
stamp duty and penalty stand set aside for redetermination in accordance with directions
made herein above.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 451
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 1002728 of 1992

Baba Guru Saran Das Chela Baba Guru
Charan Das ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Mohd. Arif Khan, Mohammad Aslam Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Ceiling Law - Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1960 - S. 10(2) -
Declaration of land as surplus land - Land
was recorded in the name of petitioner,
not in the name of Math or Trust - Effect -
Claim of land being used as Math and
income thereof being used for religious
purpose - Reliability - Benefit u/s 6(1)(f),
how far can be claimed - Held, this could
not be proved that the property in
question was being utilized for charitable
and religious purposes, being a 'Math'
before 01-05-1959 -

Petitioner has also failed to show any
document with respect to any 'Math' or
'Trust', recorded in the name of 'Baba
Guru Sharan Das', which prima-facie,
shows that it is a personal property and it
is not being used for any religious or
charitable purposes - Even if the part of
the income of land is not utilized for the
charitable purposes, then the benefit of
the provisions of section 6(1)(f) of the 'Act
1960' cannot be given. (Para 25, 26 and
27)

Writ petition dismissed . (E-1)

List of Cases cited :-

1. Shri Radhaji Brijman Mandir & ors. Vs District
Judge, Banda & ors.; 1979(5) ALR, 132

2. Matloob Ali Vs Ist Addl. Distt. & Sessions
Judge & ors.; 1979 RD 32

3. Avinash Chandra Tewari Vs Additional District
Judge, Court No. 3, Unnao & ors.; 2011 (86)
ALR 662

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mohd. Arif Khan, learned
Senior
Advocate,
assisted
by
Sri
Mohammad Aslam Khan, leaned counsel
for the petitioner, Sri Shailendra Kumar
Singh, learned Chief Standing Counseel-II
assisted by Sri Sunil Kumar Khare, lerned
counsel for the State.

2. By means of instant petition, the
petitioner has assailed the order dated 1304-1992
passsed
by
the
Additional
Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division,
Faizabad and the order dated 29-06-1987
passed
by
the
Prescribed
Authority
(Ceiling),District-Barabanki.

3. The factual matrix of the case is that
a notice under section 10(2) of the
Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings
Act,
1960(hereinafter
referred
to
as
Act,1960) was issued to the petitioner on
11-09-1974. By the aforesaid notice, the
petitioner was required to show cause as to
why the statement under section (1) of
Section 10 of the Act,1960 be not taken as
correct. As per the version of the petitioner,
the notice was not served upon him and
therefore, he could not file objections as a
result
whereof,
the
Prescribed
Authority(Ceiling)
District-Barabanki
passed an order on 25-11-1974, whereby
the land in question was declared as surplus
land.

4. As soon as, the aforesaid fact came
into the knowledge of the petitioner, he
submitted an application dated 02-01-1975
before the prescribed authority, under
section 11(2) of Act,1960. Just thereafter,
on 09-01-1975, the petitioner moved
another appliation for spot inspection. He
again moved an application on 20-01-1975
mentioning therein that ''Baba Guru Charan
Das' is ''Mahant' of ''Kuti-Manipur' and the
3 All. Baba Guru Saran Das Chela Baba Guru Charan Das Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
453
property in question belongs to a ''Math'
and this property belongs to a trust and
there is possession of ''Math' over there.
He also submitted that income of ''Math'
is wholly utilised for realigous and
charitable purposes and not for the
petitioner
or
his
decendants.
The
Prescribed Authority, on the aforesaid
application passed an order and directed
the Naib Tehsildar, Haidergarh to make
an inspection and submit a report by 2501-1975. In pursuance thereof, the Naib
Tehsildar, enquired into the matter and
submitted a report to the effect that the
land in question is unirrigated as the same
is not within the Command Area of the
Canal or Tubewell. He also reported that
plot no. 1024 is a ''Jheel' and in most of
the area, paddy crops are sown and the
land belongs to a ''Math' and the
petitioiner is ''Mahant'. On the aforesaid
report, the Prescribed Authority vide
order dated 10-03-1975, discharged the
notices issued against the petitioner.
Being aggrieved with the order dated 1003-1975, the State of U.P. instituted an
appeal under section 13 of the ''Act 1960',
which was allowed by the Additional
Commissioner,
Faizabad
Division,
Faizabad vide order dated 26-04-1976
and the matter was remanded back to the
opposite party no. 3 i.e. the Prescribed
Authority for deciding the matter afresh.

5. After the matter remitted back to the
Prescribed
Authority,
the
Prescribed
Authority rejected the application of the
petitioner, filed under section 11(2) of the
''Act 1960', as the explanation with respect
to the delay was not found sufficient. Being
aggrieved with the aforesaid order, the
present petitoner again filed an appeal
which was allowed on 27-08-1977 and case
was remanded back to opposite party no. 3
for decision afresh.

6. While deciding the matter, the
Prescribed Authority vide order dated 2603-1981 held that the property belongs to a
''Math'of ''Baba Shahab Kabir Panti Saint'
and the income of the property is being
utilized
for
religious
and
chartiable
purposes.
While
passing
the
order
aforesaid, the Prescribed Authority has
considered the report of the Naib Tehsildar
and entries of Khatauni of 1359 Fasli and
Form 23 and Form 41 of Consolidation of
Holdings Act.

7. Assailing the order dated 26-031981, the State of U.P. filed an appeal,
which was allowed on 13-03-1984 and the
case was again transmitted back to the
opposite party no. 3 with direction to
decide
the
case
after
framing
the
additional issues whether Math/Trust in
question is a public chartiable or religious
trust or not. After the aforesaid order, the
opposite party no. 2 framed five issues in
addition to three issues framed earlier.
The
Objector
filed
Khataunis
of
1359,1380,1390 and 1392 Faslis and the
witnesses also deposed that the property
in suit belongs to a ''Math' in the name of
''Baba Guru Charan Das' as the trustee
and this is not the personal property. The
State of U.P. also got examined Prabhu
Nath Tewri, Lekhpal and Durga Baksh
Singh, Naib Tehsildar. On consideration
of evidences and statements of the
witnesses,
the
Prescribed
Authority
passed an order and denied the benefit of
section 6(f) of the ''Act 1960' and thereby
declared the area of 10-15-3 Bighas as
surplus land. Being aggrieved with the
order aforesaid, an appeal was filed by
the petitioner before the Commissioner,
Faizabad Division, Faizabad on 01-081987 and that was dismissed vide order
dated
13-04-1992,
which
is
under
challenge in this writ petition.
454 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. Contention of learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the petitioner is that
initially without serving a notice under
section 10(2) of the ''Act 1960', the order
was passed and thereafter, the petitioner
challenged the same and he was allowed to
be heard. He added that it is a well settled
law that a ''trust' may be unregistered and
further a property can be dedicated orally
for charitable or religious purposes and the
opposite party i.e. the State of U.P. has
failed to contradict the same before the
prescribed authority.

9. Learned Senior Counsel in support
of the contentions aforesaid has placed
reliance on a Judgment reported in 1979(5)
ALR, 132, Shri Radhaji Brijman Mandir
and Others Vs. District Judge, Banda and
Others and has referred the extract of the
Judgment aforesaid as under :-

"In
the
instant
csae
the
endowment in question was for religious
and charibtable purposes and there was no
indication that any part of the income was
for the benefit of the settler or any other
person. The question is whether land
covered by the endowment is exempt from
consideration in the proceeding under the
Act.
Admittedly,
the
endowmewnt
in
question was created from before the 1st
day of May,1959. Since then the land is
held by the deities under a public religious
and charitable endowment. That is clear
from the terms of the document also. Under
the endowment, no part of the income of the
endowment was reserved for the benefit
wholly or partly of the settler or members
of his family or his descendants. The
endowmenet in question fully satisifes the
test
laid
down
in
calsue
(f)
and
consequently
land
held
under
the
endowment had to be exempted from
considreartion
for
the
purposes
of
detremining the ceiling area applicable to
the surplus land of the tenure-holder,
namely, Radha Krishna Ji Mahraj. Section
6(1)(f) is attracted where the land is held
by the tenure holder. The law does not
reuire that endowment should be created by
the
tenure-holder
himself.
Its
only
requirement is that the land must be held by
the tenure-holder under a public religisous
trust or endowmenet or institution. Land
which was the subject-matter of the
endowmenet in the present case, there is no
dispute that the settler and his wife died
issueless and, thereore, the question of
income of the endowment being spent
wholly or partly for the benefit of the settler
or
members
of
his
family
or
his
descendants does not arise. Even if the
income of the property is not properly
maintained by the present trustees that
would not be ground for denying the
tenure-holder the benefit of the provisions
contained in clause (f) to sub-section (1) of
Section 6."

10. Referring the aforesaid, he submits
that it has been held by the court that if
there
is
any
discrepancies
in
the
maintenance of the record of income of the
''trust', that would not prevent the benefit of
the provisions contained in clause (f) of
sub. Section (1) of Section 6 of the ''Act
1960'.

11. He has further placed reliance on a
case reported in 1979 RD 32(Allahabad
High Court),Matloob Ali Vs. Ist Addl.
Distt. & Sessions Judge and Others and
submitted that it has been held that the first
part of the requirement mentioned in
Section 6(1)(f) of ''Act 1960' is that the land
be held before the first day of May, 1959,
by or under a public religious or charitable
Waqf, trust endowmenet or institution and
so far as the present matter is concerned,
3 All. Baba Guru Saran Das Chela Baba Guru Charan Das Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
455
the ''Math' was in existence on the first day
of May,1959.

12. He further submitted that though
certain plots have been declared as irrigated
land, but, the evidence, which are on
record, shows that the plots in question are
not in Command Area of Canal or any
Tubewell owned by the State. He submits
that if the income of the property is not
maintained by the trustee, even then that
would not be a ground for denial of the
benefit of section 6(f) of ''Act 1960', to a
tenure holder and in the instant matter,
there is a report of the Naib Tehsildar and
the statement of a village person, which say
that the property in question belongs to a
''Math', which has been established for
religious and chartibale purposes and the
income of the property was not utilizsed by
the petitioner or his decedants and the State
of U.P. could not succeed to prove before
the prescribed authority or appellate
authority that the property was not being
used for charitable or religious purposes.

13. He further contended that the land
in question was recorded in 1359 Fasli in
the name of the ''Baba Math' and the
property was inherited by ''Guru' of the
present petitioner and the entries in the
revenue record also denotes the word
''Chela' and thus, this could not be said to
be a personal property of the petitioner. He
submits that the State government has not
only been failed to contradict the evidences
and the statements of the witnesses, but,
also has failed to show any document that
the land in question was not being utilised
for
charitable
purposes.
Thus,
the
submission of learned cousel for the
petitioner is that the order passed by the
Prescribed Authority as well as Appellate
Authority are not sustainable and the same
are liable to be set aside.

14. On the other hand, learned Chief
Standing Counsel-II appearing for the State
has vehemently opposed the contenions
aforesaid and submitted that the land in
question was not being utilised for
charitable or religious purposes and it is not
a property of ''Math' or ''Trust', but, it was
being utilised for personal purposes and
benefits. In support his contentions, he
added that the report dated 13-02-1975,
which was submitted by the Naib Tehsildar,
was
not
examined
while
affording
opportunity of cross-examination to the
State.

15. He also added that though the
petitioner is claiming the benefit of the
provisions of Section 6 (1) (f) of the Act,
1960, but,he has failed to establish that he
is Manager of a religious and chartiable
Trust/Math and it is prima-facie, evident
that the land in questioin is recorded in the
name of an individual and this is not
recorded in the name of any ''Trust' or
''Math'. He added that the petitioner has
also failed to prove that the whole income
of the land in question is being utilised for
religious and charitable purposes,which is
one of the conditions precedent for getting
the benefit of Section 6 (1) (f) of the
''Act,1960'.

16. Adding his arugments, he submits
that the petitioner could not substantiate
that the ''Trust/Math' was registered at any
point of time and if it is been claimed as
''Trust', the same should be registered as per
the provisions of Section 5 of the Indian
Trusts Act, 1882.
456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. He further added and has drawn
attention of this court towards the case
reported in [2011 (86) ALR 662], Avinash
Chandra Tewari Vs. Additional District
Judge, Court No. 3, Unnao and Others
and has referred paragraph no. 27 and
added that the Hon'ble court has held that
mere on the fact that the members of the
public are allowed to worship or visit the
place, would not be the proof of a public'
Trust'.

18. Further contention is that it is
evident from the order dated 29-06-1987
that the Prescribed Authority has properly
framed five questions in compliance of the
direction of the appellate order dated 2003-1984 and there was no direction with
respect to framing of question on the issue
of the land being irrigated or non-irrigated.
He submits that the property is not of a
''Math' or ''Trust',but, it is the property
recorded in the name of a person and the
same is being used for individual and not
for religious or charitable purposes and
therefore, there is no merit in the case of
the petitioner and the instant petition is
liable to be dismissed.

19. Having heard learned counsels for
the parties and after perusal of material
placed on record, it emerges that a dispute
arose with respect to declaration of the land
in question as a surplus land. Initially, a
notice was issued to the petitioner on 1109-1974, which as per the averment of the
petitioner, was never served upon him and
therefore, a set of litigation was instituted
and ultimately, the petitioner succeeded and
his objections were entertained under
section 11(2) of the Act,1960. Thereafter,
the matter goes upto the appellate court and
the same was remanded back to the
Prescribed Authority vide order dated 3003-1984 with a direction to formulate
additional issues and thereafter, the issues
were
formulated
by
the
Prescribed
Authority and the order was passed on 2906-1987, whereby the claim of the
petitioiner with respect to according benefit
of Section 6(f) of the Act,1960 was
rejected. An appeal was also instituted that
too was decided vide order dated 13-041992 upholding the order passsed by the
Prescribed Authority as the appellate
authority found no illegality or infirmity in
the order passed by the Prescribed
Authority.

20. When this court examined the
order passed by the Prescribed Authority
dated 29-06-1987, it reveals that five
additional questions were framed including
the question as to whether the property in
question belongs to a religious ''Math' and
whether the same was recorded as a ''Math'
prior to 01-05-1959 and whether the
income arising out of the aforesaid property
is being utilised for religious and charitable
purposes coupled with the issue that
whether
the
decendants
are
also
beneficiaries of the alleged ''Trust' or
''Math'.

21. On the perusal of the discussions of
court below while deciding the aforesaid issue
is clear that the land in question is recorded in
the name of the present petitioner and not in the
name of any ''Math' or ''Trust' and there is no
written terms or conditions thereof. The
Prescribed Authority while examining the
evidences and the statements of the witnesses,
has come to the conclusion that no evidence
could be placed by the petitioner that the
income of the property in question was being
utilised for religious or charitable purposes or
3 All. Baba Guru Saran Das Chela Baba Guru Charan Das Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
457
the family members/descendants of the
petitioner are not the beneficiaries of the land in
question. He has also considered the statements
of the Naib Tehsildar and the Lekhpal of the
area concerned that the property in quesion is
the private property of Guru Sharan Das.

22. This court has also noticed that
there is a contradiction in the Nakal
Khatauni of 1359 Fasli with the present
Khataunis and the origin of the alleged
''Math' could not be proved prior to 01-051959, which is the cut of date mentioned in
section 6(1)(f) of ''Act 1960'. While
examining the report of the Naib Tehsildar
dated 13-04-1975, it is answered that the
Naib Tehsildar did not mention the fact that
what is the basis of his satisfaction that the
land in question is land of a ''Math' and
when it was constituted and the land was
recorded in the name of the ''Math'.

23. The appellante authority has
recorded findings that the Naib Tehsildar
has also not mentioned any fact in its report
that whether the income of the property in
question was not being utilized for
''Mahant' as well as his family members
and though much emphasis has been placed
upon the report of the Naib Tehsildar by the
petitioner on every stage.

24. In fact, substantially, there
were two questions, which were to be
dealt with by the Prescribed Authority
and the Appellate Authority. The first
issue is that whether the property in
question is a property of ''Math' or
''Trust' and the income of which was
being utilised for religious or charitable
purposes and the second issue is that
whether for according the benefits of
Section 6 (1) (f) of the ''Act 1960', a
''Trust' or ''Math' is essentially to be
registered or not.

25. The first issue, which has been
answered by the Prescribed Authority is
that the report of the Naib Tehsildar dated
13-02-1975, was vehemently relied upon
by the petitioner though, it is apparent that
except apart from a line report of the Naib
Tehsildar that the property in question is
the property of a ''Math', there is no other
details that what was the evidence and
record, on the basis of which, the Naib
Tehsildar reported that the property belongs
to a ''Math'. It has also not been disclosed
by the Naib Tehsildar in his report dated
13-04-1975 that the income of the property
in question was being utilized for charitable
or religious purposes, except the fact that
usually the saints of ''Kabir Panti' were kept
on visiting and the expenditure incurred
upon
the
religious
ceremonies
were
fulfilled by the income of the property in
question, but, this does not disclose that
whether all the income of the property in
question was being utilised for the
charitable and religious purposes as it is
sellted law that even if the part of the
income of land is not utilised for the
charitable purposes, then the benefit of the
provisions of section 6(1)(f) of the ''Act
1960' cannot be given.

26. Further the petitioner also could
not prove by any of the documents that the
income of the property in question was
utilized
for
charitable
and
religious
purposes and he has also failed to prove
that he or his family members are not the
beneficiaries of the income of the property
in question. Further, there is a material
contradiction in the Nakal Khatauni of
1359 Fasli as well as well as the Nakal
Khatauni of the present year and therefore,
this could not be proved that the property in
question was being utilized for charitable
and religious purposes, being a ''Math'
before 01-05-1959.
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

27. This court has also noticed the fact
that the petitioner has also failed to show
any document wih respect to any ''Math' or
''Trust', recorded in the name of ''Baba Guru
Sharan Das', which prima-facie, shows that
it is a personal property and it is not being
used for any religious or charitable
purposes and all these issues have very
exhaustively been dealt with by the
Prescribed Authoriy as well as by the
Appellate Authority. Therefore, there is no
merit in the instant matter.

28. Resultantly, the writ petition is
hereby dismissed.

29. Consinged to record.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 458
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.03.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ C No. 1007259 of 2013

C/M Pratibha Shikshan Samiti & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Girish Chandra Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Adit Mishra, G.M. Kamil, Manish
Vaish, Rakesh Chandra Tewari

A. Society - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Sections 25(2) & (3) - Election -
Term of Committee expired - No order u/s
25(2) was passed by Assistant Registrar -
Effect - Committee's power to hold
election - Legality challenged - Held, the
committee of management even after
expiry of its term can convene a meeting
for the purpose of holding election unless
it is specifically barred under the rules of
the society. This right continues till such
time the Registrar passes an order under
section 25(2) of the Act after which no
other meeting can be convened by the
committee of management in view of sub
section (3) of Section 25 of the Act. (Para
7)

Writ petition allowed . (E-1)

List of Cases cited :-

1. C/M Vidyawati Higher Secondary School Vs
Assistant Registrar & ors.; 2005(3)UPLBEC
2410

2. Vinod Kumar Varsnay Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
(D.B.) 2017 (3) E.S.C. 1529

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for opposite parties 1 and
2 as also Mr. Anil Tewari, learned Senior
Advocate, assisted by Mr. R.C. Tewari,
learned counsel for respondent No.3.

2. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for a writ in the
nature of certiorari quashing order dated
23.9.2013, passed by Deputy Registrar,
Firms, societies & Chits, Faizabad Region,
Faizabad, respondent No.2.

A further writ of mandamus has
been prayed directing respondent No.2 not
to give effect to the impugned order dated
23.9.2013
and
not
to
disturb
the
functioning of the petitioner.

3. The petitioner No.1 is registered
society, petitioner No.2 is the founder
Manager and respondent No.3 was the