# C/M, Anjuman Madarsa Zeenatul and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 1 ILRA 386
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-04-27
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4686 of 2006
- **Bench:** S.P. Mehrotra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-anjuman-madarsa-zeenatul-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41491
- **Pages:** 27

## Headnote

Constitution of India Art. 226-Principle
of Natural Justice-election dispute-claim
set up by reval claimants-enquiry report
against the petitioner relied without
affording opportunity-without giving the
copy of said reports-order entailing civil
consequences-can not be passed, nor
such
report
can
be
the
basis
for
impugned order-quashed.

Held: Para 66

As the said enquiry was conducted
without any intimation to the petitioners
and behind the back of the petitioners
and even copy of the Enquiry Report was
not given to the petitioners, the Deputy
Registrar (respondent no.2) has acted in
violation of the principles of natural
justice in placing reliance on the said
enquiry
and
the
Enquiry
Report
submitted as a result thereof while
passing
the
impugned
order.
The
impugned
order
dated
13.12.2005
passed
by
the
Deputy
Registrar
(respondent
no.2)
has,
thus,
been
passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice.

Case law discussed:
2005 (61) ALR 74, 2009 (75) ALR 369.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,958 of 89,630. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39958 for what follows._

386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
of his certificate to the U.P., if he was
selected.

13. The writ petition is allowed. The
letter
of
the
U.P.
Public
Service
Commission rejecting the petitioner's
candidature for want of registration with
U.P.
Veterinary
Council,
as
a
precondition for consideration for the post
of Veterinary Medical Officer, is set
aside. We direct the Commission to
declare the petitioner's result, and if he is
selected and recommended, to the State
Government, to give him appointment in
accordance with law very expeditiously,
and if possible within a period of three
months from the date a certified copy of
this
order
is
produced
before
the
Commission and the concerned authority.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.P. MEHROTRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4686 of 2006

Committee
of
Management,
Anjuman
Madarsa Zeenatul Islam, Amrodha, Tehsil
Bhoganipur, District Kanpur Dehat through
its Manager and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri S.D. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh
C.S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-Principle
of Natural Justice-election dispute-claim
set up by reval claimants-enquiry report
against the petitioner relied without
affording opportunity-without giving the
copy of said reports-order entailing civil
consequences-can not be passed, nor
such
report
can
be
the
basis
for
impugned order-quashed.

Held: Para 66

As the said enquiry was conducted
without any intimation to the petitioners
and behind the back of the petitioners
and even copy of the Enquiry Report was
not given to the petitioners, the Deputy
Registrar (respondent no.2) has acted in
violation of the principles of natural
justice in placing reliance on the said
enquiry
and
the
Enquiry
Report
submitted as a result thereof while
passing
the
impugned
order.
The
impugned
order
dated
13.12.2005
passed
by
the
Deputy
Registrar
(respondent
no.2)
has,
thus,
been
passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice.

Case law discussed:
2005 (61) ALR 74, 2009 (75) ALR 369.

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.)

1. The petitioners have filed the
present writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, interalia,
praying for quashing the order dated
13.12.2005 (Annexure-10 to the writ
petition) passed by the Deputy Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur
(respondent no.2) whereby the papers
submitted by the petitioners regarding the
elections allegedly held on 28.11.2004
were
disapproved
and
the
papers
submitted
by
the
respondent
no.4
regarding the elections allegedly held on
31.7.2004 were approved, and further, for
directing the respondents to approve the
papers submitted by the petitioners in
1 All] C/M, Anjuman Madarsa Zeenatul and others V. State of U.P. and others
387
regard to the election dated 28.11.2004
and to recognize the same.

2. It is, interalia, averred in the writ
petition that in District-Kanpur Dehat,
there is a registered society under the
name of Anjuman Madarsa Zeenatul
Islam (hereinafter also referred to as "the
society in question"), which is governed
by the provisions of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860; and that the said
society runs and manages the institution
Anjuman
Madarsa
Zeenatul
Islam,
Amrodha, Kanpur Dehat; and that the said
society has its registered bye-laws in
accordance therewith the management of
the society is governed. Copy of the byelaws of the society in question has been
filed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

3. A perusal of the said bye-laws
shows that the term of the Committee of
Management is specified for a period of
three years, which may be extended or
reduced for a period of six months in
special circumstances by the President of
the society in question; and that the
election of the Committee of Management
shall be conducted by the General Body
of the society in question, and the
maximum number of the office bearers
will be ten; and that the President has
been
given
power
in
special
circumstances to convene the meeting of
the General Body and the Committee of
Management
and
to
adjourn
such
meeting. Averments in this regard have
been made in paragraphs 6,7 and 8 of the
writ petition.

4. It is, interalia, further averred in
the writ petition that the elections of the
Committee of Management of the society
in question took place on 1.6.2001; and
that in the said election, the Committee of
Management
with
Mohd.
Bachchan
(petitioner no.3) as the President, Mohd.
Ibrahim (respondent no.4) as the Manager
and Mohd. Rizwan as the Treasurer were
elected; and that the papers regarding the
said election were submitted before the
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Kanpur (respondent no.2) and
based thereon the Deputy Registrar
(respondent no.2) registered the list of
office-bearers for the year 2001-02. Copy
of the list of office-bearers registered by
the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits (respondent no.2) has been filed as
Annexure-2 to the writ petition.

5. It is, interalia, further averred in
the writ petition that Mohd. Bachchan
(petitioner no.3) issued an Agenda Notice
on 22.11.2004 for calling a meeting of the
General Body for getting the election held
on 28.11.2004; and that the Agenda
Notice was circulated amongst the 19
Members of the General Body out of 25
members. Copy of the said Agenda
Notice dated 22.11.2004 has been filed as
Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

6. The petitioners have, interalia,
further averred in the writ petition that
pursuant to the said Agenda Notice
circulated amongst the members, the
meeting of the General Body was
convened on 28.11.2004; and that in the
said meeting, the election of Committee
of Management of the society in question
took place wherein Mohd. Bachchan was
elected for the post of President and
Mohd. Iqbal Ahmad Noori was elected
for the post of Manager/ Secretary; and
that in the said election, 19 members of
the General Body out of 25 members
participated. Copy of the proceedings
dated 28.11.2004 has been filed as
Annexure-6 to the writ petition.
388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
7. It is, interalia, further averred in
the writ petition that the papers regarding
the aforesaid election held on 28.11.2004
were
submitted
before
the
Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits
(respondent no.2) for being registered.

8. It is, interalia, further averred in
the writ petition that the respondent no.4
(Mohd. Ibrahim) submitted some forged
elections dated 31.7.2004 alleging Mohd.
Achchan as the President and himself
(Mohd. Ibrahim) as the Manager.

9. It is, interalia, further averred in
the writ petition that on the basis of the
papers submitted before the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits
(respondent no.2), a notice was issued by
the Deputy Registrar on 9.12.2004 to both
the
parties;
and
that
after
giving
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners
as well as the respondent no.4 (Mohd.
Ibrahim),
the
Deputy
Registrar
(respondent no.2) passed an order dated
20.8.2005 directing for registration of list
of office-bearers of the election dated
28.11.2004. Copy of the said order dated
20.8.2005 has been filed as Annexure-7 to
the writ petition.

10. It is, interalia, further averred in
the writ petition that that against the said
order dated 20.8.2005, the respondent
no.4 (Mohd. Ibrahim) filed writ petition
being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59299
of 2005 before this Court; and that the
said writ petition was disposed of by the
order dated 7.9.2005 whereby the said
writ petition was allowed and the matter
was
remitted
back
to
the
Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits
(respondent no.2) for rehearing the same
and
taking
appropriate
decision
in
accordance with law, after affording
opportunity of hearing to Mohd. Ibrahim
as well as Iqbal Noori. Copy of the said
order dated 7.9.2005 passed by this Court
has been filed as Annexure-8 to the writ
petition.

11. Relevant portion of the said
order dated 7.9.2005 is reproduced below:

".............After respective arguments
have been heard, factual position which is
emerging is to the effect that on 6.1.2005
and 17.1.2005, hearing in the matter was
done by Mohd. Jama, the then Deputy
Registrar, but before he could pass order,
he was transferred and relieved, and new
incumbent Sri K.P. Jaiswal was posted in
his place, and before him two set of
persons came up praying for renewal
basing their claims on different date of
elections in this fact and background, it
was wholly inappropriate on the part of
new Deputy Registrar to have passed
order without providing opportunity of
hearing, as such order dated 20.8.2005
has been passed in utter contravention of
the principles of natural justice without
providing any opportunity of hearing to
the petitioners.

Consequently, writ petition succeeds
and is allowed the impugned order dated
20.8.2005 is hereby quashed. The Deputy
Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits,
Kanpur Region, Kanpur, is directed to rehear the matter and take appropriate
decision in accordance with law, after
affording opportunity of hearing to Mohd.
Ibrahim as well as Iqbal Noori, within a
record of two months from the date of
production of a certified copy of this
Court."

Pursuant to the said order dated
7.9.2005 passed by this Court, the Deputy
1 All] C/M, Anjuman Madarsa Zeenatul and others V. State of U.P. and others
389
Registrar (respondent no.2) passed the
order dated 13.12.2005 whereby the
papers submitted by the petitioners in
regard to the elections allegedly held on
28.11.2004 were disapproved while the
papers submitted by the respondent no.4
in regard to the elections allegedly held
on 31.7.2004 were approved. Copy of the
said order dated 13.12.2005 has been filed
as Annexure-10 to the writ petition.

The petitioners have, thereafter, filed
the present writ petition seeking the
reliefs, as mentioned above.

Counter affidavit on behalf of the
respondent nos. 1 and 2, sworn on
12.4.2006, has been filed. The petitioners
have filed their rejoinder affidavit, sworn
on 11.3.2007 in reply to the said counter
affidavit.

Another counter affidavit, sworn on
13.12.2007, was filed on behalf of the
respondent nos. 3 and 4. However,
subsequently, an affidavit, sworn on
15.3.2009 by the said Mohd. Ibrahim, has
been filed on behalf of the respondent
nos. 3 and 4, interalia, stating that the said
respondents want to withdraw the said
counter affidavit filed on their behalf.
Paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of the said affidavit,
filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 3
and 4, are reproduced below:

"2. That in the aforesaid writ petition
a counter affidavit has been filed by the
deponent namely Mohd. Ibrahim on
behalf of respondent nos. 3 & 4.
3. That the deponent now does not
want to contest the aforesaid writ petition.
He wants to withdraw the aforesaid
counter affidavit.
4. That in view of the aforesaid facts
and circumstances it is therefore in the
interest of justice that the Hon'ble Court
may kindly be pleased to permit the
deponent
to
withdraw
the
counter
affidavit, which was filed by him on behalf
of respondent nos. 3 & 4; so that justice
be done."

12. I have heard Shri Ashok Khare,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
S.D. Shukla, learned counsel for the
petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel
appearing for the respondent nos. 1 and 2
and Shri G.K. Singh, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent nos. 3 and 4,
and perused the record.

13. Shri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Counsel has made the following
submissions:

1. The dispute before the Deputy
Registrar (respondent no.2) was between
two factions of Management, and the
Deputy Registrar could not decide such
dispute as such dispute ought to have
been referred by the Deputy Registrar to
the Prescribed Authority under Section 25
of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It
is submitted that in the present case, there
was a bonafide dispute between the two
factions of the Management, and the
Deputy Registrar in the impugned order
has considered the said dispute and
upheld the claim of one faction (i.e.
respondent no.4) as against the other (i.e.
the petitioners). The Deputy Registrar has
no such jurisdiction, and the only course
open to him was to have referred the
dispute to the Prescribed Authority under
Section 25 of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. Reliance in this regard is
placed on a Division Bench decision of
this Court in All India Council and
another
Vs.
Assistant
Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi
390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
Region, Varanasi and another, AIR
1988 Allahabad 236.

2. From a perusal of the order dated
20.8.2005
(Annexure-7
to
the
writ
petition) passed by the Deputy Registrar
(respondent no.2) shows that the original
record
was
produced
before
the
respondent no.2. After the said order
dated 20.8.2005 was quashed by this
Court by its order dated 7.9.2005 passed
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 59299 of
2005, the petitioners again produced the
original record before the respondent no.2
on 5.12.2005 alongwith the Written
Submissions and the affidavits of 19
members of the General Body. The
original record was not accepted by the
Deputy Registrar (respondent no.2) on the
ground that the same had already been
placed on the record and the copy of the
same was available. Reference in this
regard is made to the averments made in
paragraphs 25 and 29 of the writ petition.
In the circumstances, the recital in the
impugned order dated 13.12.2005 passed
by the Deputy Registrar (respondent no.2)
regarding non-production of the original
record was not correct.

3. The
impugned
order
dated
13.12.2005 has been passed in violation
of the principles of natural justice. The
said submission has been elaborated as
under:

(A) The Deputy Registrar (respondent
no.2) in the impugned order has placed
reliance on the written submissions and
the
documents
produced
by
the
respondent no.4 but no copies of the said
documents or the written submissions
submitted by the respondent no.4 were
supplied to the petitioners, and the
petitioners were not aware of the contents
thereof. Reference in this regard is made
to the averments made in paragraph 26 of
the writ petition.

(B) The
impugned
order
dated
13.12.2005 has placed reliance on an
enquiry conducted by the Tehsildar and
the
Deputy
District
Magistrate,
Bhognipur, District-Kanpur Dehat, and
the Enquiry Report submitted as a result
of the said enquiry. However, no
intimation was given to the petitioners in
regard to the said enquiry conducted by
the
said
officers,
and
the
entire
proceedings were totally ex-parte. Even
copy of the said Enquiry Report was not
supplied to the petitioners at any point of
time. Reference in this regard is made to
the averments made in paragraph 30 of
the writ petition.

14. In reply, the learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondent nos.
1 and 2 submits as under:

1. Having regard to the nature of the
dispute raised before the Deputy Registrar
(respondent no.2), the dispute was rightly
decided
by
the
Deputy
Registrar
(respondent no.2), and there was no
occasion for referring the dispute to the
Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of
the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

2. Recital in the impugned order dated
13.12.2005 regarding non-production of
the original record is correct. No original
record was produced on behalf of the
petitioners on 5.12.2005 despite having
been given time for the purpose on the
earlier
dates
fixed
in
the
matter.
Reference in this regard is made to the
averments made in paragraphs 7 and 16 of
the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the
respondent nos. 1 and 2.
1 All] C/M, Anjuman Madarsa Zeenatul and others V. State of U.P. and others
391
3. There has not been any violation of
the principles of natural justice in the
proceedings before the Deputy Registrar
(respondent no.2) wherein the impugned
order dated 13.12.2005 has been passed.
The documents produced by the rival
parties are permitted to be inspected by
each other but no copies of the documents
are required to be furnished by one party
to the other. Reference in this regard is
made to the averments made in paragraph
17 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf
of the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

15. As regards the Enquiry Report
submitted on the basis of enquiry
conducted by the Tehsildar and the
Deputy District Magistrate, Bhognipur,
District-Kanpur Dehat, the same has
rightly been relied upon by the Deputy
Registrar
(respondent
no.2)
in
the
impugned order dated 13.12.2005.

16. In rejoinder, Shri Ashok Khare,
learned Senior Counsel has reiterated the
submissions made earlier.

17.

I
have
considered
the
submissions made by the learned counsel
for the parties.

18.

Taking
up
the
FIRST
SUBMISSION made by Shri Ashok
Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the petitioners, it is pertinent to refer
to the relevant provisions of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860.

19. Section 1 of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 provides that any
seven or more persons associated for any
literary, scientific, or charitable purpose,
or for any such purpose as is described in
Section 20 of the said Act, may, by
subscribing
their
names
to
a
memorandum of association, and filing
the same with the Registrar form
themselves into a society under the said
Act.

Section
2
of
the
Societies
Registration Act, 1860 deals with the
memorandum of association and provides
as under:

"2. Memorandum of association.-
The memorandum of association shall
contain the following things, that is to
say, -

the name of the society;
the objects of the society;
the names, addresses, and occupations of
the
governors,
council,
directors,
committee, or other governing body to
whom, by the rules of the society, the
management of its affairs is entrusted.
A copy of the rules and regulations
of the society, certified to be a correct
copy by not less than three of the
members of the governing body, shall be
filed
with
the
memorandum
of
association."

20. Thus, Section 2, interalia,
requires that copy of the Rules and
Regulations of the Society, certified to be
a correct copy by not less than three of the
members of the governing body, shall be
filed
with
the
memorandum
of
association.

21. Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of
the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as
amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh,
interalia,
provides
that
upon
the
memorandum of association and certified
copy of the Rules and Regulations of the
Society being filed alongwith particulars
of the address of the Society's office,
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
which shall be its registered address, by
the Secretary of the Society on behalf of
the
persons
subscribing
to
the
memorandum, the Registrar shall certify
under his hand that the society is
registered under the said Act. Relevant
portion of Section 3 of the said Act, as
amended in the State of Uttar Pradesh, is
quoted as under:

"3. Registration and fees. (1) Upon
such memorandum and certified copy
being filed along with particulars of the
address of the Society's office which shall
be its registered address, by the Secretary
of the Society on behalf of the persons
subscribing to the memorandum, the
Registrar shall certify under his hand that
the society is registered under this Act.
There shall be paid to the Registrar for
every such registration a fee of one
thousand rupees or such smaller fee as
the State Government may notify in
respect of any class of societies:
Provided that the State Government
may, by notification in the Official
Gazette, increase from time to time the fee
payable under this sub-section:
Provided further that the Registrar
may, in his discretion, issue public notice
or issue notices to such persons as he
thinks fit inviting objections, if any,
against the proposed registration and
consider all objections that may be
received by him before registering the
society......"

22. Section 3-A of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, as inserted in the
State of Uttar Pradesh, deals with the
renewal of certificate of registration. The
said Section 3-A of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, in so far as is
relevant, is as under:

"3A. Renewal of certificate of
registration.-(1) Subject to the provisions
of sub-section (2), a certificate of
registration issued under Section 3 shall
remain in force for a period of two years
from the date of issue:
Provided that a certificate issued
before the commencement of the Societies
Registration (Uttar Pradesh Amendment)
Act, 1984 (hereinafter in this section
referred to as the said Act), shall remain
in force for a period of five years from the
date of such commencement on payment
of the difference of the fees specified
under sub-section (3) and the fees already
paid.]

(2) A Society registered under Section 3,
whether
before
or
after
the
commencement of the said Act, shall on
application made to the Registrar within
one month of the expiration of the period
referred to in sub-section (1) and on
payment of the fee specified in sub-section
(3), be entitled to have its certificate of
registration renewed for [five years], at a
time :
Provided that in the case of a society
registered before the commencement of
the said Act, the Registrar shall refuse to
renew the certificate of registration, if
after giving it an opportunity of showing
cause against such refusal, he is satisfied
that any of the grounds mentioned in subsection (2) of Section 3 exist in respect
thereof.

(3) There shall be paid to the Registrar
with every application for renewal of the
certificate of registration -
(a) [a fee equal to the registration fee
payable under Section 3 or rupees [one
hundred], whichever is less], if such
application is filed within the period
specified in sub-section (2):
1 All] C/M, Anjuman Madarsa Zeenatul and others V. State of U.P. and others
393
Provided that the State Government
may, by notification in the official
Gazette, increase from time to time the fee
payable under this clause subject to the
condition that the fee so increased shall
not exceed the registration fee payable
under Section 3;
(b) an additional fee of forty rupees or
such higher fee not exceeding one-fifth of
the fee payable under clause (a) as may
be notified by the State Government, if
such application is filed within one month
of the date of expiration of the period
specified in sub-section (2); and
(c) an additional fee at the rate of twenty
rupees per month or part thereof, or such
higher additional fee per month not
exceeding half of the additional fee
payable under clause (b) as may be
notified by the State Government, if such
application is filed beyond one month of
the expiration of the period specified in
sub-section (2).
(4) Every application for renewal of the
certificate shall be accompanied by a list
of members of the managing body elected
after the registration of the society or
after the renewal of certificate of
registration and also the certificate
sought to be renewed unless dispensed
with by the registrar on the ground of its
loss or destruction or other sufficient
cause.
(5) & (6)......................."

Thus, sub-section (1) of Section 3A
lays down that a certificate of registration
issued under Section 3 shall remain in
force for a period of five years from the
date of issue.

Sub-section (2) of Section 3A
provides that on application made to the
Registrar within one month of the
expiration of the period referred to in subsection (1) of Section 3A and on payment
of the fee specified in sub-section (3) of
Section 3A, a Society registered under
Section 3 shall be entitled to have its
certificate of registration renewed for five
years, at a time.

Sub-section (4) of Section 3A
provides
that
every
application
for
renewal of the certificate shall be
accompanied by a list of members of the
managing body and also the certificate
sought to be renewed.

23. Section 4 of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 deals with filing of
the annual list of the managing body. The
said Section 4, as amended in the State of
Uttar Pradesh, lays down as under:

"4. Annual list of managing body to
be filed. - (1) Once in every year, on or
before the fourteeth day succeeding the
day on which, according to the rules of
the society, the annual general meeting of
the society is held, or, if the rules do not
provide for an annual general, in the
month of January, a list shall be filed with
the Registrar, of the names, addresses and
occupations of the governors, council,
directors, committee, or other governing
body then entrusted with the management
of the affairs of the society:
Provided that if the managing body
is elected after the last submission of the
list, the counter signatures of the old
members, shall, as far as possible, be
contained on the list. If the old officebearers do not countersign the list, the
Registrar may, in his discretion, issue a
public notice or notice to such persons as
he thinks fit inviting objections within a
specified period and shall decide all
objections received within the said period.
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
(2) Together with list mentioned in subsection (1), there shall be sent to the
Registrar a copy of the memorandum of
association including any alteration,
extension, or abridgment of purposes
made under Section 12, and of the rules of
the society corrected up to date and
certified by not less than three of the
members of the said governing body to be
a correct copy and also a copy of the
balance-sheet for the preceding year of
account."

24. Sub-section (1) of Section 4,
thus, provides that once in every year, on
or before the date mentioned in the said
sub-section, a list shall be filed with the
Registrar, of the names, addresses and
occupations of the governors, council,
directors, committee, or other governing
body then entrusted with the management
of the affairs of the society.

25. Proviso to sub-section (1) of
Section 4 lays down that if the managing
body is elected after the last submission
of the list, the counter signatures of the
old members, shall, as far as possible, be
obtained on the list. If the old officebearers do not countersign the list, the
Registrar may, in his discretion, issue a
public notice or notice to such persons as
he thinks fit inviting objections within a
specified period and shall decide all
objections received within the said period.

26. Section 25 of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 deals with the
disputes regarding election of office
bearers, and provides as under:

"25. Disputes regarding election of
office-bearers.-(1)
The
prescribed
authority may, on a reference made to it
by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth
of the members of a society registered in
Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a
summary manner any doubt or dispute in
respect of the election or continuance in
office of an office-bearer of such society,
and may pass such orders in respect
thereof as it deems fit:
Provided that the election of an
office-bearer shall be set aside where the
prescribed authority is satisfied:-
(a) that any corrupt practice has
been committed by such office-bearer; or
(b) that the nomination of any
candidate has been improperly rejected;
or
(c) that the result of the election in so
far as it concerns such office-bearer has
been materially affected by the improper
acceptance of any nomination, or by the
improper reception, refusal or rejection of
any vote or the reception of any vote
which is void, or by any non-compliance
with the provisions of any rules of the
society.
Explanation 1.- A person shall be
deemed to have committed a corrupt
practice who, directly or indirectly by
himself or by any other person:
(i) induces, or attempts to induce, by
fraud,
intentional
misrepresentation,
coercion or threat of injury, any elector to
give or to refrain from giving a vote in
favour of any candidate, or any person to
stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or
not to withdraw from being, a candidate
at the election;
(ii) with a view to inducing any
elector to give or to refrain from giving a
vote in favour of any candidate, or to
inducing any person to stand or not to
stand as, or to withdraw or not to
withdraw from being a candidate at the
election offers or gives any money, or
valuable consideration, or any place of
employment, or holds out any promise of
1 All] C/M, Anjuman Madarsa Zeenatul and others V. State of U.P. and others
395
individual advantage or profit to any
person;
(iii) abets (within the meaning of the
Indian Penal Code) the doing of any of
the acts specified in clauses (i) and (ii);
(iv) induces, or attempts to induce a
candidate or elector to believe that he, or
any person in whom he is interested, will
become or will be rendered an object of
divine displeasure or spiritual censure;
(v) canvasses on grounds of caste,
community, sect or religion;
(vi) commits such other practice as
the State Government may by rule
prescribe to be a corrupt practice.
Explanation
II.-
A
promise
of
individual advantage or profit to a person
includes a promise for the benefit of the
person himself, or of any one in which he
is interested.
Explanation
III.-The
State
Government may prescribe the procedure
for hearing any decision of doubts or
disputes in respect of such elections and
make provision in respect of any other
matter relating to such elections for which
insufficient provision exists in this Act or
in the rules of the society.
(2) Where by an order made under
sub-section (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 within 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 or officebearers, and such meeting shall be
presided over and be conducted by the
Registrar or by any officer authorised by
him in this behalf, and the provisions in
the rules of the society relating to
meetings and elections shall apply to such
meeting and election with necessary
modifications.
(3) Where a meeting is called by the
Registrar under sub-section (2), no other
meeting shall be called for the purpose of
election by any other authority or by any
person claiming to be an office-bearer of
the society.
Explanation.- For the purposes of
this section, the expression 'prescribed
authority' means an officer or court
authorised in this behalf by the State
Government by notification published in
the Official Gazette."

Sub-section (1) of Section 25 thus
provides that a reference may be made to
the Prescribed Authority by the Registrar
or by at least 1/4th of the members of a
society registered in Uttar Pradesh, and on
such reference being made, the Prescribed
Authority may hear and decide in a
summary manner any doubt or dispute in
respect of the election or continuance in
office of an office-bearer of such society,
and may pass such orders in respect
thereof as it deems fit.

Proviso to sub-section (1) of Section
25, inserted by the U.P. Act No. 13 of
1978, provides that the election of an
office-bearer shall be set aside where the
prescribed authority is satisfied as regards
any of the grounds mentioned in clauses
(a), (b) and (c) of the said proviso.

27. Sub-section (2) of Section 25
provides that where by an order made
under sub-section (1) of Section 25, 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 within the time
specified in the rules of that society, he
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
may call a meeting of the general body of
such society for electing such officebearer or office-bearers. Such meeting
shall be presided over and be conducted
by the Registrar or by any officer
authorised by him in this behalf. The
provisions in the rules of the society
relating to meetings and elections shall
apply to such meeting and election with
necessary modifications.

28. Sub-section (3) of Section 25
lays down that where a meeting is called
by the Registrar under sub-section (2) of
Section 25, no other meeting shall be
called for the purpose of election by any
other authority or by any person claiming
to be an office-bearer of the society.

29. It will be noticed from the
above-quoted provisions of Section 4 of
the Societies Registration Act, 1860 that
the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section
4, as inserted in the State of U.P., deals
with the situation where the managing
body is elected after the last submission
of the list of managing body as
contemplated under sub-section (1) of
Section 4. The said proviso lays that if the
managing body is elected after the last
submission of the list, the counter
signatures of the old members, shall, as
far as possible, be obtained on the list. If
the old office-bearers do not countersign
the list, the Registrar may, in his
discretion, issue a public notice or notice
to such persons as he thinks fit inviting
objections within a specified period. The
Registrar shall decide all objections
received within the period so specified.

30. Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of
the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as
noted above, provides that a reference to
the Prescribed Authority by the Registrar
or by at least one fourth of the members
of the society registered in Uttar Pradesh
in regard to "any doubt or dispute in
respect of the election or continuance in
office of an office-bearer of such society".
On such reference being made, the
Prescribed Authority may hear and decide
in a summary manner the said doubt or
dispute, and may pass such orders in
respect thereof as it thinks fit. On being
satisfied
as
regards
the
situations
contemplated in any of the clauses (a), (b)
and (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of
Section 25, the Prescribed Authority is
bound to set aside the election of an
office-bearer.

31. The question, therefore, arises as
to what is the respective scope of the
provisions contained in the proviso to
sub-section (1) of Section 4 and the
provisions contained in sub-section (1) of
Section 25 of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860, and what is the interrelationship between the said provisions.
Reference in this regard may be made to
certain judicial decisions:

32. In All India Council and another
Vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies
and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and
another, AIR 1988 Allahabad 236, a
Division Bench of this Court was dealing
with a writ petition directed against the
order dated 23.12.1987 passed by the
Assistant Registrar, Firms,Societies and
Chits, Varanasi purporting to determine a
dispute relating to the election or
continuance in office of certain office
bearers of the Society. The facts of the
case, as mentioned in paragraphs 2,3 and
4 of the said AIR, are as under:

"2. Bharat Dharm Mahamandal is a
Society registered under the Societies
1 All] C/M, Anjuman Madarsa Zeenatul and others V. State of U.P. and others
397
Registration Act, 1860. The society has
been established for the purpose of
promoting Hindu Religious Education in
accordance with the Sanatan Dharma.
The object disclosed in the memorandum
of Association is to defuse the knowledge
of Vedas, Puranas and other Hindu
Shastras. The management of the Society
and the control of its affairs are exercised
by All India Pratinidhi Sabha ('Pratinidhi
Sabha' for short) which is the General
Body of the Society. The office-bearers of
the Pratinidhi Sabha are (i) President, (ii)
Vice President; (iii) Chief Secretary; (iv)
Joint Chief Secretary. On 25-10-86 the
office-bearers of the Pratinidhi Sabha
were elected for a term of three years. Sri
Shiv Nandan Lal Dar was elected as the
Chief Secretary and Sri Param Hans
Misra as the Joint Chief Secretary. On
15-2-87 Sri Shiv Nandan Lal Dar
submitted his resignation at a meeting of
the Pratinidhi Sabha which was accepted
and Sri Siva Ram Matre was asked to
perform the function and duties of the
Chief Secretary for the remaining term.
The proceedings of the meeting of the
Pratinidhi Sabha held on 15-2-87 are
stated to have been revoked at a meeting
held on 24-8-87 and at another meeting
held on 13-9-87 Sri Dar was persuaded to
withdraw his resignation and to continue
on the post of the Chief Secretary as
before. Sri Param Hans Misra the Chief
Secretary, on the other hand, seems to
have held a parallel meeting on 3-7-87 at
which the resignation of Sri Dar was
accepted and in his place he was himself
alleged to have been elected as the Chief
Secretary. A further decision to remove
Sri Brij Mohan Dixit, the President of All
India Council, the executive of the Society
is also claimed to have taken at the same
meeting.
3. These two parallel meetings and
the decisions taken thereat regarding the
continuance of Sri Shiv Nandan Lal Dar
as the Chief Secretary and the alleged
election of Sri Param Hans Misra at the
meeting of the 3rd July, 1987 convened by
him as the Chief Secretary led to disputes
and differences between the parties. Both
the groups, one represented by the
petitioner and the other by Param Hans
Misra the respondent 2 seem to have
addressed
letters
to
the
Assistant
Registrar each seeking legitimacy of the
action taken by it and both disputing the
claim of the other as regards the office of
the Chief Secretary of the Pratinidhi
Sabha. Upon these letters the impugned
order has been passed.
4. By the impugned order, the
Assistant Registrar has disposed of two
matters,
one
pertaining
to
certain
amendments of the by-laws of the Society
which he has disapproved on the ground
that the same travelled beyond the objects
of the Society and the other relating to the
question whether Sri Dar had a right to
continue as the Chief Secretary after the
submission of his resignation and whether
Sri Param Hans Misra was validly elected
as the Chief Secretary of the Pratinidhi
Sabha. The Assistant Registrar has held
that the resignation of Sri Dar did not
require acceptance and consequently he
ceased to be the Chief Secretary after his
resignation on 15-2-87. As regards Sri
Param Hans Misra the finding is that as
the Deputy Chief Secretary he had a right
to perform functions of the Chief
Secretary for the remaining terra. He has
also upheld the election of Shri Param
Hans Misra as the Chief Secretary at the
meeting convened by Sri Misra for 3-787."
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
Having noticed the facts of the case,
as above, this Court laid down as under
(paragraphs 5,6,7 and 8 of the said AIR):

"5. The contention of the learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to
decide the dispute with regard to
continuance of Sri Dar as the Chief
Secretary and that he was bound to refer
the dispute under S.25 of the Societies
Registration
Act
to
the
Prescribed
Authority.

6. The petitioners are clearly right.
S.25 of the Societies Registration Act as
amended by the State Legislature enacts a
comprehensive
code
and
creates
a
designated
forum
or
tribunal
for
adjudication in a summary manner of all
disputes or doubts in respect of the
election or continuance in office of an
office-bearer of such society. It also
provides the grounds upon which the
election of an office-bearer can be set
aside.