# C/M Janta Siksha Prasar Samiti v. Asstt. Registrar Firms Societies & Chits & others

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 92
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-janta-siksha-prasar-samiti-v-asstt-registrar-firms-societies-chits-others-39564
- **Pages:** 7

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
92
prevail over the entries in the school
certificates.

6. The other case referred to is Bhola
Bhagat Versus State of Bihar, 1997 (8)
SCC 720. This case is not material for the
controversy before me. It was observed
that the benefit of the Children Act should
not be refused on technical grounds if the
accused take a plea that he was child on
the date of incident should not be given an
opportunity to establish the case and a
positive finding regarding the age of the
accused should be recorded.

7. The case of Bhoop Ram referred to
by the learned counsel for the revisionist
was decided by the Apex Court in the year
1989 by a Division Bench. Later on Brij
Mohan Singh Versus Priya Narain
Singh and others was decided by the
Bench of five Hon'ble Judges of the Apex
Court reported in AIR 1965, Page 282.
The following observation was made by
the Apex Court:

"In actual life it often happens that persons
give false age of the boy at the time of his
admission to a school so that later in life
he would have an advantage when seeking
public service for which a minimum age
for eligibility is often prescribed. The court
of fact cannot ignore this while assessing
the value of the entry and it would be
improper for the court to base any
conclusion on the basis of the entry, when
it is alleged that the entry was made upon
false information supplied with above
motive."

8. The other important decision on
the point which has been referred by the
learned Sessions Judge in his judgement is
Pankaj Kumar Tripathi Versus State of
U.P., 1998 (2) JIC 965 (Alld.) In this case
of this Court accepted the plea of the
accused that he is a juvenile. The
complainant Deoki Nandan filed criminal
appeal no. 1887 of 1997 in the Hon'ble
Supreme Court. The matter was remanded
back by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with
the direction that the question of juvenile
should be considered in the light of the
evidence adduced by the parties and not
merely on the basis of the entry recorded
in the scholar register of the school.

9. In view of the above decision, the
revisionist can not be held to be juvenile
on the basis of the entry in the scholar
register, which also does not appear to be
genuine.
The
revisionist
has
taken
admission in class VIth on 03.07.1996, i.e.
at the age of twelve years. No documents
were filed to show the date of birth as
mentioned
when
the
revisionist
took
admission in a school for the first time. By
the medical evidence and by appearance of
the revisionist the trial court concluded
that the revisionist is not a juvenile. There
is no sufficient reason to interfere in the
order. The revision is dismissed.
Revision dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' 7+( $//$+$%$'
'$7(' 7+( $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( ,048''86, -
7+( +21
%/( ,048''86, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

&RPPLWWHH
RI
0DQDJHPHQW
RI
-DQWD
6LNVKD 3UDVDU 6DPLWL 3LSUD3UDWKDP
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
$VVLVWDQW 5HJLVWUDU )LUPV 6RFLHWLHV DQG
&KLWV *RUDNKSXU RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6UL
5DP
1LZDV
6LQJK
3All] C/M Janta Siksha Prasar Samiti V. Asstt. Registrar Firms Societies & Chits & others 93
6UL ..&KDQG
6UL 66 &KDXKDQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6UL 9. 6KXNOD
6UL -DWD 6KDQNHU 6LQJK
6&

6RFLHWLHV
5HJLVWUDWLRQ
$FW
6

0HHWLQJ
RI
*HQHUDO
ERG\
IRU
HOHFWLQJ
RIILFH EHDUHUV FDOOHG E\ 83 =LOD $GKLNDUL
0HQKGDZDO DQG QRW E\ 5HJLVWUDU KHOG
LOOHJDO
+HOG
&RQVLGHULQJ WKH IDFWV DQG FLUFXPVWDQFHV
RI WKH FDVH DQG LQ YLHZ RI WKH SURYLVLRQV
RI VXE VHFWLRQ RI 6HFWLRQ WKH
PHHWLQJ RI WKH *HQHUDO %RG\ LV OLDEOH WR
EH FDOOHG E\ WKH 5HJLVWUDU IRU HOHFWLQJ WKH
RIILFH EHDUHUV RI WKH VRFLHW\ LQ TXHVWLRQ
3DUD
,Q YLHZ RI WKH DERYH WKH RUGHU SDVVHG E\
WKH 83 =LOD $GKLNDUL 0HQGDZDOD FDOOLQJ
PHHWLQJ RI JHQHUDO ERG\ RI WKH VRFLHW\ LQ
TXHVWLRQ
DQG
IUDPLQJ
WLPH
WDEOH
IRU
HOHFWLRQ LV OLDEOH WR EH TXDVKHG 3DUD
&DVH UHIHUUHG
:3 1R 1LO RI 5DP .XPDU 9DUVKQH\ 9V
7HKVLOGDU
.RO $OLJDUK FXP (OHFWLRQ 2IILFHU DQG DQRWKHU

By the Court

1. These are two writ petitions filed
by the Committee of Management, Janta
Shiksha Prasar Samiti pipra Pratham,
district Sant Kabir Nagar through its
Manager Prahlad Singh. In both the writ
petitions the petitioner has desired to
restrain the respondents to hold election of
the committee of Management of the
Society on the basis of the order passed by
the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies
and Chits, Gorakhpur since in both the
case the facts are common and the later
case has been filed due to further
development and in the case filed earlier
being writ petition no. 27548 of 1998,
counter and rejoinder affidavit have been
exchanged, both are being disposed of by
the common judgement.

2. Heard Sri R.N. Singh, learned
Senior
Advocate
alongwith
Sri
S.S.
Chauhan appearing for the petitioner and
Sri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent no. 3 of writ petition no.
27548 of 1998 and respondent no. 2 of
writ petition no. 37612 of 1998, namely
Jata Shanker Singh, as well as learned
Standing Counsel for other respondents.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
the Society in question namely Janta
Shiksha Prasar Samiti Pipra Pratham
which was earlier in the district of Basti
and now it is district Sant Kabir Nagar was
registered under the Societies Registration
Act as a Society in the year 1973. The bye
laws of the society was framed and the
term of the committee of management was
of three years. There was no dispute
regarding the election held before the year
1982. In the writ petition it has been
alleged that the election was held on
11.7.82 but this has been disputed in the
counter affidavit and it has been alleged
that election was held on 24.4.83 and the
attestation was done on 17.9.93. The
registration letter issued on 29.8.83 has
also been filed as Annexure C.A.1 to the
counter affidavit. A copy of the attention
of signature of Jata Shanker Singh as
Manager has also been filed as Annexure
CA-3 to the counter affidavit. It is alleged
in the writ petition that the renewal of the
registration of the society was obtained
fraudulently by Jata Shanker Singh and the
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits set aside the same vide his order
dated 30.1.1984 on the basis of the papers
submitted by Prahlad Singh, Manager, but
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
94
the same was stayed in writ petition no.
2182 of 1984. It has not been disputed in
the counter affidavit that the writ petition
was filed and the interim order was
granted. It has been further stated that the
signatures of the Jata Shanker Singh were
attested once again on 21.2.843. The
attested
copy
of
the
attestation
of
signatures dated 21.2.84 has been filed as
Annexure CA-6 to the counter affidavit.
The interim order was confirmed vide
order dated 26.4.85. But the said petition
was dismissed for non-prosecution.

4. It is alleged in the counter affidavit
that on account of the death of the learned
counsel for the petitioner Sri G.C. Dwivedi
no one could appear when the case was
taken over and in the said writ petition in
the absence of counsel ex-parte order was
passed on 6.10.94. The petition was
dismissed as in fractious. It is alleged in
the writ petition that the registration of the
society was recalled on 6.4.94 and the
signature of Prahlad Singh was attested by
the Basic Shiksha Adhikari on 23.2.1996.

5. In the counter affidavit it has been
stated that the order dated 6.10.94 was
recalled and the Assistant Director Firm
Societies and Chits passed the order dated
30.7.97 recalling the registration of the
society done on 6.4.94 and the District
Basic
Education
Officer
Basti
also
cancelled the attestation of signature of
Prahlad Singh vide order 23.11.96 and the
signatures of Jata Shanker Singh were reattested. It has been mentioned in the writ
petition also that application to recall the
order dated 6.10.94 was allowed on
30.10.96 and the writ petition was restored
to its original number but the same was
again dismissed on 15.1.97 for default and
stay order passed by this court came to an
end. Again an application for recall of
order dated 15.1.97 was filed which was
allowed on 9.5.97 and the writ petition was
restored to its original number.

6. After the Zila Basic Shiksha
Adhikari passed the order dated 15.5.97
recognizing Jata Shanker Singh as
Manager of the Institution which was
challenged by the petitioner by filing writ
petition no.23655 of 1997. Thereafter writ
petition no. 2182 of 1984 and 23655 of
1997 both were heard together and were
finally disposed of vide order dated
16.9.97,
directing
Assistant
Director
Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi as
well as Basic Shiksha Adhikari Basti to
pass fresh order on the fresh circumstances
existing on date of judgement on the basis
of the representations filed by the parties
before them according to law and Rules
made for the purpose without being
influenced by any order either passed on
30th January, 1984 or 15th May, 1997. It
was further directed that they are at liberty
to decide the controversy afresh after
giving an opportunity of hearing to both
the parties within a period of two months
from the date of production of a certified
copy of this order.

7. Thereafter, Zila Basic Shiksha
Adhikari Basti vide order dated 29.10.97
recalled the order dated 15.5.97 declaring
the same as ineffective by which Jata
Shanker Singh was recognised as Manager
and his signatures were attested. The
B.S.A. had passed that order holding that
the High Court has vacated the interim
order and directed to dispose of the matter.
But the B.S.A. had not given his reason for
declaring his order dated 15.5.97 as
ineffective, except that the interim order
has been vacated by the High Court. The
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits Varanasi has also passed an order
3All] C/M Janta Siksha Prasar Samiti V. Asstt. Registrar Firms Societies & Chits & others 95
dated 2.4.1998 in which he has held that
society which has been re-registered and
the renewal made thereafter in pursuance
of the G.O. dated 16.2.90 is liable to be
renewed. It is also stated that under Sub
Section 2 of Section 25 of the Societies
Registration Act and; the bye-laws of the
society registered on 20.,8.1973, the
Assistant Registrar ensure to conduct the
elections of the valid members who were
elected before the dispute of 1.9.83 and
renewal of the registered society dated
30.8.73 be made after getting the fees
deposited thereafter.

8. In pursuance of the aforesaid order
Assistant Registrar, Gorakhpur issued
notice-providing opportunity by 10.8.96.
Thereafter, Assistant Registrar Gorakhpur
passed the order dated 12.8.98 nominating
Up Zila Adhikari, District Sant Kabir
Nagar under the powers conferred to him
under
Section
25
of
the
Societies
Registration Act and directed to conduct
the elections of the society as early as
possible on the basis of the list of general
body. This order dated 12.8.98 has been
challenged in writ petition no. 27548 of
1998.

9. Thereafter, the Assistant Registrar,
Firms Societies and Chits Gorakhpur has
modified the order dated 12.8.,98 to the
extent that in place of Deputy Collector
(Up Zila Adhikari Khalilabad) Deputy
Collector Menhdawal, district Sant Kbair
Nagar is nominated as Election Officer to
hold
elections
of
the
committee
of
management of the society and thereafter
vide order dated 3.11.1998 had declared
the date of election as 16.11.98 . Against
this order dated 3.11.98 the subsequent
writ petition i.e. writ petition no. 37612 of
1998j has been filed praying for a writ of
mandamus
restraining
the
Deputy
Collector Menhdawal, district Sant Kabir
Nagar to hold the election of the
committee of management of the society.

10. This court vide order dated
16.9.97 passed in writ petition no. 23655
of 1997 and 2182 of 1984 held that the
order
dated
30.4.84
renewing
the
registration has lost the existence by lapse
of
time.
Assistant
Registrar,
firms
Societies and Chits, Varanasi under the
Societies Registration Act as well as Basic
Shiksha Adhikari, Basti were directed to
pass fresh orders on the facts and
circumstances existing on the date of
judgement
on
the
basis
of
the
representation filed by the parties before
them according to law and representation
made for the purpose without being
influenced by any order either passed on
30.1,84 or 15.5.97. It was further directed
that they be at liberty to decide the
controversy afresh , after giving an
opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari has passed the
order without following the aforesaid
direction and only pass an order 20.10.97
on the basis of the fact that interim order
was vacated by this court while passing the
above mentioned order. This Court did not
direct this. The direction was to provide
opportunity of hearing and to pass
appropriate order but Zila Basic Shiksha
Adhikari Basti has not passed speaking
order and it has also not been mentioned in
the order whether any opportunity was
provided to the parties concerned as was
directed . Hence the order passed the Zila
Basic Shiksha Adhikari is not relevant at
this stage.

11. Now it is to be seen whether
Assistant Registrar. Firms Societies and
Chits Varanasi has passed the order after
providing
opportunity
to
the
parties
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
96
properly or not. From the perusal of the
impugned order dated 2.4.1998, passed by
the Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and
Chits, Varanasi, it appears that before
passing;
the
order
has
provided
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned as the parties had produced
documents in support of their pleadings
before the Assistant Registrar. On 25.3.98,
counsel were also allowed to represent the
parties. The parties before Assistant
Registrar also made written submissions.
The assistant Registrar has indicated in his
order the following points:-

1)
Both the parties have produced their
written
submissions,
evidence
and
contentions, but most of them are related
to the college run by the society.

2)
Both the parties want to get renewal
of the society, which was re-registered.

3)
The election conducted by both the
parties are not in accordance with the by
laws produced by themselves.

The state Government vide G.O. No.
Adhi.4446/10-87-603/89
dated
16th
February, 1990 has directed that Reregistration of the old registered society
shall not be made and only renewal of the
same can be made.

12. On the basis of the above
mentioned points the Assistant Registrar
has come to the conclusion that the reregistration made of the society already
registered earlier and its renewal made on
the basis of re-registration are liable to be
cancelled and the old registration which
was made vide no. 1-30554 dated 20.10.73
is liable to be renewed. But before this it is
necessary
that
election
should
be
conducted on the basis of the by laws
registered at the time of registration of the
society dated 20.,7.73 and all the valid
members before dispute has arisen in the
year 1983 and thereafter fees should be got
deposited by the newly elected committee
and renewal of the society registered on
20.8.73 should be done. This should be got
done by the Assistant Registrar, Firms
Societies
and
Chits
Gorakhpur
in
pursuance of the order dated 2.4.98. The
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits Gorakhpur pass the order on 12.8.98
to the effect that before dispute had arisen
in the year 1983 it was found on the basis
of the list of members, which was made
available by the parties. That eleven
members are common in both the list and
there are 118 members list which have
been made available by parties for the
purpose of election and the Assistant
Registrar exercises its powers conferred to
him under Clause 2 of Section 25 of the
Societies Registration Act.

13. This court found no illegality or
impropriety in the order passed by the
Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and
Chits, Varanasi dated 2.4.98 as he has
acted in accordance with the directions of
this court dated 16.9.97 and the G.O. dated
16.2.90 by which the government has
restrained the re-registration of old society
already registered and relied upon the
registration made of the society on 20.8.73
and also bylaws submitted by the society
at the time of registration. Certainly if the
subsequent action was illegal, it cannot be
said that any valid election was held
subsequently as only the registration which
was already in existence on 20.8.73 for a
period of five years was to be renewed
instead of getting re-registration of the
society. The Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies
and
Chits
Gorakhpur
has
consequently passed order as this court has
3All] C/M Janta Siksha Prasar Samiti V. Asstt. Registrar Firms Societies & Chits & others 97
held the order dated 2.4.98 passed by the
Assistant Registrar, firms, Societies and
Chits, Varanasi as valid, the consequential
order passed by the Assistant Registrar,
Firms Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur
cannot be said to be illegal or improper. In
so far as the powers conferred under Sub.
Section 2 of Section 25 of the Societies
Registration Act first of all the provisions
of Section 25(2) of the same are liable to
be perused, which are quoted as under :-

"Section 25 (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
meeting of the general body of such
society for electing such office-bearer or
office bearers, and such meeting shall be
presided over and be conducted by the
Registrar or any officer authorized 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 modification."

14. Perusal of the above quoted
provision would show that it has been
provided therein that where the Registrar is
satisfied that any election of the officer
bearer of the society has not been held
within the time specified, he may call
meeting of General body of such society
for electing such officer bearers and such
meetings shall be presided over and be
conducted by he registrar or by any officer
authorized by him in his behalf.

15. This court has come to the
conclusion that in view of the fact that reregistration
of
the
society
was not
permissible and only renewal of the
society was permissible while action done
either by the petitioner or by the
respondent Jata Shanker Singh on the basis
of the re-registration of the society is
illegal and on the basis of old registration
of the society and the bylaws submitted
with the application for registration of the
society which was registered were to be
followed
on
the
basis
of
the
old
registration of the society. Hence, it cannot
be said that any election of office bearers
of the society was held within the time
specified in the rules of that society.

16. In view of the above mentioned
facts and circumstances the writ petition
no. 27548 of 1998 has no force and is
liable to be dismissed.

17. The Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Gorakhpurk had
authorized vide his order dated 12.8.98,
Deputy Collector Khalilabad, district Sant
Kabir Nagar as election officer. But
subsequently vide order dated 28.8.98, a
copy of which has been filed as Annexure
5 to the Writ petition no. 37612 of 1998
modified his order dated 12.8.98 to the
effect that in place of Up Zila Adhikari,
Khalilabad, Up Zila Adhikari Menhdawal
was nominated as election officer and
consequently
Up
Zila
Adhikari
Menhdawal declared the date of election
and called meeting of General Body of the
society for electing the office bearers.

18. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
has
urged
that
Up
Zila
Adhikari
Menhdawal again called meeting of the
General Body for electing the office
bearers only Registrar is empowered to
call such meeting under the provisions of
Sub Section (2) of Section 25 of the
Societies Registration Act.
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
98

19. In this regard learned counsel has
drawn attention of this court towards the
decision of this court made by the Division
Bench in writ petition no. Nil of 1990 Ram
Kumar
Varshney
Vs.
Tehsildar
Kol
Aligarh-cum-Election Officer and another)
in which it has been held that the meeting
of general body of the society can only be
called by the Registrar and the officer
authorized by the Registrar comes into
picture only after the meeting has been
convened by the Registrar and it was
directed to the Assistant Registrar to issue
notice fixing the date of meeting and also
framing time table.

20. Considering the facts and
circumstances of the case and in view of
the provisions of sub-section(2) of Section
25 the meeting of the General Body is
liable to be called by the Registrar for
electing the office bearers of the society in
question.

21. In view of the above, the order
passed by the Up Zila Adhikari Mendawal
calling meeting of general body of the
society in question and framing time table
for election is liable to be quashed.

22. In the result writ petition no.
37612 of 1998 succeeds and is allowed to
the extent that the order calling meeting of
general body of the society in question by
the Up Zila Adhikari Menhdawal vide
order dated 3.11.1998 is illegal and is
hereby quashed.

23. A writ in the nature of Mandamus
is
issued
commanding
the
Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Gorakhpur to call meeting of the General
Body of the Society in question for
electing office bearer and frame time table,
but the same may be presided and be
conducted by the Up Zila Adhikari
Menhdawal,
or
any
other
officer
authorized by the Assistant Registrar as the
case may be.

The parties shall bear their own cost.
Petition Allowed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( 0 .$7-8 -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

8WWDP &KDULWDEOH 7UXVW
DQG DQRWKHU
«3HWLWLRQHUV
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 8WWDU 3UDGHVK WKURXJK 6HFUHWDU\
/RFDO %RGLHV 6HFUHWDULDW /XFNQRZ DQG
DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
6KUL 9LNUDP 1DWK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
6&

83 1DJDU 0DKDSDOLND $GKLQL\DP
6V DQG 6 ‹ DV DPHQGHG E\
83 0XQLFLSDO &RUSRUDWLRQ DPHQGPHQW
$FW 3HWLWLRQHU D &KDULWDEOH 7UXVW
HVWDEOLVKHG
D
6FKRRO21DJDU
1LJDP
LPSRVHG SURSHUW\ WD[ RQ LW 3HWLWLRQHU
FODLPHG H[HPSWLRQ XV F *2 GDWHG

SURYLGLQJ
WKDW
LQVWLWXWLRQV
LPSDUWLQJ HGXFDWLRQ RQ FRPPHUFLDO EDVLV
ZHUH QRW HQWLWOHG WR EHQHILW RI H[HPSWLRQ
RI WD[ +HOG WKDW WKH OLDELOLW\ FDQQRW EH
LPSRVHG E\ *RYHUQPHQW 2UGHU )XUWKHU
KHOG WKDW XQGHU DPHQGHG 6 F QR
JHQHUDO
WD[
FRXOG
EH
LPSRVHG
XSRQ
SHWLWLRQHU
&ROOHJH
ZKLFK
LV
QHLWKHU
SURIHVVLRQDO QRU YRFDWLRQDO LQVWLWXWLRQ
+HOG SDUD