# C/M, Janta Vidyalaya Samiti, Mathura & anr v. D.R., Firms Societies & Chits & ors

- **Citation:** (2005) 1 ILRA 154
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2004-09-17
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52466 of 2003
- **Bench:** Arun Tandon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-janta-vidyalaya-samiti-mathura-anr-v-d-r-firms-societies-chits-ors-40335
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Sri Ashok Khare
Sri V.K. Agarwal
Sri Sanjay Mishra
Sri Digvijay Singh
S.C.

Societies Registration Act-Ss. 25 (1)
and-Dispute with regard to two riwal
elections, set up by parties must be
referred to Prescribed Authority within
one month-order deciding claim by Dy.
Registrar-held, without jurisdiction.

Held: Para 25 and 26

In the opinion of the Court in the facts
and circumstances of the case it is
established that there is a bona fide
dispute in respect of the two rival
elections of the office bearers of the
society and the Deputy Registrar could
not have decided the same on his own.

The
order
passed
by
the
Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Agra, U.P. is wholly without jurisdiction.
The dispute with regard to the two rival
elections set up by the parties must
necessarily be referred by the Deputy
Registrar to the Prescribed Authority
within one month from the date a
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] C/M, Janta Vidyalaya Samiti, Mathura & anr. V. D.R., Firms Societies & Chits & ors. 155
certified copy of this order is filed before
him. It is further provided that the
Prescribed Authority shall proceed to
decide the dispute so referred at the
earliest
possible
after
affording
opportunity of hearing of the parties and
after
permitting
the
exchange
of
documents within a period of three
months from the date of such reference.
Case Law discussed:
(1999) 2 UPLBEC 77
2003 (3) E & S.C. (All.) 1617
(1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242
(1988) UPLBEC 732
(1970) 1 SCC 613
AIR 1968 SC 1328

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
154
lesson to Hriday Narain and his family.
Moreover, they used their weapons and
took active part in commission of the
crime. In this view of the matter, it is not
possible for us to accept the submission
made on behalf of the appellants that
provisions of Section 149 I.P.C. are not
attracted and A-2 to A-5 (except Jawahar)
could not be convicted under Section 302
with the aid of Section 149 I.P.C.

41. On careful scrutiny of the entire
evidence on record, we are also of the
view that the prosecution succeeded in
bringing home the charges against the
appellants and, therefore, the conclusion
arrived at by the learned trial court is
liable to be upheld. We, therefore, hold
that this appeal is devoid of merit and is
liable to be dismissed.

42. The appeal fails and is hereby
dismissed. The conviction and sentence
recorded by the trial Judge are hereby
affirmed. The appellants are on bail.
Their bail is cancelled. They shall be
taken into custody to serve out the
sentences passed against them.

43. A copy of this judgment shall be
sent
to
the
court
concerned
for
compliance of the order. Compliance
report shall be submitted to this Court
within two months.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.09.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ARUN TANDON, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52466 of 2003

Committee
of
Management,
Janta
Vidyalaya Samiti, Sahpau Mathura and
another

 ...Petitioners
Versus
The Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Agra U.P. & others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri M.K. Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Ashok Khare
Sri V.K. Agarwal
Sri Sanjay Mishra
Sri Digvijay Singh
S.C.

Societies Registration Act-Ss. 25 (1)
and-Dispute with regard to two riwal
elections, set up by parties must be
referred to Prescribed Authority within
one month-order deciding claim by Dy.
Registrar-held, without jurisdiction.

Held: Para 25 and 26

In the opinion of the Court in the facts
and circumstances of the case it is
established that there is a bona fide
dispute in respect of the two rival
elections of the office bearers of the
society and the Deputy Registrar could
not have decided the same on his own.

The
order
passed
by
the
Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Agra, U.P. is wholly without jurisdiction.
The dispute with regard to the two rival
elections set up by the parties must
necessarily be referred by the Deputy
Registrar to the Prescribed Authority
within one month from the date a
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] C/M, Janta Vidyalaya Samiti, Mathura & anr. V. D.R., Firms Societies & Chits & ors. 155
certified copy of this order is filed before
him. It is further provided that the
Prescribed Authority shall proceed to
decide the dispute so referred at the
earliest
possible
after
affording
opportunity of hearing of the parties and
after
permitting
the
exchange
of
documents within a period of three
months from the date of such reference.
Case Law discussed:
(1999) 2 UPLBEC 77
2003 (3) E & S.C. (All.) 1617
(1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242
(1988) UPLBEC 732
(1970) 1 SCC 613
AIR 1968 SC 1328

(Delivered by Hon'ble Arun Tandon, J.)

1. Heard Sri Mithilesh Kumar
Tiwari,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners, Sri Ashok Khare, Senior
Advocate, assisted by Sri V.K. Agarwal,
learned counsel for the respondent nos.
2,3, and 4 and Learned Standing Counsel
for the respondent nos. 1 and 5.

2. Committee of Management of
Janta Vidyalaya Samiti, Mahamaya Nagar
through its President, Sri Ajant Singh and
one Sri Neeraj Yadav have filed this writ
petition against the order of the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Chits and Societies,
Agra dated 19th November,2003 whereby,
after adjudicating upon the rival set of
elections, he has proceeded to hold that
the elections dated 30th June,2003 are
legal and valid and, therefore, has directed
that the list of office bearers submitted in
pursuance of the aforesaid elections be
registered under Section 4 of the Societies
Registration Act.

3. It is contended on behalf of the
petitioners that the aforesaid order of the
Deputy Registrar dated 19th November,
2003 is without jurisdiction inasmuch as
there was a bona fide dispute between two
rival set of office bearers on the basis of
two elections; first held on 18th July, 2003
wherein the petitioners, namely, Sri Ajant
Singh was elected as President and Sri
Neeraj Yadav as Vyavasthapak/Manager
(elections of the petitioners). The other set
of elections are alleged to have taken
place on 30th June, 2003 in which Sri Hari
Parasad Yadav was elected as President,
Sri Brijesh Kumar as Secretary and Sri
Bharat
Singh
Vyavasthapak/Manager.
The said dispute could have been
adjudicated upon by the Prescribed
Authority under Section 25(1) of the
Societies Registration Act and the Deputy
Registrar was under legal obligations, to
have referred the dispute to the Prescribed
Authority under Section 25(1) of the
Societies Registration Act. Reliance, in
support of the contention have been
placed upon the judgments of this Court
reported in (1999) 2 UPLBEC 77
(Committee of Management Versus
Secretary, Arya Kanya Inter College)
and 2003(3) Education & Service Cases
(Allahabad) 1617 (Sitaram Rai and
others
Versus
Additional
Registrar,
Firm, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur
Division, Gorakhpur and others).

4. It is stated that the impugned
order proceeds on misconception of fact
and law that the finding recorded in
Original Suit being Original Suit No. 138
of 1994 would operate as res judicata
against the petitioners. In paragraph no.3
of the writ petition it has been stated that
the impugned order dated 19th November,
2003 has been passed without affording
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.

5. Lastly, it is submitted that even if
the alleged elections of the petitioner are
not accepted, the Deputy Registrar was
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
156
under
legal
obligations,
to
record
findings, (a) as to whether Sri Bharat
Singh was competent to hold fresh
elections or not, (b) whether the elections
dated 30th June, 2003 set up by Sri Bharat
Singh Yadav were held in accordance
with the registered bye-laws of the society
or not, which has not been done. The
order dated 1st November, 2003 was
passed in manifest of non-compliance of
Section 4 (1) (proviso) of the Societies
Registration Act, inasmuch as the list of
the office bearers submitted by Sri Bharat
Singh Yadav on the basis of the elections
dated
30th
June,
2003
was
not
countersigned by the outgoing office
bearers.

6. On behalf of the respondents it is
contended that the Deputy Registrar under
the impugned order has held that Sri
Neeraj Yadav is not even a primary
member of the society and, consequently,
he could not have held any elections and
as such there was no bona fide dispute of
elections, which was required to be
adjudicated upon by the Prescribed
Authority under Section 25(1) of the
Societies Registration Act. The Deputy
Registrar is not required to act as post
office. In the facts of the present case the
Deputy Registrar has rightly held that
there was only one set of valid elections
and has, therefore, rightly registered the
list of office bearers of the society under
the impugned order. In support the said
contention,
respondents
have
placed
reliance upon the judgment reported in
(1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242 (Committee of
Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan,
Banksahi, District Basti and another
Versus
Assistant
Registrar,
Firms,
Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region,
Gorakhpur and another)

7. Respondent submits that the
judgment of the Civil Judge, Sadabad,
Hathrash (Mahamaya Nagar) dated 26th
September, 2003 passed in Civil Suit No.
138 of 1994 with regard to Issue No. 11
would operate as res judicata. The same
has become final between the parties. The
Civil Judge has held that Sri Neeraj
Yadav was not even a primary member of
the general body nor the Manger of the
Committee of Management of the Janta
Vidyalaya, Mahamaya Nagar. The said
finding recorded by the Civil Judge in
respect of Issue no.11, which has become
final between the parties, cannot be
permitted to be questioned by Sri Neeraj
Yadav before the Deputy Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra. In reply
to paragraph 31 of the writ petition, in
Paragraph 25 of the counter affidavit it
has been stated that the objections of the
petitioners have been rejected after
affording opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners for valid reasons.

8. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties and have gone through the
records of the present writ petition.

The relevant facts for decision of the
present writ petition are that Janta
Vidyalaya Samiti, Mahamaya Nagar is a
registered society under the Societies
Registration Act. The said society runs
and manages a recognized intermediate
college in the name and style of Janta
Inter College, Sahpau Mahamaya Nagar.
Under rule 6 of the bye laws of the
society, it is provided that the Managing
Committee of the society shall constitute
a Committee of Management to look after
the affairs of the educational institution.
The Vyawashthapak of the society ex
officio becomes the Manager of the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] C/M, Janta Vidyalaya Samiti, Mathura & anr. V. D.R., Firms Societies & Chits & ors. 157
Committee
of
Management
of
the
institution.

9. Upto 4th December, 1991 there
was no dispute in respect of the
Committee of Management or of the
institution. Sri Ram Prakash Yadav, who
was the Vyawashthapak/Manager, expired
on 4th December, 1991. On his death Sri
Bharat Singh Yadav set up a claim for the
post of Manager of the institution. The
claim of Sri Bharat Singh Yadav was
turned down by the District Inspector of
Schools,
Mathura
vide
order
dated
26.12.1991. Feeling aggrieved by the
aforesaid order of District Inspector of
Schools, Sri Bharat Singh Yadav filed a
writ petition before this Court, being Writ
Petition No. Nil of 1992, and this Court
vide order dated 23rd January, 1992
passed an interim order in his favour.
Under order of this Court Sri Bharat
Singh Yadav continued to work as
Manager
of
the
institution
for
its
remaining term.

10. On 6th February, 1994 fresh
elections of the office bearers of the
society took place, in which Sri Ajant
Singh Yadav (Petitioner no.1) was elected
as Prabandhak/President, Sri Sohan Lal
was elected as Mantri/Secretary and Sri
Jaswant
Singh
was
elected
as
Vyawashthapak/Manager of the society.
The aforesaid elections of the society
dated 6th February, 1994 were questioned
by Sri Bharat Singh Yadav by way of
objections before the Deputy Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits. The Deputy
Registrar, after affording opportunity to
the parties concerned, by means of the
order dated 18th July, 1994 held that the
elections set up by Sri Sohan Lal, claming
himself to be elected as Mantri/Secretary,
dated
6th
February,
1994
were
in
accordance with the bye-laws of the
society, while the elections set up by Sri
Bharat Singh Yadav are claimed to have
been held in accordance with the
approved scheme of administration of the
institution. In such circumstances, the
Deputy Registrar directed that the list of
office bearers elected on 6th February,
1994 be registered, as the elections had
taken place in accordance with the
registered bye-laws.

11. Feeling aggrieved by the
aforesaid order of Deputy Registrar dated
18th July, 1994, respondent no.3 Sri
Bharat Singh Yadav filed another writ
petition before this Court being Civil
Misc. Writ Petition 24437 of 1994,
wherein a conditional interim order was
granted. Under said interim order of this
Court, no restrain was placed on the
functioning of the office bearers of the
society, the list whereof had already been
registered. Accordingly an advertisement
was invited by the officer bearers of the
society in Hindu Newspapers "Dainik
Jagaran"
inviting
elections
of
the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
institution.

Election notification so published by the
office bearers of the society, was
challenged by Sri Bharat Singh by means
of a suit being Civil Suit No. 138 of 1994
(Bharat Singh Versus Ajant Singh) before
the Court of Munsif, Sadabad, Mathura.
In the said suit no interim injunction was
granted as a result whereof fresh elections
for
constituting
the
Committee
of
Management of the institution took place
on 3rd October, 1994 in which Sri Ajant
Singh was elected as Manger. Sri Bharat
Singh challenged the aforesaid elections
also by way of an amendment in the Civil
Suit No. 138 of 1994. During the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
158
pendency of the aforesaid Civil Suit
proceedings the term of the elected
Committee of Management (three years)
has expired. As such fresh elections of the
office bearers of the society took place on
20th June, 1997 in which Sri Ajant Singh
was again elected as President and Sri
Sohan Lal was elected as Secretary. Sri
Bharat Singh filed objections to the list of
office bearers submitted in pursuance of
the aforesaid elections dated 20th June,
1997 before the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits. The objections so
filed by Sri Bharat Singh, the Deputy
Registrar referred the dispute under
Section 25 of the Societies Registration
Act to the Paragana Adhikari, Sadabad.
During the period of said proceedings,
elections
of
the
Committee
of
Management of the institution also took
place on 13th September, 1997 in which
Sri Neeraj Yadav was elected as the
Manager. Before the reference could be
decided,
the
term
of
the
elected
Committee of Management was also
expired and the fresh elections of the
office bearers of the society took place on
4th June,2000 in which Sri Ajant Singh
was again elected as President. Against
the aforesaid elections dated 4th June,
2000 objections were again filed by Sri
Bharat Singh before the Deputy Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits. The Deputy
Registrar, however, rejected the said
objections filed by Sri Bharat Singh and
vide order dated 5th May, 2001 directed
that the list of office bearers elected on 4th
June, 2000 be registered. The term of the
Committee of Management elected in the
year 2000 was expired in the year 2003
and accordingly, the fresh elections were
invited in daily newspaper "Aaj" for 18th
July,
2003.
The
elections
were
accordingly, held and Sri Ajant Singh was
again elected as President, Sri Neeraj
Yadav was elected as Vyawashthapak and
Sri Ajeet Singh was elected as Mantri.
The proceedings in respect of the
elections dated 18th July,2003 were
forwarded to the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits after being duly
countersigned by the outgoing office
bearers vide letter dated 21st July,2003.
Sri Bharat Singh Yadav instead of filing
the objections of the aforesaid elections
dated 18th July, 2003 now set up his
independent elections dated 30th June,
2003 and forwarded the papers pertaining
to the aforesaid elections to the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits for
the first time on 1st November, 2003. On
the same date the Deputy Registrar
without complying with the provisions of
Section 4 (1) proviso of the Societies
Registration Act registered the list of
office bearers submitted by Sri Bharat
Singh pertaining to the elections dated
30th June, 2003. Against the said order
dated 1st November, 2003 the petitioner
moved
an
application
dated
3rd
November, 2003 for recall of the said
order dated 1st November, 2003. The
application so filed by the petitioner has
been rejected by the Deputy Registrar by
means of the order dated 19th November,
2003. Under the impugned order it has
been held that Sri Neeraj Yadav is not
even a primary member of the society
and, consequently, the elections set up by
him
cannot
be
recognized/accepted,
therefore, it has been decided to maintain
the order dated 1st November, 2003
whereby the list of office bearers
submitted by Sri Bharat Singh on the
basis of elections dated 30th June, 2003
had been registered.

12. So far as the order dated 1st
November, 2003 is concerned, it is
established from records that the said
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] C/M, Janta Vidyalaya Samiti, Mathura & anr. V. D.R., Firms Societies & Chits & ors. 159
order was passed by the Deputy Registrar
without complying with the requirements
of Section 4(1) proviso of the Societies
Registration Act. The list of office bearers
submitted by Sri Bharat Singh on the
basis of elections dated 30th June, 2003
was not countersigned by the outgoing
office bearers. The Deputy Registrar did
not invite objections as contemplated by
the proviso to Section 4 (1) of the Act
proceeded to register the same on the very
date the list was submitted in his office.

13. In the opinion of the Court the
procedure
adopted
by
the
Deputy
Registrar, as such, is patently illegal and
order dated 1st November, 2003 cannot be
sustained.

14. So far as the order dated 19th
November,
2003
is
concerned,
the
jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to
pass the impugned order is required to be
judged on the following issues, namely,
(i) whether Sri Neeraj Yadav was
bonafide member of the general body of
the society and therefore, the elections set
up by him could not have been held to be
a mere transaction; (ii) whether in the
facts of the present case there was a
bonafide dispute with regard to the
elections of the office bearers of the
society, which are required to be referred
under Section 25 (1) of the Societies
Registration
Act
to
the
Prescribed
Authority.

Decision on Issue No. (1)

15. From the order passed by the
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits dated 19th November, 2003, it is
apparently clear that after reproducing the
portion of the order of the Civil Court
dated 26th September, 2003, whereby in
the Civil Suit No. 138 of 1994 Issue
No.11 has been decided no other finding
has been recorded by the Deputy
Registrar.

16. Thus, the controversy with
regard to Sri Neeraj Yadav being a
member of the general body of the society
revolves
around
only
one
question
namely, whether the finding recorded in
respect of Issue No.11 by the Civil Court
in Civil Suit No. 138 of 1994 would
operate as res judicata or not. For
deciding the said issue it is worthwhile to
refer the Issue No.11, which reads as
follows:

"D;k uhjt ;kno turk b.Vj dkyst ds
izca/kd o f'k{k.k laLFkk ds lnL; gS ?"

17. The finding recorded by the
Civil Court in respect of said issue
mentioned on page 72 of the writ petition
reads as follows:
"i=koyh ij dksbZ Hkh ,slk lk{; miyC/k ugha
gS u gh izfroknhx.k us vius lk{; esa bl ckr dks
LiLV fd;k gS fd nkok nk;j djrs le; uhjt
;kno laLFkk ds lnL; FksA ;k izca/akd Fks pwfd
izfroknhx.k bl ckr dks lkfcr djus esa vlQy
jgk gS fd nkok nk;j djus fd frfFk ds le; uhjt
;kno lnL; Fks vr% esjs fopkj esa okn fcUnq la[;k
11 izfroknhx.k ds fo:) rFkk oknh ds gd esa
ldkjkRed :i ls fuf.kZr fd;k tkuk lgh izrhr
gksrk gS D;ksfd ;gk ij ;g fookn ugh gS fd vkt
dh rkjh[k esa uhjt ;kno izca/kd ;k lnL; gS ;k
ughaA vkt dh rkjh[k esa rks og izca/kd gSAbl ckr
dks Mh0 MCyw 1 us vius lk{; esa lkfcr Hkh fd;k gS
vkSj cfYd beIykbM :i ls oknhx.k us ekuk Hkh gSa
ysfdu nkok nk;j djus dh frfFk esa og u rks
lnL; Fkk u gh izcU/kd Fkk] u gh muds }kjk dksbZ
lnL;rk dh jlhn nkf[ky dh x;h] u gh dksbZ
lk{; nkf[ky fd;k vkSj u gh mDr jlhn o lk{;
dks ijhf{kr djk;k vkSj u gh lkfcr djk;k mijksDr
ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks enns utj j[krs gq, okn fcUnw
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
160
la[;k 11 oknh ds gd esa izfroknh ds fo:+)
udkjkRed :i ls fuf.kZr fd;k tkuk U;k; laxr
izrhr gksrk gSa okn fcUnq la[;k 11 oknh ds gd esa
izfroknh ds fo:) udkjkRed :i ls fuf.kZr fd;k
tkrk gSaA "

18. For a finding to operate as res
judicata having regard to the principles
enshrined under Section 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, it is necessary that the
following three conditions must be
satisfied, namely, (a) the issue was
directly
and
substantially
in
considerations under former proceedings,
(b) between the same parties or parties
litigating under the title, claim under them
before a competent Court to try the issue,
(c) issue has been heard and finally
decided under the former proceedings.

19. So far as the condition (a) is
concerned, from the plaint allegations of
Civil Suit No. 138 of 1994, it is apparent
that the said suit was confined only to the
elections
of
the
Committee
of
Management of the institution. The
elections
of
the
Committee
of
Management are required to take place in
accordance with the approved scheme of
administration and absolutely no dispute
or controversy has been raised in the said
suit by Sri Bharat Singh with regard to
membership of Sri Neeraj Yadav, so far
as the general body of the society is
concerned. In Civil Suit No. 138 of 1994
there was no issue with regard to the
membership of Sri Neeraj Yadav so far as
the general body of the society is
concerned. Reference at this stage may
also be made upon the Division Bench
judgment of this Court reported in (1988)
1 UPLBEC 732, whereunder it has been
held
that
the
provisions
of
the
Intermediate Education Act and the
Societies Registration Act are not over
lapping, therefore, the order challenged in
the Civil Suit No. 138 of 1994 has
confined to elections of the Committee of
Management, which were being held by
the office bearers of the society. It cannot
be said that on the question of Sri Neeraj
Yadav, being a member of the general
body of the society, was directly or
substantially in issue in the said suit.

20. So far as the condition (b) is
concerned, the former proceedings before
a court, competent to try the said suit,
being Civil Suit No. 138 of 1994 is not in
dispute.

21. So far as the condition (c) is
concerned, from the findings recorded by
the Civil Court in respect of Issue No.11
quoted hereinabove, it cannot be said that
the Civil Court has finally decided the
issue of membership of Sri Neeraj Yadav
vis-à-vis the general body of the society.
The finding recorded by the Prescribed
Authority is confined to the extent that on
the date the said suit was filed, Sri Neeraj
Yadav was not a Member/Manager of the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
institution. The date of filing of the said
suit is the year 1994. The said finding
cannot be held to be binding on the
principle of res judicata in respect of the
elections of the office bearers of the
society, which have taken place in the
year 2003, or that Sri Neeraj Yadav was
not a member of the general body of the
society.

22. From the judgment of the Civil
Court dated 26th September, 2003, passed
in Civil Suit No. 138 of 1994, it is
apparently clear that the said suit has been
dismissed on the ground that no cause of
action has arisen for the plaintiff to file
the said suit. Once the said suit itself has
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
1All] C/M, Janta Vidyalaya Samiti, Mathura & anr. V. D.R., Firms Societies & Chits & ors. 161
been dismissed on the ground of lack to
cause of auction, the Civil Court could not
have proceeded to adjudicate upon the
issue with regards to the membership of
Sri Neeraj Yadav nor any finding
recorded thereafter in the facts of the case
can be said to operate as res judicata. It is
accordingly,
held
that
the
findings
recorded by the Civil Court in respect of
Issue No. 11, in Civil Suit No. 138 of
1994, vide judgment and order dated 26th
September, 1994 will not operate as res
judicata, so far as the membership of Sri
Neeraj Yadav of the general body of the
society is concerned. The view taken
above finds support from the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the
judgment
reported
in
1970(1)
SUPREME
COURT
CASES
613
(Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal and
others Versus Dossibai N.B. Jeejeebhoy)
and AIR 1968 SC 1328 (Sobhag Singh
Versus Jai Singh).

Decision on Issue No. (11)

23. From the facts, which have been
noticed hereinabove, it is apparently clear
that the list of office bearers in which Sri
Ajant Singh was elected as President of
the society has been registered under
Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act
since 1994 by the Deputy Registrar. It is
further apparent that the elections of the
office bearers of the society took place
within time after expiry of the term of the
earlier Committee of Management in the
years 1997 and 2000 thereafter. In the
circumstances the elections, which have
been set up by the petitioner-office
bearers dated 18th July,2003 cannot be
said to be held by rank outsider so as to be
ignored by the Deputy Registrar.

24. On the other hand Sri Bharat
Singh has not pleaded any independent
election subsequent to his having been
elected as Manger for the remaining term
of the Committee of Management in
pursuance of the elections, which had
taken place in the year 1991. In paragraph
9 to 14 of the counter affidavit filed by Sri
Bharat Singh reference has only been
made to the elections held by the
petitioners dated 6th February, 1994 and
20th July, 1997. There is absolutely no
pleadings of Sri Bharat Singh Yadav in
respect of his elections having been held
nor any list of office bearers submitted in
pursuance thereof has been submitted
before the Deputy Registrar. It is thus,
clear that Sri Bharat Singh has set up the
elections for the first time dated 30th
June, 2003 after a gap of nearly nine
years. There is also a serious dispute as to
whether, (a) in the facts of the case fresh
elections as set up by Sri Bharat Singh
were held or not, (b) as to whether Sri
Bharat Singh had competent to hold any
fresh elections on 30th June, 2003 or not
and (c) further elections, if any, set up by
Sri Bharat Singh having been held strictly
in accordance with the registered byelaws of the society or not. From order
passed by the Deputy Registrar except for
noticing the findings of the Civil Court
with regard to the membership of Sri
Neeraj
Yadav,
no
other
findings
whatsoever have been recorded with
regard to the legality or otherwise of the
elections pleaded by Sri Bharat Singh.

25. In the opinion of the Court in the
facts and circumstances of the case it is
established that there is a bona fide
dispute in respect of the two rival
elections of the office bearers of the
society and the Deputy Registrar could
not have decided the same on his own.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2005
162
The Deputy Registrar was under legal
obligations, who has referred the said
dispute for adjudication under Section 25
(1) of the Societies Registration Act as
has been repeatedly held by this Court in
the judgment reported in (1999) 2
UPLBEC 77 (Committee of Management
Versus Secretary, Arya Kanya Inter
College) and 2003(3) Education &
Service Cases (Allahabad) 1617 (Sitaram
Rai
and
others
Versus
Additional
Registrar, Firm, Societies and Chits,
Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and
others). The relevant portion of the
judgment in the case of Sita Ram Rai
reads as follows:

"The election disputes, if any,
including validity of members entitled to
vote can only be decided under Section
25 (1) by the Prescribed Authority and
that any person aggrieved thereafter has
a right to approach Civil Court."

26. The order passed by the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Agra, U.P. is wholly without jurisdiction.
The dispute with regard to the two rival
elections set up by the parties must
necessarily be referred by the Deputy
Registrar to the Prescribed Authority
within one month from the date a certified
copy of this order is filed before him. It is
further provided that the Prescribed
Authority shall proceed to decide the
dispute so referred at the earliest possible
after affording opportunity of hearing of
the parties and after permitting the
exchange of documents within a period of
three months from the date of such
reference.

27. In view of the findings recorded
hereinabove, it is apparently clear that the
impugned order of the Deputy Registrar
dated 19th November, 2003 is without
jurisdiction and cannot be sustained and is
hereby quashed, a writ of mandamus is
issued the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Agra, U.P. is directed
to refer the dispute for adjudication to the
Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1)
of the Societies Registration Act within
one month from the date a certified copy
of this order is produced before him.

The
present
writ
petition
is,
accordingly, allowed.
Petition Allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.09.2004

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.U. KHAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 37966 of 1999

Krishna Kumar Gupta
...Petitioner
Versus
A.D.J., Allahabad & others...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri R.N. Kesari

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

U.P. (Regulation of Letting, Rent and
Eviction)
Act,
1972-S.
20
(4)
Explanation-Deposit under-Date of first
hearing-Would be date of filing W.S. by
tenant-Till that date no application by
tenant for adjustment of deposit made
under S. 17 of PSCC Act-Subsequent
amendment in W.S. seeking adjustment
o entire amount of Rs. 15,000/- may be
taken to be a deposit made on date of
amendment application on date on which
was
allowed-both
these
dates
are
subsequent to date of filing W.S.-
Admission in W.S. that defendant was
deposited-Thus by date of filing W.S. i.e.