# C/M Motilal Memorial Society v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 6 ILRA 1166
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-06-11
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 4528 of 2010
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-motilal-memorial-society-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45759
- **Pages:** 53

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Anupam
Mehrotra,
Apoorva
Tiwari,
M.B.
Singh,
Prasant
Singh,
Sandeep Dixit, Shree Prakash Singh,
Vikas Vikram Singh

(A) Election to the Society - Societies
Registration Act of 1860 - Section 25 -
Disputes regarding election of office
bearers - Rule 12(1)(2),(3) -

A dispute of Motilal Memorial Society, the
parent Society - Motilal Memorial Society
(hereinafter referred to as ''the Society') was
brought into being by Former Chief Minister of
the State of U.P., Sri Chandra Bhanu Gupta
along with other like minded people as an
Educational and Charitable Society - Society
has vast resources and runs 13 Institutions in
the State. Para - 2

HELD:-
Since
the
Society
runs
several
Educational and Charitable Institutions and there
is great animosity generated amongst the
members of the Society due to repeated
litigations, it would be appropriate that this Court
constitutes a Committee of respected and
responsible citizens to look after the affairs of the
Institutions run by it . A Committee of two
Members only shall not be able to discharge the
responsibility of running the Society and its
Institutions in the period during which the
elections to the various constituents of the
Governing Council are held and new office
bearers take charge. I, therefore, nominate four
persons as Members of the new Interim
Committee to look after the affairs of the Society
and the institutions, namely, employees and staff
run by it. Para - 144

Writ petition partly allowed.(E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,958 of 179,066. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39958 for what follows._

1166 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
candidates were called for Counselling on
the same date and same venue at 12.30
P.M. which establishes the malafide on the
part of the concerned authorities mainly to
adjust their choice candidates for their
vested interests and for that very purpose
they have uploaded the contradictory
Counselling programme as evident from
Annexure CA-I & CA-2 (relevant page 18
of the Counter Affidavit) wherein the venue
of counselling has been shown to be New
Commerce Building, situated in main
campus while the Annexure CA-2 mentions
that the counselling shall take place "in the
Department where the course is being run."

(emphasis supplied)

11. In the counter affidavit the
contesting respondents have categorically
averred that the petitioner had reported for
counselling after all the seats of her category
were filled up. In 7 paragraph 12 of the
counter affidavit it has been specifically stated
that around 2.30 p.m. someone claiming
himself to be the brother of the petitioner
came and informed the officials present there
that the petitioner was coming from outside
and could not report for counselling in time as
her train got delayed. Since by that time all the
seats of her category were filled up, nothing
could be done in the case of the petitioner. In
the rejoinder affidavit, except for a vague
denial, the petitioner has said nothing more. It
is settled law that a vague denial is no denial.

12. Neither in the writ petition, nor in
the rejoinder affidavit, has the petitioner
disclosed the name of the official who had
asked her to wait in the side room. It is not in
dispute that all the candidates who had
reported for counselling in time were given
'Attendance Slip'. With regard to 'Attendance
Slip', the petitioner in her rejoinder affidavit,
for the first time, has vaguely alleged that
"even though the petitioner had reached the
counseling venue in time, no attendance slip
was ever provided to her". The averment
regarding non issuance of 'Attendance Slip'
in the rejoinder affidavit appears to be an
afterthought as the same is conspicuously
missing in the writ petition.

13. In the present case, no animus is
suggested and no malafides have been
pleaded. The petitioner is a law graduate. She
was well aware about the counselling
procedure. The contention of the petitioner
that she reported for counseling at 9.30 a.m.
sharp and kept sitting in the side room till 2
p.m., on the asking of some official, waiting
for her turn, and that too without obtaining an
attendance slip, is too naive for acceptance.

14. In view of the discussion made
above, there is no merit in the writ petition.
The writ petition, accordingly, stands
dismissed.

15. No order as to cost.
----------

(2020)06ILR A1166
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.06.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Misc. Single No. 4528 of 2010
connected with
Misc. Single No. 367 of 2012 & Ors.

C/M Motilal Memorial Society...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Dr. L.P. Mishra, Prasant Sigh Atal,
Ramesh Kr. Singh, Ramesh Pandey,
Sarvesh Kumar Dubey, Sharad Pathak,
6 All. C/M Motilal Memorial Society Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1167
Uttam Kr. Srivastava, Vinod Kr. Singh,
Virendra Singh Chandel, Vivek Raj Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Anupam
Mehrotra,
Apoorva
Tiwari,
M.B.
Singh,
Prasant
Singh,
Sandeep Dixit, Shree Prakash Singh,
Vikas Vikram Singh

(A) Election to the Society - Societies
Registration Act of 1860 - Section 25 -
Disputes regarding election of office
bearers - Rule 12(1)(2),(3) -

A dispute of Motilal Memorial Society, the
parent Society - Motilal Memorial Society
(hereinafter referred to as ''the Society') was
brought into being by Former Chief Minister of
the State of U.P., Sri Chandra Bhanu Gupta
along with other like minded people as an
Educational and Charitable Society - Society
has vast resources and runs 13 Institutions in
the State. Para - 2

HELD:-
Since
the
Society
runs
several
Educational and Charitable Institutions and there
is great animosity generated amongst the
members of the Society due to repeated
litigations, it would be appropriate that this Court
constitutes a Committee of respected and
responsible citizens to look after the affairs of the
Institutions run by it . A Committee of two
Members only shall not be able to discharge the
responsibility of running the Society and its
Institutions in the period during which the
elections to the various constituents of the
Governing Council are held and new office
bearers take charge. I, therefore, nominate four
persons as Members of the new Interim
Committee to look after the affairs of the Society
and the institutions, namely, employees and staff
run by it. Para - 144

Writ petition partly allowed.(E-7)

LIST OF CASES CITED:-

1. N.P. Ponnuswami Vs RO, Namakkal
Constituency & ors. , AIR 1952 SC 64
2012 (11) SCC 531
2. Umesh Chandra & anr. Vs Mahila Vidyalay
Society & ors. , 2006 (24) LCD 1373

3. Satyavart Sidhantalankar Vs The Arya
Samaj , 1946 Bombay Law Reports 341

4. Shanti Sarup Vs Radhaswami Satsang
Sabha, AIR 1969 Allahabad 248

5. Khiri Ram Gupta & anr. Vs Nanalal J.
Parekh, AIR 1964 Patna 114

6. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs Vs Sri Gopal
Singh Visharad , 1990 LCD 417

7. Puran Singh Vs St. of Punja , 1996 (2) SCC
205 1974(2) SCC 706

8. Babubhai Muljibhai Patel Vs Nandlal
Khodidas Barot & ors. , (1974) 2 SCC 706

9. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Dr. Vijay Anand
Maharaj , AIR 1963 SC 946

10. Commissioner of Endowments & ors. Vs
Vittal Rao & ors., (2005) 4 SCC 120

11. Sardar Amarjit Singh Kalra (dead) by Lrs.
& ors. Vs Pramod Gupta (Smt.) (dead) by Lrs.
& ors., (2003) 3 SCC 272,

12. Jaladi Suguna (deceased) through LRs. Vs
Satya Sai Central Trus & ors., AIR 2008 SC
2866

13. Balwant Singh (dead) Vs Jagdish Singh
&ors. , (2010) 8 SCC 685

14. Sunni Central Board of Waqfs Vs Sri Gopal
Singh Visharad , 1990 (8) LCD 417

15. Taff Vale Railways vs. Amalgamated
Society of Railway Servants , 1901 (1)
QB170

16. Taff Vale Railway Corporation Versus
Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants ,
1901 AC 425

17. Satyavrata Siddhantalankar Versus Arya
Samaj , Bombay AIR 1945 Bombay 516
1168 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
18.
Navdeep
Bhajan
Ashram
Versus
Commissioner Navdeep Municipality , AIR
1959 Calcutta 361

19. Shri Sant Sadhguru Janardhana Swamy
Moin Giri Maharaj. V State of Maharashtra ,
2001 (8) SCC 509

20. Shafi K. Joseph Versus V. Vishwanath &
Others , 2016 (4) SCC 429

21. A.R. Antulay Vs. R.S. Nayak and another ,
1988 (2) SCC 602

22. Ratan Kumar Solanki versus State of U.P.,
2010 (1) UPLBEC 369

23. Rajveer Singh versus State of U.P. and
others , Special Appeal No.1380 of 2008

24. Jagdambika Prasad Pandey vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2019 SCC Online All 4195

25. K. Venkatachalam vs. A.Swamickan and
others , (1999) 4 SCC 526

26. North Eastern Railway Administration
Gorakhpur vs. Bhagwaan Das , 2008 (8) SCC
511

27. Pirgonda Hongonda Patil vs. Kalgonda
Shidgonda Patil and others , (1957) SCR 595

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, Advocate,
assisted by Sri Sarvesh Kumar Dubey,
Advocate and Sri Vivek Raj Singh,
learned
Senior
Advocate,
for
the
petitioners in Writ Petition No.4528
(M/S) of 2010, Writ Petition No.367
(M/S) of 2012, in Writ Petition No.430
(M/S) of 2012 and Sri Prashant Chandra,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
Kartikey
Dubey
for
the
private
respondents- Vimal Kumar Sharma (now
Dead) and some of the members of the
Society who have filed an application for
dismissal of the aforesaid writ petition.
Sri Madan Mohan Pandey, learned
Additional Advocate General assisted by
Sri Sashank Bhasin, appears for the Staterespondents.

2. This bunch of four petitions have
been filed relating to a dispute of Motilal
Memorial Society, the parent Society
situated at Motimahal, Rana Pratap Marg,
Lucknow. Motilal Memorial Society
(hereinafter referred to as ''the Society')
was brought into being by Former Chief
Minister of the State of U.P., Sri Chandra
Bhanu Gupta along with other like
minded people as an Educational and
Charitable Society. The Society has vast
resources and runs 13 Institutions in the
State.

As per the Bye-laws of the
Society, detailed reference of which shall
be made at the appropriate place. A
Governing Council of 17 members, 13 of
whom being Foundation/Life Members,
and the rest four being elected, act as the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Society. The main office bearers of the
Society are the President, a Foundation
Member, who also acts as the Chief
Executive Officer, a Vice President, an
Honorary General Secretary, who also is
a Foundation Member, along with a Joint
Secretary and Treasurer. The Committee
of Management is elected from amongst
the members of the Governing Council
and its tenure is of three years or till such
time that the newly elected Committee of
Management takes over charge. The last
undisputed election of the office bearers
took place on 22.7.2005.

3. In the election held on 22.7.2005,
Vishnu Bhagwaan Agarwal was elected
as General Secretary, Vimal Kishore
Sharma was elected as Vice President and
6 All. C/M Motilal Memorial Society Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1169
Nagendra Nath Singh was elected as
President of the Society.

4. Before such elections were
finalized one Dr. Ram Krishna, who was
dissatisfied with the process of election,
filed Writ Petition No.3740 (MS) of
2005: Dr Ram Krishna versus Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow and
two others, which was dismissed by this
Court on 7.7.2005. While dismissing the
writ petition, the Court had observed that
the petitioner was free to approach the
Registrar to exercise his power under
Section 25(2) of the Act, who would then
take appropriate action in the matter. Dr.
Ram Krishna moved a representation
before the Registrar on 3.8.2005. The
Registrar invoked the provisions of subsection (2) of Section 25 of the Act and
nominated the Deputy Registrar to act as
an Election Officer for holding the
elections of the Governing Council of the
Society. This order was issued in
ignorance of the fact that election had
already taken place on 22.7.2005.

5. The General Secretary, Vishnu
Bhagwaan Agarwal sent a letter to the
Registrar, informing him about the meeting of
the Governing Council held on 22.7.2005 and
election of new office bearers and requested
for cancellation of the order dated 3.8.2005.
The Registrar on receiving the representation
dated 12.8.2005 of the General Secretary
Vishnu Bhagwaan Agarwal, after due
verification, was satisfied about the legality of
the elections held on 22.7.2005 and of the
newly
constituted
Governing
Council.
Consequently, the Registrar withdrew the
order dated 3.8.2005 by the order dated
8.9.2005.

6. Dr. Ram Krishna filed a regular suit
registered as Regular Suit No.603 of 2005 for
declaration and permanent injunction in the
Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division),
Lucknow. The Society was represented
through
its
General
Secretary
Vishnu
Bhagwaan Agarwal. Neither the Registrar or
the Deputy Registrar whose actions, nor the
President and other office bearers of the
Society, whose election was being challenged,
were impleaded as defendants in this Suit.
Along with the Suit, an application for
Temporary Injunction was moved for
restraining the defendants from implementing
the decisions of the Governing Council taken
on 22.7.2005 and 14.8.2005 till valid elections
take place under the direction of the Registrar
dated 3.8.2005. Written statement as well as
objection to the application for Temporary
Injunction was filed on behalf of the Society
by Vishnu Bhagwaan Agarwal.

7. During pendency of the said suit
by Dr. Ram Krishna, the Governing
Council was called for a meeting through
notice dated 10.3.2007 by the General
Secretary, who substituted the original 27
items of the Agenda approved by the
President by a list of 38 items without the
prior approval of the President Nagendra
Nath Singh. On 30.5.2007, Nagendra
Nath Singh issued a notice to Vishnu
Bhagwaan Agarwal regarding several acts
of forgery done by him for personal
benefit at the cost of the Society and the
fraudulent activities of his having been
noticed, he was asked to submit his reply.
The notice dated 30.5.2007 was sent
through registered post.

8. Vishnu Bhagwaan Agarwal
managed to hold a meeting in the
meanwhile where Nagendra Nath Singh
was removed as President. Nagendra Nath
Singh approached the Registrar against
such action. After the Registrar passed the
order dated 7.7.2007, cancelling the
1170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
proceedings of the meeting held on
27.4.2007 and 19.5.2007 in regard to
election of new President in place of
Nagendra Nath Singh, and declaring that
the Committee registered earlier in his
office on the election held on 22.7.2005
was valid for the remaining term; Vishnu
Bhagwaan Agarwal, the Secretary of the
Society preferred a Writ Petition bearing
No.3299 (MS) of 2007: Motilal Memorial
Society and others versus State of U.P.
and others, challenging the order passed
by the Registrar on 7.7.2007. On
10.7.2007, this Court was pleased to stay
the implementation of the order dated
7.7.2007.

9. Nagendra Nath Singh challenged
the interim order dated 10.7.2007 in
Special Appeal No.615 of 2007. On
17.7.2007, the aforesaid Special Appeal
was disposed of finally, restraining the
opposite party nos.4 and 5 of the Special
Appeal to take any policy decision
relating to the financial and other interests
of the Society. A request was made to the
learned Single Judge to decide the writ
petition expeditiously.

10. Despite service of notice on
Vishnu
Bhagwaan
Agarwal,
Vimal
Kumar Sharma and Narsingh Narain
Tewari, they failed to reply to the notice
and were issued two reminders on
5.2.2008 and 1.3.2008 again by registered
post. Ultimately on 15.3.2008, in a
meeting of the Governing Council, a
resolution was passed, expelling opposite
party nos.4, 5 and 6 from Foundation
Membership of the Society in exercise of
power under Rule 10(1)(d) and 10(1)(e)
and Rule 10(2).

11. This Court dismissed Writ
Petition No.3299 (MS) of 2007 filed by
Vishnu Bhagwaan Agarwal by its order
dated 15.2.2008. The Court was pleased
to observe that the removal of Nagendra
Nath Singh from the office of the
President in exercise of power under Rule
23(b) of the Rules of the Society, which
relates to reduction of term coupled with
the fact that the decision relating to
removal of Nagendra Nath Singh was not
in the Agenda of the meeting circulated
on 27.4.2007, was in utter disregard of the
directions issued by the President of the
Society. The Court affirmed the order
passed by the Registrar. This Court
observed that it was irrelevant to consider
whether power under Sections 24 or 25 of
the Act could have been exercised by the
Deputy Registrar. If the order passed by
the Deputy Registrar was cancelled by the
Court, it would amount to putting the seal
of the High Court over the illegal action
of certain members of the Society through
meeting dated 24.4.2007.

12. After the dismissal of the writ
petition filed by Vishnu Bhagwaan
Agarwal on 15.2.2008, Vishnu Bhagwaan
Agarwal
entered
into
a
collusive
compromise with Dr. Ram Krishna in
order to frustrate the judgment of this
Court dated 15.2.2008 and the counsel for
the two parties made a statement before
the
Civil
Judge
(Senior
Division)
Lucknow that it had been agreed upon
between the parties that an order be
passed, directing the Registrar to hold the
election in exercise of his power under
Section 25(2) of the Act.

13. Nagendra Nath Singh filed Writ
Petition
No.1336
(MS)
of
2008,
challenging the order passed by the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow on
19.2.2008
and
also praying
for
a
mandamus commanding the opposite
6 All. C/M Motilal Memorial Society Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1171
parties not to interfere in the peaceful
functioning of office bearers of the
Governing Council of the society duly
elected in its meeting held on 22.7.2005.

14. One of the members of the
Governing Council Veer Sen also filed
Writ Petition No.1902 (MS) of 2007
challenging the order passed by the Civil
Court and also the order dated 16.3.2008
passed
by
the
Deputy
Registrar,
recognizing the result of an alleged
election held on 16.3.2008, in purported
compliance of Civil Court's judgment and
order dated 19.02.2008.

15. Both the writ petitions were
connected and heard together and finally
allowed by this Court by an order dated
12.8.2008. However, this Court also
issued a direction that the office bearers
elected on 22.7.2005 shall continue in a
routine manner, but for a period of one
month only. The Registrar was directed to
ensure that the office bearers elected on
22.7.2005 shall conduct the election
within a period of one month from the
date of the order. In case the Society
failed to hold the election within time, the
Registrar was to conduct the election of
the Society under Section 25(2) of the
Act.

16. In the judgment and order dated
12.8.2008, this Court made certain
adverse observations against the conduct
of opposite party nos.4, 5 and 6 and it was
held that they were guilty of committing
fraud
and
resorting
to
deliberate
concealment and misrepresentation of
facts in obtaining the order from the Civil
Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow. It was
further held that Vishnu Bhagwaan
Agarwal was not competent to enter into
a compromise in the Suit without getting
the prior approval of the Governing
Council. It was also observed that he was
not the General Secretary on the date of
the compromise. It is apparent from the
judgement and order dated 12.08.2008
that the expulsion of opposite party nos.4,
5 and 6 was within the knowledge of this
Court at the time of passing of the order.

17. Taking undue advantage of the
directions of the Court that the current
office bearers will be competent to hold
the elections of the Governing Council
within one month from the date of the
order, Vishnu Bhagwaan Agarwal started
acting as the Secretary of the Society on
the basis of election held on 22.7.2005.

18. A Review Petition No.184 of
2008 was filed by Nagendra Nath Singh,
mainly on two grounds that Vishnu
Bhagwaan Agarwal had started claiming
himself to be the General Secretary and
was not returning the records of the
Society
despite
his
expulsion
on
15.3.2008, and also on the ground that the
Registrar
could
only
supervise
the
election that was to be held by the
Governing Council of the Society itself as
no fault had been found by the Court in
the elections held on 22.7.2005. Two
more review petitions were filed by
Vishnu Bhagwaan Agarwal and Dr. Ram
Krishna. Review Petition Nos.161 of
2008, 166 of 2008 and 184 of 2008 were
all connected and heard together. This
Court passed an interim order on
17.9.2008, restraining the opposite party
no.4-Vishnu Bhagwaan Agarwal from
claiming himself to be the General
Secretary of the Society or to discharge
any duty in that capacity.

19. Review Petition No.184 of 2008
was partly allowed on 20.10.2008, while
1172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Review Petition Nos.161 of 2008 and 166
of 2008 were both dismissed. The Court
held that the Governing Council under the
Chairmanship of the President elected on
22.7.2005 shall conduct election of the
different constituents of the electoral
body so as to fill up the vacancies of the
Foundation Members and four other
members. After the elections of different
constituents
of
Governing
Council,
election shall be conducted for office
bearers of the Society. The Registrar or
the Deputy Registrar was to supervise the
elections
to
ensure
fairness
and
transparency in the conduct of the
election. He was directed not to create
any hindrance in the election of the office
bearers to be held by the Governing
Council. Till the new office bearers took
charge, the office bearers, who were
elected by the Governing Council on
22.7.2005 would continue to carry out the
day-to-day administration of the Society.

20. In pursuance of such directions,
three vacancies on the expulsion of Vishnu
Bhagwaan
Agarwal,
Narsingh
Narain
Tiwari and Vimal Kumar Sharma were
filled up on 5.12.2008 by inducting Sri Ram
Arun, Kunwar Reoti Raman Singh and Raja
Anand Singh, as Foundation Members of
the Society. Vishnu Bhagwaan Agarwal, in
the meantime, had given an application on
22.12.2008 to the Deputy Registrar to set
aside the resolution dated 15.3.2008 on his
own behalf, stating that the representation is
also on behalf of opposite party nos.5 and 6.
The representation was not signed by the
opposite
party
nos.5
and
6.
The
representation was not being decided.
Vishnu Bhagwaan Agarwal therefore filed
the Writ Petition No.2353 (M/S) of 2010,
concealing the fact that the election had
already been held in pursuance of the orders
passed by this Court, on 31.12.2008, and
without impleading the new office bearers.
The said writ petition was disposed of by
this Court on 28.05.2010, directing the
Deputy Registrar to decide the pending
Application of the opposite party nos.4, 5
and 6 in accordance with law.

21. The Deputy Registrar issued
notice to Nagendra Nath Singh on
31.3.2009 even before this Court passed the
order dated 28.05.2010. Nagendra Nath
Singh filed his reply on 29.5.2009,
mentioning that by the judgment of this
Court on 20.10.2008 passed in Review
Petition No.184 of 2008, this Court had
observed in Paragraph-23 that even without
putting the seal of approval on the
resolution
dated
15.3.2008,
the
said
resolution had legal sanctity because for
each and every business of the Governing
Council, the seal of the Court is not
required and every act or resolution of the
Society or the Governing Council is to take
effect in the ordinary course of business. It
was alleged further that the Deputy
Registrar did not have any power under the
Act to decide the validity or otherwise of a
resolution passed by the Society, expelling
an office bearer in terms of its own byelaws. The notice issued by the Deputy
Registrar to the President of the Society was
without jurisdiction. It was also mentioned
in the reply that the opposite party nos. 4, 5
and 6 were given sufficient opportunity of
hearing, but they did not avail the same.
The opposite party no.4, 5 and 6 were
acting against the interest of the Society,
they were therefore, expelled from the
Foundation Membership of the Society.

22. Professor Lal Amrendra, who
was elected as General Secretary of the
Governing Council on 31.12.2008 was
also acting against the interest of the
Society. The President on 14.8.2009
6 All. C/M Motilal Memorial Society Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1173
suspended him and issued a show cause
notice to him on 3.9.2009. Ultimately, he
was removed as Foundation Member of
the Society on 24.2.2010 and on 4.3.2010,
information
regarding
expulsion
of
Professor Lal Amrendra was sent to the
Registrar.

23. On 24.7.2010, an application
for adjournment was filed by Nagendra
Nath Singh before the Deputy Registrar,
bringing to his notice that a recall
application had been filed against the
judgment dated 28.5.2010 in Writ
Petition No.2353 (M/S) of 2010, which
was
pending
disposal
before
the
appropriate Court. As such, no order be
passed deciding the representation of
Vishnu Bhagwaan Agarwal in the
meanwhile.
Through
the
said
application, again an objection was also
taken before the Deputy Registrar that
he had no jurisdiction at all to take any
decision on the expulsion of opposite
party nos.4, 5 and 6. Ignoring such
request, the Deputy Registrar by the
order dated 26.7.2010, set aside the
resolution of the Governing Council
dated 15.3.2008, expelling opposite
party nos.4, 5 and 6 as Foundation
Members of the Society. The Writ
Petition No.4528 (M/S) of 2010 was
filed
challenging
the
order
dated
26.07.2010.

24. On the first day of hearing on
11.08.2010 the Court directed the
matter to be listed along with the
records of the Petition No.1902 (M/S)
of 2008, with Writ Petition No. 1336
(M/S) 2008, Writ Petition No.2353
(M/S) of 2010, Writ Petition No.3299
(M/S) of 2007 and Review Petition
No.161
of
2000,
Review
Petition
No.166 of 2008 and 184 of 2008.

25. The Deputy Registrar in his
order dated 26.07.2010 recorded a
finding that in the Proceedings Register,
after the proceedings dated 13.06.2007,
proceedings dated 26.03.2008 were
recorded, and thereafter proceedings
dated
18.06.2007
were
mentioned,
which
created
a
doubt
on
the
genuineness
of
the
Proceedings
Register. This act of the Deputy
Registrar was designed to give benefit
to the Opposite Parties Nos.4, 5 and 6,
as the main case of the petitioners
before the Opposite Party No.3 after the
eruption of dispute on 27.04.2007 was
that the Opposite Party No.4 was
withholding the records of the Society.
The Proceedings Register came into the
possession of the genuine office bearers
only when a direction was issued by the
Court in Review Petition on 17.09.2008.
It has been submitted that when the
original Proceedings Register was in the
possession of Opposite Party No.4 the
proceedings of the Governing Council
of the Society were being transcribed on
separate sheets of paper which were
pasted on the original Proceedings
Register after the present petitioners
secured custody of the Proceedings
Register.

26. The second ground taken by the
Deputy Registrar was that the Petitioner
No.2 did not inform the Deputy Registrar
regarding expulsion of Opposite Parties
Nos.4, 5 and 6 while submitting his
objection on 10.03.2008. It has been
submitted that the Petitioner No.2 could
not have any knowlege of the future
events that were to take place on
15.03.2008. He had no reason to mention
the fact of expulsion of the Opposite
Parties Nos.4 to 6 on 10.03.2008 as on
10.03.2008 only notice has been issued to
1174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Opposite Parties to appear before the
Governing Council, to submit their replies
to satisfy it regarding their innocence.

27. The third ground taken by the
Deputy
Registrar
for
declaring
the
proceedings dated 15.03.2008 as void was
that no application for registration of the
proceedings dated 15.03.2008 had been
made to the Deputy Registrar. It has been
submitted that there is no provision under
the Societies Registration Act to seek the
registration of every proceeding relating
to internal matters of the Society by the
Deputy Registrar. It has been submitted
that the Deputy Registrar had no
jurisdiction at all to pass the order dated
26.07.2010. The Opposite Parties Nos.4
to 6 were the persons who were
responsible for creating a dispute in the
functioning of the Society for their vested
interest. This fact was recorded by this
Court in its judgement and order dated
15.02.2008 and in its judgements and
orders dated 12.08.2008 and 20.10.2008.

28. Applications for dismissal of the
writ petition at the threshold as not
maintainable was filed on behalf of
opposite party no.4-Vishnu Bhagwaan
Agarwal and opposite Party No.5-Vimal
Kumar Sharma. In the affidavit filed in
support of such application, a preliminary
objection regarding maintainability of the
writ petition, it was submitted that under
Rule 12 (1) the affairs of the Society shall
be run under the control and supervision
of the Governing Council. Under Rule 12
(2) the Governing Council could institute,
conduct, defend, compound or abandon
any legal proceedings by or against the
Society. Under Rule 12 (3) the Governing
Council may delegate all or any of its
powers to any person. Under Rule 25 the
Society could sue or be sued against, in
the name of the Honorary General
Secretary, or such other person who may
be nominated by the Governing Council
for the said purpose. In this case the
General Secretary had not filed the writ
petition. Nagendra Nath Singh was the
President and he had not been authorized
by the Governing Council to file the writ
petition. The Governing Council in its
Meeting dated 22.07.2010 attended by 10
members had dis-associated itself from
the matter regarding expulsion of three
Foundation members that was pending
before the Registrar. The minutes of the
meeting dated 22.07.2010 have already
been filed as Annexure to the paper book.

29. It seems that the Governing
Council after due consideration had taken
a decision that the President Nagendra
Nath Singh should defend the matter of
Vishnu Bhagwaan Agarwal as the counsel
as a whole had no concern with the case.
Writ Petition No.4528 (M/S) of 2010
remained
pending
disposal.
In
the
meantime, the Deputy Registrar passed an
order on 22.11.2011 observing that there
were only ten Foundation Members left in
the Society, who were Nagendra Nath
Singh, Vishnu Bhagwaan Agarwal, Vimal
Kumar Sharma. J.R. Tripathi, Justice
Umesh Chandra Srivastava (Retd.), Dr.
Dauji Gupta, Sri Uma Kant Mishra,
Narain Dutt Tiwari, Mata Prasad and
Narsingh
Narain
Tewari;
and
then
observed that election of the Society
should be held by the Foundation
Members within the period in which it
was authorized to hold such election and
then to submit its list of members of the
Governing Council under Section-4 of the
Act.

In compliance of the Order
No.1903 dated 22.11.2012, the President
6 All. C/M Motilal Memorial Society Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1175
had issued two orders dated 22.11.2011
and
28.12.2011.
The
order
dated
28.12.2011
was
circulated
to
all
Foundation Members the same day and
the signatures were taken on the said
notice. The Registrar was informed by a
letter on the same day of the election
programme.

30. In the letter dated 22.11.2011
reference was made to the Deputy
Registrar's order to hold election and in
the order dated 28.12.2011, an election
schedule
was
announced.
Firstly,
elections were to be held on 15.1.2012 for
filling up the vacant posts of Foundation
Members. Elections for the elected
members of the Society were to be held
thereafter on 24.1.2012, and elections of
office bearers of the Committee of
Management
were
to
be
held
on
31.1.2012. It has been submitted that once
the orders were issued announcing the
election programme by the Committee of
Management whose tenure was upto
30.12.2012, then the Deputy Registrar did
not have any power to pass an order under
section 25(2) of the Act.

31. However, after notices were
circulated and the Deputy Registrar duly
informed on 28.12.2011 of the ensuing
election programme, the Deputy Registrar
passed the order on 10.1.2012, saying that
the Committee of Management had
become time barred and then passed the
order dated 16.1.2012, freezing the
operation of the bank account of the
Society by the incumbent office bearers.

32. Writ Petition No.367 (MS) of
2012 against the order of the Deputy
Registrar dated 10.01.2012 has been filed,
arraying Vishnu Bhagwaan Agarwal,
Vimal Kumar Sharma, Narsingh Narain
Tiwari and Mata Prasad along with one
Rajendra Pratap Singh Rajput, as private
respondents. In the order dated 10.1.2012
issued under sub-section (2) of Section 25
of the Act by the Deputy Registrar had
announced the schedule of elections of
the Society to be held from 19.1.2012 to
9.2.2012 in three stages, ignoring the fact
that the President of the Society had
already
issued
election
notice
on
28.12.2011
under
the
order
dated
22.11.2011 of the Deputy Registrar
himself, of first filling up the vacancies of
Foundation Members and of elected
members of the Governing Council, and
then for holding election of Committee of
Management of the Society. It has been
alleged that the notice of election dated
28.12.2011 had been duly served upon all
Foundation Members personally, and they
had signed the same except for Narain
Dutt Tiwari on whom, notices were
served through registered post. It has been
alleged that even after sending of election
programme
by
the
Agenda
dated
28.12.2011 before the expiry of the term
of office bearers elected on 31.12.2011,
the Deputy Registrar took cognizance of
letters sent to him by opposite party nos.4
to 7 and a letter sent by opposite party
no.8 on 7.1.2012, and without giving any
opportunity of hearing to the President,
the order was passed on 10.1.2012 by the
Deputy Registrar under sub-section (2) of
Section 25 of the Act.

33. In Writ Petition No.367 (MS) of
2012, the Society alleged that under Rule
23 sub-clause (d) of the bye-laws, the
retiring office bearers could carry on
discharging
their
duties
until
their
successors in office were elected or
appointed, as the case may be, and have
taken over charge. Under the orders of
this Court, the last undisputed elections
1176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
were held on 31.12.2008 in which, the
petitioners were elected as the Committee
of Management. In view of Rule 23 subclause (d), the Committee of Management
was
entitled
to
continue
till
their
successors in office were elected or
appointed and had taken over charge.
Since the General Secretary of the
Society, Professor Lal Amrendra was
expelled as a Foundation Member on
24.02.2010,
Mrs.
Usha
Chaudhary,
another
Member
of
the
Governing
Council was designated as Joint Sectary
and duly authorized to file a writ petition
on behalf of the Society.

34. It has been submitted by the
petitioners in their Writ Petition No.367
(MS) of 2012 that in pursuance of the
order passed by the Deputy Registrar on
22.12.2011, the election programme was
circulated on 28.12.2011 and it was not
open for the Deputy Registrar in view of
sub-clause (d) of Rule 23 to pass the order
impugned allegedly under Section 25(2)
of the Act, saying that the Committee of
Management had become time barred and
the order passed by the Deputy Registrar
being without jurisdiction was liable to be
set.

35. It has further been submitted by
the petitioners that Section 25(2) of the
Act gives the right to the outgoing
Committee of Management to convene a
meeting for the purpose of holding
elections till such time that its tenure does
not expire and till such time that Deputy
Registrar expresses a satisfaction that the
Committee of Management had become
time barred. Only after completion of
term of the office bearers, the Registrar
can pass an order under Section 25(2) of
the Act for convening a meeting of the
General Body of the Society for the
holding of fresh elections for the
Committee of Management.

36. It has also been submitted that
the Society runs 13 institutions in which,
there is one institution in the name of
Chandrabhanu
Gupta
Shiksha
Evam
Manav Vikas Kendra, Chandrawal. It is a
School and Agricultural Farm situated at
Chandrawal, Sarojini Nagar and one R.P.
Singh Rajput was appointed as Manager
by means of order dated 7.4.2011. Sri
R.P. Singh Rajput was indulging in
several illegal activities and, therefore, a
show cause notice was issued to him on
19.11.2011. Sri R.P. Singh Rajput in his
reply, accepted the fact of making
unnecessary expenditure without taking
prior approval. Nagendra Nath Singh,
hence appointed one R.R. Chaturvedi as
Coordinator of the Institute on 4.1.2012,
but by means of the impugned order dated
10.1.2012, the Deputy Registrar has also
accepted
Sri
R.P.
Singh
Rajput's
representation that Nagendra Nath Singh
had lost all his authority after 31.12.2011.
The Deputy Registrar also accepted the
name of the institute being changed
unilaterally by Sri R.P. Singh Rajput, who
is arrayed also as opposite party in Writ
Petition No.367 (MS) of 2012.

The petitioners submit that the
Deputy Registrar did not have any power
to approve the change of the name of the
Institution by exercising his power under
Section 25(2) of the Act.

37. This Court on 17.1.2012, on
mention being made, directed the writ
petition to come up along with pending
Writ Petition No.4528 (MS) of 2010.
After hearing the matter for sometime,
this Court directed that any action taken
in pursuance of the order impugned dated
6 All. C/M Motilal Memorial Society Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1177
10.1.2012 will be subject to further orders
of the Court. On 18.1.2012 when the
matter was listed again for hearing, this
Court
observed
that
Writ
Petition
No.4528 (MS) of 2010 was already being
heard by another coordinate Bench and,
therefore, it directed the matter to be
placed before the same Bench where the
writ petitions was already being heard.

38. Writ Petition No.430 (MS) of
2012 has been filed against the order of
the Deputy Registrar dated 16.01.2012
prohibiting the incumbent office bearers
from operating the bank account of the
Society. It has been filed by Motilal
Memorial Society through its Joint
Secretary Mrs. Usha Chaudhary, the
President
of
the
Society,
and
Sri
Nagendra Nath Singh in his personal
capacity. Besides State-respondents being
made parties, the petitioners have arrayed
as Vishnu Bhagwaan Agarwal, Vimal
Kumar Sharma and Narsingh Narian
Tiwari along with one Mata Prasad and
Rajendra
Pratap
Singh
Rajput
as
respondents, besides the UCO Bank,
Branchs at Nawal Kishore Road and
Charbagh as parties. By the order of the
Deputy Registrar dated 16.1.2012, he
directed the Bank Branches situated at
Hazratganj and at Charbagh to stop the
operation of bank accounts of the
petitioner's Society as order had already
been passed under Section 25(2) of the
Society Registration Act on 10.1.2012.
The Deputy Registrar in his order dated
16.1.2012 stated that other Foundation
Members had objected to the operation of
the accounts by Nagendra Nath Singh and
Mrs. Usha Chaudhary.

39. The order dated 16.1.2012 has
been challenged on the ground that it is
without jurisdiction, as there is no power
vested in the Deputy Registrar to freeze
the bank accounts of the Society after
order is passed under Section 25(2) of the
Act. Professor Lal Amrendra, the General
Secretary of the Society was suspended
on
14.8.2009
and
terminated
from
Foundation Membership on 24.2.2010.
The President in exercise of his powers
vested in him in the absence of the
Governing Council, had appointed Mrs.
Usha Chaudhary as Joint Secretary on
14.8.2009 and authorized Mrs. Usha
Chaudhary to file the writ petition
pending approval from the Governing
Council as and when it was convened and
its meeting was held.

40. In this writ petition, on the first
day of hearing on 9.2.2012, this Court
issued notice to the private respondent
nos. 4 to 10 and directed the matter to be
listed again on 13.2.2012. Thereafter, no
orders were passed except that of
connection of the writ petition with the
leading case i.e. Writ Petition No.367
(MS) of 2012.

41. On 13.2.2012, this Court
appointed Mr. Justice Khem Karan, a
retired Judge of this Court and retired
Director General of Police Sri Ram Arun,
IPS, as an Interim Committee to manage
the affairs of the Society, including
Institutions run by it, it's employees,
students etc. till disposal of Writ Petition
No.367 (MS) of 2012, Writ Petition
No.430 (MS) of 2012, Writ Petition
No.4528 (MS) of 2010 and Writ Petition
No.5443 (MS) of 2005. The President and
the
Joint
Secretary
of
the
former
Committee of Management as well as
other persons, who were in possession of
the records of the Society and Institutions
run by it were directed to hand over the
same to the Interim Committee forthwith
1178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
after making an inventory of the same.
The matter was directed to be listed for
further hearing.

42. In pursuance of the interim order
of this Court dated 13.2.2012, the Interim
Committee of Justice Khem Karan (Retd.)
and Shri Ram Arun took over charge of
the Society on 21.2.2012.

43.