# C/M Pratibha Shikshan Samiti & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 3 ILRA 458
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-03-17
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1007259 of 2013
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-pratibha-shikshan-samiti-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49853
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

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

Writ petition allowed . (E-1)

List of Cases cited :-

## Text

458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

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

28. Resultantly, the writ petition is
hereby dismissed.

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

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ C No. 1007259 of 2013

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

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Girish Chandra Verma

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

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

Writ petition allowed . (E-1)

List of Cases cited :-

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The petitioner No.1 is registered
society, petitioner No.2 is the founder
Manager and respondent No.3 was the
3 All. C/M Pratibha Shikshan Samiti & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
459
founder President along with other office
bearers. In the meeting held on 28.7.2008, a
decision was taken for getting registered
list of executive committee of management
under
section
4
of
the
Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (in short, Act) for
the year 2008-09. List of 39 members of
the general body was approved in the
resolution dated 15.6.2008. The Deputy
Registrar vide order dated 22.10.2008
passed order for registration of the list for
the year 2008-09. On 30.11.2008, a
resolution was passed for getting renewal
of the registration as well as membership of
35 new members of general body. The
resolution was accepted and sanctioned
strength of general body became 74.

On 9.12.2008, a letter was
submitted before the respondent No.2 along
with documents for renewal of society.
Vide order dated 20.12.2008, the society
was renewed and the renewal certificate
was issued by respondent No.2 for further
five years. On 21.12.2008, the resolution
was passed of the society for holding
election. Programme of the election was
notified and separate agenda was issued for
the election dated 18.1.2009. List of 74
members of general body was also
published. The meeting was presided by
respondent
No.3
as
President.
On
18.1.2009, election of the committee of
management was held in which the
petitioner No.2 was again elected as
Manager and respondent No.3 was elected
as President. This meeting dated 18.1.2009
was confirmed in the meeting dated
8.9.2009. On 10.2.2009, the resolution
dated 21.12.2008, 18.1.2009, 3.2.2009 and
list of the office bearers along with the list
of the members of the general body was
submitted before the respondent No.2 along
with other documents duly signed by
respondent No.3 and the petitioner.

A letter dated 6.11.2012 was sent
for registration of the office bearers as per
election dated 18.1.2009. The same was
duly registered by the respondent No.2. The
respondent No.3 after enjoying the status of
president of the society for more than four
years of election moved an application for
declaration of the society time barred by
concocting story, to which a detailed reply
dated 16.5.2013 was filed by the petitioner
against notice sent by respondent No.2. On
6.1.2012, a first information report was
lodged against respondent No.3 under
sections 467, 468, 471, 419, 420 I.P.C. at
police station Dewan. The respondent No.2
by the impugned order dated 23.9.2013, has
declared the society time barred holding
that the election of the society ought to
have been concluded by 20.12.2008 which
has not been conducted and on this ground
has declared the committee of management
of
the
society
time
barred
w.e.f.
20.12.2008, with a further direction to hold
election of the time barred committee of
management from 12 members of the
general body.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that it is not disputed that the
election of the committee of management
of the society was held from the list of 74
members which was recognised by the
respondent No.2 himself by registering list
of office bearers of the society by passing
order
dated
6.11.2012,
contained
in
Annexure no.17 to the writ petition. Hence
the
election
dated
18.1.2009
was
recognised and was in knowledge of
respondent No.2.

It is submitted that from a joint
reading of the provisions of section 25(2)
and (3) of the Act, it is evident that till the
Deputy Registrar does not pass order under
section 25(2) of the Act, the society will not
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be defunct and the outgoing committee of
management has all the powers and
authority to hold the election accordingly.
He has relied on judgment of this Court in
Committee of Management, Vidyawati
Higher
Secondary
School,
Shahpur,
Sarain, Azamgarh and another versus
Asstt. Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh and
others 2005(3)UPLBEC 2410 (relevant
paras 6, 7 and 8). He has also relied on
judgment of the Division Bench of this
Court in Vinod Kumar Varsnay versus
State of U.P. and others (D.B.) 2017 (3)
E.S.C. 1529 (relevant paras 17, 18 and 19).

5. Learned Addl. Chief Standing
Tiwari and Mr. Rakesh Tewari, learned
Senior Advocate appearing for respondent
No.3 have opposed the petition.

6. It is not disputed that the election of
the society was held in the year 2008. List
of office bearers of the society was
registered for the year 2008-09 by the
Deputy
Registrar
vide
order
dated
22.10.2008. The term of the committee of
management
came
to
an
end
on
20.12.2008. It is also not disputed that no
orders were passed after expiry of the term
of the committee of management by the
Deputy Registrar under section 25(2) of the
Act. The law in this regard has been settled
by this Court in the aforesaid referred
cases. For convenience paras 6, 7 and 8 of
Committee of Management and another
versus Asstt. Registrar, Firm Societies
and others (supra) are reproduced below :

"6.
For
appreciating
the
controversy raised in the present writ
petition it would be relevant to refer to
Sections 25(2) and (3) of the Societies
Registration Act, 1960, which are quoted
below:

"25. Disputes regarding election
of office bearers-(1) ??????..

(2) Where 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 by 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 modifications.

(3) Where a meeting is called by
the Registrar under sub-section (2), no
other meeting shall be called for the
purpose of election by any other authority
or by any person claiming to be an officebearer of the society.

Explanation For the purposes of
this section, the expression 'prescribed
authority' means an office or Court
authorized in this behalf by the State
Government by notification published in
the Official Gazette." 7. A bare reading of
the aforesaid section would establish that
the right to convene a meeting for the
purposes of holding elections of the officebearers of the society.

Explanation For the purposes of
this section, the expression 'prescribed
authority' means an office or Court
authorized in this behalf by the State
Government by notification published in
the Official Gazette."

7. A bare reading of the aforesaid
section would establish that the right to
convene a meeting for the purposes of
holding elections of the office-bearers of
3 All. C/M Pratibha Shikshan Samiti & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
461
the outgoing Committee of Management
and after expiry of the term of the office
bearers the society is lost only when the
Registrar passes order under Section 25(2)
of the Act for convening a meeting of the
general body of the society for the purposes
of holding fresh election of the Committee
of Management. It is at t stage only that
outgoing office bearers are debarred from
convening any meeting for the said
purpose.

8. In the facts of the present case
it is admitted position that no such order
was passed by the Registrar under Section
25(2). Thus the power to convene a meeting
of General Body for holding fresh elections
was not lost and there is no bar either in
the byelaws of the society or under the
Societies Registration Act in holding of
fresh elections by the outgoing officebearers.
In
such
circumstances
the
clections which have been held on
2.3.2003, even after expiry of the term of
the office- bearers of the society, cannot be
said to be illegal or invalid in any manner
and the objections raised in that regard
canot be legally sustained.?

Paras 17, 18, and 19 of Vinod
Kumar
Varshney?s
case
(supra)
is
reproduced below :

17. Having given our thoughtful
consideration in the matter and upon
considering the language of Section 25(2)
and 25(3) of the Act and upon a conjoint
reading of Section 25(2) and 25(3) of the
Act, it is apparently clear that the Registrar
has the power and jurisdiction to call a
meeting for the purpose of holding an
election if he is satisfied that the election
has not been held within the time specified
in the rules of the society. However, Section
25(3) of the Act recognises that a meeting
for the purpose of holding an election can
be convened by any other authority or by
any other person claiming to be an office
bearer of the society, meaning thereby that
if
the
term
of
the
Committee
of
Management expires, the Committee of
Management can still convene a meeting
and hold an election unless an order is
passed by the Registrar under Section
25(2) of the Act for holding an election.

18. We are of the view that upon a
conjoint reading of Section 25(2) and
Section 25(3) of the Act, the power of the
Committee of Management to convene a
meeting for the purpose of holding an
election gets eclipsed only when the
Registrar has assumed jurisdiction and has
taken steps to convene a meeting under
Section 25(2) of the Act. We make it further
clear that so long as an order for
convening a meeting and for holding an
election is not passed by the Registrar
under Section 25(2) of the Act, the power to
convene a meeting for the purpose of
holding an election continues with the
Committee of Management, even after the
expiry of its terms unless it is specifically
prohibited in the Rules of that society. In
this regard, our view is fortified by a
decision of a Full Bench of this Court in
Committee of Management, Dadar Ashram
Trust Society and others Vs. Mahatma
Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi and
others, 2017 (1) ADJ 1, wherein the Full
Bench held:-

"As would be evident from a
reading of sub-section (3), the power and
jurisdiction of any other authority or
person to call a meeting for the purpose of
elections stands eclipsed only in a situation
where a meeting has already been called by
the Registrar under sub-section (2). In fact
sub-section (3) recognises that a meeting
for the purposes of elections may in fact be
convened by any other authority or by any
other person. The power of that other
authority or person to convene such a
meeting stands taken away only if the
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Registrar has assumed jurisdiction and
steps under sub-section (2) to convene a
meeting."

19. In the light of the
aforesaid, the answer to question no.1 is,
that the Committee of Management even
after the expiry of its term can convene a
meeting for the purpose of holding an
election unless it is specifically barred
under the Rules of its society. Such right
continues till such time the Registrar
passes an order under Section 25(2) of the
Act after which no further meeting could be
convened thereafter by the Committee of
Management in view of sub-Section (3) of
Section 25 of the Act. ?

7. A perusal of the aforesaid judgments
passed by this Court makes it evident that
the committee of management even after
expiry of its term can convene a meeting
for the purpose of holding election unless it
is specifically barred under the rules of the
society. This right continues till such time
the Registrar passes an order under section
25(2) of the Act after which no other
meeting can be convened by the committee
of management in view of sub section (3)
of Section 25 of the Act.

8. In the case in hand, admittedly, no
order was passed after expiry of the term of
the committee of management in the year
2008, hence election convened by the
outgoing committee of management on
18.1.2009
was
perfectly
legal.
The
committee of management for this reason
does not become time barred also as no
order under section 25(2) of the Act was
passed by the Registrar. Hence, for this
reason,
the
impugned
order
is
unsustainable.

9. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed and the impugned order dated
23.9.2013 (supra) is set aside.
----------
(2023) 3 ILRA 462
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 21.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Application U/S 378 No. 17 of 2023

State of U.P. ...Applicant
Versus
Arif Anwar Hashmi & Ors.
 ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
G.A., Sulkhan Singh, Sushil Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Manoj Kumar Misra, Anand Mani Tripathi,
Roshan Babu Gupta

(A) - Criminal Law - Criminal Procedure
Code, 1973 - Sections 378, 462 & 465 -
U.P. Gangsters and Anti Social Activities
(Prevention) Act, 1986 - Sections 3(1) &
18 - Application for Leave to Appeal - impugned
order passed beyond jurisdiction of the court -
appeal opposed by the respondents on the
ground of Section 462 & 465 of Cr.P.C. - court
finds that, if there is any specific designated
court is exists to deal and adjudicate such issue,
the jurisdiction vests with that court only to deal
& adjudicate that issue and if such issue in
question has been adjudicated by another court,
it would be an error on the face of record, which
may be considered as failure of justice, in the
light of judgment of the Apex Court in case of
Ashwinin Kumar Upadhyay - the Apex Court's
judgment is the law of the land and if any
guidelines have been formulated and circulated
and being followed in the entire St., deviation
thereof would be a disobedience of the order of
the Apex Court - hence, the provision of section
462 & 465(2) Cr.P.C. would not be applicable
and the impugned order may not be liable to be
sustained in the eyes of law - consequently,
instant Leave to Appeal, allowed and the matter
remanded back to the designated court to