# C/M Ram Dularey Yadav Higher Secondary School & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 5 ILRA 1588
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-05-23
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 2553 of 2024
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-ram-dularey-yadav-higher-secondary-school-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51993
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Civil Law - Impugned order renewing the
registration certificate-at the behest of
respondent-no opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner-principles of natural justice
violated-opportunity of hearing-major and
essential ingredient-test of any decision of
an authority-principle of audi alteram
partem-applicable on all administrative,
judicial or quasi-judicial actions-person
affected by it-must be heard before a
decision is taken-principle not followedimpugned order quashed-petition allowed.
(Paras 21, 22 and 23)

HELD:
The Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again has held
that the opportunity of hearing is one of the
major and essential ingredients so as to make a
test of any decision of an authority. The decision
might be administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial,
but person affected must be heard before a
decision is taken. (Para 21)

The issue has rightly been settled in case of
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & ors.vs B.
Karunakar & ors.by a Constitutional Bench of the
Apex Court reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and
subsequently, law rendered in State Bank of India
& ors.Vs Rajesh Agarwal & ors.reported in (2023)
6 SCC 1 regarding the principle of 'audi alteram
partem. (Para 22)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

1588 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this is
not permissible by Section 38-B of the Act.

36. Therefore, the initiation of fresh
proceedings and the order for fresh
determination is unsustainable in law.

37. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is
allowed. The notice dated 06.01.1999
issued
by
the
Prescribed
Authority/Additional
Collector
(Administration), Lucknow under Section
10(2) of the Ceiling Act and the entire
proceedings initiated by the aforesaid notice
are hereby quashed. The parties will bear
their own costs of litigation.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1588
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 2553 of 2024

C/M Ram Dularey Yadav Higher Secondary
School & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Dileep Kumar Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Suresh Chandra Tiwari

Civil Law - Impugned order renewing the
registration certificate-at the behest of
respondent-no opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner-principles of natural justice
violated-opportunity of hearing-major and
essential ingredient-test of any decision of
an authority-principle of audi alteram
partem-applicable on all administrative,
judicial or quasi-judicial actions-person
affected by it-must be heard before a
decision is taken-principle not followedimpugned order quashed-petition allowed.
(Paras 21, 22 and 23)

HELD:
The Hon'ble Apex Court, time and again has held
that the opportunity of hearing is one of the
major and essential ingredients so as to make a
test of any decision of an authority. The decision
might be administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial,
but person affected must be heard before a
decision is taken. (Para 21)

The issue has rightly been settled in case of
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & ors.vs B.
Karunakar & ors.by a Constitutional Bench of the
Apex Court reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and
subsequently, law rendered in State Bank of India
& ors.Vs Rajesh Agarwal & ors.reported in (2023)
6 SCC 1 regarding the principle of 'audi alteram
partem. (Para 22)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & ors.vs
B. Karunakar & ors., (1993) 4 SCC 727

2. State Bank of India & ors.Vs Rajesh Agarwal &
ors., (2023) 6 SCC 1

 (Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash
Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Dileep Kumar Mishra,
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Chief
Standing Counsel and Sri Piyush Kumar,
learned Standing Counsel for the State, Sri
Suresh Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for
opposite party no. 4 and perused the material
placed on record.

2. By means of the present petition, the
petitioner has assailed the order dated 12th
December 2023 passed by the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits,
5 All. C/M Ram Dularey Yadav Higher Secondary School & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1589
Lucknow Region Lucknow. Further, a writ
in the nature of mandamus is also sought for
commanding the respondent to accept the
original papers of the petitioner's Committee
of Management, for renewal of the
registration certificate of the society.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that Sri
Ram Dularey Lal Yadav, Higher Secondary
School Society (hereinafter referred to as
'society') was got registered in the year 1966.
The society has its own by-laws for
functioning and managing the affairs of the
society, as such the rules and regulation of
the
Society
Registration
Act,
1860
(hereinafter referred as 'Act, 1860') are fully
applicable on the petitioner's society. As per
the by-laws of the society, the term of
Committee of Management is three years
and it is said that the election of the
Committee of Management is regularly held
and the list of office bearers of the society
including the list of member of the general
body was also sent time to time by the
Manager of the society.

4. The election of Committee of
Management were held in year 2006, 2009
and
2010
and
the
requisite
records/documents were also sent before the
Deputy Registrar, in accordance with the
provision of Section 4 of the Act, 1860.

5. It is said that in the election held on
20th December 2009, late Laxman Singh
Yadav
was
elected
as
President
of
Committee of Management and Bahadur
Singh Chandel was the Manager. On, 30
March 2010, Laxman Singh Yadav died,
thereafter, Committee of Management,
wrote resolution dated 11th May 2010 and
proposed the election of President, wherein,
Veer Singh Chandel was proposed to be the
President and when Raj Bahadur Singh, the
then Manager of Committee of Management
died on 23rd October 2012, on 16th
December 2022, the petitioner no. 2,
namely, Veer Singh Chandel was elected as
Manager and all the proceedings were
submitted, consequently, on 27th December
2022. The petitioner applied for renewal of
the registration of society which was
renewed
on
27th
December
2012,
whereafter, on 10th January 2013, opposite
party no. 4, who was never inducted as a
member, made false complaint before
opposite party no. 2, with a prayer to deputy
registrar, not to proceed on the election
proceeding of the petitioners' society held on
20th December 2009 and to cancel the list of
office bearers of Committee of Management
of year 2012?13 , the Deputy Registrar
stayed the implementation of the election of
Committee of Management.

6. Being aggrieved with the order
dated 11th January 2023, petitioner filed
writ petition no. 507 (MS) of 2013 before
this Hon'ble Court and vide order dated 24th
January 2013, the operation of the order
dated 11th January 2013 passed by the
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits,
Lucknow Region Lucknow was stayed.
Whereafter, the term of the Committee of
Management completed and the new
election held on 10th October 2015, as per
the procedure prescribed in the by-laws.
Thereafter, the petitioner submitted the
application on 19th March 2017 for renewal
of the registration certificate before the
Deputy Registrar, which was prepared on
5th July 2016. It is also submitted that the
original copy of the renewal certificate is
with the petition no. 2.

7. Election of the Committee of
Management was consecutively held after
completion of three years of the tenure i.e.,
on 10 October 2018, and all the papers were
sent to the office of the Deputy Registrar and
1590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
when on 24th October 2019, the petitioner
submitted all the proceeding before the
Deputy Registrar for registration of list of
office
bearers
of
Committee
of
Management, no action was taken and
therefore, contempt petition was preferred
bearing Contempt Petition No. 1644 of
2020, wherein, the notice was issued to the
respondent-authority and as soon as the
notice was issued, the Deputy Registrar
approved the election proceeding dated 10th
October 2015 and 10th October 2018.

8. After expiry of term of renewal of
registration of the society, the petitioner
submitted an application through online on
28.11.2020 for renewal of registration
certificate and also submitted the requisite
fee as prescribed under Section 3?A of the
Act, 1860 and further submitted the requisite
papers/documents
on
25.11.2021
and
21.12.2021, which was properly furnished
in the office of the Deputy Registrar by the
petitioner no. 2 and thereafter, on 10th
October 2023, and on subsequent dates, the
petitioner personally appeared before the
Deputy Registrar for submission of original
records, but the Deputy Registrar ignored
every request of the petitioner, rather the
petitioner was misbehaved by the officials
of the office of the Deputy Registrar and all
of sudden without associating the petitioner,
the Deputy Registrar vide impugned order
dated 19th December 2023, issued the
renewal certificate on the basis of the papers
submitted by the opposite party no. 4.

9. Contention of the counsel for the
petitioner is that the impugned order dated
19th December 2023 has been passed by the
Deputy Registrar without affording proper
opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and
that too in illegal and arbitrary manner and
against the provision of Act, 1860. He
further added that as per the by-laws, the
term of the Committee of Management is
prescribed as three years and the election of
Committee of Management has regularly
been held and time and again the list of the
members as well as the office bearers of the
society were sent to the office of Deputy
Registrar, as prescribed under the provision
of the Act, 1860.

10. Further contention of the counsel
for the petitioner is that the opposite party
no. 4 has never been inducted as member of
society, though, he has fraudulently shown
himself to be the member of the society by
submitting a forged membership receipt,
shown to be issued by the then President of
the society, though, no proceeding regarding
the induction of membership of the opposite
party no. 4 is placed on record and except
apart the alleged membership receipt, there
is no proof/evidence, that under what
circumstances the petitioner is inducted as
member of the society?

11. Adding his argument, he summits
that the Deputy Registrar while proceeding
with the renewal of the registration of
society accepted the fabricated document,
submitted by the opposite party no. 4 and did
not allow the petitioner to submit the
original records, which is in custody of the
petitioner no. 2. He also added that after
concluding the proceeding on 17.07.2023,
the Deputy Registrar kept on writing to the
petitioner to submit the record as if the
proceeding are going on and all these act of
the Deputy Registrar is camouflaging and
not permissible under the law.

12. Further submission is that the
opposite party no. 4 could not substantiate
while filing the counter affidavit that how he
has been inducted as a member and he has
failed to controvert the pleadings of the writ
petition, therefore, submission is that the
5 All. C/M Ram Dularey Yadav Higher Secondary School & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1591
order impugned passed by the Deputy
Registrar is unlawful and erroneous, and the
same maybe quashed.

13. Counsel appearing for the opposite
parties
have
opposed
the
abovesaid
contentions and submitted that opposite
party no. 4 has been inducted as a member
in year 2010 and a membership receipt has
also been issued, which is endorsed by the
then President, who is the authority to issue
such receipt, under the by-laws of the
society. He further added that the opposite
party no. 4, being the son of the then
Manager, is claiming his right as if there is
any right of inheritance on the post of
Manager of Committee of Management of
the society, though, the by-laws specifically
speaks about the provision of induction of
the members in the society and by adopting
those provision, the opposite party no. 4 has
been inducted as a member and thereafter,
since he was having the original records and
thus, he produced the same and on his
production of his records, the renewal of the
registration of the society is done by the
Deputy Registrar in a right and proper way,
which is in consonance with the provision of
Act, 1860, as well as the by-laws of the
society.

14. He further added that since, the
disputed question of fact are raised and
therefore, the petitioner, if aggrieved, may
challenge this order before the Civil Court
and it is not amenable to the Writ
Jurisdiction
under
Article
226
of
Constitution of India.

15. Concluding his arguments, he
submits that since there is no force in the
contention
and
subject
matter,
raised/preferred by the petitioners and
therefore, the petition is liable to be
dismissed.

16. Considering upon the submissions
of the counsel for the parties and after
perusal of the available records, including
the original record placed before this Court,
it emerges that a dispute arose when one
Rakesh Kumar Gupta, i.e., opposite party
no. 4, claiming him to be the Manager of
Committee of Management of the society,
submitted the documents before the Deputy
Registrar and sought the renewal of the
registration of the society, whereafter, the
same was controverted by the petitioners
while stating that the opposite party no. 4
has never been inducted as a member of the
society and therefore, he is a stranger and the
renewal of the society on furnishing the
paper by the opposite party no. 4, annexing
therewith the list of general body and the
expenditure of financial year 2009?10 and
2011?12 is impermissible. The matter went
up to the Coordinate Bench of the Court,
whereafter, the Deputy Registrar decided the
matter vide order dated 19th December
2023, which is under challenge in the instant
petition. The petitioner no. 2, claiming him
to be the duly inducted member and the
Manager of Committee of Management of
the society, while outrightly rejecting the
claim of the opposite party no. 4, as member
of the society, while placing the membership
receipt bearing no. 648 dated 23rd October
2010, issued by the then President of society.
As per the provisions of by-laws, the
President can utilise the power of the
treasurer and thus, it is stated that the
opposite party No.4 is a validly inducted
member of the society.

17. The crux of the issue is that without
affording opportunity of hearing to the
petitioners, the order dated 19th December
2023 has been passed.

18. When this court examines the
above said, in facts and law, it emerges from
1592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the order-sheet of the original record that on
17th January 2023, the then Deputy
Registrar heard the matter finally and closed
the proceeding, and the judgement was
reserved, but, from perusal of the further
proceedings, carried out by the present
Deputy Registrar, it does not transpires that
when the matter was fixed for re-hearing,
though, on two occasions a formality is done
while calling the original records from the
parties, however, by what means the
petitioners are communicated, is not evident
from the order-sheet. Simply the question
arises that once the proceeding was closed
and it was not open for further hearing, there
was no occasion for calling the original
record.

19. It is specific case of the petitioners
that proper and fair opportunity has not been
afforded to the petitioners, and once the
petitioners appeared in person to submit the
original records to the Deputy Registrar, the
Deputy Registrar has denied to accept, for
the reasons best known to him. It is not
understandable that why the petitioners
would restrain themselves to deposit the
original records to the office of Deputy
Registrar, if it was in fact called for? and that
too in the event that the proceedings were
earlier closed vide order dated 17th January
2023; meaning thereby that the present
Deputy Registrar was merely doing the
formality and nothing else.

20. It is a trite law that if any
action/order is of a civil consequence, then
opportunity of hearing is must to the
affected persons. This court is also not
unmindful to the law that if there is disputed
question of fact or there can be two possible
views, the same is not amenable to the writ
jurisdiction, but so far as the present case is
concerned, prima facie, there seems to be
lack of rules of principle of natural justice as
after the hearing was over, and the
judgement was reserved by the Deputy
Registrar, the records were sought without
putting the matter for further hearing and as
per the contention of the petitioners, prior to
17th January 2023 also, the proper
opportunity of hearing was not accorded to
the petitioners.

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court, time and
again has held that the opportunity of
hearing is one of the major and essential
ingredient so as to make a test of any
decision of an authority. The decision might
be administrative, judicial or quasijudicial,
but person affected must be heard before a
decision is taken.

22. The issue has rightly been settled
in case of Managing Director, ECIL,
Hyderabad and others vs B. Karunakar
and Others by a Constitutional Bench of
the Apex Court reported in (1993) 4 SCC
727 and subsequently, law rendered in State
Bank of India and Others Vs. Rajesh
Agarwal and others reported in (2023) 6
SCC 1 regarding the principle of 'audi
alteram partem'.

23. Paragraph 36 of the abovesaid
judgement is quoted hereinunder:-

"36. We need to bear in mind that
the principles of natural justice are not mere
legal
formalities.
They
constitute
substantive obligations that need to be
followed
by
decision-making
and
adjudicating authorities. The principles of
natural justice act as a guarantee against
arbitrary action, both in terms of procedure
and substance, by judicial, quasi-judicial,
and
administrative
authorities.
Two
fundamental principles of natural justice are
entrenched in Indian jurisprudence: (i)
nemo judex in causa sua, which means that
5 All. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. Vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commissioner & Anr.
1593
no person should be a judge in their own
cause; and (ii) audi alteram partem, which
means
that
a
person
affected
by
administrative, judicial or quasi- judicial
action must be heard before a decision is
taken.
The
courts
generally
favor
interpretation of a statutory provision
consistent with the principles of natural
justice because it is presumed that the
statutory authorities do not intend to
contravene fundamental rights. Application
of the said principles depends on the facts
and circumstances of the case, express
language and basic scheme of the statute
under which the administrative power is
exercised, the nature and purpose for which
the power is conferred, and the final effect
of the exercise of that power."

24. In view of the aforesaid
submissions and discussions, this Court is of
considered opinion that the proper and fair
opportunity of hearing has not been afforded
to the present petitioners, as is evident, from
the original records of the society produced
before this Court. Further, the settled
proposition of law has also materially been
ignored. Consequently, the writ petition is
hereby allowed and the impugned order
dated 19.12.2023 is quashed.

25. Matter is relegated back to the
Deputy Registrar concerned to proceed with
the matter a fresh, after hearing all the
stakeholders,
while
providing
them
opportunity of hearing and the decision shall
be taken within a period of three months.

26. The original certificate shall be
submitted by the opposite party No. 4 before
the Deputy Registrar, within a week, if he
has received it, already.

27. Office is directed to return the
original records to counsel for the State.
----------
(2024) 5 ILRA 1593
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.05.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK CHAUDHARY, J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 7368 of 2006

U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
& Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
D.D. Chopra, Divyam Krishna, Shailesh
Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
I.B. Singh, Madhumita Bose, Rekha Nigam

(A) Electricity Law - The Electricity Act,
2003 - Section 61 - Tariff regulation ,
Section 62 - Determination of tariff ,
Section 63 - Determination of tariff by
bidding process , Section 178 - Power of
central commission to make regulations -
Central Electricity Regulatory Commission
(Terms and Conditions of Tariff) (First
Amendment),
Regulations,
2006
-
Regulation 5A - Provisional Tariff - Law
should be consonant with principles of
faith and reason - Delegated legislation,
including regulations, should not conflict
with principal legislation - Regulations
should be harmonious with the statutes
they are formulated under - The Electricity
Act
of
2003
provides
the
statutory
framework for regulations. (Para - 9)

(B) Electricity Law - The Electricity Act,
2003 - Section 62(6) - If any licensee or a
generating company recovers a price or
charge exceeding the tariff determined
under this section, the excess amount shall
be recoverable by the person who has paid
such price or charge along with interest