# C/M Sankatha Prasad Inter College, Fatehpur & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 8 ILRA 232
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 38789 of 2016
- **Bench:** Siddhartha Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-sankatha-prasad-inter-college-fatehpur-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46025
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Societies Registration Act (21
of 1860) - Section 4 - Regional Level
Committee (R.L.C.) and the Assistant
Registrar (A.R.) operate & perform their
functions in different fields under two
different legislations - If the C/m of the
Society & College (run by the society)
are one and same - then whenever a
dispute with regard to the correctness
of the list of the General Body of Society
is raised then A.R. alone could decide
such dispute u/s 4-B of the Societies
Registration Act, - On the other hand
R.L.C.
could
look
into
a
dispute
pertaining to the C/m of Intermediate
College governed by the provisions of
the Intermediate Education Act, 1921
read with G.O. dated 19.12.2000 - R.L.C.
could not sit in appeal over the order of
the A.R. - If there is any dispute with
regard to the management of Society
then A.R. to refer the same to the
Prescribed Authority u/s 25 of the
Societies Registration Act.

Vide impugned order R.L.C. directed A.R. to
review his order whereby the A.R. had found
that only 14 members were the actual
members of the General Body - Held - When
writ court directed R.L.C. to look into the
grievance of parties - in accordance with law
- then the Court had not bestowed R.L.C. the
jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the order
passed by the A.R. - R.L.C. in the first
instance had to see if it had any jurisdiction to
look into the controversy as was placed
before it (Para 11)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of cases cited:-

## Text

232 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.P.C. it would not follow that the
additional
evidence
has
been
straightaway exhibited. Such additional
evidence/documents have to be proved in
accordance with law.

63. I have also considered the
judgments reported in (2001) 92 R.D. 67
Mahavir Singh and others versus
Naresh Chandra and another of Hon'ble
the Supreme Court and in the case of
Rita Rani versus Tanu Chauhan and
others reported in (2005) 61 ALR 264
which were cited before the appellate
court below from the side of the present
respondent no. 2.

64. The judgment in the case of
Mahavir Singh and others versus
Naresh Chandra and another laid down
the principle on the scope of Order 41
Rule 27 C.P.C. which has already been
discussed in this judgment. In the said
judgment it has been held that Section
107(d) C.P.C. is an exception to the
general rule and the additional evidence
can be taken only when the condition and
limitation laid down in the said rule are
found to exist. When the appellate court
finds
itself
unable
to
pronounce
judgment, owing to a lacuna or defect in
the evidence as it stands, it may admit
additional evidence. The ability to
pronounce
a
judgment
is
to
be
understood as the ability to pronounce a
judgment satisfactory to the mind of
Court delivering it. The principle of law
as laid down in the case of Mahavir
Singh (supra), would apply to the facts of
the present case and the impugned order,
as it does not record its satisfaction on
the point if the appellate court was able
to pronounce judgment on the basis of
evidence/material available on the record
of the trial court and if the additional
evidence was required for pronouncing a
satisfactory judgment the impugned order
cannot be sustained.

65. So far as the case Reeta Rani
(supra) is concerned the same was
rendered in the circumstance of that case
as is evident from paragraph 6 of the
report.

66. This Court is of the considered
view that the impugned order cannot be
sustained and deserves to be set aside.
The matter deserves to be remitted to the
appellate court below to decide the
petitioner's application under Order 41
Rule 27 C.P.C. in accordance with law,
afresh, after providing opportunity of
hearing to the parties without being
influenced from the impugned order
dated 29.03.2006. 67. Thus, considered,
the petition is allowed. The impugned
order dated 29.03.2006 is set aside. The
matter is remitted to the learned appellate
court for fresh decision on the petitioner's
application for additional evidence, as
per law, discussed above, expeditiously
and preferably within a period of six
months from the date of production of
certified copy of this judgment before the
appellate court. No order as to costs.
----------
(2020)08ILR A232
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.05.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ C No. 38789 of 2016

C/M Sankatha Prasad Inter College,
Fatehpur & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
8 All. C/M Sankatha Prasad Inter College, Fatehpur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
233
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Vijay Kumar Singh, Sri Jai Singh Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Nanhe Lal Tripathi, Sri
Prabhakar Awasthi

Civil Law - Societies Registration Act (21
of 1860) - Section 4 - Regional Level
Committee (R.L.C.) and the Assistant
Registrar (A.R.) operate & perform their
functions in different fields under two
different legislations - If the C/m of the
Society & College (run by the society)
are one and same - then whenever a
dispute with regard to the correctness
of the list of the General Body of Society
is raised then A.R. alone could decide
such dispute u/s 4-B of the Societies
Registration Act, - On the other hand
R.L.C.
could
look
into
a
dispute
pertaining to the C/m of Intermediate
College governed by the provisions of
the Intermediate Education Act, 1921
read with G.O. dated 19.12.2000 - R.L.C.
could not sit in appeal over the order of
the A.R. - If there is any dispute with
regard to the management of Society
then A.R. to refer the same to the
Prescribed Authority u/s 25 of the
Societies Registration Act.

Vide impugned order R.L.C. directed A.R. to
review his order whereby the A.R. had found
that only 14 members were the actual
members of the General Body - Held - When
writ court directed R.L.C. to look into the
grievance of parties - in accordance with law
- then the Court had not bestowed R.L.C. the
jurisdiction to sit in appeal over the order
passed by the A.R. - R.L.C. in the first
instance had to see if it had any jurisdiction to
look into the controversy as was placed
before it (Para 11)

Allowed. (E-5)

List of cases cited:-

1. T.P. Singh (En. No. 2473), Senior Advocate Vs
Registrar/Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies & Chits,
Teliyarganj & ors. 2018 (11) ADJ 586
2. C/m of Hindu Inter College, Kosi Kalan Vs
Regional Deputy Director of Education, 11
Agra Region, Agra & Ors 1988 UPLBEC 732

3.
Udit
Narain
Kshetriya
High
School
Padrauna Deoria Vs D.M., Deoria 1993 ACJ
1293

4. Harshad Chiman Lal Modi Vs DLF Universal
Ltd. & anr. (2005) 7 SCC 791

5. C/M, Sarvodaya Post Graduate College Vs
St. of U.P. & ors. 2011 (29) LCD 272

6. C/m, Public Inter College, Mandaripur,
Bijnor Vs St. of U.P. & anr. 2014 (4) ESC 2341

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma, J.)

1. In this writ petition, the order
dated 25.7.2016 passed by the Regional
Level Committee, Allahabad, has been
challenged. The events which fall within
a narrow compass culminating in the
impugned order would be essential for
the adjudication of this case.

2. There is a registered society by
the name of Sankatha Prasad Shiksha
Sadan
Prabandh
Samiti
Mawai
Ganeshpur, Fatehpur. The society also
runs an Intermediate College which is
recognized
under
the
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921. As per law, the
society
has
its
bye-laws
and
the
Intermediate College has its Scheme Of
Administration. A perusal of the bye-laws
and the Scheme of Administration shows
that enrolment of members is done only
for the general body of the society and
those very members are the members of
the general body of the Intermediate
College. The general body of the society
elects its members for its Committee of
Management and, thereafter, the latter
functions for the society as also the
Intermediate College.
234 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. On 5.12.2010, when an election
was held one Sri Jai Bahadur Singh was
elected as president and Sri Shattrughan
Lal Vishwakarma was elected as the
Manager. The elected body which was
elected by the Election dated 5.12.2010,
on 27.12.2011 claimed that on the
enrolment of 9 life members and 11
Ordinary members vide resolution of the
general body dated 5.12.2010, the
General Body of the Society now had 28
members. The Committee which was
elected on 5.12.2010 also came up with
an election dated 1.12.2013 on the basis
of those 28 members. This election was
approved by the Assistant Registrar on
19.12.2013 on the basis of which, the list
of office bearers was registered by the
Assistant Registrar under Section 4 of the
Societies Registration Act on 2.3.2015.

4. However, when knowledge
dawned on the other members regarding
the addition of members to the general
body, they filed their complaints before
the Assistant Registrar and when the
Assistant Registrar on 2.3.2015 had
ultimately registered the list of office
bearers, the Petitioners filed a writ
petition being Writ Petition No. 20789 of
2015 which was allowed on 28.4.2015.
The order dated 2.3.2015 passed by the
Assistant Registrar was set aside and the
Assistant Registrar, by the High Court's
order, was directed to finalize the list of
the General Body of the Society in
accordance with law and after affording
an opportunity of hearing to all the stake
holders.

5.

The
Assistant
Registrar,
thereafter, on 14.8.2015 passed an order
holding that the election dated 1.12.2013
was invalid and finalized a list of 14
members who according to him were
there in the General Body of the Society.
However, the Assistant Registrar was of
the view that Election was to be held
under Section 25 (2) of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. Thereafter, the
District Inspector of Schools, upon the
resolution of the dispute regarding
membership, granted permission dated
26.8.2015 to the institution to hold the
election
of
the
Committee
of
management. However, the president of
the society on the very next day i.e.
27.8.2015
requested
the
District
Inspector of Schools to get the Election
of the Society also held. Thereupon on
28.8.2015, the District Inspector of
Schools appointed one Sri Ramendra
Singh, the member of the Government
Kanya Uchchattar Madhyamik vidyalaya
Chakki, Fatehpur as the Election Officer.
The Election Officer, thereafter, finalized
the Election programme and published
the same in two newspapers, namely,
Dainik Jagran and Amar Ujala. Observers
etc. were appointed and the election of
the committee of management of the
Society as also of the college was held on
12.9.2015. On 14.9.2015, the observer
submitted his report to the District
Inspector of Schools and on 16.9.2015,
the
District
Inspector
of
Schools
approved the Election and also attested
the signature of the petitioner no. 2 as the
manager.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the
Assistant Registrar dated 14.8.2015, the
respondent no. 5 filed a writ petition
being Writ Petition No. 50262 of 2015.
This writ petition, however, came to be
dismissed on 8.9.2015 as the Election
was already notified for 12.9.2015. A
Special Appeal being Special Appeal No.
742 of 2015 was filed against the order of
the High Court dated 8.9.2015 which was
8 All. C/M Sankatha Prasad Inter College, Fatehpur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
235
also
disposed
of
on
30.10.2015.
However, upon the Election results being
declared, the respondent no. 5 again filed
a writ petition being Writ Petition No.
68194 of 2015 whereby four orders were
challenged.

I. The order dated 14.8.2015
passed
by
the
Assistant
Registrar
finalizing the Electoral Roll of 14
members.

II.
The
Election
dated
12.9.2015
of
the
Committee
of
Management of the Society.

III.
The
Election
dated
12.9.2015
of
the
Committee
of
Management of the Institution.

IV. The order dated 16.9.2015
of the District Inspector of Schools which
had
approved
the
Election
dated
12.9.2012.

7. On 14.1.2016, the High Court did
not enter into the merits of the impugned
orders. However,it granted liberty to the
petitioners of the Writ Petition No. 68194
of 2015 to approach the Regional Level
Committee. The operative portion of the
order dated 4.1.2016 is being reproduced
here as under:-

"Accordingly, without going
into the merits of the impugned orders as
well as the election proceedings, this writ
petition is disposed of with liberty to the
petitioners to approach the Regional
Level Committee and in which event, the
Regional Level Committee shall decide
the
objections
preferred
by
the
petitioners, in accordance with law
(emphasis added), after due notice and
opportunity of hearing to all affected
parties. The aforesaid exercise be carried
out by the Regional Level Committee,
expeditiously and preferably within a
period of next six months from the date
the objection were preferred before it.
The impugned order dated 16.9.2015 as
well as the election proceedings shall
abide by the decision taken by the
Regional Level Committee."

8. When the Regional Level
Committee passed an order on 25.7.2016
(order impugned in the writ petition), the
instant writ petition was filed. The order
impugned was to the following effect:-

i.
The
Election
of
the
Committee of Management held on
12.9.2015 was held to be invalid.

ii. A direction was given to the
Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and
Chits, Allahabad, to review his order
dated 14.8.2015 whereby he had found
that only 14 members were the actual
members of the General Body. This
exercise had to be completed by the
Assistant Registrar within a period of
three months of the passing of the
impugned order dated 25.7.2016.

iii. A direction was also given
to the District Inspector of Schools to get
the Election of the Committee of
Management of the Institution held on
the basis of the list of members which
was to be finalized by the Assistant
Registrar.

iv.
The
accounts
of
the
institution were in the mean time to be
operated by the District Basic Siksha
Adhikari, Fatehpur, singly.

9.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner while assailing the order dated
25.7.2016 passed by the Regional Level
Committee has made the following
submissions:-
236 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(i)The
Joint
Director
of
Education/
the
Regional
Level
Committee and the Assistant Registrar
Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad
perform their functions in their own
spheres. The two Acts which govern their
functioning are two different legislations.
The
Joint
Director
of
Education/
Regional Level Committee draw their
powers from the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921, read with the
Government Order dated 19.12.2000.
The Joint Director of Education was
required to decide a dispute in regard to a
Committee
of
Management
of
an
Intermediate College governed by the
provisions of the Intermediate Education
Act. By means of the Government Order
dated 19.12.2000 it was provided that the
dispute pertaining to the Committee of
Management of an Intermediate College
would be decided by the Regional Level
Committee.
In
effect,
therefore,
he
submitted
that
the
Regional
Level
Committee was required to decide a
dispute pertaining to a Committee of
Management of an Institution governed by
the Intermediate Education Act, 1921.
While deciding the question of election of
Committee of Management, however, the
Regional Level Committee incidentally
could have gone into the validity of the
Electoral Roll which was used for holding
the Election. However, he submits that if
by virtue of the bye-laws of the society and
the Scheme of Administration of an
Intermediate College, the Committee of
Management of the Society and the
Intermediate College (run by the society)
are one and the same then the Assistant
Registrar who exercises his powers under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860, alone
could deal with the list of the General Body
of the Society under Section 4-B of the
Societies Registration Act. He submits that
whenever a dispute with regard to the list
of the General Body of a society is raised
then under Section 4-B of the Societies
Registration
Act,
1860,
the
dispute
pertaining to the said list was required to be
decided by the Assistant Registrar under
the provisions of the Section 4-B of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. Learned
counsel to bolster his submission has relied
upon 2018 (11) ADJ 586 (T.P. Singh (En.
No.
2473),
Senior
Advocate
vs.
Registrar/Assistant
Registrar,
Firms
Societies & Chits, Teliyarganj and
others).

Learned
counsel
further
submitted that a dispute under Section 4B of the Societies Registration Act could
not be appealed against. However, if the
Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of
the Societies Registration Act had to
decide any dispute then he could also
have
incidentally
looked
into
the
electoral roll also.

Therefore, the learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the
Regional
Level
Committee
which
functioned as per the Government Order
dated 19.12.2000 could not have looked
into the order passed by the Registrar
dated 14.8.2015 and also could not have
directed the Registrar to review his order.
Since the learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon the provisions of
the Government Order dated 19.12.2000,
the same is being reproduced here as
under:-

"'kklu Lrj ij fujUrj ;g
f'kdk;rsa izkIr gks jgha gS fd ek/;fed f'k{kk
vf/kfu;e] 1921 ,oa osru forj.k vf/kfu;e]
1971 }kjk izkIr vf/kdkjksa dk dfri;
vf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk nq:i;ksx fd;k tk jgk gS]
blfy, e.Myh; la;qDr f'k{kk funs'kd dh
v/;{krk esa ,d lfefr dk xBu fd;k tkrk gS
ftlesa e.Myh; mi f'k{kk funs'kd rFkk
8 All. C/M Sankatha Prasad Inter College, Fatehpur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
237
lEcfU/kr tuin ds ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd
lnL; gksaxsA ;g lfefr fuEufyf[kr izdj.kksa
ij fopkj djsxhA

1- izcU/kdksa ds gLrk{kj izekf.kr
djukA

2- osru forj.k vf/kfu;e ds
vUrxZr lkf/kdkj fu;a=d dh fu;qfDrA

3- leLr izdkj ds izcU/kdh;
fooknA

4- f'k{kdksa ds ofj"Brk lEcU/kh
fooknA

5- osru vuqeU;rk ls lEcfU/kr
leLr izdj.k U;k;ky;h izdj.kksa dks NksM+djA

;g lfefr mDr izd.kksa dk ijh{k.k
djus ds mijkUr viuh laLrqfr ml vf/kdkj
dks izLrqr djsaxh] tks vf/kfu;eksa ds vUrxZr bu
dk;ksZa dks djus ds fy, vf/kd`r gSA bl lfefr
dh ekg esa nks ckj fu;fer :i ls cSBdsa
vk;ksftr gksaxhA U;k;ky;h izdj.kksa ij mDr
lfefr viuh laLrqfr f'k{kk funs'kd dks izsf"kr
djsaxh] ftudh vk[;k ,oa laLrqfr izkIr gksus ij
'kklu }kjk dk;Zokgh gsrq funsZ'k fn;k tk,xkA
"

(ii) Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that the
Regional Level Committee could not
have sat in appeal over the order of the
Assistant Registrar. He submitted that the
order of the Assistant Registrar, having
not been challenged, had attained finality
and the Regional Level Committee could
not have directed that Assistant Registrar
to review his order dated 14.8.2015. In
this regard, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon a judgement of this
Court reported in 1988 UPLBEC 732
(Committee of Management of Hindu
Inter College, Kosi Kalan vs. Regional
Deputy Director of Education, Agra
Region, Agra and Others.

(iii) Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that simply
because the Court had directed the parties
to
approach
the
Regional
Level
Committee it did not mean that it had
bestowed the Regional Level Committee
with the power to arrogate to itself a
jurisdiction which it did not have. In this
regard, learned counsel for the petitioner
relied upon 1993 ACJ 1293 ( Udit
Narain
Kshetriya
High
School
Padrauna Deoria through its Secy. Sri
Ram Pratap Narain Singh and Other
v. District Magistrate, Deoria and 2005
(7) SCC 791 (Harshad Chiman Lal
Modi v. DLF Universal Ltd. And
another). He submitted that the Regional
Level Committee had to decide the
matter in accordance with law and if the
law did not permit it to decide the issue
as was raised before it then it ought to
have kept its hands away.

(iv) Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that the High
Court had by its order only directed the
Regional Level Committee to decide the
dispute in accordance with law. It had not
bestowed
any
jurisdiction
on
the
Regional Level Committee.

(v) Learned counsel for the
petitioner further submitted that even on
merits the order of the Assistant Registrar
dated 14.8.2015 could not be interfered
with as it had interpreted resolution dated
5.12.2010
by
which
resolution
no
members had been enrolled but a
resolution was there that in future they
would be enroled. He submitted that after
the enrolment of the new members there
was also no fresh resolution accepting the
fresh members as regular members. In
this regard, learned counsel for the
petitioner relied upon 2011 (29) LCD
272 (C/M, Sarvodaya Post Graduate
College vs. State of U.P. And Others).

(vi) Learned counsel had also
submitted that when the Election of the
238 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Society alone had to be looked into then
it mattered little that it was the District
Inspector of Schools who monitored the
Elections.

10. The counsel for the respondent
no. 5, however, in reply, made the
following submission. He had also
submitted his written arguments:-

(I) The order dated 14.8.2015
could have been looked into by the
Regional Level Committee as the order
dated 4.1.2016 passed by this Court was
passed on the basis of consent and,
therefore, a jurisdiction vested in the
Regional Level Committee to look into
the order dated 14.8.2015 which was
passed by the Assistant Registrar. This
was the order which was challenged in
the writ petition being Writ Petition No.
68194 of 2015. When once the order of
the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies
and Chits, Allahabad had come into
existence and had not been interfered
with by the Court and in fact when the
Court had relegated the parties to
approach the Regional Level Committee
then the Regional Level Committee alone
could have looked into the orders which
were impugned in Writ Petition No.
68194 of 2015. The respondent no. 5
relied
upon
2014
(4)
ESC
2341
(Committee of Management, Public
Inter College, Mandaripur, Bijnor vs.
State of U.P. And Others) to support his
case.

(ii)Learned counsel for the
respondent no. 5 further submitted that in
view of the order passed on 30.10.2015
in Special Appeal No. 742 of 2015 and in
view of the order dated 4.1.2016 passed
in Writ Petition No. 68194 of 2015 the
order passed by the Regional Level
Committee on 25.7.2016 could not be
interfered with.

(iii) The respondent no. 5 had
drawn the attention of the Court to the
Resolution
dated
5.12.2010
and
had
submitted
that
the
Resolution
dated
5.12.2010 very clearly had resolved to enrol
fresh members. Learned counsel for the
respondents read out the Resolution No. 3(2)
dated 5.12.2010 and, therefore, the same is
being reproduced here as under:-

"2- Jh f'ko jke f}osnh us izLrko
j[kk fd gekjh lfefr esa vf/kdka'k o;kso`) ,oa
ek= lk{kj lnL; gS blfy, Hkfo"; esa uo
;qod f'kf{kr ,oa fufoZokfnr lnL; j[ks tkus
pkfg, lnj esa izLrko dk Lokxr djus gq,
Hkfo"; esa izLrko ds vuqlkj gh lnL; cuk;s
tkus dk fu.kZ; ft;kA

vU; dksbZ izLrko u tkus ds dkj.k
v/;{k egksn; us vkt gh dk;Zokgh ds lekiu
dh ?kks"k.kk dhA "

(iii) He submits that "Hkfo"; esa
izLrko ds vuqlkj gh lnL; cuk;s tkus dk
fu.kZ; fy;k" was such a statement in the
Resolution which gave the General Body
a power to enrol members then and there.
Learned counsel for the respondent also
drew the attention of the Court with
regard to the method in which earlier
members were enrolled and, therefore,
submitted that the writ petition be
dismissed.

11. Having heard the learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondent no. 5, this
Court is of the view that the order dated
25.7.2016 cannot be sustained in the eyes
of
law.
The
Joint
Director
of
Education/Regional Level Committee
and the Assistant Registrar operated in
different fields and under different
enactments.
The
Regional
Level
Committee could have looked into a
dispute, had it arisen between the
Committee
of
Management
of
an
Intermediate College governed by the
8 All. M/s Triveni Eng. & Indus. Ltd. Sugar Unit, Muzaffar Nagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 239
provisions of the Intermediate Education.
However, the Assistant Registrar could
not have done so. The Assistant Registrar
could have only looked into the register
of members under Section 4B of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. If there
was any dispute with regard to the
management, then he could have referred
the same to the Prescribed Authority
under Section 25 of the Societies
Registration Act. Furthermore, when the
order dated 14.8.2015 was not challenged
and, when by the order dated 4.1.2016
passed in Writ Petition No. 68194 of
2015 the Regional Level Committee was
asked to look into the grievance of the
petitioner of that writ petition in
accordance with law then the Court had
not
bestowed
the
Regional
Level
Committee the jurisdiction to sit in
appeal over the order dated 14.8.2015
passed by the Assistant Registrar. The
High Court had also not bestowed
powers on the Regional Level Committee
to the extent that it could have directed
the Registrar to to review his order dated
14.8.2015. When the writ petition did not
adjudicate upon the order 14.8.2015 then
the only irresistible conclusion was that
the order dated 14.8.2015 had attained
finality. Further, this Court is of the view
that when the High Court by its order
dated 14.1.2016 directed the parties to
approach the Regional Level Committee
then it had not bestowed any power on it
and when the Regional Level Committee
was adjudicating the matter it had to, in
the first instance, see if it had any
jurisdiction to look into the controversy
as was placed before it. The Regional
Level Committee had to decide the
matter in accordance with law.

12. Further, on merit, I find that the
Resolution dated 5.12.2010 was only to
enroll members in the future. Still further,
I am of the view that as per the bye-laws
if any new member had to be enrolled the
General Body was required to pass a
resolution accepting those members.
Since no meeting had taken place as per
the resolution dated 5.12.2010 it has to
be presumed that the members enrolled
on 5.12.2010 were not in fact members
under any resolution.

13. In view of what has been
observed above, the order 25.7.2016
passed by the Regional Level Committee
Allahabad cannot be sustained and is set
aside.

14. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2020)08ILR A239
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 51337 of 2012

M/s Triveni Eng. & Indus. Ltd. Sugar
Unit, Muzaffar Nagar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.D. Singh, Sri Diptiman Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri Bushra Maryam

Services of respondent no.3 (Cane Inspector)
dispensed
with simply because of the
institution of the criminal case - order of
termination stated that on account of nature
of offence - not possible to conduct any
domestic inquiry against the respondent no.3
- respondent no. 3 subsequently acquitted by