# C/M Subhash Chandra Bose Smarak Vidyalaya Isipur, Pratapgarh & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 12 ILRA 445
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-11-25
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 12711 of 2020
- **Bench:** Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-subhash-chandra-bose-smarak-vidyalaya-isipur-pratapgarh-anr-v-state-of-u-p-45611
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Societies Registration Act, 1860
- Sections 4, 4A and 4B - role and the
jurisdiction assigned to the Assistant Registrar
- Assistant Registrar is not envisaged to act as
a mere rubber stamp liable to accept and
register all or any returns that may be
presented before him - Section 25 - Prescribed
Authority for adjudication - Mere suspicion or
scepticism cannot be recognised in law as
sufficient parameters to uphold allegations of
fraud. (Para - 6,10)

The Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and
Chits accepts the objections taken by the
private respondents denying and refuting their
alleged resignations and the consequential
changes in the list which came to be registered
- private respondents approached the second
respondent - allegation - proceedings of the
Society were forged and a fabrication of the
records - their signatures on the resignation
letters
and
the
affidavits
submitted
in
connection therewith were forgeries and that
they had never tendered their resignations as
alleged. (Para -2,3)

Held: - The doubt or uncertainty which the
Assistant
Registrar
harboured
cannot
be
countenanced in law to warrant an "inherent
power" of recall or review being exercised quite
apart from being clearly insufficient to sustain
an allegation of fraud and fabrication. The
Assistant Registrar is directed to refer the issue
of the alleged resignation of the private
respondents for the consideration of the
Prescribed Authority in accordance with the
provisions made in Section 25 of the 1860 Act.
(Para - 11,13)

Writ Petition allowed . (E-7)

## Text

12 All. C/M Subhash Chandra Bose Smarak Vidyalaya Isipur, Pratapgarh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 445
(2020)12ILR A445
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Writ - C No. 12711 of 2020

C/M Subhash Chandra Bose Smarak Vidyalaya
Isipur, Pratapgarh & Anr. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arpan Srivastava, Sri H.N. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Gulab Anand, Sri Rahul Mishra

(A) Civil Law - Societies Registration Act, 1860
- Sections 4, 4A and 4B - role and the
jurisdiction assigned to the Assistant Registrar
- Assistant Registrar is not envisaged to act as
a mere rubber stamp liable to accept and
register all or any returns that may be
presented before him - Section 25 - Prescribed
Authority for adjudication - Mere suspicion or
scepticism cannot be recognised in law as
sufficient parameters to uphold allegations of
fraud. (Para - 6,10)

The Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and
Chits accepts the objections taken by the
private respondents denying and refuting their
alleged resignations and the consequential
changes in the list which came to be registered
- private respondents approached the second
respondent - allegation - proceedings of the
Society were forged and a fabrication of the
records - their signatures on the resignation
letters
and
the
affidavits
submitted
in
connection therewith were forgeries and that
they had never tendered their resignations as
alleged. (Para -2,3)

Held: - The doubt or uncertainty which the
Assistant
Registrar
harboured
cannot
be
countenanced in law to warrant an "inherent
power" of recall or review being exercised quite
apart from being clearly insufficient to sustain
an allegation of fraud and fabrication. The
Assistant Registrar is directed to refer the issue
of the alleged resignation of the private
respondents for the consideration of the
Prescribed Authority in accordance with the
provisions made in Section 25 of the 1860 Act.
(Para - 11,13)

Writ Petition allowed . (E-7)

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

1. Heard Sri H.N. Singh learned
Senior Counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Rahul Mishra for the contesting private
respondents.

2. The petitioners impugn the order
dated 17 March 2020 passed by the
Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and
Chits, the second respondent herein. In
terms of the aforesaid order the second
respondent has recalled his order of 3 July
2018 registering the list of office bearers of
the Society for the year 2018-19. The order
essentially accepts the objections taken by
the private
respondents denying and
refuting their alleged resignations and the
consequential changes in the list which
came to be registered.

3. The private respondents who were
office bearers are stated to have submitted
their resignations which came to be
accepted by the Society and an amended
list
of
office
bearers
consequently
submitted and registered on 3 July 2018.
The
private
respondents
thereafter
approached the second respondent alleging
that the proceedings of the Society stated to
have been held on 7 November 2017 and
10 April 2018 were forged and a
fabrication of the records. It was alleged
that their signatures on the resignation
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
letters and the affidavits submitted in
connection therewith were forgeries and
that
they
had
never
tendered
their
resignations as alleged. It is this dispute
which fell for adjudication before the
second respondent and has culminated in
the passing of the impugned order.

4. Sri Singh learned senior counsel
appearing in support of the writ petitioners
contends that the second respondent has
clearly
transgressed
the
jurisdiction
conferred upon him under the Societies
Registration
Act,
1860
[hereinafter
referred to as "the Act"] in proceeding to
rule upon the validity or otherwise of the
resignation of the respondents. It is his
submission that once a dispute of the
present nature arose before the second
respondent, it was incumbent upon him to
refer
the
dispute
to
the
Prescribed
Authority for adjudication under Section 25
of the Act. It was further submitted that
once the list had been registered by the
Assistant Registrar, no power stood vested
upon him to recall or review that action and
on this ground also the impugned order is
liable to be set aside.

5. Sri Mishra, learned counsel
appearing for the contesting respondent,
refuting those submissions contended that
once it was brought to the attention of the
second respondent that fraud had been
committed, he had the inherent power to
recall his order registering the list of office
bearers. He further submitted that the
private
respondents
had
categorically
denied having resigned from their offices
before the Assistant Registrar and in view
thereof he was fully justified in delving into
that issue. Sri Mishra has taken the Court
through the order impugned to contend that
the private respondents had categorically
denied having resigned from their offices
or having appended their signatures on any
letter or affidavit submitted in connection
therewith. He would thus submit that the
Assistant Registrar was clearly justified in
recalling his earlier order. It is these rival
submissions which fall for determination.

6. Before the Court it is not disputed
that where a serious or substantial dispute
with regard to election or continuance of an
office bearer or member of a Society arises,
it is incumbent upon the Assistant Registrar
to refer the matter for the consideration of
the Prescribed Authority in terms of the
provisions made in Section 25 of the Act.
The forum created in terms of Section 25 in
facts deals specifically with such disputes
and issues. Viewed in that sense the
Assistant Registrar has a limited role to
play while registering a list of office
bearers that may be submitted before him
for
registration.
The
role
and
the
jurisdiction assigned to the Assistant
Registrar in this regard stands duly
enumerated in Sections 4, 4A and 4B of the
Act. However, and as is well settled, the
Assistant Registrar is not envisaged to act
as a mere rubber stamp liable to accept and
register all or any returns that may be
presented before him. While registering a
list, it is incumbent upon the Assistant
Registrar to summarily scrutinise the
documents submitted in order to examine
their veracity and to ensure a compliance
with the statutory requirements placed by
the Act and the Byelaws of the society. The
limited jurisdiction which stands conferred
upon the Registrar at this juncture also does
not require him to undertake a detailed or
in depth enquiry or enter the arena of a
definitive adjudication.

7. Notwithstanding the limited scope
of the jurisdiction which the Assistant
Registrar has been recognised to wield at
12 All. C/M Subhash Chandra Bose Smarak Vidyalaya Isipur, Pratapgarh & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 447
this stage, the Courts have also taken the
consistent view that in a case where forgery
or fabrication is alleged or where it be found
ex facie that the documents are not compliant
with the statutory requirements placed under
the Act, he would be well within his right to
refuse to register the returns upon being duly
satisfied in that regard. Fraud and fabrication
as has been repeatedly said unravel the most
solemn of acts. Viewed in that sense the
Assistant Registrar theoretically and in
principle must be held empowered to
examine such allegations albeit bearing in
mind the constraints of the summary
character of the jurisdiction which is
otherwise conferred upon him.

8. The limited question which
consequently arises for consideration in the
present petition is whether fraud or forgery
had been duly established impelling the
Registrar to recall the act of recordal of the
return submitted by the petitioners. As this
Court reads the order impugned it finds that
the second respondent has failed to record
or return any conclusive or authoritative
findings on this score.

9. The Assistant Registrar while
taking note of the allegation of the private
respondents in this respect seems to have
been swayed by the fact that the letters of
resignation were undated and appeared to
have been accepted belatedly. While
holding that the genuineness of the
signatures of the respondents on the alleged
letters of resignation would be a question
which would have to be decided by a court
of competent jurisdiction, he proceeds to
refer to a perceived facial discrepancy in
the signatures of the respondents as
appearing on the resignation letter and the
affidavits submitted by them. The finding
on this aspect as with others is described as
"prima facie", "doubtful" and "dubious".

10. However a finding of fraud or
forgery cannot be sustained or rest on such
a nebulous pedestal. A prima facie view
cannot sustain an allegation of fraud or
fabrication. Mere suspicion or scepticism
cannot be recognised in law as sufficient
parameters to uphold allegations of fraud.
Bearing in mind the seriousness of such an
allegation,
they
must
be
established
conclusively and found to have been
definitively committed. "Prima facie", an
oft utilised phrase, merely means an
impression gathered or an opinion formed
on first impressions and initial observation.
A prima facie view by its very nature
requires and mandates a further enquiry
and examination before a definitive ruling
or finding can be entered.

11. In the considered view of this
Court, the doubt or uncertainty which the
Assistant Registrar harboured cannot be
countenanced in law to warrant an
"inherent power" of recall or review being
exercised quite apart from being clearly
insufficient to sustain an allegation of fraud
and fabrication. The Court is of the firm
opinion that if the Assistant Registrar was
prima facie satisfied with regard to the
allegation of fraud and fabrication or if he
were of the opinion that the circumstances
surrounding the alleged resignation of the
respondents cast a credible doubt on a
resignation in fact having been tendered,
the only course of action available to him
was to refer parties to the Prescribed
Authority.

12.

The
Prescribed
Authority
constituted under Section 25 of the Act, as
is manifest from a reading of that
provision, is empowered to rule not just
upon disputes connected with elections but
also consider questions relating to the right
of "continuance" of office bearers or
448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
members of a society. Resignation, therefore,
was clearly a question which related to the
continuance of the private respondents as
office bearers of the Society. For the
aforesaid reasons the Court finds itself unable
to sustain the order impugned.

13. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed. The impugned order dated 17
March 2020 is hereby quashed and set aside.
The Assistant Registrar is directed to refer the
issue of the alleged resignation of the private
respondents for the consideration of the
Prescribed Authority in accordance with the
provisions made in Section 25 of the 1860
Act.
The
Prescribed
Authority
shall
endeavour to conclude proceedings with due
notice
to
all
concerned
parties
with
expedition and preferably within a period of
three months from the date of presentation of
a duly authenticated copy of this order.
----------
(2020)12ILR A448
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.09.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ - C No. 13427 of 2020

Krishna Nand Rai ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Syed Wajid Ali, Rachna Vyas

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

(A) Civil law - Principles of natural justice
- 'useless formality' theory - cases where
despite non-observance of the principles
of natural justice, the ultimate result is
bound to remain the same - where there is
no other view possible even if opportunity
of hearing is afforded to the aggrieved
parties - such are the cases where
impugned action cannot be struck down on
ground of violation of principles of natural
justice nor are such cases required to be
remitted back to the authorities for a fresh
decision after giving show cause notice or
opportunity of hearing - it will be an empty
formality, a mere ritual.(Para - 6)

District
Magistrate
cancelled
petitioner's
certificate of being a dependent of freedom
fighter - ground - petitioner is great grandson of
a freedom fighter - benefit of being dependent
of
freedom
fighter
is
available
only
to
descendants up to the stage of grandson and
not beyond it, i.e. a great grandson or
descendants lower in line would not come within
the definition of 'dependent of freedom fighter'.
(Para-1)

Held: - No purpose will be served in remitting
the matter back to the authority for decision
afresh after providing opportunity of hearing to
the petitioner, in as much as the defect is
incurable; no amount of explanation can change
the ultimate result, being a fait accompli.
Petitioner can by no means negate the admitted
fact that being great grandson of a 'freedom
fighter', he is beyond the purview of the
definition of 'dependent of freedom fighter'.
(Para - 9)

Writ Petition dismissed . (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Dattu Namdev Thakur Vs St.of Mah. & ors. ,
2012 AIR SCW 203

2. Uma Nath Pandey. & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
anr., 2009 AIR SCW 3200

3. Asit Kumar Kar Vs St. of W.B. & ors., (2009)
2 AWC 1628

4. A.R. Antuley Vs R.S. Nayak & anr., (1988) 2
SCC 602

5. M.C. Mehta Vs U.O.I. & ors., (1999) 6 SCC 237