# CM A.S. Degree College Association & Anr v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 693
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-03-04
- **Bench:** Manoj Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/cm-a-s-degree-college-association-anr-v-state-of-u-p-anr-43588
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Section 4-B Societies Registration Act - Registrar's Power to Adjudicate Membership Disputes -
Petitioners challenged Deputy Registrar's communication dated 18.2.2016 doubting validity of 1450
new member inductions due to non-production of
original records (register, minutes,
cash/membership fee books, bank passbook) despite notices pursuant to prior writ directions - Held,
Section 4-B (inserted by U.P. Act 23/2013) empowers Registrar to verify General Body list correctness
even when there is no occasion for registration/renewal; provision minimizes litigation by enabling
membership adjudication (induction/expulsion) to prevent future disputes. (Paras 5-7)

Section 4-B Scope - Not Limited to Registration/Renewal - Petitioners argued Section 4-B(1) applies
only at registration/renewal (renewal valid till 2016) - Held, provision enabling (not restrictive); where
no prior General Body list filed and membership disputes raised, Registrar must adjudicate validity
using specified documents to effectuate legislative intent against fraudulent claims. (Paras 3, 6-7)

Impugned Communication - Tentative Observation - Deputy Registrar noted non-production
creates doubt on inductions/expulsions affecting elections - Held, observation tentative, not final
adjudication; no prejudice to future office-bearer registration under Section 4; petitioners at liberty to
produce originals for decision. (Paras 2-3, 8)

Writ Petition Disposed- No Interference; Liberty to Produce Records - Deputy Registrar
to decide per law

## Text

3 All. CM A.S. Degree College Association & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
693

25. Vague and vexatious accusation without an element of truth on the working of trial
court not supported either by fact or circumstances will not ipso facto be sufficient ground
for transfer of a case. Transfer of a case can be made only when the same is reasonably
required under facts and circumstances of a case. If allegations made for transfer are
straightway discovered or found to be affecting adversely interest of justice instead of
supporting it then the same will tantamount to erosion of judicial process itself and any
claim so made for transfer can be, in that eventuality, termed unreasonable and uncalled for.
Transfer of a case can not be asked by making ostentatious, baseless and whimsical
personal apprehensions. Normally such attempts should be strongly deprecated and
discouraged.

26. While considering the entirety of the matter in hand, it is obvious that this transfer
application has not been moved with any fair motive but appears to be well thought attempt
to somehow occasion delay in conclusion of the trial. If the applicants are apprehensive of
their personal security then they may bring relevant facts to the notice of the trial court
itself. More so the record reflects that the wife of applicant no.1 Rohit Yadav has moved
bail application on behalf of minor son Chahat Yadav and has sought release of her (minor)
son in her custody. This particular fact reveals that wife of applicant no.1 is able to do Parvi
of a case in the court. More so applicant no.2 is already on bail and it cannot be said that he
is absolutely unable to do Parvi of the cases (two sessions trials) pending before the
sessions court Jhansi. Personal inconvenience and personal apprehension of applicants as
claimed by them are found to be not based on reasonable and substantive grounds as such
would not justify transfer of the sessions trials. Further if the transfer application is moved
with an ulterior motive to occasion or cause delay in disposal of the trial itself then that
application is highly misconceived and cannot be allowed as that would adversely affect
interest of justice. In catena of decisions, this tendency to seek transfer on frivolous and
vague grounds has been deprecated repeatedly. Consequently, the grounds urged in support
of the transfer application for transferring the aforesaid sessions trial are without any force
and are liable to be turned down.

27. Accordingly, the instant transfer application is rejected.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ - C No. - 8553 of 2016

CM A.S. Degree College Association & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
694 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sri Seemant Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Nipun Singh

Section 4-B Societies Registration Act - Registrar's Power to Adjudicate Membership Disputes -
Petitioners challenged Deputy Registrar's communication dated 18.2.2016 doubting validity of 1450
new member inductions due to non-production of
original records (register, minutes,
cash/membership fee books, bank passbook) despite notices pursuant to prior writ directions - Held,
Section 4-B (inserted by U.P. Act 23/2013) empowers Registrar to verify General Body list correctness
even when there is no occasion for registration/renewal; provision minimizes litigation by enabling
membership adjudication (induction/expulsion) to prevent future disputes. (Paras 5-7)

Section 4-B Scope - Not Limited to Registration/Renewal - Petitioners argued Section 4-B(1) applies
only at registration/renewal (renewal valid till 2016) - Held, provision enabling (not restrictive); where
no prior General Body list filed and membership disputes raised, Registrar must adjudicate validity
using specified documents to effectuate legislative intent against fraudulent claims. (Paras 3, 6-7)

Impugned Communication - Tentative Observation - Deputy Registrar noted non-production
creates doubt on inductions/expulsions affecting elections - Held, observation tentative, not final
adjudication; no prejudice to future office-bearer registration under Section 4; petitioners at liberty to
produce originals for decision. (Paras 2-3, 8)

Writ Petition Disposed- No Interference; Liberty to Produce Records - Deputy Registrar
to decide per law

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

1. Heard counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 and 2
and Sri Nipun Singh for respondents 3 and 4.

2. The petitioners herein claim themselves to be duly recognised Committee of
Management and the Manager of a registered society in the name of A.S. Degree College
Association, Mawana, Meerut. A writ petition was filed before this Court by the third and
the fourth respondents contending that they had made a complaint regarding illegal
induction of 1450 members by the petitioners and the second respondent (Deputy Registrar)
taking cognizance of the said complaint, has called for comments from the petitioners, but
no further action is being taken in the matter. The writ petition was disposed of by this
Court by order dated 20 January 2016 observing that the second respondent, shall take
necessary measures to conclude the proceedings expeditiously, in accordance with law,
after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners therein. Following the directions
given in the writ petition, the second respondent issued notice to the petitioners and they
appeared before him on 4.2.2016. However, they failed to produce the original records
before him relating to the induction of 1450 members in the general body. By the impugned
communication dated 18.2.2016, the second respondent has informed the petitioners that in
view of failure on part of the petitioners in producing the original records, despite several
notices, he is unable to comply with the orders of this Court. It has further been observed
that in the absence of the original record being produced before him, the induction of new
3 All. CM A.S. Degree College Association & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
695
members appears to be doubtful. It has further been noted that in such circumstances, in
case compliance of the order of this Court is not made, the petitioners will be responsible
for the same.

3. The petitioners have approached this Court challenging the aforesaid communication
dated 18.2.2016 on the ground that power under Section 4-B which has been invoked by the
second respondent in issuing the impugned notice was not available to him as it could only
be exercised at the time of registration/renewal of the society. It is urged that in the instant
case, no such occasion has arisen as the renewal was granted on 30.11.2011 and is valid for
five years from 26.9.2011. It is further submitted that the observation in the impugned order
that induction of the new members appears to be doubtful will cause serious prejudice to
the petitioners as adverse inference is likely to be drawn against them at the time they apply
for registration of list of new office bearers under Section 4 of the Act.

4. On the other hand, Sri Nipun Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents 3 and 4 submitted that since the membership dispute has been raised before the
second respondent, any adjudication made by the Deputy Registrar in that regard is
referable to Section 4-B of the Act. It is further submitted that in the impugned
communication, the second respondent has not declared the induction of new members to
be invalid but only observed that non-production of the original record is creating suspicion
on the validity of their induction. It is urged that it is still open to the petitioners to produce
the original records before him and convince him of the valid induction of new members.

5. Section 4-B was inserted by U.P. Act No. 23 of 2013 w.e.f. 12 July 2013. The
Statement of Objects and Reasons specifically notices that at present, a large number of
societies are disputed due to non-existence of correct list of General Body with the
Registrar. In several cases, an illegal person, fraudulently, produces before the Registrar an
incorrect list of General Body of the society and claims to be the member or office bearer of
such society. In order to avoid such situation, it was decided to amend the Act in its
application to Uttar Pradesh by providing for filing of the list of General Body with the
Registrar at the time of registration or renewal of such society. Accordingly, Section 4-B
was inserted which reads as under:

"Insertion of new Section 4-B of Act No.21 of 1860: After Section 4-A of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 as amended in its application to Uttar Pradesh the
following section shall be inserted, namely-

4-B(1) At the time of registration/renewal of a society, list of members of General
Body of that society shall be filed with the Registrar mentioning the name, father's name,
address and occupation of the members. The Registrar shall examine the correctness of the
list of members of the General Body of such society on the basis of the register of members
of the General Body and minutes book thereof, cash book, receipt book of membership fee
and bank pass book of the society.
696 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2) If there is any change in the list of members of the General Body of the society
referred to in sub-section (1), on account of induction, removal, registration or death of any
member, a modified list of members of General Body, shall be filed with the Registrar,
within one month from the date of change.

(3) The list of members of the General Body to be filed with the Registrar under
this section shall be signed by two office bearers and two executive members of the society."

6. Sub section (1) of Section 4-B enjoins upon the Registrar to examine the correctness
of the list of members of the General Body of the society on the basis of the register of
members of the General Body and minutes book thereof, cash book, receipt book of
membership fee and bank pass book of the society. List of the members of the General
Body is required to be filed before the Registrar at the time of registration/renewal of the
society. Sub-section (2) provides that if there is any change in the list of members of the
General Body of the Society referred to in sub-section (1), on account of induction,
removal, resignation or death of any member, a modified list of members of General Body,
shall be filed with the Registrar, within one month from the date of change.

7. In the instant case, concededly, there is no list of General Body in existence as
envisaged under Section 4-B(1) of the Act. In a case where the list of the General Body has
not been registered by the Registrar, as such occasion had not arisen so far, could it be said
that Registrar will have no power to adjudicate on the validity of the members enrolled or
expelled? Accepting such a contention will be contrary to the legislative intent. As noted
above, the object of the Amending Act is to minimize the litigation that crops up on account
of non-existence of a valid list of General Body. Sub-section (1) of Section 4-B is only an
enabling provision whereunder a list of General Body is required to be filed at the time of
registration/ renewal of a society. It does not mean that in case such list is not in existence,
as the registration/renewal had taken place before the provision came on the statute book,
the Registrar will have no power to decide a membership dispute. Concededly, in the
instant case, the petitioners claim to have inducted 1450 members and also expelled Dr.
Naresh Chandra from the General Body. They are also holding election by altering the
electoral college accordingly. The adjudication of these questions by the Registrar would
undoubtedly minimise the chances of a dispute in future and will thus effectuate the
legislative intent. In such view of the matter, this Court does not find any illegality in the
proceedings that have been undertaken by the second respondent on the basis of the
complaint made by the third and the fourth respondent.

8. The second submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the Assistant
Registrar has already expressed the opinion and the observation made in the impugned
communication would prejudice their case at the time they will seek registration of list of
new office bearers also cannot be accepted. The impugned communication states that the
petitioners despite repeated notices have failed to produce the original records. The
observation made in the impugned communication that in absence of original records being
produced it seems that the proceedings relating to induction of new members is doubtful, is
only tentative in nature. It does not amount to expression of any final opinion on the issue.
3 All. Ashok Kumar & Anr. Vs State Of U.P. & Anr.
697
This is clear from the later part of the communication wherein it is noted that the second
respondent is unable to take decision in the matter on account of non-production of original
records before him. It is still open to the petitioners to appear before the second respondent
and produce the original record before him and convince him of valid induction/expulsion
of the members.

9. Thus, without interfering with the impugned notice/ communication dated 18.2.2016,
this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to produce original records
before the second respondent and in which event, the second respondent shall proceed to
decide the dispute in accordance with law.

10. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.03.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.

Criminal Misc. 482 Cr.P.C. Application No. 5274 of 2016

Ashok Kumar & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

The applicant have prayed for quashing of the order dated 4.1.2016 passed by Additional Civil Judge
(J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate as well as the entire proceedings of case no. 203 of 2014, case crime no.
251 of 2014 under sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. The Court held that to prosecute applicant
no. 1, Ashok Kumar and Sri Balbir Singh for committing perjury and launch prosecution against them
for their act but taking into account the submission of applicant no. 1, Ashok Kumar and Sri Balbir
Singh that both of them are from legal fraternity and have unblemished career and mercy should be
shown to them and the present application be dismissed with exemplary cost. The Court taking into
account the fact that they are pratising lawyers of District Court Mainpuri exemplary cost of Rs.
20,000/- each is imposed on them.

The present application is dismissed on this ground alone.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. In compliance of this Court's order dated 22.2.2016, two affidavits filed today by Sri
Deepak Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants on behalf of applicant no. 1,
namely, Ashok Kumar and Sri Balbeer Singh practising Advocate in District Court
Mainpuri, who is also represented by Sri Deepak Kumar Pandey, are taken on record.