# Committee of Managemant of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Kanpur & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1447
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-27
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 9866 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-managemant-of-shiksha-prasar-samiti-kanpur-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50118
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article - 226 - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Sections 4(1), 5(a)(g), 16-A &
25(1) - Indian Penal Code - Section - 302
- Writ Petition - petitioner claims as an elected
Secretary of the Society challenging the
impugned order passed by the Registrar U/s
4(1) declining to register the list of office
bearers on the footing that a reference is
pending U/s 25(1) - Question of Disqualification
- Court finds that, both the petitioner and the
contesting respondents are convicts of offence
of murder - 'Moral Turpitude' - the term moral
turpitude cannot be defined by an iron cast rule
or an inflexible formula to fit all cases - The line
of enquiry would examine the gravity of the
offence, the role of offender, nature of
culpability in the crime, and the scheme of the
enactment before the criminal offence becomes
an act of moral turpitude which attracts a
disqualification - held, the offence of murder for
which the petitioner has been convicted is
comprised in the ambit of moral turpitude U/s
16-A of the Act, - hence, persons with such
criminal antecedents cannot be permitted to run
the affairs of an educational institution and
blight the education prospects of the country's
youth - both petitioner and respondent neither
has right to contest the elections of the society
nor can have any say in running of the
educational
institution
-
writ
petition
is
dismissed. (Para - 9, 13, 15, 16)

(B) Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article - 226 - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Sections 4(1), 5(a)(g), 16-A &
25(1) - Indian Penal Code - Section - 302
- Writ Petition - Question of Disqualification -
Moral Turpitude - both the petitioner and the
1448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contesting respondents are convicts of offence
of murder - they failed to disclose their
antecedents before the court in the first
instance - such practices can be discouraged
only by deterrence - hence, cost of Rupees one
Lakh each are imposed and same shall be
recovered from them as arrears of land revenue
- the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall submit a
report disclosing the recovery before the
Registrar General within two months - directions
issued accordingly.
(Para - 17)

(C) Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article - 226 - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Sections 4(1), 5(a)(g), 16-A &
25(1) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section
302
-
Writ
Petition
-
Question
of
Disqualification - Moral Turpitude - both the
petitioner and the contesting respondents are
convicts of offence of murder - the provisions in
question of Society Registration Act, has been
created to curb mischief of like nature - it has to
be applied to purge educational institutions of
criminal elements and lief the curse of criminal
influence on formative minds - Law cannot
countenance a situation wherein convicted
criminal run educational institutions as a matter
of right and conceal facts with a sense of
impunity - hence, various directions issued to
execute them to the Additional Chief Secretary,
Institutional Finance, Govt. of UP - to dissuade
unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process
of the court - All the Assistant / Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits in all
districts of the St. shall ensure that every
proceeding u/s 4(1) and 25(1) shall be preceded
by a declaration from each member/applicant
disclosing their criminal antecedents - which
shall be on affidavit and placed in the record -
and shall also call for similar declarations on
affidavits from all office bearers of Societies
currently running in the St. - directions issued
to the concern authorities who shall draw up a
compliance report and submit the same,
accordingly.
(Para - 15, 18, 19)

Writ Petition Dismissed with directions.
(E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

5 All. Committee of Management of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Kanpur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1447

22. The impugned order insofar as it
upholds the election dated 23.01.2022 held
at Arya Mahila P.G. College, Varanasi is
liable to be reversed and is reversed. The
election claim set up by the respondent no.
4 on the footing of election held at Arya
Mahila P.G. College, Varanasi is liable to
set aside and is set aside.

23. The findings of the prescribed
authority invalidating the meeting set up by
the petitioner on 04.02.2022 and the
elections held on 18.02.2022 at the
Mahamandal
Buildings,
Lahurabir,
Varanasi are not liable to interfered with.

24. There is no dispute about the
electoral college.

25. The matter is remitted to the
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Varanasi to conduct the election in a
fair and transparent manner as per law
within a period of six weeks from the date
of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

26. The impugned order insofar as it
upholds the election claim set up by the
respondent no. 4 is liable to be set aside
and is set aside.

27. The District Magistrate, Varanasi
is directed to ensure that adequate security
arrangements be made at the election
venue.

28. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1447
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.
Writ-C No. 9866 of 2023

Committee of Managemant of Shiksha
Prasar Samiti, Kanpur & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Sharad Chandra, Sri Sankalp Narain

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav

(A) Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article - 226 - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Sections 4(1), 5(a)(g), 16-A &
25(1) - Indian Penal Code - Section - 302
- Writ Petition - petitioner claims as an elected
Secretary of the Society challenging the
impugned order passed by the Registrar U/s
4(1) declining to register the list of office
bearers on the footing that a reference is
pending U/s 25(1) - Question of Disqualification
- Court finds that, both the petitioner and the
contesting respondents are convicts of offence
of murder - 'Moral Turpitude' - the term moral
turpitude cannot be defined by an iron cast rule
or an inflexible formula to fit all cases - The line
of enquiry would examine the gravity of the
offence, the role of offender, nature of
culpability in the crime, and the scheme of the
enactment before the criminal offence becomes
an act of moral turpitude which attracts a
disqualification - held, the offence of murder for
which the petitioner has been convicted is
comprised in the ambit of moral turpitude U/s
16-A of the Act, - hence, persons with such
criminal antecedents cannot be permitted to run
the affairs of an educational institution and
blight the education prospects of the country's
youth - both petitioner and respondent neither
has right to contest the elections of the society
nor can have any say in running of the
educational
institution
-
writ
petition
is
dismissed. (Para - 9, 13, 15, 16)

(B) Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article - 226 - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Sections 4(1), 5(a)(g), 16-A &
25(1) - Indian Penal Code - Section - 302
- Writ Petition - Question of Disqualification -
Moral Turpitude - both the petitioner and the
1448 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
contesting respondents are convicts of offence
of murder - they failed to disclose their
antecedents before the court in the first
instance - such practices can be discouraged
only by deterrence - hence, cost of Rupees one
Lakh each are imposed and same shall be
recovered from them as arrears of land revenue
- the Chief Judicial Magistrate shall submit a
report disclosing the recovery before the
Registrar General within two months - directions
issued accordingly.
(Para - 17)

(C) Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Article - 226 - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Sections 4(1), 5(a)(g), 16-A &
25(1) - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section
302
-
Writ
Petition
-
Question
of
Disqualification - Moral Turpitude - both the
petitioner and the contesting respondents are
convicts of offence of murder - the provisions in
question of Society Registration Act, has been
created to curb mischief of like nature - it has to
be applied to purge educational institutions of
criminal elements and lief the curse of criminal
influence on formative minds - Law cannot
countenance a situation wherein convicted
criminal run educational institutions as a matter
of right and conceal facts with a sense of
impunity - hence, various directions issued to
execute them to the Additional Chief Secretary,
Institutional Finance, Govt. of UP - to dissuade
unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process
of the court - All the Assistant / Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits in all
districts of the St. shall ensure that every
proceeding u/s 4(1) and 25(1) shall be preceded
by a declaration from each member/applicant
disclosing their criminal antecedents - which
shall be on affidavit and placed in the record -
and shall also call for similar declarations on
affidavits from all office bearers of Societies
currently running in the St. - directions issued
to the concern authorities who shall draw up a
compliance report and submit the same,
accordingly.
(Para - 15, 18, 19)

Writ Petition Dismissed with directions.
(E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Baleshwar Singh Vs District Magistrate and
Collector, Banaras & ors. (AIR 1959 All 71),

2. Mahak Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 1999 (2)
UPLBEC 1336,

3. The St. Bank of India Vs P. Soupramaniane,
2019 (18) SCC 135,

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. By the impugned order dated
12.12.2022 the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits has declined to register
the list of office bearers under Section 4(1)
of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on
the footing that a reference is pending
before the prescribed authority under
Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration
Act.

2. The petitioner claims that he is the
Secretary of the society registered under
the name and style of "Shiksha Prasar
Bankatu Bujurg Etawah." which runs an
educational institution. The petitioner states
that he was lawfully elected on 24.07.2022.

3. Shri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav,
learned counsel for the newly impleaded
respondent submits that the petitioner
cannot
be
elected
as
office
bearer,
inasmuch as, he has been convicted for
murder in Sessions Trial No. 419 of 1993
(State Vs. Prema Devi and others).

4. Rejoining the issue, Shri Sankalp
Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners
does not dispute the aforesaid fact. He,
however, contends that the newly impleaded
respondent himself is a convict under Section
302 I.P.C. in Sessions Trial No. 120 of 1991
(State Vs. Ajeet Singh and others).

5. The undisputed facts of this case
are that the petitioner claims to be the
5 All. Committee of Management of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Kanpur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1449
manager of the committee of management.
The
petitioner
was
convicted
by
a
judgement rendered by the learned trial
court on 11.05.2017 in Sessions Trial No.
419 of 1993 (State Vs. Prema Devi and
others) for an offence under Section 302
I.P.C. The learned trial court has found that
the petitioner was a principal offender who
had done the deceased to death. The
offence was actuated by an old rivalry
between the adversaries. Further, the
conviction of the petitioner for murder still
stands, and has not been upset by any
appellate court.

6. The newly impleaded respondent
was convicted by the learned trial court on
30.10.2001 in Sessions Trial No. 120 of
1991 (State Vs. Ajeet Singh and others).
The learned trial court found that the newly
impleaded respondent was one of the
principal offenders who committed the
murder of the deceased. The deceased was
murdered on account of an old enmity
between the parties.

7. Both the petitioner and the
respondent are linked to the offence of
murder in the respective cases by credible
evidence.

8. The right of the petitioner to be
appointed as Secretary of the society has to
be construed in light of Section 16A of the
Societies
Registration
Act,1860.
The
provision states as under:

"16A.
Disqualification
for
holding office in society.-- A person who is
undischarged insolvent or who has been
convicted of any offence in connection with
the formation, promotion, management or
conduct of the affairs of a society, or of a
body corporate, or of an offence involving
moral turpitude shall be disqualified for
chosen as and for being a member of the
governing body or the President, Secretary
or any other office-bearer of a society."

9. The question of disqualification of
the petitioner contemplated under Section
16A of the Societies Registration Act will
turn upon the fact whether the offence for
which he has been convicted involves
"moral turpitude". The phrase "moral
turpitude" is of a wide ambit and has not
been defined by the legislature. Recourse
can be had to various dictionaries and
authorities which define the aforesaid term:

(i). "Moral Turpitude" as defined
in Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) is as
follows:

"Moral Turpitude.--The act of
baseness, vileness, or the depravity in the
private and social duties which man owes
to his fellow man, or to society in general,
contrary to accepted and customary rule of
right and duty between man and man."
[Black's Law Dictionary (6th Edn.) p.
1008.]

"implies something immoral in
itself regardless of it being punishable
by law"; "restricted to the gravest
offences,
consisting
of
felonies,
infamous crimes, and those that are
malum in se and disclose a depraved
mind." [ Id, p. 1517.]

(ii). According to Bouvier's Law
Dictionary, "Moral Turpitude" is:

"An act of baseness, vileness or
depravity in the private and social duties
which a man owes to his fellow men or to
society in general, contrary to the accepted
and customary rule of right and duty
between man and man."
1450 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iii). Burton Legal Thesaurus
defines "Moral Turpitude" as:

"Bad
faith,
bad
repute,
corruption,
defilement,
delinquency,
discredit, dishonour, shame, guilt, knavery,
misdoing, perversion, shame, vice, wrong."

10. This Court in Baleshwar Singh
Vs. District Magistrate and Collector,
Banaras and others1 while exploring the
scope of term "moral turpitude" held as
under:

"26.
The
expression
'moral
turpitude' is not defined anywhere. But it
means anything done contrary to justice,
honesty, modesty or good morals. It
implies deprivity and wickedness of
character or disposition of the person
charged with the particular conduct. Every
false statement made by a person may not
be moral turpitude, but it would be so if it
discloses vileness or deprivity in the doing
of any private and social duty which a
person owes to his fellowmen or to the
society
in
general.
If
therefore
the
individual charged with a certain conduct
owes a duty, either to another individual or
to the society in general, to act in a specific
manner or not to so act and he still acts
contrary to it and does so knowingly, his
conduct must be held to be due to vileness
and deprivity. It will be contrary to
accepted customary rule and duty between
man and man."

11. The question whether the
conviction for the offence of murder
would fall in the breadth of "moral
turpitude" and cause disqualification of
Pradhan of the Gram Panchayat was in
issue before the this Court in Mahak
Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others2.
This Court in Mahak Singh (supra)
upon examining the facts of the case
held:

"12..... The expression 'moral
turpitude', as said above, is not a term of
rigid connotation to be defined in any
strait-jacket formulae, but regard being
had to socio-ethical ethos, and morals of
people, at a given time and their cultural
heritage, It would not be difficult for the
Courts to conclude that the offence
committed
by
the
petitioner
in
exterminating his own step mother in an
horrendous
manner
involves
moral
wickedness. The petitioner cannot escape
from the finding that the offence of
murder' of Smt. Raj Kumari committed
by him and for which he was ultimately
convicted was an act of moral turpitude.
His conviction under Section 302/34,
I.P.C. involving moral turpitude was
sufficient enough to earn disqualification
within the meaning of provision of
Section 5A (g) of the Act."

12. The scope of term "moral
turpitude" and its applicability to the
services
of
an
employee
arose
for
consideration before the Supreme Court in
The
State
Bank
of
India
Vs.
P.
Soupramaniane3, which stated the position
of law thus:

"12. There is no doubt that there
is an obligation on the management of the
Bank to discontinue the services of an
employee who has been convicted by a
criminal court for an offence involving
moral turpitude. [Sushil Kumar Singhal v.
Punjab National Bank, (2010) 8 SCC 573 :
(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 674] Though every
offence is a crime against the society,
discontinuance from service according to
the Banking Regulation Act can be only for
committing an offence involving moral
5 All. Committee of Management of Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Kanpur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1451
turpitude. Acts which disclose depravity
and wickedness of character can be
categorised as offences involving moral
turpitude. Whether an offence involves
moral turpitude or not depends upon the
facts [Allahabad Bank v. Deepak Kumar
Bhola, (1997) 4 SCC 1 : 1997 SCC (L&S)
897] and the circumstances [Pawan Kumar
v. State of Haryana, (1996) 4 SCC 17, para
12 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 583] of the case."

13. From the preceding narrative, it is
evident that every conviction in a criminal
offence may not amount to "moral
turpitude". The term moral turpitude cannot
be defined by an iron cast rule or an
inflexible formula to fit all cases. To
determine whether an offence comes within
the purview of the term "moral turpitude" a
fact based enquiry has to be made. The line
of enquiry would examine the gravity of
the offence, the role of the offender, nature
of culpability in the crime, and the scheme
of the enactment before the criminal
offence becomes an act of moral turpitude
and attracts a disqualification.

14. In this case the learned trial court
has found that commission of the heinous
offence of murder by the petitioner has
been established beyond reasonable doubt.

15. The petitioner claims managership
of an educational institution. Education
nurtures the future of India, and forms the
backbone of our national strength and
character. Persons with such criminal
antecedents cannot be permitted to run the
affairs of an educational institution and
blight the education prospects of the
country's youth. In this wake, the offence of
murder for which the petitioner has been
convicted is comprised in the ambit of
"moral turpitude" under Section 16A of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. The
provision has been created to curb
mischiefs of like nature; it has to be applied
to purge educational institutions of criminal
elements, and lift the curse of criminal
influence on formative minds.

16. For the like reasons, the newly
impleaded respondent neither has the right
to contest the elections of the society nor
can he have any say in the running of the
educational institution.

17. The matter cannot end here. Both
the petitioner and the newly impleaded
respondent are convicts. They failed to
disclose their antecedents before the Court in
the first instance. These facts came to light
when the respective adversaries pointed out
their convictions. Such practices can be
discouraged only by deterrence. Costs of Rs.
1,00,000/- (Rupee One lakh) each are
imposed upon the petitioner and the newly
impleaded respondent respectively. Costs
shall be recovered from them by the District
Magistrate, Etawah, as arrears of land
revenue within six weeks. The District
Magistrate,
Etawah,
shall
submit
a
compliance report before the Chief Judicial
Magistrate. The Chief Judicial Magistrate
shall submit a report disclosing the recovery
before the Registrar General of this Court
within a period of two months.

18. Law cannot countenance a
situation wherein convicted criminals run
educational institutions as a matter of right,
and conceal facts with a sense of impunity.
Prohibitive costs have been imposed by the
Court to dissuade unscrupulous litigants
from abusing the process of the Court.

19. The Additional Chief Secretary,
Institutional Finance, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow, is directed to execute the
following directions:
1452 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

I. All Assistant/Deputy Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits in all districts of
the State of Uttar Pradesh, shall ensure that
every proceeding under Section 4(1) and
Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860, shall be preceded by a
declaration from each member/applicant
disclosing their criminal antecedents.

II. No order shall be passed in
any proceeding under Section 4(1) of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860, in respect
of societies which are running educational
institutions
till
such
declarations
of
criminal antecedents are submitted by each
member on affidavit and placed in the
record.

III. Assistant/Deputy Registrars,
Firms, Societies and Chits in all districts of
the State of Uttar Pradesh, shall also call
for similar declarations on affidavits from
all office bearers of societies currently
running educational institutions in the State
of Uttar Pradesh and proceed as per law.

IV. Additional Chief Secretary,
Institutional Finance, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow, shall circulate this judgement to
all Assistant/Deputy Registrars, Firms,
Societies and Chits in all districts of the
State of Uttar Pradesh for ensuring
compliance of these directions.

V. Considering the importance of
the matter, Additional Chief Secretary,
Institutional Finance, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow, shall draw up a compliance
report and submit the same before the Chief
Secretary, Government of U.P., Lucknow
within six months so that the State is
alerted to the menace of criminal elements
usurping educational institutions and can
take appropriate legal measures to check
the same.

VI.
Failure
of
any
Assistant/Deputy
Registrars,
Firms,
Societies and Chits to comply with this
order will not only expose the official to
proceedings for violation of orders of this
Court but will also amount to a grave
misconduct
for
which
departmental
proceedings will be initiated against the
concerned official as per law.

20. Learned Chief Standing Counsel
shall communicate this order to Additional
Chief Secretary, Institutional Finance,
Government
of
U.P.,
Lucknow
for
necessary compliance.

21. The writ petition is dismissed.

22. The Court would like to
appreciate the assistance rendered by Shri
Sankalp Narain, learned counsel and Shri
Sanjeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel who
in the true fashion of high ethical standards
of the profession assisted the process of law
as officers of the Court with exemplary
integrity and scholarship.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1452
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 10228 of 2023

Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corp.,
Agra ...Petitioner
Versus
Sri Bhuri Singh & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sunil Kumar Misra

Counsel for the Respondents: