# Committee of Management,Anjuman Kherul Almin & Anr v. State of U.P. and Ors

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1571
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-18
- **Case number:** Special Appeal (D) No. 1286 of 2013
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Sanjay Misra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-anjuman-kherul-almin-anr-v-state-of-u-p-and-ors-42793
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

High Court Rules-Chapter VIII Rule-5Special Appeal-Societies Registration Act,
1860-Section
25(i)-
Order
passed
by
Deputy Registrar-accepting the claim of
rival-claimant-writ petition dismissed on
ground of alternative remedy to approach
1572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before prescribed authority-held-D.R. can
not
transgress
it
jurisdiction-by
entertaining claim and enter into merit-only
course open to refer the matter before
prescribed authority-appeal allowed with
certain directions.

Held: Para-9
In the present case, a list was submitted
by the third respondent, of office bearers
under Section 4 for 2013-14. The list was
objected too. The Deputy Registrar had
conflicting
claims
between
the
appellants on the one hand and the third
respondent on the other hand. Hence
when an application for taking on record
the names of the officer bearers was
filed and an objection to the validity of
the elected office bearers was placed
before him, the Registrar ought to have
referred the dispute to the Prescribed
Authority
under
Section
25(1).
In
entertaining the dispute himself and
going into merits of the rival claims, the
Deputy
Registrar
has
clearly
transgressed
his
jurisdiction.
The
jurisdiction to decide any doubt or
dispute in respect of an election of the
office bearers of the Society lies with the
Prescribed Authority and the Registrar
ought to have made a reference to the
Prescribed Authority.

Case Law discussed:
2009(5) ESC 3506

## Text

3 All] Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul Almin & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 1571
necessarily include the pendency of a
criminal case.

9. In a judgement of a Division
Bench of this Court in Shri Pal Vaish vs.
U.P. Power Corporation Limited and
another1, it has been held that clause 3 of
regulation 919-A is a provision which
specifically deals with the payment of
gratuity during pendency of departmental
or judicial proceedings and in view
thereof, the payment of gratuity has to be
deferred until the conclusion of such a
proceeding. The Division Bench also held
that the payment of gratuity cannot be
made in view of the bar contained in
regulation 919-A during the pendency of
a criminal case.

10. In a recent judgement of the
Supreme Court in State of Jharkhand & Ors.
vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava & Anr2, the
Supreme Court dealt with the provisions of
Rule 43 (b) of the Pension Rules of the State
of Bihar as applicable to the State of
Jharkhand. Regulation 43(b) was pari
materia to regulation 351-A of the Civil
Service Regulations in the State of U.P. In
that context, the Supreme Court held that
Rule 43(b) made it clear that it was
permissible for the Government to withhold
pension only when a finding is recorded in a
departmental inquiry or judicial proceeding
in regard to the commission of misconduct
while in service and rule 43(b) contains no
provision for withholding gratuity when
departmental or judicial proceedings are still
pending. However, the Supreme Court
clarified that though there was no provision
for withholding pension or gratuity in the
given situation, had there been any such
provision in the rules, the position would
have been different. In the present case, there
is a specific provision contained in regulation
351-AA read with regulation 919-A(3).

11. In the circumstances, we are of
the view that the order passed by the
Superintendent
of
Police,
Etah
withholding the payment of gratuity until
the conclusion of the criminal trial was
correct and proper and was in accordance
with the provisions of regulation 351-AA
read with regulation 919-A (3). The
respondent would however be entitled to
the payment of provisional pension as
contemplated in law.

12. In view of the above, we allow
the appeal and set aside the impugned
order of the learned Single Judge dated 10
May 2013. In consequence, the petition
which has been filed under Article 226 of
the Constitution shall stand dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA
YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE SANJAY MISRA, J.

Special Appeal (D) No. 1286 of 2013

Committee of Management,Anjuman Kherul
Almin & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and Ors... .Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Yogish Kumar Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri N.L. Pandey

High Court Rules-Chapter VIII Rule-5Special Appeal-Societies Registration Act,
1860-Section
25(i)-
Order
passed
by
Deputy Registrar-accepting the claim of
rival-claimant-writ petition dismissed on
ground of alternative remedy to approach
1572 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
before prescribed authority-held-D.R. can
not
transgress
it
jurisdiction-by
entertaining claim and enter into merit-only
course open to refer the matter before
prescribed authority-appeal allowed with
certain directions.

Held: Para-9
In the present case, a list was submitted
by the third respondent, of office bearers
under Section 4 for 2013-14. The list was
objected too. The Deputy Registrar had
conflicting
claims
between
the
appellants on the one hand and the third
respondent on the other hand. Hence
when an application for taking on record
the names of the officer bearers was
filed and an objection to the validity of
the elected office bearers was placed
before him, the Registrar ought to have
referred the dispute to the Prescribed
Authority
under
Section
25(1).
In
entertaining the dispute himself and
going into merits of the rival claims, the
Deputy
Registrar
has
clearly
transgressed
his
jurisdiction.
The
jurisdiction to decide any doubt or
dispute in respect of an election of the
office bearers of the Society lies with the
Prescribed Authority and the Registrar
ought to have made a reference to the
Prescribed Authority.

Case Law discussed:
2009(5) ESC 3506

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)

1. The special appeal arises from a
judgment of the learned Single Judge dated
3 October 2013, declining to entertain a
petition filed by the appellants under
Article 226 of the Constitution on the
ground that the appellants have a remedy
of moving the Prescribed Authority under
Section 25(1) of the Societies' Registration
Act, 1860. The appellants, claiming to be
the
Committee
of
Management
of
Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj and its
Manager Mr. Abbash Khan sought to
question the legality of an order dated 26
July 2013 passed by the Deputy Registrar,
Firms Societies and Chits, Kanpur. By his
order, the Deputy Registrar rejected the
claim of the appellants and accepted the
list of office bearers submitted by the third
respondent for the year 2013 and issued
consequential directions for registration of
the list of office bearers under Section 4 of
the Act. When the petition came up an
objection was raised on behalf of the third
respondent that the appellants can avail of
a statutory alternative remedy under
Section 25(1). This objection was accepted
by the learned Single Judge while
dismissing the petition.

2. The contention of the appellants is
that the Deputy Registrar, who passed the
order dated 26 July 2013 which was
called into question before the learned
Single Judge had no jurisdiction to
entertain an election dispute about which
of the rival claims was sustainable. Hence
it has been submitted that when the list of
office bearers is submitted to the Deputy
Registrar under Section 4 and he finds
that there is a dispute in regard to the
validity of the elections set up by the rival
contestants, the Deputy Registrar cannot
decide that question but he has to make a
reference to the Prescribed Authority
under Section 25(1). In the present case it
was submitted that the Deputy Registrar
transgressed
the
limitation
on
his
jurisdiction by going into the merits of the
rival claims when he ought to have
referred the dispute to the Prescribed
Authority. In this regard reliance was
placed on the judgments of two Division
Benches of this Court in All-India
Council through Bharat Dharam Maha
Mandal, Bahura Bir Varanasi and another
Vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies
and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and
3 All] Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul Almin & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 1573
another, 1988 AWC 1154 and in Gram
Shiksha Sudhar Samiti Junior High
School, Sikandra District Kanpur Dehat
Vs. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
U.P. Lucknow, 2010-ADJ-7-643.

3. On the other hand it was urged on
behalf of the third respondent that it has
been held in a subsequent decision of the
Division Bench in the Committee of
Management, Adarsh Krishak Junior
High School, Mauaima, Allahabad Vs.
State of U.P. and others, 2009(5) ESC
3506 that the Deputy Registrar, when he
is seized with a proceeding under Section
4 is not a "mere post office" who must
refer any and every dispute. In the present
case, it was urged that the third
respondent had set up an election and a
list had been submitted for 2013-14 the
validity
of
which
was
within
the
jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar to
determine.

4. Under Section 4 of the Societies'
Registration Act, 1860, as amended in the
State of U.P. the following provision has
been made:-

"4. (1) Annual list of managing body
to be filed.-Once in every year, on or
before the fourteenth day succeeding the
day on which, according to the rules of
the Society, the annual general meeting of
the society is held, or, if the rules do not
provide for an annual general meeting, in
the month of January, a list shall be filed
with the Registrar of the names, addresses
and occupations of the governors, council,
directors, committee, or other governing
body then entrusted with the management
of the affairs of the society.

Provided that if the managing body is
elected after the last submission of the
list, the counter signature of the old
members, shall, as far as possible, be
obtained on the list. If the old officebearers do not counter-sign the list, the
Registrar may, in his discretion, issue a
public notice or notice to such persons as
he thinks fit inviting objections within a
specified period and shall decide all
objections received within the said period.

(2) Together with list mentioned in subsection (1) there shall be sent to the Registrar
a copy of the memorandum of association
including any alteration, extension or
abridgment of purposes made under section
12, and of the rules of the society corrected
up to date and certified by not less than three
of the members of the said governing body to
be a correct copy and also a copy of the
balance-sheet for the proceeding year of
account."

5. The proviso to Section 4, as
amended in the State of U.P., states that if
the managing body is elected after the last
submission of the list the counter
signature of the old members, shall, as far
as possible, be obtained on the list. If the
old office bearers do not countersign the
list the Registrar may in his discretion
issue a public notice inviting objections
and decide all the objections received
within the said period.

6. Section 25(1) as applicable in the
State of U.P. provides as follows:-

"25.Dispute regarding election of
office-bearers.-(1)
The
prescribed
authority may, on a reference made to it
by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth
of the members of a society registered in
the Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a
summary manner any doubt or dispute in
respect of the election or continuance in
1574 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
office of an officer-bearers of such
society, and may pass such orders in
respect thereof as it deems fit:

[Provided that the election of an
office-bearer shall be set aside where the
prescribed authority is satisfied-

(a) that any corrupt practice has been
committed by such office-bearer; or

(b) that the nomination of any
candidate has been improperly rejected;
or

(c) that the result of the election in so
far as it concerns such office-bearer has
been materially affected by the improper
acceptance of any nomination or by the
improper reception, refusal or rejection of
any vote or the reception of any vote which
is void or by any non-compliance with the
provisions of any rules of the society."

7. Both these provisions have been
harmonized in the judgment of the
Division Bench in All-India Council
(Supra) where it was held as follows:-

"Section
25
of
the
Societies
Registration Act as amended by the State
Legislature enacts a comprehensive code
and creates a designated forum or tribunal
for adjudication in a summary manner of
all disputes or doubts in respect of the
election or continuance in office of an
office-bearer of such society. It also
provides the grounds upon which the
election of an office-bearer can be set
aside. The procedure to be followed for
filling up of the vacancies arising from
the decisions rendered by the Prescribed
Authority under Sub-section (i)of Section
25 has also been laid down(Section
25(2).)

7.It will, therefore, be seen that
insofar as disputes or doubts in respect of
the election or continuance in office of the
office-bearers of a society registered in
Uttar
Pradesh
are
concerned,
the
Legislature has created a specific forum
and laid down an exhaustive procedure
for determination of the same under
Section 25. There is no other provision,
express or otherwise, providing for
determination
of
such
disputes
specifically. It is settled law that where, as
here, the Legislature creates a specific
forum and lays an exhaustive procedure
for determination of a particular class of
disputes in respect of matters covered by
the
statute,
such
disputes
can
be
determined only in that forum and in the
manner prescribed thereunder and not
otherwise. If, therefore, a dispute is raised
with regard to the election or continuance
in office of an office-bearer of a society
registered in Uttar Pradesh, the same has
to be decided only by the Prescribed
Authority under Section 25(1) and not by
the Registrar, save, of course, to the
decision of the Prescribed Authority being
subject to the result of a civil suit."

8. The judgment of the Division Bench
came up for consideration in Gram Shiksha
Sudhar Samiti (Supra). In the subsequent
judgment the Division Bench held that the
earlier
judgment
has
harmonized
the
provisions of both Sections 4 and 25 and
what can be inquired into under Section 25
of the Act, cannot be gone into under the
proviso to Section 4. In that case, the
Division Bench held that the learned Single
Judge ought to have set aside an order of the
Registrar dated 11 July 2010 and ought to
have directed the Registrar to refer the
objection to the Prescribed Authority under
Section 25(1). The Division Bench held that
once an application for taking on record the
3 All] Ratan Lal Vs. State of U.P.
1575
name of the office bearers and an objection
as to the validity of the office bearers who
were duly elected has been filed, the
Registrar considering under Section 25(1)
ought to refer the matter to the Prescribed
Authority. Undoubtedly, in the subsequent
decision in the Committee of Management
(Supra) it has been held that the Registrar "is
not a post office for referring any and every
dispute". The Division Bench there held that
more than three years after the holding of an
election there was no reason to entertain a
petition at the belated stage.

9. In the present case, a list was
submitted by the third respondent, of office
bearers under Section 4 for 2013-14. The list
was objected too. The Deputy Registrar had
conflicting claims between the appellants on
the one hand and the third respondent on the
other hand. Hence when an application for
taking on record the names of the officer
bearers was filed and an objection to the
validity of the elected office bearers was
placed before him, the Registrar ought to have
referred the dispute to the Prescribed
Authority under Section 25(1). In entertaining
the dispute himself and going into merits of
the rival claims, the Deputy Registrar has
clearly transgressed his jurisdiction. The
jurisdiction to decide any doubt or dispute in
respect of an election of the office bearers of
the Society lies with the Prescribed Authority
and the Registrar ought to have made a
reference to the Prescribed Authority.

10. The learned Single Judge is right in
holding that the Prescribed Authority would
have to decide under Section 25(1) upon the
dispute which is raised. To that extent the
observations of the learned Single Judge are
justified. However, we find merit in the
contention of the appellants that the petition
could not have been dismissed merely with
liberty to move the Prescribed Authority. The
appropriate direction to pass, was to set aside
the order of the Deputy Registrar which is an
order without jurisdiction since the Deputy
Registrar has decided an issue which fell
within exclusive domain of the Prescribed
Authority.

11. In consequence and while
allowing the special appeal, we modify
the order of the learned Single Judge in
the following terms:-

(1) The order passed by the Deputy
Registrar on 26 July 2013 is quashed and
set aside as being without jurisdiction;

(2) The Deputy Registrar is directed to
make a reference under Section 25(1) of the
Societies' Registration Act, 1860 to the
Prescribed Authority within a period of two
weeks of the receipt of a certified copy of this
order;

(3) The Prescribed Authority shall upon
receipt of the reference under Section 25(1)
decide upon the reference within a period of
three months of the receipt of the reference;

(4) The Deputy Registrar shall
thereafter take necessary steps under
Section 4 upon receipt of the order of the
Prescribed Authority expeditiously.

12. The special appeal is accordingly
disposed of.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.

Criminal Jail Appeal No. 1845 of 2011

Ratan Lal... Appellant
Versus
State of U.P..... Opposite Party