# Committee of Management, Jairajpur Muslim Educational Society, Jairajpur, Azamgarh & Anr v. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh region, Azamgarh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 679
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-16
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 30624 of 2023
- **Bench:** Salil Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-jairajpur-muslim-educational-society-jairajpur-azamgarh-52269
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India, 1950Article 226-Societies Registration Act,
1860-Sections 4-B & 25(2)-Two writ
petitions
were
filed
concerning
the
validity of elections held in the SocietyThe governing body elections of the
Society held on 23 september 2022 were
recognized, while subsequent elections
claimed to have been held on 20 October
2022 were rejected by the Assistant
Registrar due to lack of supporting
documents-The
Assistant
Registrar's
notification of a tentative voter list was
challenged
as
it
excluded
certain
members-The Registrar failed to reconcile
two
different
lists
of
general
body
members submitted by the petitioner on
10 October and 31 October 2022-The
court upheld the rejection of the 20
October
2022
elections,
finding
no
jurisdictional error-The Assistant Registrar
directed to complete the registration of
the general body list before conducting
any
elections
u/s
25(2),
ensuring
consistency and legal compliance.(Para 1
to 26)

B. The Assistant Registrar has the
power to verify documents and reject
the registration of office-bearers under
section 4 if the requisite documents
supporting elections are not provided.
The
Assistant
Registrar
is
not
obligated
to
refer
every
election
dispute to the Prescribed Authority
under section 25(1), unless there is a
bona
fide
dispute
regarding
the
election's
validity.
The
Registrar
retains discretion to reject elections
where there is a failure to establish
that
the
elections

were
duly
conducted.(Para 21,22)

The petition is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Committee of Management, Jairajpur Muslim Educational Society, Jairajpur, Azamgarh &
 Anr. Vs. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh region, Azamgarh & Ors.
679
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 679
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ C No. 30624 of 2023
And
Writ C No. 23066 of 2023

Committee
of
Management,
Jairajpur
Muslim Educational Society, Jairajpur,
Azamgarh & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and
Chits, Azamgarh region, Azamgarh & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Adarsh Singh, Sri Indra Raj Singh, Sri
Vineet Kumar Singhi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rishabh Srivastava, Sri H.N.
Singh, Sr. Advocate

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India, 1950Article 226-Societies Registration Act,
1860-Sections 4-B & 25(2)-Two writ
petitions
were
filed
concerning
the
validity of elections held in the SocietyThe governing body elections of the
Society held on 23 september 2022 were
recognized, while subsequent elections
claimed to have been held on 20 October
2022 were rejected by the Assistant
Registrar due to lack of supporting
documents-The
Assistant
Registrar's
notification of a tentative voter list was
challenged
as
it
excluded
certain
members-The Registrar failed to reconcile
two
different
lists
of
general
body
members submitted by the petitioner on
10 October and 31 October 2022-The
court upheld the rejection of the 20
October
2022
elections,
finding
no
jurisdictional error-The Assistant Registrar
directed to complete the registration of
the general body list before conducting
any
elections
u/s
25(2),
ensuring
consistency and legal compliance.(Para 1
to 26)

B. The Assistant Registrar has the
power to verify documents and reject
the registration of office-bearers under
section 4 if the requisite documents
supporting elections are not provided.
The
Assistant
Registrar
is
not
obligated
to
refer
every
election
dispute to the Prescribed Authority
under section 25(1), unless there is a
bona
fide
dispute
regarding
the
election's
validity.
The
Registrar
retains discretion to reject elections
where there is a failure to establish
that
the
elections

were
duly
conducted.(Para 21,22)

The petition is partly allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vijai Narain Singh Vs Registrar Firms Societies
& Chits Registration, U.P. Lko. & ors. (1981)
UPLBEC 308

2.
Abhay
Grasth
Gramin
Jan
Sangathan
Kusmikhalan & anr.Vs Asst Registrar Firms
Societies & Chits Vs Region, VNS & anr. (1990)
UPLBEC (1) 480

3. Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti, Jr. High School
Sikandara Distt Kanp. Dehat & anr.Vs Registrar
Firms Societies & Chits, U.P. Lko & ors. (2010)
UPLBEC 3 2522

4. Dy. Dr. of Edu. IV Region, Alld & ors. (1987)
UPLBEC 14

5. C/M, Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj & anr.
Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2013) 0 Supreme (All)
2849

6. C/M Madrasa Arbia Azizia Majaharool Uloom
Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2023) 1 UPLBEC 217

7. C/M, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, Distt
Basti & anr.Vs Asst Registrar, Firms, Societies &
680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Chits,
Gorakhpur
Region,
Gorakhpur
&
anr.(1995) 2 UPLBEC 1242

8. C/M, Naldeo Kuldeo Purva Madhyamik
Vidyalaya Belaon, Distt. Jaunpur & anr.Vs Asst.
Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Azamgarh &
anr.(1997) 2 UPLBEC 1009

9. C/M, Sarvodaya Mandal, Baranpur, Koraon
Distt Alld & ors. Vs Asst Registrar, Firms,
Societies & Chits, Alld & ors. (1997) 1 UPLBEC
258

10. Harish Chandra Gupta Vs Registrar, Firms,
Societies & Chits & ors. (1990) AWC 1246

(Delivered by Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.)

1. The above mentioned two writ
petitions were connected by order of this
Court, therefore, were heard together and
are being decided by a common judgment.

2. The petitioners in Writ - C No.
30624 of 2023 shall be referred as
'petitioners' in the present judgment and
the petitioners in Writ - C No. 23066 of
2023 shall be referred as 'respondents' in
the present judgment.

3. The facts of the case are that
Jairajpur Muslim Educational Society,
Jairajpur, Azamgarh, U.P. (hereinafter
referred to as, 'Society') is a Society
registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as, 'Act,
1860') and the registration of the Society
stands renewed for a period of five years
w.e.f. 12.10.2020. The Society manages an
Institution in the name of Nishwa Inter
College, Jairajpur, Azamgarh which is a
recognized Institution under the U.P.
Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
(hereinafter referred to as, 'Act, 1921') and
receives grant-in-aid upto Junior High
School.

4. The admitted elections of the
governing body and the office-bearers of
the Society were held on 23.10.2019 in
which one Abdul Haqim was elected as
Secretary/Manager and the petitioner no. 2
was elected as Joint Secretary. Under the
bye-laws of the Society, the term of the
governing body and the elected officebearers of the Society is three years. Under
the bye-laws of the Society, the Joint
Secretary, in absence of the Secretary, is
empowered to summon the meetings of the
Society. Abdul Haqim died on 1.11.2020.
The petitioner no. 2, being the Joint
Secretary of the Society, summoned a
meeting
of
the
governing
body
on
23.9.2022 to fill up the vacancy on the post
of Secretary caused due to death of Abdul
Haqim and in the said meeting, the
petitioner no. 2 was elected as Secretary for
the remaining term. On 10.10.2022, the
petitioner no. 2 submitted the requisite
documents before the Assistant Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh
Region, Azamgarh for registration. The list
of the elected office-bearers and also list of
the members of the general body for the
year 2022-23 were also filed by the
petitioner no. 2 before the Assistant
Registrar for registration under Section 4 of
the Act, 1860.

5. The petitioner no. 2 claims that on
20.10.2022, fresh elections to constitute the
governing body of the Society and to elect
its office-bearers were held in which the
petitioner no. 2 was elected as Secretary
and one Sri Wasiudin was elected as
President. It is also claimed by the
petitioner no. 2 that the documents relating
to the elections held on 20.10.2022 along
with the list of newly elected office-bearers
and a list of members of the general body
for the year 2022-23 were submitted before
the Assistant Registrar for registration
7 All. Committee of Management, Jairajpur Muslim Educational Society, Jairajpur, Azamgarh &
 Anr. Vs. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh region, Azamgarh & Ors.
681
under Section 4 of the Act, 1860. The list
of members of the general body submitted
along with proceedings of the election
dated 20.10.2022 was different from the list
of the members of the general body
submitted on 10.10.2022. The list of the
members of the general body submitted on
10.10.2022 has been annexed as Annexure
No. 6 to the writ petition and contains the
name of the respondents while the list of
the members of the general body of the
Society for the period 2022-23 submitted
along with the proceedings of the elections
held
on
20.10.2022
excludes
the
respondents and has been annexed as
Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition.

6. The Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, i.e., respondent no. 1
vide his order dated 28.6.2023 has
recognized the elections dated 23.9.2022
wherein petitioner no. 2 was elected as
Secretary but has rejected the elections
claimed by the petitioners to have been
held on 20.10.2022. By the same order
dated 28.6.2023, the Assistant Registrar has
held that the term of the governing body of
the Society had already expired, therefore,
elections were to be held under Section
25(2) of the Act, 1860 and by the same
order, the Assistant Registrar has notified a
tentative list of 37 members of the Society
entitled to vote in the proposed elections.
The tentative list of voters notified by the
Assistant Registrar is the same list which
was submitted by the petitioner along with
the proceedings of the alleged elections
held on 20.10.2022 and not the list which
was submitted by the petitioners on
10.10.2022. The list notified by the
Assistant Registrar does not contain the
name of the respondents.

7. The order dated 28.6.2023 so far as
it rejects the election dated 20.10.2022
claimed by the petitioner has been
challenged by the petitioner in Writ - C
No. 30624 of 2023. In Writ - C No. 23066
of 2023 the respondents challenge the order
dated 28.6.2023 so far as it notifies the
tentative list of 37 members / voters
excluding the respondents.

8. It was argued by the counsel for the
petitioners that the issue before the
Assistant Registrar was regarding the
validity of the elections dated 20.10.2022,
therefore, the matter had to be referred to
the Prescribed Authority under Section
25(1) of the Act, 1860 and could not have
been decided by the Assistant Registrar in
proceedings registered under Section 4 of
the Act, 1860. It was argued that for the
aforesaid reason, the order dated 28.6.2023
passed by the Assistant Registrar so far as
it rejects the elections dated 20.10.2022 is
without jurisdiction. It was further argued
that the claim of the petitioners regarding
elections dated 20.10.2022 have been
rejected on the ground that no document
relating to the aforesaid elections had been
submitted by the petitioner. It was argued
that opportunity to file the necessary
documents relating to the elections set up
by the petitioner was granted after the
hearing was concluded by the Assistant
Registrar on 24.4.2023. It was argued that
opportunity to file the necessary documents
should have been given to the petitioners
before concluding the hearing and not after
the hearing was concluded, therefore, the
procedure
adopted
by
the
Assistant
Registrar was contrary to law. It was
argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the
order dated 28.6.2023 passed by the
Assistant Registrar is liable to be quashed.
In support of his contentions, the counsel
for the petitioners has relied on the
judgments reported in Vijai Narain Singh
vs. Registrar Firms Societies and Chits
682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Registration, U.P. Lucknow and Ors. 1981
UPLBEC 308; Abhay Grasth Gramin Jan
Sangathan Kusmikhalan and Anr. vs.
Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and
Chits Varanasi Region, Varanasi and Anr.
1990 UPLBEC (1) 480; Gram Shiksha
Sudhar Samiti, Junior High School
Sikandara District Kanpur Dehat and
Anr. vs. Registrar Firms Societies and
Chits, U.P. Lucknow and Ors. 2010
UPLBEC (3) 2522; Ramadhar Shastri and
Anr. Vs. Deputy Director of Education, IV
Region,
Allahabad
and
Ors.
1987
UPLBEC 14; Committee of Management,
Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj and
Anr. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. 2013 (0)
Supreme (All) 2849 and Committee of
Management,
Madrasa
Arbia
Azizia
Majaharool Uloom vs. State of U.P. and
Ors. 2023 (1) UPLBEC 217.

9. Rebutting the arguments of the
counsel for the petitioners, the counsel for
the respondents has supported the order
dated 28.6.2023 so far as it rejects the
elections dated 20.10.2022 set up by the
petitioners and proceeds to hold the
elections under Section 25(2) of the Act,
1860. It has been argued that the elections
dated 20.10.2022 set up by the petitioner
have been rejected not because of any
dispute raised on the validity of the
elections but because the petitioner did not
file the requisite documents to establish the
proceedings of the alleged elections held on
20.10.2022. It was argued that the elections
set up by the petitioner were not even
prima facie established by the documents
filed by him. It was argued that no
jurisdictional error has been committed by
the Assistant Registrar while rejecting the
elections dated 20.10.2022 set up by the
petitioners. In support of their contention,
the counsel for the respondents has relied
on the judgments of this Court reported in
Committee
of
Management,
Kisan
Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti
and Anr. vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region,
Gorakhpur and Anr. 1995 (2) UPLBEC
1242; Committee of Management, Naldeo
Kuldeo Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya
Belaon, District Jaunpur and Anr. vs.
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Azamgarh and Anr. 1997 (2)
UPLBEC
1009
and
Committee
of
Management,
Sarvodaya
Mandal,
Baranpur, Koraon District Allahabad and
Ors.
vs.
Assistant
Registrar,
Firms,
Societies and Chits, Allahabad and Ors.
1997 (1) UPLBEC 258.

10. While challenging the order dated
28.6.2023 so far as it notifies the tentative
list of 37 members of the general body of
the Society, the counsel for the respondents
have argued that the list notified by the
Assistant Registrar is the same list of
members which was submitted by the
petitioners along with the proceedings of
the alleged elections held on 20.10.2022.
The
proceedings
of
elections
dated
20.10.2022 has been rejected by the
Assistant Registrar vide his order dated
28.6.2023, therefore, the list of members
submitted by the petitioners along with the
said proceedings could not have been
accepted by the Assistant Registrar. It was
argued that the petitioners would not have
any opportunity to file their objections to
the tentative list notified by the Assistant
Registrar as objections can only be filed
against the persons who have been included
in the said list and cannot be filed by a
person who is not included in the tentative
list of voters notified by the Assistant
Registrar under Section 25(2) of the Act,
1860. It was argued that before holding the
elections under Section 25(2), the Assistant
Registrar is duty bound to pass final orders
7 All. Committee of Management, Jairajpur Muslim Educational Society, Jairajpur, Azamgarh &
 Anr. Vs. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh region, Azamgarh & Ors.
683
on the list submitted for registration under
Section 4-B of the Act, 1860, therefore, a
mandamus is to be issued to the Assistant
Registrar to decide the claim of the
petitioners under Section 4-B of the Act,
1860 and only thereupon, proceed to hold
elections under Section 25(2) of the Act,
1860. It was argued that for the aforesaid
reasons, the order dated 28.6.2023 so far as
it notifies the tentative list of 37 members
for elections to be held under Section 25(2)
is contrary to law and is liable to be
quashed. In support of his contention, the
counsel for the petitioner relies on a
Division Bench Judgment of this Court
delivered in Harish Chandra Gupta vs.
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and
Ors. 1990 AWC 1246.

11. I have considered the submissions
of the counsel for the parties.

12. It is true that in proceedings under
Section 4 of the Act, 1860, the Assistant
Registrar
cannot
decide
any
dispute
regarding the validity of the elections or
continuance in office of an office-bearer of
the Society and any such dispute can be
decided only by the Prescribed Authority
under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860. If any
such dispute arises during the proceedings
under Section 4, the Assistant Registrar has
no alternative but to refer it to the
Prescribed Authority.

13. But the Registrar would lose the
jurisdiction to proceed under Section 4 and
would have to refer the matter to the
Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1)
only when a bona fide dispute regarding
elections is raised. Under Section 4, the
Registrar has the jurisdiction to consider
whether there is any bona fide dispute
regarding
elections
which
requires
reference under Section 25(1) or a frivolous
dispute has been raised only to avoid or
delay a decision under Section 4. It has
been held by a Division Bench of this
Court in C/M, Kisan Shiksha Sadan
(supra) that under Section 4 of the Act,
1860, the Registrar is under an obligation
to maintain a register of members of the
managing body for his own administrative
purpose and is also under an obligation to
record the names of the elected members of
the managing body and for that purpose, he
can hold an inquiry to find out who are the
elected members of the managing body of
the society. The Registrar has to apply his
mind to the facts of the case and take a
decision before referring the matter to the
Prescribed Authority and in taking such a
decision, the Registrar will be quite
justified to take into account all the relevant
circumstances. The observations of the
Division Bench of this Court in Paragraphs
2 and 3 of the judgment are reproduced
below:-

"2. It is submitted by the learned
Counsel for the appellants that the
Registrar has no power or jurisdiction to
decide
the
question
relating
to
the
membership of the second appellant. When
he raised a dispute about the election of the
Manager of the Shiksha Sadan, he had no
other alternative but to refer the doubt or
dispute relating to the election of the
Manager of the Shiksha Sadan to the
Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of
the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in
short 'the Act'). On the other hand, it is
submitted
by
the
learned
Counsel
appearing for the respondents that the
Registrar may or not refer a dispute or
doubt relating to the election of the
Manager of a Society to the Prescribed
Authority for valid reasons and the
Registrar is under no obligation to refer
any dispute or doubt relating to the
684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
election, without applying his mind, to the
Prescribed
Authority.
It
is
further
submitted that the Registrar is under an
administrative obligation under Section 4
of the Act to maintain a register of
members of the managing body for his own
administrative purpose. He is under an
obligation to record the names of the
elected members of the managing body and
for that purpose he can held an enquiry so
as to find out who are the elected members
of the managing body of a Society. On the
basis of such enquiry, if the Registrar
comes to the conclusion that a person or
persons are not even the members of the
Society, he will be quite justified in not
referring the doubt or dispute as to the
election of members of the managing body
of a Society.

3.
Having
regard
to
the
provisions of the Act, we see force in the
submission of the learned Counsel for the
Respondents. Section 4 of the Act provides
that a list of members of the managing
body of a Society shall be filed with the
Registrar. That list is maintained by the
Registrar for the purpose of performing his
administrative functions as a Registrar.
Section 25 of the Act provides that
whenever any doubt or dispute is raised
regarding the election of members of a
managing body of a Society, the Registrar
may refer such doubt or dispute to the
Prescribed Authority for his decision. But
when one fourth members of the Society
raise a doubt or dispute relating to the
election of the members of managing body
or Society, the matter automatically goes to
the Prescribed Authority for decision and
in such a case the Registrar does not come
into the picture. In exercising this power
whether to refer or not any doubt or
dispute relating to the election of members
of the managing body of a Society to the
Prescribed Authority, the Registrar has to
apply his mind to the facts of the case and
take a decision. In taking such a decision,
the Registrar will be quite justified to take
into
account
all
the
relevant
circumstances, as he has done in the
present case. If an objection is raised
about the membership of a person, in our
view, it is the duty of the Registrar, for his
own administrative purpose, to enquire
into whether the person concerned is a
member of the Society or not. If the
Registrar comes to the conclusion that
such a person is not a member of the
Society then he is under no obligation to
refer the dispute or doubt relating to his
election to the Prescribed Authority for
decision. In the present case, the Registrar
has applied his mind to the facts of the case
to find out whether the second appellant
herein or was not a member of the Shiksha
Sadan. He found that he was not even a
member of a Society. It is a pure question
of facts. If any person feels aggrieved by
such a decision, the proper course open to
him is to approach the Civil Court and seek
appropriate relief. The Registrar is bound
by the decision of the Civil Court and his
decision will be subject to the decree
passed by the Civil Court."

(emphasis supplied)

14. Similarly, in Committee of
Management,
Sarvodaya
Mandal,
Baranpur (supra), a Single Judge of this
Court held that reference under Section 25
is to be made only when there is a genuine
dispute about office-bearers of the Society
and a frivolous dispute is not required to be
referred under Section 25(1) of the Act,
1860.

15. By his order dated 28.6.2023, the
Assistant Registrar has rejected the claim
of the petitioner regarding the elections
dated 20.10.2022 on the ground that the
7 All. Committee of Management, Jairajpur Muslim Educational Society, Jairajpur, Azamgarh &
 Anr. Vs. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh region, Azamgarh & Ors.
685
petitioner had not filed before the Assistant
Registrar any document including notice of
the agenda of the meeting relating to the
proceedings of the election. In fact, the
petitioner had not filed any document
disclosing the details of any proceedings
relating to the alleged elections dated
20.10.2022.
The
petitioner
had
only
submitted the resolution of the meeting
dated 20.10.2022 which did not disclose
even the names of the members who had
participated in the meeting. It is in the said
circumstances that the Assistant Registrar
rejected the claim of the petitioner
regarding the election dated 20.10.2022.
The elections of the petitioners have not
been rejected on any claim made by the
respondents or on any dispute raised by
them on the validity of the elections but on
the failure of the petitioners to supply the
requisite
documents
relating
to
the
elections and to prima facie establish that
any meeting dated 20.10.2022 was held
electing the petitioner no. 2 as Secretary. In
his order dated 28.6.2023, the Assistant
Registrar has not decided the validity of the
elections claimed by the petitioner but has
held that the petitioner had not been able to
establish that the elections claimed by him
had been held. In proceedings under
Section 4, the Assistant Registrar has the
power / jurisdiction to reject the list of
elected office-bearers or members of the
governing body of the Society submitted
for registration, if the persons claiming
themselves to be the elected office-bearers
do not supply the necessary documents to
enable the Assistant Registrar to verify the
correctness of the lists submitted for
registration which would also require an
inquiry into the question as to whether the
elections
were
actually
held.
The
documents showing that the requisite
formalities for holding the said elections
had been completed are to be considered by
the Assistant Registrar. If the Assistant
Registrar in proceedings under Section 4
comes to the conclusion that the documents
submitted by the party do not establish that
the elections were held, then he is not
required to refer the matter to the
Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1)
of the Act, 1860 and would not be deprived
of his jurisdiction to refuse to register the
list of elected office bearers as submitted
before him. In such a situation, the decision
of the Assistant Registrar would not be a
decision on the validity of the election and
his order would not be without jurisdiction.
In view of the aforesaid, the contention of
the counsel for the petitioners that the order
dated 28.6.2023 passed by the Assistant
Registrar is without jurisdiction stands
rejected.

16. It was further argued by the
counsel for the petitioners that the Assistant
Registrar
concluded
the
hearing
on
24.4.2023 and the parties were asked to
submit their written arguments and original
documents within one week after the
hearing was concluded. It was argued that
the aforesaid procedure adopted by the
Assistant Registrar was contrary to law and
the requisite documents to establish the
claim of the parties had to be sought before
hearing was concluded. In support of his
contention, the counsel for the petitioners
has relied on a Division Bench judgment of
this Court reported in Ramadhar Shastri
(supra).

17. A reading of the impugned order
dated 28.6.2023 shows that the procedure
challenged by the petitioner was adopted
by the Assistant Registrar with the consent
of the parties. There is no averment in the
writ petition challenging the recital in the
order dated 28.6.2023 that it was with the
consent of the parties that the hearing was
686 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
concluded and the parties were permitted to
file their written arguments as well as the
original documents within one week after
the hearing was concluded. It is not the
case of petitioner no. 2 that he had
previously
submitted
the
necessary
documents but the Assistant Registrar had
refused to take the same on record. Even, if
the argument of the counsel for the
petitioners that the Assistant Registrar
could not have asked the parties to submit
the requisite documents after the hearing
was concluded is accepted, the said fact
would not vitiate the order dated 28.6.2023
as the parties had not filed any document
after the hearing was concluded by the
Assistant
Registrar
on 24.4.2023.
In
Ramadhar Shastri (supra), the parties had
filed their evidence after the hearing was
concluded and there was a chance that the
adjudicating authority had either relied or
rejected any of the evidence filed by the
parties without giving either of the parties
the opportunity to explain or rebut the
evidence filed by the other party. In the
present case, no reliance has been placed
by the Assistant Registrar on any document
filed by the opposite parties who had
disputed the claim of the petitioner. In view
of
the
aforesaid,
the
judgment
in
Ramadhar
Shastri
(supra)
is
not
applicable in the present case.

18. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do
not find any illegality in the order dated
28.6.2023 so far as it rejects the claim of
the petitioners based on the elections dated
20.10.2022 and for the said reason, Writ -
C No. 30624 of 2023 is liable to be
dismissed.

19. However, the plea of the
respondents that the order dated 28.6.2023
so far as it declares a tentative list of 37
members of the general body of the Society
which list excludes the petitioner is
contrary to law, has force.

20. It is apparent from the records
annexed by the petitioner himself in Writ -
C No. 30624 of 2023, especially annexure
no. 6 to the writ petition, that after the
elections dated 23.9.2022 electing the
petitioner as the Secretary, the list of
elected office bearers and members of the
general body of the Society for the year
2022-23 was submitted by the petitioner
before
the
Assistant
Registrar
on
10.10.2022. The list of members of the
general body contained the name of the
respondents. Subsequently, on 31.10.2022
a fresh list of members of the general body
for the year 2022-23 along with the list of
elected office bearers of the Society was
submitted by the petitioners along with the
proceedings of elections dated 20.10.2022.
The list of the members of the general body
of the Society submitted on 31.10.2022 did
not include the name of the petitioners. The
Assistant Registrar in his order dated
28.6.2023 has notified the second list as the
tentative list of the members of the general
body of the Society and the electoral roll
for the elections proposed to be held under
Section 25(2).

21. It is apparent that two different
lists of members of the general body of the
Society were submitted by the petitioner
before the Assistant Registrar. Both the
lists purported to be of the year 2022-23.
The first list was submitted on 10.10.2022
as a consequence of the elections held on
23.9.2022.
The
proceedings
dated
23.9.2022 have been accepted by the
Registrar. The second list was submitted on
31.10.2022 as a consequence of the
elections allegedly held on 20.10.2022. The
claim of the petitioners regarding the
elections held on 20.10.2022 has been
7 All. Committee of Management, Jairajpur Muslim Educational Society, Jairajpur, Azamgarh &
 Anr. Vs. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh region, Azamgarh & Ors.
687
rejected
by
the
Assistant
Registrar.
However, no reasons have been given by
the Assistant Registrar for accepting the
second list and not the first list submitted
by the petitioner no. 2. A reading of the
order dated 28.6.2023 does not show that
there is any consideration by the Registrar
regarding the validity of the different lists
of members of the general body submitted
by the petitioner no. 2 himself. In his
counter affidavit filed in Writ - C No.
23066 of 2023, the petitioner no. 2 has
stated that the respondents were defaulters
and had not paid their membership fees. A
reading of the order dated 28.6.2023 does
not show that any such claim was made by
the petitioner no. 2 before the Assistant
Registrar. However, before deciding on the
validity of any list, the Assistant Registrar
was bound to have considered the different
records of the Society as enumerated in
Section 4-B(1) of the Act, 1860 but as
noted earlier, the order dated 28.6.2023
does not show that the Assistant Registrar
examined the different lists of members of
the
general
body
submitted
by
the
petitioner no. 2.

22. Apart from the aforesaid, when
the Registrar proposes to hold elections
under Section 25(2) of the Act, 1860 his
role as Election Officer merges with his
power under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860.
Where elections are to be held under
Section 25(2) of the Act, 1860 and the list
of members of the general body of the
Society are pending for registration under
Section 4-B of the Act, 1860, the Registrar
has to first decide and pass orders under
Section 4-B before proceeding with the
elections to be held under Section 25(2) of
the Act, 1860. Any other procedure may
result in inconsistent orders being passed
by the Registrar, one as Election Officer
holding the elections under Section 25(2)
of the Act, 1860 and the other as the
competent authority empowered to register
the list of members under Section 4-B of
the Act, 1860. The probable inconsistencies
in orders of the Registrar would make the
Act, 1860 unworkable as the electoral roll
declared by the Assistant Registrar as
Election Officer under Section 25(2) could
be different from the list subsequently
registered under Section 4-B of the Act,
1860. In view of the aforesaid, the order
dated 28.6.2023 so far as it notifies a
tentative list of 37 members excluding the
petitioner from the same and without
passing any orders under Section 4-B of the
Act, 1860 is contrary to law and is liable to
be quashed and a direction is to be issued to
the Assistant Registrar to register the list of
members of the general body under Section
4-B of the Act, 1860 after due examination
of the different lists submitted before him
by the petitioner no. 2 before holding the
elections under Section 25(2).

23. The order dated 28.6.2023 passed
by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies
and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh so
far as it notifies a tentative list of 37
members excluding the petitioners is,
hereby, quashed.

24. The Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region,
Azamgarh, i.e., respondent no. 1 is directed
to pass appropriate orders in accordance
with law under Section 4-B of the Act,
1860 regarding the different lists of
members of the general body submitted by
petitioner no. 2 on 10.10.2022 and
31.10.2022 within a period of one month
from today and before holding the elections
under Section 25(2). The meeting to hold
elections under Section 25(2), shall be
called by the Assistant Registrar in
accordance with the bye-laws of the
688 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Society
immediately
after
appropriate
orders are passed under Section 4-B of the
Act, 1860.

25. It is clarified that the order dated
28.6.2023
passed
by
the
Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh so far as it
rejects the claim of petitioner no. 2 based
on the elections dated 20.10.2022 is not
being interfered with through the present
order.

26. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, Writ - C No. 30624 of 2023
is dismissed and Writ - C No. 23066 of
2023 is allowed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 688
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ C No. 1002401 of 1985

Smt. Shanti Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
District Judge, Gonda & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Pramod Kumar, S.K. Srivastava, U.S. Sahai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Pradeep Agrawal

A. Civil Law-Constitution of India, 1950Article
226-Indian
Forest
Act,
1927Section 4-Lease dispute-the petitioner
claimed
leasehold
rights
over
approximately 123 acres of land based on
the lease deed executed in 1951 by the
Ex-Zamindar
Rani
Kaneez
Bakar-the
disputed land was declared banjar under
UPZA & LR Act-the court ruled that nonappearance by the petitioner to prove her
case allowed the assumption that the
claim
was
not
genuine-despite
the
petitioner's name being recorded in the
revenue records, the court found that
these
entries
were
made
without
following proper legal procedures and
thus did not confer any rights to the
petitioner-The court upheld the validity of
the forest land notification issued by the
State under the Forest Act, 1927-The
petitioner's claims to the land based on
the
lease
deed
were
found
to
be
invalid.(Para 1 to 77)

The petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. C/M Vs Dy Dir. of Edu. (2006) LCD 1328

2. Jyoti Bhushan Mishra & anr. Vs. D. F.O.
Gonda North Gonda & anr. (2006) LCD 989

3. Raghunath Singh Vs. St. of U.P. (1966) RD
337

4. Mahendra Lal Jaini Vs St. of U.P. (1962) SCC
OnLine SC 55

5. St. of U.P. Vs IV A.D.J. (2012) SCC OnLine All
709

6. St. of U.P. Vs Kamal Jeet Singh (2017) SCC
OnLine All 4733

7. Wali Mohd. Vs Ram Surat (1989) 4 SCC 574

8. Vishwa Vijay Bharati Vs Fakhrul Hassan
(1976) 3 SCC 642

9. Ram Awadh Vs DDC (1985) RD 363 = 1985
SCC Online All 430

10. Gurmukh Singh & ors. Vs DDC/A.D.M. (F &
R). & ors.. (1997) RD 276

11. Ram Awadh Vs Collector/ DDC (2011) 113
RD 712 = 2011 SCC OnLine All 2641

12. S. Saktivel Vs M. Venugopal Pillai (2000) 7
SCC 104