# Committee of Management of Chandrawati Shikshan Sanstahan & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 265
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-19
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 24615 of 2023
- **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-of-chandrawati-shikshan-sanstahan-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49440
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860
-
Sections
4-B
&
25(2)
-
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 -
Writ Jurisdiction - Assistant Registrar's Powers -
Validity of Membership - Fraud and Forgery -
Committee of Management - Election Disputes

The petitioners, Committee of Management of
Chandrawati Shikshan Sansthan and others,
challenged the order dated 17.06.2023 passed
by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Azamgarh, declaring the Committee of
Management as "defunct/barred by time" w.e.f.
19.09.2022 and issuing a tentative list of
General Body members for elections under
Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act,
1860, alleging it was without jurisdiction and
violated natural justice. The society, registered
in 2002, enrolled eight life members in 2020,
including petitioners nos. 2 to 8 and respondent
no. 4, after an advertisement. Casual vacancies
in 2021 were filled by electing respondent no. 4
as President and petitioner no. 2 as Manager,
and a new election was held in 2022.
Respondent no. 3 (Deputy Manager) and
respondent no. 4 set up rival election claims,
but respondent no. 4 later withdrew her claim.
The Assistant Registrar found the petitioners'
claim of membership enrolment fraudulent,
based on forged documents and signatures, and
issued a final electoral list on 14.09.2023, which
was not challenged. The petitioners argued that
the Assistant Registrar lacked jurisdiction under
Section 4-B to determine membership validity
and that the order was arbitrary, while
respondents contended that the Assistant
Registrar's findings of fraud were valid under
Section 4-B. Held: (1) The writ petition was
dismissed. (2) The Assistant Registrar had
jurisdiction under Section 4-B to examine the
correctness of the General Body membership list
based on the register of members, minutes
book, cash book, receipt book, and bank
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passbook, and correctly found the petitioners'
enrolment of eight members in 2020 to be
fraudulent due to forged signatures and thumb
impressions of deceased office bearers. (3) The
petitioners' failure to challenge the final order
dated 14.09.2023, which finalized the electoral
college, rendered the challenge to the tentative
order dated 17.06.2023 unsustainable, as the
latter merged into the former. (4) Fraud vitiates
all judicial and quasi-judicial acts, as per S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath and Ram
Preeti Yadav Vs U.P. Board, and the Assistant
Registrar's
findings
of
forgery,
including
fabricated minutes and a bank account opened
in 2022 to backdate membership fees, justified
declaring the Committee defunct and ordering
fresh elections. (5) The petitioners' reliance on
Lachi Ram Yadav Vs Asstt. Registrar and other
cases was misplaced, as those dealt with
election disputes under Section 25(1), not
membership validity under Section 4-B. (6) No
violation
of
natural
justice
occurred,
as
petitioner no. 2 was given an opportunity to
submit objections, and the Assistant Registrar's
findings were based on documentary evidence.
(7) The court declined to interfere under Article
226, as the Assistant Registrar's decision was
neither arbitrary nor beyond jurisdiction.

Case Law Cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,879 of 42,339. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39879 for what follows._

11 All. Committee of Management of Chandrawati Shikshan Sanstahan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
265
an advantage, or a benefit conferred upon a
person by the rule of law.

35. The arguments as placed by
learned Standing Counsel detailing the provisions
of Essential Commodities Act 1955 and National
Food Security Act, 2013 as well as U.P. Food
Security Rules, 2015, it is clear that person
annoyed like the complainant as well as card
holders have all the remedies to move before the
competent authority for redressal of their
grievance regarding complaint as made by him as
well as grievance of ration card holder who are
entitled for the essential commodities and in case
of failure of distribution of such essential
commodities to ration card holder, he is also
entitled for the security allowance as has been
provided under the relevant act includes. In view
of provisions of the relevant Act, includes the
petitioner complainant is provided opportunity
during course of regular enquiry to lead oral and
documentary evidence if provided under the rules,
but would not have no locus to assail the orders
passed by authority considering his complaint.

36. Having due regards to the fact and
circumstances of the case, the relevant provisions
of the Acts and Rules as placed by learned
Standing Counsel and catena of decisions, I am
not inclined to interfere. The petition filed at the
behest
of
complainant
being
not
maintainable is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 265
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.10.2023
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ C No. 24615 of 2023

Committee
of
Management
of
Chandrawati Shikshan Sanstahan & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Satyendra Prakash Srivastava, Sri
Gajendra Pratap (Sr. Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Gautam Baghel, Sri Om Prakash
Singh

Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860
-
Sections
4-B
&
25(2)
-
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 226 -
Writ Jurisdiction - Assistant Registrar's Powers -
Validity of Membership - Fraud and Forgery -
Committee of Management - Election Disputes

The petitioners, Committee of Management of
Chandrawati Shikshan Sansthan and others,
challenged the order dated 17.06.2023 passed
by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Azamgarh, declaring the Committee of
Management as "defunct/barred by time" w.e.f.
19.09.2022 and issuing a tentative list of
General Body members for elections under
Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act,
1860, alleging it was without jurisdiction and
violated natural justice. The society, registered
in 2002, enrolled eight life members in 2020,
including petitioners nos. 2 to 8 and respondent
no. 4, after an advertisement. Casual vacancies
in 2021 were filled by electing respondent no. 4
as President and petitioner no. 2 as Manager,
and a new election was held in 2022.
Respondent no. 3 (Deputy Manager) and
respondent no. 4 set up rival election claims,
but respondent no. 4 later withdrew her claim.
The Assistant Registrar found the petitioners'
claim of membership enrolment fraudulent,
based on forged documents and signatures, and
issued a final electoral list on 14.09.2023, which
was not challenged. The petitioners argued that
the Assistant Registrar lacked jurisdiction under
Section 4-B to determine membership validity
and that the order was arbitrary, while
respondents contended that the Assistant
Registrar's findings of fraud were valid under
Section 4-B. Held: (1) The writ petition was
dismissed. (2) The Assistant Registrar had
jurisdiction under Section 4-B to examine the
correctness of the General Body membership list
based on the register of members, minutes
book, cash book, receipt book, and bank
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passbook, and correctly found the petitioners'
enrolment of eight members in 2020 to be
fraudulent due to forged signatures and thumb
impressions of deceased office bearers. (3) The
petitioners' failure to challenge the final order
dated 14.09.2023, which finalized the electoral
college, rendered the challenge to the tentative
order dated 17.06.2023 unsustainable, as the
latter merged into the former. (4) Fraud vitiates
all judicial and quasi-judicial acts, as per S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs Jagannath and Ram
Preeti Yadav Vs U.P. Board, and the Assistant
Registrar's
findings
of
forgery,
including
fabricated minutes and a bank account opened
in 2022 to backdate membership fees, justified
declaring the Committee defunct and ordering
fresh elections. (5) The petitioners' reliance on
Lachi Ram Yadav Vs Asstt. Registrar and other
cases was misplaced, as those dealt with
election disputes under Section 25(1), not
membership validity under Section 4-B. (6) No
violation
of
natural
justice
occurred,
as
petitioner no. 2 was given an opportunity to
submit objections, and the Assistant Registrar's
findings were based on documentary evidence.
(7) The court declined to interfere under Article
226, as the Assistant Registrar's decision was
neither arbitrary nor beyond jurisdiction.

Case Law Cited:

1. Lachi Ram Yadav & ors. Vs Asstt. Registrar
Firms, Chits and Societies & ors., (2015) 1
UPLBEC 830

2. Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul
Almin Allahgranj & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2014 (1) ADJ 44

3. Board of Trustee of the Shia College Vs St. of
U.P., 2015 (6) ADJ 500

4. Committee of Management, Maulana Abdul
Kalaam Azad Education Society Vs Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies & ors., 2022 (10) ADJ
58

5. Committee of Management, Darul Ulum
Samadhiya & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2023 (8)
ADJ 293

6. Shailendra Singh & 2 Ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors., 2017 (6) ADJ 602
7. S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs
Jagannath (Dead) by LRs. & ors., (1993) Supp.
3 SCR 422

8. Ram Preeti Yadav Vs U.P. Board of High
School and Intermediate Education & ors.,
(2003) Supp. 3 SCR 352

9. St. of A.P. & anr. Vs T. Suryachandra Rao,
(2005) 6 SCC 149

10. Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs St. of Mah. &
ors., (2005) 7 SCC 605

11. Hamza Haji Vs St. of Kerala, JT 2006 (8) SC
215

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,
J.)

1. Heard Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S.P.
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
State-respondents and Shri Gautam Baghel
for respondent no.3.

PREVIOUS PROCEEDINGS IN THIS
CASE

2. This Court, after hearing learned
counsel for both the sides, passed following
order on 03.10.2023:-

"1. Supplementary affidavit filed
today is taken on record.

2. Before hearing of this case
commenced, Shri Gautam Baghel, learned
counsel representing the respondent no.3
has placed before this Court, a copy of the
order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh, which
is taken on record.

3. Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned
Senior Counsel was asked as to whether he
proposes to challenge the said order or not,
11 All. Committee of Management of Chandrawati Shikshan Sanstahan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
267
he submitted that since the subsequent
order is a consequential order, in case the
order impugned dated 17.06.2023 is found
to be without jurisdiction and is set aside or
stayed,
the
subsequent
order
would
automatically stand nullified and, therefore,
he does not propose to challenge the order
dated 14.09.2023. With this submission, he
proceeded to argue the matter.

4. Heard Shri Gajendra Pratap,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri
S.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
State-respondents and Shri Gautam Baghel
for respondent no.3.

5. Order Reserved."

THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE

3. This writ petition has been filed
challenging the order dated 17.06.2023
whereby the Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region,
Azamgarh has, after recording certain
findings with regard to the validity of list of
members of General Body and certain
elections of office bearership relied upon
by both the parties, declared the Committee
of the Society as "defunct/barred by time"
w.e.f. 19.09.2022 and, for the purposes of
holding elections in exercise of powers
under Section 25(2) of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred
to as 'the Act, 1860'), he has issued a
tentative list of members of General Body
directing the parties to submit objections
against the same with a further direction
that election of the time-barred Society
shall be held after finalizing the electoral
college/membership list/voter list.

FACTS OF THE CASE

4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the
facts of the case as per the pleadings
contained in the writ petition, are that
Chandrawati Shikshan Sansthan is an
educational
society
registered
on
27.09.2002 under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860 and has its registered bye-laws to
run and manage its affairs by a Committee
of Management, which is periodically
elected every 5 years by the general body
of the Society. From the very inception of
the said Society and until 10.11.2020 there
were in all 11 members in the Society and
all of them comprised managing committee
of the Society. Respondent no.3 held the
office of Dy. Manager (Up-Prabandhak) in
the managing committee since inception of
the Society and is holding the same office
until now. In the year 2020, the Society
decided to enrol members of the general
body and an advertisement was got
published in a daily newspaper, namely,
Devvrat, dated 18.10.2020 by the Manager
of the Society, pursuant whereto, 8 persons
were enrolled as life members in the
Society, which is evident from the fact that
each one of them had deposited with the
Society a sum of Rs.1000/-, as subscription
fee for the life membership prescribed in
Clause 5 of the bye-laws. The so enrolled
eight members are- (1) Sanjay Kumar
Singh (Petitioner), (2) Sheela Singh, (3)
Neeraj Singh, (4) Dharmendra Sharma, (5)
Kushal Kumar Singh, (6) Dharmendra
Singh, (7) Lata Singh and (8) Indu Singh.
They all became life members of the
Society from 10.11.2020, the date on which
they deposited the said subscription fee
with the then Manager of the Society. The
petitioner nos.2 to 8 and Smt. Lata Singh,
respondent no.4 are those eight (8)
members
that
have
been
enrolled.
According to Clause 10(4) of the bye-laws
of the Society, the Manager of the
managing committee is authorized to
receive the membership/enrolment fee etc.
and Clause 5 of the bye-laws provides that
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
whosoever will give minimum Rs. 1000/-
to the Society, would be its life member.

CONTENTIONS RAISED ON BEHALF
OF PETITIONERS

5. The submission of Shri Gajendra
Pratap, learned Senior Counsel, is that in
the last undisputed elections held on
20.09.2017, one Faurang Ram was elected
as President, Om Prakash Singh as
Manager and Mukhtar Singh (respondent
No.3) as Deputy Manager and that on
10.11.2020, eight new members being
petitioner nos.2 to 8 and the respondent
no.4-Smt. Lata Singh were enrolled after
publication
of
advertisement
in
the
newspaper "Devvrat" dated 18.10.2010. A
casual vacancy occurred on account of
death of Faurang Ram on 10.01.2021 and
another due to death of Shri Om Prakash
Singh on 04.03.2021. He further submits
that the casual vacancy of the office of
President was filled up by electing
respondent no.4-Smt. Lata Singh in the
meeting of General Body of the Society
dated 08.02.2021, as per the procedure
provided in Clause 9 of the Bye-laws and
that the other casual vacancy of the office
of Manager was filled up by electing
petitioner no.2-Sanjay Kumar Singh as the
Manager in the meeting of general body of
the Society dated 06.04.2021.

6. Learned Senior Counsel further
submits that pursuant to the aforesaid
proceedings, list of office bearers for the
year 2022-2023 was registered by the
Assistant
Registrar
on
30.04.2022,
whereafter, respondent no.4-Smt. Lata
Singh submitted before the respondent no.2
an application dated 30.06.2022, annexing
therewith various documents setting up a
rival election claim on the very same casual
vacancies, saying that against the vacancy
in office of President, one Sri Ashutosh
Singh was elected and against the vacancy
in office of Manager, she was elected in the
meeting of general body dated 28.03.2021
and prayed for registration of her list of
office bearers. He further submits that the
respondent no.3 is none else than the real
brother of petitioner no.1 and he falsely
engineered the dispute only to anyhow oust
the petitioner no.2 from the Managing
Committee, and in this evil design, he
successfully manipulated respondent no.4
on his side which is evident from the fact
that after the entry of respondent no.3 in the
dispute, the respondent no.4 submitted an
application dated 24.02.2023 alongwith her
affidavit before the respondent no.2 stating
therein that she had not submitted any
application earlier and any such application
or document with her signatures, if on
records, be treated as cancelled. Thus, not
only the respondent no.4 abandoned her
managerial claim but also made the very
same
prayers
in
her
said
application/affidavit as were made by
respondent no.3 in his application.

7. Further submission of learned
Senior Counsel is that despite the fact that
the respondent no.4 had abandoned her
claim and thus left with no cause or even
locus to contest or participate in the
pending dispute, the respondent no.2 not
only allowed her to participate but even
accepted her versions, knowing fully well
that the same were not only false and
wrong but wrapped with full of obvious
lies. Further submission is that since the
term
(5
years)
of
committee
of
management last elected in the year 2017
was about to expire, the petitioner No.1
committee, as an out-going committee, held
next periodical elections on 28.08.2022 in
which the petitioner no.2 was elected
Manager, who, through his application
11 All. Committee of Management of Chandrawati Shikshan Sanstahan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
269
dated 20.09.2022, also submitted list of
elected office bearers alongwith election
papers and prayed for registering the same.
It has also been argued that the impugned
order with regard to enrolment of 8 life
members is without jurisdiction, inasmuch
as, it is not referable to any law whatsoever,
not even to one under Section 4-B of the
Act, 1860; that the findings recorded in
respect of said enrolment of members
suffer from errors apparent on the face of
the record, inasmuch as, the same are based
on consideration of wholly irrelevant
material leaving aside the relevant ones;
that the respondent no.2 acted arbitrarily
and in violation of the principles of natural
justice
in
cancelling
membership
of
petitioner nos. 3 to 8 without giving them
opportunity of hearing and that the
impugned
order
rescinding
order
of
registration of the list of office bearers is
without jurisdiction as the concerned
respondent does not have power of review
of his order under the Act, 1860. Learned
Senior Counsel has also argued with
reference to Section 4-B of the Act, 1860
that the Assistant Registrar has no power to
record any finding with respect to validity
of membership or enrolment of any new
member(s) and that no such exercise was,
even otherwise, open to be undertaken by
the Assistant Registrar in the present case.
He further submits that only the Prescribed
Authority has power to determine the valid
membership or even to decide as to
whether enrolment of any member(s) was
according to law. He further submits that
the Assistant Registrar, by the order
impugned, has decided the validity of rival
elections, which course was not open for
him as per the settled proposition of law.
He further submits that the impugned order
has been passed entertaining the application
dated
17.01.2023
submitted
by
the
respondent
no.3-Mukhtar
Singh,
the
Deputy Manager and by referring to the
said application, it has been argued that
adjudication made is beyond the scope of
the application and, even otherwise, the
said application being not maintainable, it
was not liable to be entertained at all and,
even if, it was found to be entertainable,
adjudication of past dispute is beyond the
competence of the Assistant Registrar. In
support of his contentions, learned Senior
Counsel has placed reliance upon the
following Authorities:-

(i). Lachi Ram Yadav & Ors. v.
Asstt.
Registrar
Firms,
Chits
and
Societies and Others, (2015) 1 UPLBEC
830;

(ii). Committee of Management,
Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahgranj And
Another v. State of U.P. And Ors., 2014
(1) ADJ 44;

(iii). Board of Trustee of the
Shia College v. State of U.P. (Allahabad),
2015 (6) ADJ 500.

CONTENTION OF LEARNED
STANDING COUNSEL

8. Learned Standing Counsel, on the
other hand, has argued that pure findings of
fact have been recorded by the Assistant
Registrar based upon documents produced
before him and, once, the findings have
been recorded that order registering the list
of Managing Committee dated 30.04.2022
was obtained by fraudulent means, the
Assistant Registrar was competent enough
to
examine
the
correctness
of
the
documents filed before him and having
gone into the documents, the claim of the
petitioners as well as respondent no.4-Smt.
Lata Singh has been rightly rejected,
considering the expiry of term of the
erstwhile Committee appointed in 2017 and
lawful direction has been issued to hold
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
elections under Section 25(2) of the Act,
1860.

CONTENTION OF RESPONDENT NO. 3

9. Shri Gautam Baghel, learned
counsel
for
respondent
no.3
has
vehemently opposed the writ petition and
has argued that admittedly, the list of 11
members was registered in 2002 since the
very inception of the Society and the
undisputed
elections
were
held
on
20.09.2017. While referring to the findings
recorded in the order impugned, it has been
argued by Shri Baghel that under Section 4B of the Act, 1860, the Assistant Registrar
is empowered to examine the correctness of
the list of members of the General Body on
the basis of register of members, minutes
book,
cash
book,
receipt
book
of
membership fees and bank passbook of the
Society not only at the time of registration
of Society but also at the time of its
renewal or any change in the list of
members of the General Body on account
of induction, removal, resignation or death
of any member. He further submits that by
the order impugned dated 17.06.2022, only
a tentative list was issued and the parties
were directed to file objections against the
same and, insofar as the petitioners are
concerned, the petitioner no.2 preferred
objections before the Assistant Registrar
and after taking into consideration the said
objections
and
after
providing
full
opportunity of hearing to the petitioner
no.2, who claims to be Manager of the
petitioner no.1-Committee, a detailed order
has been passed on 14.09.2023 finalizing
the electoral college for the purposes of
holding elections under Section 25(2) of
the Act, 1860. He further submits that
admittedly the order dated 17.06.2023
having been given effect to and the order
dated
14.09.2023
having
not
been
challenged, the petitioners have no case.
With regard to the merits of the claim of the
petitioners, as pleaded in the writ petition,
reference to the following findings of the
order dated 14.09.2023 has been made:-

"श्री संजय कुमार नसंह द्वारा अपिे प्रनिनिनि
अनिवक्ता के माध्यम से नििांक 08.08.2023 को समय निए
जािे के बावजूि नकसी प्रकार का कोई साक्ष्य/नििांक
04.10.2020 के पूवद का मूि अनभिेख प्रस्िुि िहीं नकया गया।
श्री संजय कुमार नसंह द्वारा पूवद में जो मूि अनभिेख कायादिय
आिेश नििांक 17.06.2023 पाररि नकये जािे के पूवद नििांक
18.04.2023को प्रस्िुि नकये गये थे, उक्त अनभिेख कायदिय में
जमा है। श्री संजय कुमार नसंह द्वारा प्रस्िुि उक्त अनभिेखों में बैंक
पासबुक बड़ौिा यू०पी० बैंक शाखा िरवां खािा संख्या
82870200000014 का खाता दिनाांक 13.07.2022
को खोला गया है तथा दिनाांक 14.07.2022 को नगि पैसा
कुल 8000 रूपया जमा दकया गया है। उक्त के अदतरिक्त
पासबुक में कोई प्रदिदि अांदकत नहीं है। उक्त से यह स्ितः स्पि
है दक सांजय कुमाि दसांह ि अन्य का सिस्यता शुल्क िर्ष
2020 में तत्समय प्रबन्धक िहे श्री ओमप्रकाश दसांह द्वािा न
तो प्राप्त दकया गया औि न ही सदमदत के खाते में जमा दकया
गया बदल्क कोिोना काल के िौिान सांस्था से पूर्षतया
असम्बद्ध ि बाहिी व्यदक्त सांजय कुमाि दसांह द्वािा नये दसिे से
दिनाांक 04.10.2020 की दतदथ से स्ियां नया िदजस्टि सूचना
पांदजका/कायषिाही पांदजका तैयाि किके सदमदत पि कब्जा
किने के उद्देश्य से ओमप्रकाश दसांह के फजी हस्ताक्षि से स्ियां
को ि अन्य को सदमदत का सिस्य चयदनत होना िशाषकि
छल-कपट एिां फ्राड के आधाि पि प्रबन्ध सदमदत की सूची
िर्ष 2022-23 का पांजीयन दिनाांक 30.04.2022 को किा
दलए जाने के उपिान्त सदमदत का अिैध ढांग से नया खाता
खोलकि सिस्यता शुल्की की िसीिें ओमप्रकाश दसांह के फजी
हस्ताक्षि से स्ियां काटकि सदमदत के बैंक खाते में
दिनाांक14.07.2022 को जमा दकया गया। कायाषलय
पत्रािली में ओमप्रकाश दसांह द्वािा समय-समय पि सदमदत के
निीनीकिर्/पांजीकिर् के समय प्रस्तुत प्रपत्रों/कायषिादहयों पि
दकये गये हस्ताक्षि से सांजय कुमाि दसांह द्वािा प्रस्तुत सिस्यता
िसीिों ि कायषिाही पांदजका/सूचना पांदजका पि बनाये गये
हस्ताक्षि का दमलान किने पि यह पाया गया दक ओमप्रकाश
दसांह का हस्ताक्षि पूिष में प्रस्तुत प्रपत्रों/कायषिादहयों से दिन्न ि
अलग-अलग है तथा जहाां-जहाां सांजय कुमाि दसांह द्वािा प्रस्तुत
11 All. Committee of Management of Chandrawati Shikshan Sanstahan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
271
अदिलेखों/कायषिादहयों में हस्ताक्षि बनाया गया है सब दिन्नदिन्न नजि आ िहा है। श्री फौिांग िाम का हस्ताक्षि सदमदत की
मूल पत्रािली में उपलब्ध स्मृदत पत्र पि अांदकत है जबदक
सांजय कुमाि दसांह द्वािा प्रस्तुत सूचना पांदजका/कायषिाही
पांदजका में फौिांग िाम का दनशानी अांगूठा लगाया गया है।
उपिोक्त दििेचना से यह स्पि है दक श्री सांजय कुमाि दसांह द्वािा
कोिोना काल ि सदमदत के अध्यक्ष एिां प्रबन्धक के दनधन का
फायिा उठाकि उनके फजी दनशानी अांगूठा एिां हस्ताक्षि से नये
दसिे से दिनाांक 04.10.2020 की दतदथ से सूचना एिां
दिनाांक 10.11.2020 की दतदथ में प्रथम कायषिाही स्ियां
सदहत 8 अन्य को सिस्य बनाये जाने का फजी तिीके से होना
िशाषकि सदमदत उपिोक्त की प्रबन्ध सदमदत की सूची िर्ष
2022-23 का पांजीकिर् किा दलया गया था दजसे कायाषलय
आिेश पत्राांक 465, दिनाांक 17.06.2023 द्वािा दनिस्त
घोदर्त दकया जा चुका है। अिएव पुिः संजय कुमार नसंह व अन्य
द्वारा स्वयं को सनमनि का सिस्य बिाकर प्रस्िुि आपनत्त नििांक
07.07.2023 व अन्य स्वीकार नकये जािे योग्य िहीं है।"

10. The submission, therefore, is that
though the petitioners claim to have been
enrolled on 10.11.2020, the bank account
has been opened on 13.07.2022 and not
only taking into consideration opening of
the bank account and subsequent deposit of
money therein, but also the documents
referred to in Section 4-B of the Act, 1860,
the Assistant Registrar has found that the
entire case of the petitioners is based upon
forgery, fabrication and fraud. Shri Baghel
has also referred to the minutes of meeting
dated 10.11.2020, annexed to the writ
petition, which contain thumb impression
of President Faurang Ram and submits that
the said meeting has been shown to have
been held under the Presidentship of
Faurang Ram without even mentioning his
name as President in the minutes and, even
otherwise, Faurang Ram never used to put
his thumb impression as also recorded by
the Assistant Registrar in the order dated
14.09.2023 that signatures of Faurang Ram
are available in the original record and by
fraudulently putting alleged impression, the
proceedings dated 10.11.2020 have been
fabricated which are liable to the ignored.
In support of his contentions, Shri Baghel
has placed reliance upon the following
Authorities:-

(i). Committee of Management,
Maulana Abdul Kalaam Azad Education
Society v. Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies And Others, 2022 (10) ADJ 58;

(ii). Committee of Management,
Darul Ulum Samadhiya And Another v.
State of U.P. And Others, 2023 (8) ADJ
293;

(iii). Shailendra Singh And 2
Others v. State of U.P. And 3 Others
reported in 2017 (6) ADJ 602.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

11. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties, I find that the main
argument of the petitioners is that the order
impugned is without jurisdiction and
exercise undertaken by the Assistant
Registrar, purported to be under Section 4B of the Act, 1860 is wholly unwarranted.
For a ready reference, Section 4-B of the
Act, 1860 is quoted hereinbelow:-

"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.

(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
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

Any change in the list of the
General Body shall not be valid unless it is
approved by the Managing Body.

(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."

12. From a bare reading of the
aforequoted provision, it reflects that
whenever a dispute comes before the
Assistant Registrar either with regard to
registration of the Society or its renewal, or
induction/enrolment of new member(s) on
account of resignation or death of any
member, he is under statutory obligation to
examine the correctness of the list of
members of the General Body of such
society on the basis of 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. In the present case, the entire claim
of the petitioners is based upon induction of
new members on 10.11.2020. Having
perused the minutes of meeting dated
10.11.2020
which
contain
thumb
impression of Faurang Ram as President
allegedly presiding the said meeting and
having perused the specific findings
recorded by the Assistant Registrar in the
order dated 14.09.2023, which has not at all
been challenged, rather the petitioners have
specifically relinquished and waived their
right to challenge the said order, as
recorded in the order dated 03.10.2023
passed in the present writ petition while
reserving the order, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the adjudication
made by the Assistant Registrar in the order
dated 14.09.2023 and the findings recorded
in the said order remain intact and have
attained finality.

13. The Court also takes note of the
fact that while the order impugned dated
17.06.2023 merely issues a tentative list,
inviting objections from respective sides,
once the petitioner no.2, in individual
capacity and as alleged Manager of the
petitioner no.1, proceeded to submit
objections before the Assistant Registrar
and addressed him with full confidence and
force on the basis of documents relied upon
by him and thereby persuaded the Assistant
Registrar to adjudicate the issue, the
challenge
made
to
the
order
dated
17.06.2023 would amount to take vehicle
into the reverse gear, though it has moved
forward in terms of merger of the order
dated 17.06.2023 in the subsequent order
dated 14.09.2023. The submission of Shri
Gajendra Pratap that the order dated
14.09.2023 is merely a consequential order
and need not to be challenged has no force
and is discarded considering the nature of
both the orders, one before the petitioner
no.2 made his submissions and the other
after he produced various documents and
addressed the Assistant Registrar.

14. Insofar as reliance placed by
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
on the judgement of Lachi Ram Yadav &
Ors. (supra) is concerned, after careful
reading of the said judgement, I find that
ratio laid down is against the petitioners
and not in their favour. In the said case, this
Court was examining the power of the
Assistant
Registrar
to
decide
the
membership dispute in relation to Section
15 of the Act, 1860 and while dealing with
the said provision, it was found that the
provision did not clothe the Assistant
11 All. Committee of Management of Chandrawati Shikshan Sanstahan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
273
Registrar with the power to adjudicate
dispute
regarding
membership.
An
argument was raised in that case before this
Court
on
behalf
of
the
contesting
respondents that such adjudication can be
made in terms of Section 4 of the Act,
1860, however, this Court observed that the
case was on different footings and not with
reference to any power exercised under
Section 4 of the Act, 1860. In the present
case, the order impugned refers to exercise
of power under Section 4-B of the Act,
1860 and not Section 15 thereof. Hence, the
ratio laid down is against the petitioners
and, therefore, the petitioners do not get
any benefit out of the said decision.

15. As regards judgment of this Court
in the case of Committee of Management,
Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahgranj And
Another (supra) is concerned, it was a case
where Deputy Registrar had adjudicated
upon validity of rival elections set up by
the parties and under such circumstances,
the Division Bench opined that the matter
was referable to the Prescribed Authority
under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860. No
such dispute has arisen in the present case
and, therefore, the said judgement does not
help the petitioners.

16. The third decision relied upon by
the petitioners in the case of Board of
Trustee of the Shia College (supra)
extensively deals with the power of the
Assistant Registrar within the scope of
Section 4-B of the Act, 1860 and this Court
has
clearly
observed
that
the
Registrar/Deputy Registrar is conferred
with the power to examine the correctness
of the list of members of the General Body
of the Society on the basis of register of
members of the General Body and minutes
book thereof, cash book, receipt book of
fee and bank passbook of the Society. An
interference was made by this Court after
having found that the Deputy Registrar had
entered into the dispute with respect to rival
elections
and,
therefore,
this
Court
denounced the action. There is nothing in
the said judgement which could help the
petitioners in the facts and circumstances of
the present case where the Assistant
Registrar has arrived at the conclusion on
the basis of the documents referred to under
Section 4-B of the Act, 1860 and has found
inclusion of members as a fraudulent act on
the part of the petitioners. Hence, this
judgement is also of no help to the
petitioners.

17. The submission of learned Senior
Counsel that the order impugned is without
jurisdiction also does not have any force in
view of the law laid down by this Court in
the case of Shailendra Singh And Others
v. State of U.P. And Others, reported in
2017 (6) ADJ 602 (DB). Reference to
following 'Paragraph 24' of the judgement
in the case of Shailendra Singh (supra)
can be made in this regard:-

"24. The powers conferred under
the aforesaid sections clearly demonstrate
that the Registrar is the principal Executive
Officer to exercise his power in respect of
the affairs of the Society. Thus, his power
under Section 4 cannot be divested only on
the ground that under Section 25 he has the
authority to refer the dispute pertaining to
election and continuance of office bearers
and, accordingly, even if some frivolous
dispute is raised in respect of the election
or continuance of the office-bearers, the
same should be mandatorily referred. If
there is a dispute of two parallel groups of
the society, the Registrar can always
examine whether the persons of rival
group, who have raised the dispute, are
member of the society or not. He can
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
record his prima facie satisfaction in this
regard as to who has the authority to
convene the meeting and hold elections;
persons who have participated are valid
members of society; elections have been
held as per bye-laws of society and if he is
satisfied that the dispute is genuine and it is
a dispute inter se between the members of
the society, then he can refer the dispute to
the Prescribed Authority."

18. The Court also cannot ignore the
findings of fabrication, maniopulations and
forgery as recorded in the order dated
17.06.2023 and also 14.09.2023 and finds
that the Assistant Registrar was fully
competent to dislodge the claim of the
petitioners as well as respondent no.4-Smt.
Lata Singh for the said reasons.

19. It is well settled that fraud vitiates
even the most solemn act. De Grey, C.J., in
Rex Vs. Duchess of Kingston [ 2 Smith
L.C. 687] observed that 'Fraud' is an
intrinsic, collateral act, which vitiates the
most solemn proceedings of courts of
justice. Lord Coke says it avoids all judicial
acts ecclesiastical and temporal". In Kerr
on Fraud and Mistake, it is stated that "in
applying this rule, it matters not whether
the
judgment
impugned
has
been
pronounced by an inferior or by the highest
Court of judicature in the realm, but in all
cases alike it is competent for every Court,
whether superior or inferior, to treat as a
nullity any judgment which can be clearly
shown to have been obtained by manifest
fraud. It is also clear as indicated in Kinch
Vs. Walcott [1929 APPEAL CASES 482]
that it would be in the power of a party to a
decree vitiated by fraud to apply directly to
the Court which pronounced it to vacate it.
According to Kerr, "In order to sustain an
action to impeach a judgment, actual fraud
must be shown; mere constructive fraud is
not, at all events after long delay, sufficient
but such a judgment will not be set aside
upon mere proof that the judgment was
obtained by perjury."

(See the Seventh Edition, Pages 416417)

20. In Corpus Juris Secundum,
Volume
49,
paragraph
265,
it
is
acknowledged that,"Courts of record or of
general jurisdiction have inherent power to
vacate or set aside their own judgements".
In paragraph 269, it is further stated, "Fraud
or collusion in obtaining judgment is a
sufficient ground for opening or vacating it,
even after the term at which it was
rendered, provided the fraud was extrinsic
and collateral to the matter tried and not a
matter actually or potentially in issue in the
action. It is also stated: "Fraud practiced on
the court is always ground for vacating the
judgment, as where the court is deceived or
misled as to material circumstances, or its
process is abused, resulting in the rendition
of a judgment which would not have been
given if the whole conduct of the case had
been fair".

21. In American Jurisprudence, 2nd
Edition, Volume 46, paragraph 825, it is
stated, "Indeed, the connection of fraud
with a judgment constitutes one of the chief
causes for interference by a court of equity
with the operation of a judgment. The
power of courts of equity in granting such
relief is inherent, and frequent applications
for equitable relief against judgments on
this ground were made in equity before the
practice of awarding new trials was
introduced into the courts of common law.
Where fraud is involved, it has been held,
in some cases, that a remedy at law by
appeal, error, or certiorari does not preclude
relief in equity from the judgment. Nor, it
11 All. Committee of Management of Chandrawati Shikshan Sanstahan & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
275
has been said, is there any reason why a
judgment obtained by fraud cannot be the
subject of a direct attack by an action in
equity even though the judgment has been
satisfied."

22. The law in India is not different.
In Paranjpe Vs. Kanade [ILR 6 BOMBAY
148], it was held that it is always competent
to any Court to vacate any judgment or
order, if it be proved that such judgment or
order was obtained by manifest fraud. In
Lakshmi Charan Saha Vs. Nur Ali [ILR
38 Calcutta 936], it was held that the
jurisdiction of the Court in trying a suit
questioning the earlier decision as being
vitiated by fraud, was not limited to an
investigation merely as to whether the
plaintiff was prevented from placing his
case properly at the prior trial by the fraud
of the defendant. The Court could and must
rip up the whole matter for determining
whether there had been fraud in the
procurement of the decree.

23. It is not necessary to multiply
authorities on this question since the matter
has come up for consideration before the
Apex Court on various occasions. In S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs.
Jagannath (Dead) by LRs & Ors. [(1993)
Supp. 3 SCR 422], the Apex Court stated
that,"it is the settled proposition of law that
a judgment or decree obtained by playing
fraud on the court is a nullity and non est
in the eyes of law. Such a judgment/decree -
-- by the first court or by the highest court -
-- has to be treated as a nullity by every
court, whether superior or inferior. It can
be challenged in any court even in
collateral proceedings." The Court went on
to observe that the High Court in that case
was totally in error when it stated that there
was no legal duty cast upon the plaintiff to
come to Court with a true case and prove it
by true evidence. Their Lordships stated,
"The courts of law are meant for imparting
justice between the parties. One who comes
to the court, must come with clean hands.
We are constrained to say that more often
than not, process of the Court is being
abused. Property grabbers, tax evaders,
Bank loan dodgers, and other unscrupulous
persons from all walks of life find the court-
process a convenient lever to retain the
illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no
hesitation to say that a person, whose case
is based on falsehood, has no right to
approach the Court. He can be summarily
thrown out at any stage of the litigation".

24. In Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P.
Board of High School and Intermediate
Education & Others [(2003) Supp. 3 SCR
352], the Apex Court, after quoting the
relevant passage from Lazarus Estates Ltd.
Vs. Beasley [(1956) 1 All ER 341] and
after referring to S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu (Dead) by LRs. Vs. Jagannath
(Dead) by LRs & Ors. (supra) reiterated
that fraud avoids all judicial acts. In State
of A.P. & Anr. Vs. T. Suryachandra Rao
[(2005) 6 SCC 149], the Supreme Court
after referring to the earlier decisions held
that suppression of a material document
could also amount to a fraud on the Court.
It also quoted the observations of Lord
Denning in Lazarus Estates Ltd. Vs.
Beasley (supra) that "No judgment of a
Court, no order of a minister, can be
allowed to stand if it has been obtained by
fraud. Fraud unravels everything."

25. According to Story's Equity
Jurisprudence, 14th Edn., Volume 1,
paragraph 263: "Fraud indeed, in the
sense of a Court of Equity, properly
includes
all
acts,
omissions,
and
concealments which involve a breach of
legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence,
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
justly reposed, and are injurious to another,
or by which an undue and unconscientious
advantage is taken of another." In Patch Vs.
Ward [1867 (3) L.R. Chancery Appeals
203], Sir John Rolt, L.J. held that: "Fraud
must be actual positive fraud, a meditated
and intentional contrivance to keep the
parties and the Court in ignorance of the
real facts of the case, and obtaining that
decree by that contrivance."

26. The Supreme Court in Bhaurao
Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra
& Ors.