# Committee of Management, Shiksha Prasar Samiti and another v. Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits and another

- **Citation:** (2002) 2 ILRA 532
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-07-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26639 of 2002
- **Bench:** S.K. Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-shiksha-prasar-samiti-and-another-v-deputy-registrar-40008
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Societies Registration Act-Section 25(2)-
fraud vitiates most solemn proceeding
and as and when it is brought to the
notice of any authority, the benefit
derived by any party can be always
recalled. (Held in para 12).

As
respondent
no.
1
has
passed
impugned order after recording clear
finding that petitioner has succeeded in
obtaining
renewal
certificate
after
concealing the fact and by playing fraud
in the matter, this Court feels that
respondent no. 1 is well within his
jurisdiction in passing the impugned
order.
Case Law Referred:
AIR 1988 Alld. 236
1996 I UPLBEC, 413
1970 AWR 775
1993 ACJ 152
AIR 1991 SC 909

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
532
Commission, it would not be said to be an
appointment through back-door.

24. So far as the question of
termination on the ground of temporary
nature of appointment is concerned, we
are of the opinion that even a temporary
appointment
cannot
be
cancelled
arbitrarily at the whims of the authority
and without a valid reason. If the
appointment
is
cancelled
arbitrarily
without a valid reason and without
following principles of natural justice,
such an action is arbitrary and capricious
and is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution
of India and has to be struck down. It has
been held by the Supreme Court in
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India, AIR
1978 SC 597 that arbitrariness violates
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

25. We see no reason to interfere
with the view taken by the CAT.
Accordingly, all the five writ petition nos.
20440/2001, 20433/2001, 20460/2001,
20459/2001
and
20438/2001
are
dismissed. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.7.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE S.K. SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26639 of 2002

Committee
of
Management,
Shiksha
Prasar Samiti and another ...Petitioners
Versus
Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and
Chits and another
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri S.D. Shukla
Sri Ashok Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava
Sri V.K. Shukla
S.C.

Societies Registration Act-Section 25(2)-
fraud vitiates most solemn proceeding
and as and when it is brought to the
notice of any authority, the benefit
derived by any party can be always
recalled. (Held in para 12).

As
respondent
no.
1
has
passed
impugned order after recording clear
finding that petitioner has succeeded in
obtaining
renewal
certificate
after
concealing the fact and by playing fraud
in the matter, this Court feels that
respondent no. 1 is well within his
jurisdiction in passing the impugned
order.
Case Law Referred:
AIR 1988 Alld. 236
1996 I UPLBEC, 413
1970 AWR 775
1993 ACJ 152
AIR 1991 SC 909

(Delivered by Hon'ble S.K. Singh, J.)

1. Challenge in this petition is the
order dated 27.6.2002 (Annexure-11 to
the writ petition) passed by the respondent
no. 1 in exercise of powers as conferred
under Section 25 (2) of the Societies
Registration Act for holding elections to
elect office bearers of the society.

2. Learned counsel for the parties
have been heard at admission stage.

3. There is a society known as
Shiksha Prasad Samiti registered under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860 at
Mhammadabad Gohna, District Mau. It
has its registered bye laws which govern
the management of the society. Under the
bye laws the terms of the committee of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] C/M, Shiksha Parshar Samiti V. Dy.Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits & another
533
management of the society is provided.
The aforesaid society runs an institution
know
as
National
Inter
College,
Mohammadabad Gohna, District Mau. It
is claimed that renewal of society has
taken place for a period of five years
w.e.f. 10.10.2000. It appears that on
6.11.2001 respondent No.2 made a
complaint before the Deputy Registrar
Firms Societies and Chits to the effect
that the petitioner has obtained the
renewal certificate by placing forged
papers and incorrect list of members. It is
in pursuance of the aforesaid complaint
made by the respondent No. 2 the matter
was examined with the result the
impugned order came to be passed by the
respondent No. 1, which is the subject
matter of challenge before this court, in
this petition.

4. Sri S.D. Shukla, learned Advocate
who appears on behalf of the petitioner
submits that respondent No. 1 has passed
the impugned order without affording
adequate opportunity in the matter. It has
been further submitted that the petitioner
lodged protest before the Registrar U.P.,
Lucknow directing the transfer of the
matter before some other authority upon
which no orders were passed and inspite
thereof respondent No. 1 has taken the
impugned decision. Lastly, it has been
submitted that there appears to be a
dispute of election which could not have
been decided by the respondent No. 1 and
therefore the order is without jurisdiction.
Learned counsel submits that by the
impugned decision the term of the
committee has been cut short which is
illegal and impermissible. In support of
the aforesaid contention about want of
jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 to
pass the impugned order and term of the
committee cannot be cut short, reliance
has been placed by the learned counsel on
the decision as reported in A.I.R. 1988
Alld., 236 and 1996 (1) UPLBEC, 413
respectively.

5. Sri V.K. Shukla learned Advocate
who appears on behalf of the respondent
No. 2 in response to the aforesaid
submission argues that petitioner was
given full opportunity and after giving
cogent reasons the decision has been
taken by the respondent No. 1 in which
finding of fact has been recorded and
therefore no interference is required by
this court. Learned counsel submits that in
fact no election has taken place and it was
all a forged affairs and therefore after
recording aforesaid finding respondent
No.
1
has
properly
exercised
the
jurisdiction as vested in him and required
direction has been issued. It has been
further submitted that the list of 12
members which is being relied upon by
the petitioner though being incomplete
and incorrect, nevertheless six members
out of the aforesaid list of 12 members
have filed affidavit stating that no election
has taken place and they are not elected
office bearers. Learned counsel submits
that in view of the aforesaid, claim of the
petitioners of their being valid election
and that the respondent No. 1 has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate, cannot be
accepted. In view of the aforesaid learned
counsel submits that the order of the
respondent No. 1 being perfectly just and
proper, no interference is required.

6. Learned Standing Counsel who
appears in the matter also supported the
order of the respondent No. 1 placing
reliance on the findings so recorded in the
impugned order.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
534

7. On perusal of the impugned order
of the respondent No. 1 it is clear that
petitioner has been given opportunity at
fullest length but he has not been able to
produce any of the original document
concerning to the list of members,
original register, cash book etc. It has
been mentioned in the order of the
respondent No. 1 that by letter dated
22.11.2001 petitioner was called upon to
furnish all the original documents referred
above on the date so fixed i.e. 4.12.2001.
On the date fixed from the side of the
petitioner there was an application for
adjournment alongwith medical certificate
upon which 28.12.2001 was fixed. On
that date again application was moved on
behalf of the petitioner that further time
may be allowed for producing evidence.
This request was again accepted by the
respondent No. 1 and 17.1.2002 was
fixed. Respondent No. 1 has mentioned in
his order that petitioner has been changing
counsel from time to time and moving
application
for
the
purpose
of
adjournment
instead
of
producing
required
documents.
It
has
been
mentioned that after 17.1.2002 again
dates were fixed as 31.1.2002, 12.2.2002
and 2.3.2002. It appears that at this stage
petitioner moved application/complaint to
the
Registrar
U.P.,
Lucknow
for
transferring
the
matter
from
the
respondent No.1 upon which as submitted
by the learned counsel Sri V.K Shukla,
comment was sent by the respondent No.
1 in which he clearly stated that he has no
objection whatsoever from shifting of the
matter to any other authority. It appears
from
the
record
that
the
application/complaint of the petitioner
was duly attended by the Registrar who
by order dated 6.5.2002 after repelling
petitioner's contention directed respondent
No. 1, being competent authority to
decide the matter. Respondent No. 1
being fair enough again issued notice to
both the parties by letter dated 8.5.2002
fixing 18.5.2002 and thereafter again to
enable the petitioner to get further
opportunity dates were fixed as 3.6.2002,
12.6.2002, 22.6.2002, 25.6.2002 and
finally 26.6.2002, but as order states
petitioner has not produced any of the
documents i.e. the proceeding register,
information register, membership register,
receipt book etc. In view of the aforesaid,
it is clear that right from 4.12.2001 up to
26.6.2002,
petitioner
has
been
just
seeking time by changing counsel and no
steps were taken on his behalf to place
before respondent No.1 the documents
justifying his claim. It is commonly said
that a person who sleeps about his rights
or if he is not vigilant then he is not
entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction as it is
equity jurisdiction. A party has no right to
keep the matter lingering or choose the
authority before whom matter is to be
heard. Facts of present case, discloses that
petitioner has tried to adopt both the
aforesaid things. He tried to linger on the
proceeding and also tried to get the matter
shifted to other authority but when
Registrar refused to accept prayer of
petitioner, it was obligatory on his part to
co-operate in the proceeding but this court
feels there was complete lack of bonafide
on the part of petitioner.

8. In view of the aforesaid
respondent No. 1 came to the conclusion
that petitioner is not possessed with any
of the record or for the reason best known
to him he do not want to produce the
same. A further finding has been given
that list of 12 members have been given
out of which six members have filed their
affidavits stating that no election has
taken place and they are not elected office
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
2 All] C/M, Shiksha Parshar Samiti V. Dy.Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits & another
535
bearers and petitioner has got renewal of
the society by placing wrong facts. The
finding so recorded by the respondent No.
1 as referred in this judgment is finding of
fact, which on the facts of the present case
this court feels, requires no interference.

9. The law is well settled that fraud
vitiates most solemn proceeding and as
and when it is brought to the notice of any
authority the benefit derived by any party
can be always recalled. Reference in this
respect can be made to the decision
reported in 1970 AWR 775 (Chet Ram
Vs. D.D.C., & others). The observation as
made in para 6 of aforesaid judgment will
be useful to be quoted-

"It is well settled that fraud vitiates
all solemn proceeding. If a decree is
obtained by fraud, even through from a
competent court, is not binding between
parties. The question of fraud can be
raised in any proceeding where-so-ever a
decree is sought to be relied on as a good
decree."

10. Reference can be made to
another decision given by this court in
Baliram Vs. Board of Revenue, reported
in 1993 ACJ, 152. Para 17 of aforesaid
decision is hereby quoted-

"When the Court finds that there is a
miscarriage of justice on account of fraud
practiced upon the Court, they cannot
place an embargo of limitation upon it. It
is the duty of the Court to see that no
miscarriage of justice takes place on
account of any fraud practiced by any
party upon the Court. Whenever it comes
to the light of the Court, it is under a duty
to set aside such fraudulent decree. The
Court cannot be used as a tool in
fraudulent schemes of a party. It is settled
principle
that
fraud
vitiates
all
proceedings."

11. Hon'ble Apex Court in the
matter of obtaining orders/admission by
fraud has further permitted the authority
to withdraw the benefit even without
giving any opportunity and it has been
said that rules of principle of natural
justice will not apply. Reference in this
connection is to be made to decision
given in case of U.P. Junior Doctors'
Action Committee Vs. Dr. B. Sheetal
Nandwani reported in AIR 1991 SC, 909.
Observation as made in para 5 is hereby
quoted-

"The circumstances in which such
benefit has been taken by the candidates
concerned do not justify attraction of the
application of rules of natural justice of
being provided an opportunity to be
heard."

12. As respondent No.1 has passed
impugned order after recording clear
finding that petitioner has succeeded in
obtaining
renewal
certificate
after
concealing the fact and by playing fraud
in the matter, this court feels that
respondent No. 1 is well within his
jurisdiction in passing the impugned
order. In view of the aforesaid findings,
the submission as made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner about want of
jurisdiction of the respondent No. 1 and
curtailment of the period of committee,
deserves rejection.

13. In view of the aforesaid analysis,
it appears to be not a fit case for
interference in the writ jurisdiction. Writ
petition is thus dismissed at admission
stage.
---------
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
536
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.7.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE D.R. CHAUDHARY, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 3607 of
2002

Shahendra Misra & others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & others ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Apul Misra

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A.

Constitution of India-Article 21- Article
21 of the Constitution of India has been
interpreted by the Court to include the
right to water, food and electricity as
they are essentital for a life of dignity.
(Held in para 3)

Case Law Referred:

A perusal of the impugned F.I.R. shows
that
the
allegations
against
the
petitioners are that they had held
Chakka Jam on the road crossing there
was no electricity supply in township
Jasrana, district Firozabad. This is a
problem
which
is
assuming
huge
dimensions in large parts of the country
and calls for immediate national level
action by the authorities concerned.

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. The learned Addl. Government
Advocate may file a counter affidavit
within three weeks. List thereafter.

2. Until further orders we stay the
arrest of the petitioners in case crime No.
271
of
2002,
under
sections
147,148,149,307,336,332,504 and 506
I.P.C. and Section 7 Criminal Law
Amendment Act Police station Jasrana,
District Firozabad.

3. A perusal of the impugned F.I.R.
shows that the allegations against the
petitioners are that they had held Chakka
Jam on the road crossing because there
was no electricity supply in township
Jarana,
District
Firozabad.
This
is
problem
which
is
assuming
huge
dimensions in large parts of the country
and calls for immediate national level
action by the authorities concerned.

4. The shortage of water and
electricity in large parts of the country are
assuming colossal dimensions and unless
something drastic is done about it riots,
Chakka Jams etc. may take place in many
parts of the country because without water
and electricity people are bound to come
on the streets. Hence a national level
scientific apparatus needs to be set up by
the
Central
Government
in
this
connection so that this problem is tackled
on a war footing.

5. It is an ironical situation that
while some parts of the country are
undergoing floods other parts including
Delhi, U.P. Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan,
Orissa etc. are undergoing drought, and
severe electricity shortage.

6. A national level plan should,
therefore, be set up by the Central
Government by using scientific methods
with the aid of technical experts so that
excess water in flood areas may be
diverted to the drought hit areas. In this
way the problem of drought and floods
can both be solved. At the same time the