# Dr. Dheeraj Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 6 ILRA 169
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-06-07
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 9735 of 2020
- **Bench:** Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-dheeraj-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47009
- **Pages:** 31

## Headnote

(A) Civil Law - The Societies Registration
Act, 1860 - Section 4 - Annual list of
managing body to be filed, Section 4-A -
Changes etc. in rules to be intimated to
Registrar , Section 4-B - list of members of
General Body of that society shall be filed
with the Registrar - an individual member
is not authorized to take up the cause of
the Society unless he is so authorized.
(Para - 80)

 (B) Civil Law - The Societies Registration
Act, 1860 - Deputy Registrar - Authority -
powers conferred under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 - covered under the
Article 12 of the Constitution of India - all
its decisions are required to comply with
the doctrine of equality and fairplay
including granting of an opportunity of
hearing - order impugned does not reflect any
application of judicial mind nor it incorporates
any reasons in the order - any order which is
bereft of reasons cannot be sustained as it
violates the basis principles of equity and
fairplay - Held - Deputy Registrar has abdicated
its duties and the impugned order has been
passed without granting opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner(Dr. Dhiraj Singh) also it does
not refer to the entire facts and material before
the Authority concerned nor the effect and
implications of the material before it was
considered apart from the fact that the
impugned order is bereft of reasons and is liable
to be set aside. (Para - 110,114,117)

(C) The Societies Registration Act, 1860 -
byelaws of the Society - unless and until a
person is a subsisting valid and bonafide
member of a Arya Samaj in that district,
he cannot be a member of Arya Pratinidhi
Sabha
-
Deputy
Registrar
rejected
representation of petitioner (Devendra Pal
Verma) - petitioner could not establish that he
was a member of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha -
Held - as far as the merit of the order dated
02.11.2019 is concerned, the same does not
suffer from any error apparent on the face of
the record nor the finding recorded by the
Deputy Registrar in the said impugned order can
be termed to be perverse or the conclusion
arrived at is such that any prudent person could
not arrive at such a conclusion, hence, this
Court is not persuaded to intervene in the
matter.(Para -118,123,124,131)

Writ Petition (No. 9735 (MS) of 2020)
allowed.

Writ Petition ( No. 4515 (MS) of 2020)
dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,985 of 105,034. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39985 for what follows._

6 All. Dr. Dheeraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
169
obstruction created either by the Developer
or the petitioners is illegal and would
amount unauthorized encroachment. The
writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is
liable to be dismissed.

20.

With
the
aforesaid
observations/directions, the present writ
petition is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2021)06ILR A169
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 07.06.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Misc. Single No. 9735 of 2020
Alongwith
Misc. Single No. 4515 of 2020

Dr. Dheeraj Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Gaurav Mehrotra, Maria Fathima, Santosh
Kumar Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Abhishek Yadav, Archana Yadav, Atul
Dwivedi, Atul Kumar Dwivedi, Dr. L.P. Mishra,
Lalta Prasad Misra, Prabhat Kumar Mishra,
Sharad Pathak

(A) Civil Law - The Societies Registration
Act, 1860 - Section 4 - Annual list of
managing body to be filed, Section 4-A -
Changes etc. in rules to be intimated to
Registrar , Section 4-B - list of members of
General Body of that society shall be filed
with the Registrar - an individual member
is not authorized to take up the cause of
the Society unless he is so authorized.
(Para - 80)

 (B) Civil Law - The Societies Registration
Act, 1860 - Deputy Registrar - Authority -
powers conferred under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 - covered under the
Article 12 of the Constitution of India - all
its decisions are required to comply with
the doctrine of equality and fairplay
including granting of an opportunity of
hearing - order impugned does not reflect any
application of judicial mind nor it incorporates
any reasons in the order - any order which is
bereft of reasons cannot be sustained as it
violates the basis principles of equity and
fairplay - Held - Deputy Registrar has abdicated
its duties and the impugned order has been
passed without granting opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner(Dr. Dhiraj Singh) also it does
not refer to the entire facts and material before
the Authority concerned nor the effect and
implications of the material before it was
considered apart from the fact that the
impugned order is bereft of reasons and is liable
to be set aside. (Para - 110,114,117)

(C) The Societies Registration Act, 1860 -
byelaws of the Society - unless and until a
person is a subsisting valid and bonafide
member of a Arya Samaj in that district,
he cannot be a member of Arya Pratinidhi
Sabha
-
Deputy
Registrar
rejected
representation of petitioner (Devendra Pal
Verma) - petitioner could not establish that he
was a member of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha -
Held - as far as the merit of the order dated
02.11.2019 is concerned, the same does not
suffer from any error apparent on the face of
the record nor the finding recorded by the
Deputy Registrar in the said impugned order can
be termed to be perverse or the conclusion
arrived at is such that any prudent person could
not arrive at such a conclusion, hence, this
Court is not persuaded to intervene in the
matter.(Para -118,123,124,131)

Writ Petition (No. 9735 (MS) of 2020)
allowed.

Writ Petition ( No. 4515 (MS) of 2020)
dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Ayub Khan Noor Vs St.of Mah. , 2013 Vol. (4)
SCC 465.
170 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Umesh Chandra & anr. Vs Mahila Vidyalaya
Society , 2006 (24) LCD 1373.

3. Umesh Chandra & anr. Vs Mahila Vidyalaya
Society , 2006 (24) LCD 1373

4. Kalashi Das Shiksha Sansthan Vs Regisrar
Firms , 2013 (31) LCD 1102.

5. Jagdimbaka Prasad Pandey Vs St.of U.P. &
ors. , 2019 (8) ADJ 536

6. Banwari Lal Kanchal Vs Bhartendu Agarwal &
ors. , 2019 (12) ADJ 235 (DB) (LB)

7. Ratan Kumar Sirohi Vs St.of U.P. & ors. ,
2010 (1) ADJ 262

8. T.P. Singh (Enrol No. 2473) Senior AdvocateVs Registrar/Assistant Registrar Firms Societies
and Chits Aliarganj & 4 ors. , 2018 SCC Online
Alld 1927

9. Canara Bank Vs Debashish Das & ors. ,
(2003) 4 SCC 557

10. Prakash Ratan Sinha Vs St.of Bihar & ors. ,
(2009) 14 SCC 690

11. Nisha Devi Vs St.of H.P. & ors. , (2014) 16
SCC 392

12. M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs
St.of Mah. , AIR 2021 SC 1918

(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. These two writ petitions assail two
different orders passed by the Deputy
Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits,
Lucknow. The first Writ Petition bearing
No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 has been preferred
by Dr. Dhiraj Singh who claimed to be the
President of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Uttar
Pradesh and he has assails the validity of
the certain proceedings of an alleged
meeting said to have been held on
16.02.2020 wherein a No Confidence
Motion,
initiated
at
the
behest
of
respondent no. 4, is said to have been
successfully passed, as a consequence, the
petitioner has been removed from being the
President of the society and further the
Deputy
Registrar
by
means
of
the
impugned order dated 19.02,2020 has
approved and accepted the alleged minutes
of meeting tacitly and directed the
registration of a fresh list of members
submitted by the respondent no. 4. The
order dated 19.03.2020 and consequential
order dated 20.03.2020 are under challenge
in this writ petition.

3. The other writ petition No. 4515
(MS) of 2020 has been filed by Sri
Devendra Pal Verma, who claimed himself
to be the elected President of Arya
Pratinidhi Sabha, Uttar Pradesh, a society
registered under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. In an earlier round of litigation
the issue of membership of Devendra Pal
Verma was raised and the same was
directed to be decided by the Deputy
Registrar. In furtherance of the order
passed by this Court dated 30.07.2019 the
Deputy
Registrar
after
hearing
Sri
Devendra Pal Verma found that his
expulsion was in accordance with the byelaws of the Society and he declined to
interfere with the complaint/ representation
of Sri Verma. This order dated 02.11.2019
and
the
consequential
order
dated
07.11.2019 have been assailed by Sri
Verma in W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020.

3. Since the dispute in both the writ
petitions are linked by chronological events
and are in continuation of certain events
which were made the subject matter of
earlier petitions, hence, both the petitions
were heard together and are being decided
by this common judgment.

4. In order to appreciate the
controversy giving rise to the instant
6 All. Dr. Dheeraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
171
petitions, it will be necessary to notice
certain background events which also
includes
previous
litigation
for
comprehensive and clear understanding of
the facts and disputes involved in the
present petitions.

(A) Background Facts

5. Historically, Arya Samaj was
founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in
the year 1875 with the prime objective to
promote
social,
spiritual,
cultural
upliftment of the society. The aforesaid
Arya Samaj has a four tier composition
namely (i) Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidi
Sabha (ii) Pradeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha
(iii) Zila Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (iv) Arya
Samaj Units.

6. The Arya Pratinidh Sabha was
formed in the State of Uttar Pradesh on
03.07.1987 and was duly registered under
the provisions of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860. The Arya Pratinidh Sabha has
its own registered bye-laws which regulates
and governs the functioning of the Society.
The bye-laws also define the constitution of
the Arya Pratinidh Sabha and further
indicates the powers and duties of the
General Body, the Governing Body as well
as the office bearers of the Governing
Body. The registered office of Arya
Pratinidhi Sabha is situate at Narayan
Swami Ashram at 5 Meera Bai Marg,
Lucknow. The said Society has been
renewed from time to time and it was last
renewed on 10.10.2015 for a period of five
years.

7. There are approximately 300 units
of Arya Samaj spread over the various
districts within the State of Uttar Pradesh
which constitutes the electoral units of the
Arya Pratinidh Sabha to elect its general
body. It has been stated that at present that
there are approx 1300 members in the
General Body of the Society. The General
Body of the Arya Pratinidh Sabha elects its
own Governining body which is known as
'Antrang Sabha'. It is also stated that the
Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha at New
Delhi has its own rules which are known as
Rules-Sub Rules of Arya Samaj. The
aforesaid rules are binding over every Arya
Samaj Unit which is affiliated with the
Pradeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha.

8. It is in this backdrop where the
aforesaid society has an old existence and
covers various districts of the State of Uttar
Prdesh having large number of persons as
members who inturn elect and form its
Governing Body, hence, it becomes a
fertile ground for dissension and disputes
which occur and from time to time and
there has been several litigations, which has
invited the attention of various authorities
including the Courts relating to the Arya
Pratinidhi Sabhas.

9.

However,
for
the
present
controversy, it would be relevant to notice
that the last undisputed elections of the
Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, U.P. was held on
27.03.2016.
The
term
of
the
said
Committee or the Governing Body was 5
years and was to expire in the year 2021. In
the aforesaid election held on 27.03.2016, a
Governing Body of 90 members was
constituted wherein Sri Devendra Pal
Verma (the petitioner no. 2 in W.P. No.
4515 (MS) of 2020 was elected as the
President while Dr. Dheeraj Singh was
elected as Up Pradhan (Vice President),
who is the petitioner of W.P. No. 9735
(MS) of 2020.

10. Soon after the aforesaid elections
took place, on account of certain charges
172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
levelled against Sri Devendra Pal Verma,
the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and
Chits by means of his order dated
09.11.2016 restrained Sri Devendra Pal
Verma from performing his duties as the
President of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and by
the same order the charge of the President
was handed over to the petitioner of the
W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 Dr. Dhiraj
Singh.

11. Initially, Sri Devendra Pal Verma
assailed the said order before the High
Court at Allahabad. The High Court at
Allahabad finding that the petition was not
maintainable on account of lack of
territorial jurisdiction, hence, dismissed the
petition
by
means
of
order
dated
24.03.2017 passed in W.P. (C) No. 59067
of 2016 and liberty was granted to Sri
Devendra Pal Verma to approach the
appropriate Court at Lucknow.

12. It is thereafter that Sri Devendra
Pal Verma preferred a writ petition before
this Court at Lucknow bearing W.P. No.
10563 (MS) of 2017.

13. In the meantime, the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits passed an
order dated 16.01.2017 whereby the charge
which was given to Dr. Dhiraj Singh was
modified as a result the charge was now
directed to be given to Smt. Gayatri Dixit
(another Up Pradhan who was at serial No. 2).
It will be worthwhile to notice that as per the
bye-laws, the 90 members Committee of Arya
Pratinidh Sabha including 16 office bearers
comprises of one President, a Secretary, a
Treasurar, a Librarian, 5 Up Pradhans (Vice
President) and 5 Deputy Secretaries (Up
Mantri) and one female Up Pradhan and one
female Deputy Secretary and a female Assistant
Treasurar and an Assistant Librarian.

14. It is in this backdrop, Dr. Dhiraj
Singh preferred a Writ Petition bearing No.
1829 (MS) of 2017 wherein he assailed the
order dated 16.01.2017 bye means of which
the charge of the Pradhan which was given
to him was directed to be handed over now
to Smt. Gayatri Dixit.

15. During this period, another
interesting event took place, inasmuch as,
the General Body of the Arya Pratinidh
Sabha by means of its Resolution dated
26.03.2017 expelled Sri Devendra Pal
Verma from the post of as well as from the
membership of the Society for a period of 6
years for various irregularities and actions of
Sri Verma which were not in the interest of
the Society.

16. Sri Devendra Pal Verma preferred
a complaint before the Deputy Registrar,
Firms Societies and Chits against the said
Resolution dated 26.03.2017 regarding his
expulsion from the membership of the
Society upon which the Deputy Registrar by
means of its order dated 30.03.2017 stayed
the proceedings and the resolution dated
26.03.2017.

17. Dr. Dhiraj Singh preferred another
writ petition assailing the order passed by
the Deputy Registrar dated 30.03.2017
staying the resolution dated 26.03.2017 by
which Devendra Pal Verma was expelled,
by means of writ petition No. 7613 (MS) of
2017.

18. Again in a meeting of the
Governing Body held on 23.07.2017, the
petitioner Dr. Dhiraj Singh was elected as
Pradhan for the remaining term up to
26.03.2021 and in the same meeting the
membership of Smt. Gayatri Dixit was also
terminated on the ground that she was
6 All. Dr. Dheeraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
173
ineligible for membership in terms of
Clause 2 (e) (b) (1) and (2) of the bye-laws.

19. Smt. Gayatri Dixit also file a
complaint dated 25.07.2019 before the
Deputy Registrar against the decision
terminating her membership taken by the
Governing Body in the meeting held on
23.07.2017.

20. Thus, three writ petitions were
actively engaging the attention of this
Court relating to the disputes as mentioned
in the foregoing paragraphs.

21. All the three petitions bearing W.P.
No. No. 1829 (MS) of 2017, W.P. No. 10563
(MS) of 2017 and W.P. No. 7613 (MS) of
2017 were clubbed together and decided by
means of order dated 30.07.2019. As a result,
the orders impugned in the aforesaid three
writ petitions were set aside and the matter
was remitted to the Deputy Registrar, Firm
Socities and Chits to decide the matter afresh
and till such decisions, the parties were
directed to maintain status-quo. The relevant
portion of the said order dated 30.07.2019
passed by this Court on the three clubbed
petitions, is being reproduced hereinafter.

"4. So far as impugned orders dated
09.11.2016, 16.01.2017and 30.03.2017 are
concerned, counsels for both the parties
agree that the aforesaid order may be set
aside. However, the issue as to whether Sri
Devendra Pal Verma is entitled to hold any
post in the society or not be left to be
reproduced decided after decision of the
Deputy
Registrar
with
regard
to
reproduced membership.

5. In view of aforesaid, following
order is being passed:-

(i)
The
impugned
orders
dated
09.11.2016, 16.01.2017 and 30.03.2017 are
set aside.

(ii) All the parties may approach the
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Lucknow within a period of two week
from today raising all their submissions
including with regard to membership of Sri
Devendra Pal Verma and Smt. Gaytri
Dixit. The said matters shall be decided by
the Deputy Registrar by a reasoned and
speaking order, in accordance with law,
after hearing all the parties concerned,
within a period of two months from the date
a certified copy of this order is placed
before him.

(iii) It is provided that authority of Sri
Devendra Pal Verma to hold any post
including the post of president in the
society will depend upon the final order
passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Lucknow with regard
to membership.

(iv) Till final decision of the Deputy
Registrar, parties shall maintain statusquo.

6. With the aforesaid, all these writ
petitions are disposed of."

22. In furtherance and as per the
directions given by this Court in its
judgment dated 30.07.2019, the Deputy
Registrar called upon the parties concerned
to file their respective pleadings and
submissions.

23. While the matter was still pending
before the Deputy Registrar, in the
meantime, the elected Secretary of the
Society namley Swami Dharmeshwaranand
Saraswati expired on 23.10.2019.

24. Soon thereafter, the Deputy
Registrar after considering the submissions
and the pleadings of the respective parties
passed its final order dated 02.11.2019. By
means of the said order, the Deputy
Registrar, Firms Socities and Chits, did not
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
find any error in the Resolution expelling
Sri
Devendra
Pal
Verma
from
the
membership. It also noted that Smt. Gayatri
Dixit had already submitted that her
termination has already been recalled, thus,
no further adjudication was required on her
representation/complaint, hence, in effect
the order dated 02.11.2019 primarily
focussed on the issue of the expulsion of
Sri Devendra Pal Verma and the same was
upheld by the Deputy Registrar.

25. Sri Devendra Pal Verma assailed
the said order dated 02.11.2019 by means
of W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 which is
before
this
Court
at
present
under
adjudication.
He
also
assailed
the
consequential
order
dated
07.11.2019
whereby the list of office bearers as
submitted by Dr. Dhiraj Singh was
registered by the Deputy Registrar. Thus, it
would be seen that one arm of litigation
before this Court is in relation to the
expulsion of Devendra Pal Verma and the
validity of the order dated 02.11.2019 and
consequential registration of the list of
members vide order dated 07.11.2019
which is the subject matter of W.P. No.
4515 (MS) of 2020.

26. The controversy involved in W.P.
No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 filed by Dr. Dhiraj
Singh, orginates from the events mentioned
hereinafter.

27. As already noticed above, the
Secretary
namely
Swami
Dharmeshwaranand Saraswati had expired
on 23.10.2019 and as per the meeting of the
Society held on 23.07.2017 Dr. Dhiraj
Singh was elected as the President for the
remaining term. Thus, since this Court
while passing the order dated 30.07.2019 in
the connected 3 petitions had directed the
respective parties to maintain status-quo till
the decision was rendered by the Deputy
Registrar, Socities Chits and Funds, hence,
once the order dated 02.11.2019 was
passed, Dr. Dhiraj Singh in capacity as the
President had submitted a list of 90
members before the Deputy Registrar for
the year 2019-20 which was registered on
07.11.2019.

28. Dr. Dhiraj Singh in capacity as
President circulated an agenda calling for
the meeting of the Society to be conveyed
on 01.12.2019 primarily to fill up the post
of the Secretary of the Society which had
fallen vacant on account of death of Sri
Dharmeshwara Nand Saraswati.

29. The meeting of the Governing
Body was held on 01.12.2019, however, no
business was transacted and after offering
due condolences on account of demise of
late Sri Dharmeshwaranand Saraswati, the
meeting of the Governing Body was
adjourned for 15.12.2019.

30. In the meeting held on 15.12.2019
for the purposes of filling up the vacancy of
the Secretary, the names of the Deputy
Secretaties were discussed. Sri Vishal
Singh (respondent no. 4) in W.P. No. 9735
(MS) of 2020, his name was at Serial No. 1
amongst the Deputy Secretary and was
considered
first,
however,
certain
objections were raised and it was stated that
since Sri Vishal Singh was holding the post
of Medical Officer (District Tuberclosis
Officer) in District Jaunpur which is a
responsible post in the Government of
Uttar Pradesh, hence, as per Rule 16 of
Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Servant
Conduct Rules, 1956, the respondent no. 4
Vishal Singh was not suitable for being
appointed as the Secretary. The Society
also sought a legal opinion and thereafter
considering the various aspects, Sri Vishal
6 All. Dr. Dheeraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
175
Singh was not found suitable by the
majority. Thereafter the next eligible
Deputy Secretary namely Sri Gyanendra
Singh his candidature was discussed and by
majority he was found suitable and
nominated as the Secretary of the Society.

31. The nomination of Sri Gyanendra
Singh as Secretary of the Society was duly
ratified
by
the
other
office
bearers
including the Treasurar and the President.
The
said
Resolution
was
also
communicated to the Bank where the
Society held its accounts attesting the
signatures of Sri Gyanendra Singh. The
nomination of Sri Gyanendra Singh as
Secretary was also duly published in the
Hindi weekly newspaper "Arya Mitra"
published by the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha for
wide circulation and information to all
members and persons concerned.

32. On 28.12.2019, the petitioner Dr.
Dhiraj Singh also sent a copy of the
Minutes of the meeting dated 15.12.2019,
the agenda dated 05.11.2019 as well as
information regarding nomination of Sri
Gyanendra Singh as the Secretary of the
Society to the Deputy Registrar.

33. It is in this backdrop that Sri
Vishal Singh who himself was otherwise
present in the meeting dated 15.12.2019
and was well aware of the nomination of
Sri Gyanendra Singh as the Secretary of the
Society yet he made a representation before
the Deputy Registrar on 03.01.2020 raising
a question mark on the alleged meeting
dated 01.12.2019, 15.12.2019 as well as the
agenda dated 05.11.2019 issued by Dr.
Dhiraj Singh.

34.
 Sri
Vishal
Singh
in his
representation/complaint dated 03.01.2020
depicted
himself
as
the
Officiating
Secretary of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha. It
was alleged by him that though he was the
Deputy Secretary but upon the death of Sri
Dharmeshwaranand
Saraswati,
he
automatically
became
the
officiating
Secretary of the Society, hence, the entire
proceedings initiated by the meeting dated
01.12.2019, 15.12.2019 as well as the
Agenda dated 05.11.2019 issued by Dr.
Dhiraj Singh was unlawful and void.

35. Sri Vishal Singh also complained
to the Deputy Registrar that upon the death
of Sri Dharmeshwaranand Saraswati, the
post of Secretary was lying vacant and as
such directions be issued for calling upon a
meeting for filling up the post of the
Secretary in due accordance with the rules
and bye-laws of the Society.

36. Upon the representation/complaint
of Sri Vishal Singh, the Deputy Registrar
passed an order dated 09.01.2020 addressed
to Dr. Dhiraj Singh and directed him to call
for a meeting of the "Antrang Sabha" of
Arya Pratinidhi Sabha and fill the post of
Secretary in accordance with the bye-laws
and within 15 days inform the Deputy
Registrar of it.

37. Dr. Dhiraj Singh upon receiving
the said notice/order dated 09.01.2020
submitted a detailed reply before the
Deputy Registrar on 17.01.2020 informing
him of the entire exercise undertaken for
nominating the Secretary and that Sri
Gyanendra
Singh
had
already
been
appointed as the Secretary. It was also
informed that the minutes of the meeting
and other relevant documents were already
submitted before the Deputy Registrar on
28.12.2019. It was also stated that Sri
Vishal Singh who had attended the meeting
dated 15.12.2019 wherein his candidature
was considered but as the majority found
176 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
him unsuitable as he was holding a post
with the State Government, hence, all these
facts had been concealed by Sri Vishal
Singh and he has mislead the Deputy
Registrar to issue the said order dated
09.01.2020. In the aforesaid, it was prayed
that the order dated 09.01.2020 be recalled.

38. In this backdrop where there was
an attempt by Vishal Singh to disrupt of the
Governing Body, on 28.01.2020 it is
alleged that while the President Sri Dhiraj
Singh and Secretary Gyanendra Singh were
out of station, Sri Vishal Singh along with
7 -8 other persons forcibly dismantled the
nameplate of the Secretary affixed on the
office of the Secretary and interfered with
the functioning of the Society.

39. Sri Vishal Singh in his alleged
attempt to usurp control of the Society
moved another representation/complaint
before the Deputy Registrar alleging that
the meeting called by Dr. Dhiraj Singh as
President
on
01.12.2019,
15.12.2019,
02.02.2020 and 14.03.2020 were void and
impermisible and the same may not be
accepted or given effect to. Sri Vishal
Singh levelled various allegations against
Dr. Dhiraj Singh that few members and
office bearers had also filed affidavits
raising a no confidence motion against Dr.
Dhiraj Singh and a meeting of the
Governing Body be called, to be supervised
by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies
and Chits.

40. Once the Deputy Registrar
received complaint dated 31.01.2020, he
issued another letter to the petitioner Dr.
Dhiraj Singh on 01.02.2020 calling upon
Dr. Dhiraj Singh to submit his reply
(Annexure No. 23 with the writ petition
bearing No. 9735 (MS) of 2020).

41. It is further alleged by the
petitioner Sri Dhiraj Singh that in the
meeting dated 02.02.2020 vide Resolution
No. 11 Sri Vishal Singh was expelled from
the membership as well as from the post of
Deputy Secretary. It is further alleged that
Sri Vishal Singh did not challenge the said
decision dated 02.02.2020 regarding his
expulsion, however, in order to browbeat,
he issued an illegal agenda on 03.02.2020
while ante-dating the same to 30.01.2020
for convening a meeting on 16.02.2020 at
the head office of the Society at Lucknow
mainly for considering the No Confindence
Motion against the petitioner Dr. Dhiraj
Singh and also for filling up the vacancy
for the post of Secretary.

42. As in the alleged meeting dated
02.02.2020 the Governing Body of the
Society had expelled Sri Vishal Singh,
hence, Dr. Dhiraj Singh also sent another
amended list of members to the Deputy
Registrar on 05.02.2020. Sri Vishal Singh
by means of his letter dated 14.02.2020
addressed to the Registrar sought an
Observer for supervising the alleged
meeting
slated
for
16.02.2020.
The
Registrar, Firms Socities and Chits by
means of his order dated 14.02.2020 and
addressed
to
the
Assistant
Registrar
required the Assistant Registrar to do the
needful for appointing an Observer for the
meeting dated 16.02.2020. In furtherance
thereof the Deputy Registrar informed the
Registrar that as per his request from
Deputy
Registrar,
Faizabad,
Deputy
Registrar, Kanpur , Assistant Registar,
Azamgarh
and
Assistant
Registrar,
Gorakhpur anyone may be appointed as the
Observer.

43.

Accordingly,
the
Assistant
Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits,
Azamgarh was appointed as Observer
6 All. Dr. Dheeraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
177
under whose supervision the meeting dated
16.02.2020 was to be held.

44. It is this meeting dated 16.02.2020
which is in the eye of the storm. On one
hand it is the case of the petitioner Dr.
Dhiraj Singh that on the alleged date
16.02.2020 on account of commotion and
ruckus created by the members at the
behest of Sri Vishal Singh, the meeting
could not take place, so much so, that the
head office of the Society was locked by
the police and the Observer so appointed
also noticed the same while submitting its
report to the Registrar that no meeting was
held for the said reason.

45. On the other hand Sri Vishal
Singh stated that the meeting took place on
16.02.2020 and a resolution was passed by
means of which the President Dr. Dhiraj
Singh was removed as the No Confidence
Motion was passed successfully by the
members.

46. It is in furtherance thereof that the
alleged list of office bearers was submitted
by Sri Vishal Singh before the Deputy
Registrar on 17.03.2020 upon which the
Deputy Registrar passed an order dated
19.03.2020 directing the said list to be
registered.

47. It is this order dated 19.03.2020
which has been assailed by the petitioner
Dr. Dhiraj Singh in W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of
2020 as well as the consequential order
dated 20.03.2020 by means of which
amended list of office bearers of the
Governing Body of the Society has been
registered for the year 2019-20. Thus, in
light of the detailed facts noticed above the
two writ petitions have been heard together
and are being decided by this common
judgment.

(B) Submissions of learned counsel
for the parties.

48. The Court has heard Sri Gaurav
Mehrotra, learned counsel for the petitioner
in W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020. Sri
Abhishek Yadav, Advocate for Sri Vishal
Singh, the respondent no. 4, Sri Sharad
Pathak, learned counsel for Smt. Gayatri
Dixit, respondent no. 5 and Dr. L.P.
Mishra, learned Senior Counsel along with
Sri Atul Dwivedi for Arya Pratinidhi
Sabha, the respondent no. 7 as well as the
learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

Whereas in W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of
2020, the Court has heard Dr. L.P. Mishra
learned Senior Counsel along with Atul
Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for
Sri Dhiraj Singh, respondent no. 3 and the
learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents.

49. For the sake of convenience, the
submissions in both the writ petitions are
being noticed separately and W.P. No.
9735 (MS) of 2020 is being considered
first:-

(I) W.P. No. 9735 (MS) of 2020:-

50. Dr. L.P. Mishra and Sri Atul
Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for
Arya
Pratinidhi
Sabha
has
raised
preliminary
objections
regarding
the
maintainbility of the above petition.

51. Dr. Mishra has urged that the
petitioner Dhiraj Singh is neither a member
of the Society nor an office bearer and he
being a stranger is not entitled to file the
above petition. It has been urged that the
petitioner himself has stated that his
178 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
primary membership of Arya Samaj
(Baldeo
Ashram)
Khurja,
District
Bulandshahr has been cancelled. It is
further submitted that once the primary
membership of Dhiraj Singh having been
cancelled, he loses his right to remain as a
member of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha also
he has been removed from the post of
President
in
the
meeting
held
on
16.02.2020. Thus, the petitioner has no
locus to file the instant petition.

52. It is further submitted that Sri
Dhiraj Singh himself has filed a Suit
bearing R.S. No. 581 of 2020 before the
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khurja,
District
Bulandshahr
challenging
the
membeship
cancellation
order
dated
01.02.2020. In the said suit an order of
status-quo has been passed, thus, once the
membership of Sri Dhiraj Singh had been
cancelled and the order of status-quo had
been passed, accordingly, Sri Dhiraj Singh
cannot assail the same order in two
different forums and he having availed the
remedy of filing a suit now cannot
simultaneously maintain the above petition.

53. It is further stated that during the
pendency of the instant petition, Sri Dhiraj
Singh also moved an application before the
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Khurja, District
Bulandshahr and has withdrawn the suit No.
581 of 2020 which was dismissed as
withdrawn without seeking liberty to file
afresh by means of order dated 17.03.2021.
Moreover, in the instant petition there is no
challenge to the order dated 01.02.2020
regarding
cancellation
of
the
primary
membership of Dhiraj Singh, hence, in the
aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner Dhiraj
Singh is estopped and cannot challenge the
order dated 16.02.2020, accordingly, for all
the aforesaid reasons, the petition deserves to
be rejected. In respect of the aforesaid
submission, the learned counsel for the
respondent no. 7 relies upon the decision of
the Apex Court in the case of Ayub Khan
Noor Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in
2013 Vol. (4) SCC 465.

54. In furtherance of the aforesaid
submission, it has also been urged that an
individual member cannot maintain a writ
petition and to buttress his aforesaid
submissions, the learned counsel relies upon
a Division Bench decision of this Court in the
case of Umesh Chandra and Another Vs.
Mahila Vidyalaya Society reported in 2006
(24) LCD 1373.

55. It has also been urged by Dr. Mishra
that apart from the reasons mentioned above,
the writ petition is also not maintainable as
there is no resolution passed by the Society
authorising the petitioner Dr. Dhiraj Singh to
institute the above writ petition and for the
said reason, the petition is not maintainable.
In suport of his submission, he relies upon a
Division Bench decision of this Court in the
case of Umesh Chandra and Another Vs.
Mahila Vidyalaya Society reported in 2006
(24) LCD 1373. and also on a decision in the
case of Kalashi Das Shiksha Sansthan Vs.
Regisrar Firms reported in 2013 (31) LCD
1102.

56.

Apart
from
the
aforesaid
submissions,
Dr.
Mishra
has
further
submitted that since the petition involves
disputes questions of facts and Dr. Dhiraj
Singh has an alternate remedy of preferring
appropriate proceedings before the Civil
Court, hence, for availability of an alternate
remedy as well as the petition involving
disputed questions of fact, this petition is
not maintainable.

57. It has been submitted that during
the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the
6 All. Dr. Dheeraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
179
elections have been held on 21.03.2021,
consequently, the instant petition has been
rendered infrutuous and the petitioner
Dhiraj Singh if at all aggrieved has an
appropriate
remedy
of
assailing
the
elections in terms of Section 25 (1) of the
Socities Registration Act, 1860. Thus, for
all the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition
is not maintainable and is liable to be
rejected at the outset.

58. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned
counsel appearing for Sri Dhiraj Singh has
refuted the aforesaid arguments and has
submitted that the petitioner does have the
right to maintain the aforesaid petition. It
has been submitted that the petitioner is
individually and peronally aggrieved by the
proceedings dated 16.02.2020 by means of
which in a completely arbitrary and illegal
manner, the petitioner has been shown to
have been removed from the post of the
President.

59. It has been submitted that the
Deputy Registrar who is a functionary
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860
had been informed of the chronology of
events that transpired from time to time and
the petitioner had also submitted his
response as well as the representation
indicating clearly that the grounds upon
which Sri Vishal Singh, the respondent no.
4 had made complaints were completely
untenable yet the same was not considered.

60. The Deputy Registrar while passing
the impugned order dated 19.03.2020 has
abdicated his functions as the order has been
passed in an arbitrary fashion and is nonspeaking one even without noticing the entire
facts and has been passed without affording
any opportunity of hearing which has
rendered the order vulnerable to judicial
interference.

61. In the aforesaid circumstances, the
petitioner being aggrived does have a right to
assail the said order and in support of his
submissions the learned counsel has relied
upon the decision of this Court in the case of
Jagdimbaka Prasad Pandey Vs. State of
U.P. and Others reported in 2019 (8) ADJ
536. He has also relied upon a Division
Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Banwari Lal Kanchal Vs. Bhartendu
Agarwal and Others reported in 2019 (12)
ADJ 235 (DB) (LB).

62. Sri Mehrtora has further submitted
that as far as the order dated 01.02.2020
regarding
cancellation
of
the
primary
membership is concerned, the same is exfacie illegal. It has been submitted that the
alleged Authority namely Prantiya Nyay
Sabha who is said to have passed the order
has no authority or jurisdiction to do so. It has
been submitted that Rule 37 of the bye-laws
of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha deals with the
power and authority of the Prantiya Nyay
Sabha. Limited scope of the Authority is
exercised by the Prantiya Nyay Sabha and
unless and until a dispute which is envisaged
in terms of Rule 37 exists only such disputes
can be decided and any order which is
beyond the scope of Rule 37 of the bye-laws
amounts to an order being completely de-hors
of the said rule and is an exercise of power by
an authority which has none rendering such
an order completely non-est, void-ab-nitio
and for the said reason the said order has no
legal consequence and apparently it is liable
to be ignored.

63. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra further
submits that even the suit instituted by the
petitioner has been withdrawn as the
petitioner realised that the order dated
01.02.2020 passed by the alleged Prantiya
Nyay Sabha was non-est and without
jurisdiction. He further submits that the apex
180 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
body of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha i.e. Sarvadeshi
Arya Pratinidhi Sabha which has its office in
New Delhi and has framed the Rules and
Constitution for the Arya Samaj also
considering the matter issued a letter clearly
holding that the Nyay Sabha did not have the
jurisdiction or the Authority to remove a
person from the membership and thus in light
of the above, there was no purpose of keeping
the aforesaid suit pending before the Civil
Court, accordingly, in the aforesaid backdrop
of facts the said suit was withdrawn which in
any case cannot prevent the petitioner to
exercise
his
right
of
moving
the
Constittutional Court for redressal of his
grievance expecially where an order passed
by a quasi-judicial authority performing an
adjudicatory role is violative of Article 14 of
the Constitution of India and moreover, it has
evil consequence for the petitioner, hence,
such an order can be assailed and the
petitioner being aggrieved has a right to
maintain the above petition.

64. Sri Mehrotra has further submitted
that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar
dated 19.03.2020 is completely bereft of
reasons, it also does not consider the facts and
the material which was before the Authority
prior to taking the decisions and in any case it
is in gross violation of the provisions
especially the proviso contained in Section 4
and also of Section 4-B of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, and has been passed
without providing an opportunity of hearing
to the petitioner. Thus, for the aforesaid
reasons, neither the bar of alternate remedy
could come in the way of this Court to
entertain and consider the petition on merits
as the order is violative of principles of
natural justice and completely non-speaking.

65. Sri Mehrotra further submits that
there has been merely a bald allegation
regarding fresh elections having taken
place whereas there is no material or details
brought on record to substantiate the same.

66. Sri Mehrotra also submitted that
at the time when the aforesaid petition was
filed, this Court on 06.07.2019 had passed
a detailed order by means of which the
instant
petition
was
directed
to
be
connected with W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of
2020 and W.P. No. 7217 (MS) of 2020.

67. Significantly, it will be relevant to
mention here that two other writ petitions
bearing W.P. No 7217 (MS) of 2020 and
W.P. No. 12501 (MS) of 2020 were also
filed assailing the said order. Both the
aforesaid writ petitions were withdrawn by
the respecitve petitioners and were so
dismissed as withdrawn by the Court by
means of order dated 18.03.2021 and
23.03.2021 respectively.

68. From the perusal of the said order
dated 06.07.2019, it would indicate that the
preliminary objections urged at this stage
were also raised at that time. Considering
the aforesaid this Court had also directed
the Additional Chief Standing Counsel to
seek complete instructions and assist the
Court on the aforesaid issues whether the
petitioner (Dhiraj Singh) was heard before
passing the impugned order i.e. 19.03.2020.

69. Sri Mehrotra has further submitted
that on 09.07.2020, this Court has after
noticing the submissions of the respective
parties, issued notices to the private
respondents nos. 6 and 7 and also directed
the opposite party no. 3 i.e. the Deputy
Registrar to file the counter affidvit and
shall also give a reply to the query made in
the order dated 06.07.2019. It is further
submitted that despite the matter having
been listed on various occasions yet no
counter affidavit was filed by any of the
6 All. Dr. Dheeraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
181
contesting parties. Even on 03.12.2020
time was granted to the respondents to file
their counter affidavit but the same was not
filed.