# Gajraj Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 4 ILRA 348
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-08
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 58 of 2022
- **Bench:** Pritinker Diwaker, Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gajraj-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48329
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Sections 4-B & 25(2) - General
body of the society - Membership -
Modification in the member's list - Power
of Registrar, extent thereof - Scope of
enquiry by the Registrar u/s 4-B - Noninclusion of petitioner as a member -
Effect - Establishment of right as a
member of society - Jurisdiction of civil
court, when can be availed - Held, the
Registrar
in
order
to
examine
the
correctness of the list of members u/s 4-B
of the Act is only required to see the
inclusion and deletion of the members and
to modify the list accordingly. He is not
enjoined upon to go into the validity of the
list of members already finalized except
for deleting some of those members who
may have died or ceased to be the
members otherwise, which is not the case
at hand - Held further, appellant/ writ
petitioner is required to establish his
rights as a Member of the General Body of
the Society before the Civil Court and only
thereafter approach the Registrar under
Section 4-B of the Act. (Para 13 and 14)
Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

348 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

12. With the aforesaid observations/
directions this petition under Section 482
Cr.P.C. is disposed of.

13. The Registrar General of this
Court is also hereby directed to circulate
the order of this Court as well as circular
(C.L.
No.
3/Admin.
(G)/Dated
:
Allahabad: 162.2009) among all the
Judicial Offices of Uttar Pradesh, all the
revenue authorities of U.P. through
District Magistrates and D.G.P. of Uttar
Pradesh also directed to circulate the
order of this Court to all the Police
Stations of Uttar Pradesh for strict
compliance.
----------
(2022)04ILR A348
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE PRITINKER DIWAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 58 of 2022

Gajraj Singh ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Madan Mohan, Sri Prem Sagar Verma

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Sections 4-B & 25(2) - General
body of the society - Membership -
Modification in the member's list - Power
of Registrar, extent thereof - Scope of
enquiry by the Registrar u/s 4-B - Noninclusion of petitioner as a member -
Effect - Establishment of right as a
member of society - Jurisdiction of civil
court, when can be availed - Held, the
Registrar
in
order
to
examine
the
correctness of the list of members u/s 4-B
of the Act is only required to see the
inclusion and deletion of the members and
to modify the list accordingly. He is not
enjoined upon to go into the validity of the
list of members already finalized except
for deleting some of those members who
may have died or ceased to be the
members otherwise, which is not the case
at hand - Held further, appellant/ writ
petitioner is required to establish his
rights as a Member of the General Body of
the Society before the Civil Court and only
thereafter approach the Registrar under
Section 4-B of the Act. (Para 13 and 14)
Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. T.P. Singh Vs Registrar/Asst. Registrar, Firms
Societies & Chits, Teliyarganj & ors.; 2018 (11)
ADJ 586
(Delivered by Hon'ble Pritinker Diwaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava, J.)

1. This intra Court Appeal under the
Rules of the Court has been filed questioning
the order of the learned Single Judge dated
20.01.2022 passed in Writ-C No.771 of 2022
(Gajraj Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others)
whereby the second prayer pressed i.e. to
issue Mandamus to the second respondent to
consider and decide the objections of the
appellant/writ petitioner dated 16.11.2021
and 30.11.2021 before finalizing the list of
members of the General Body of the Society
in question and holding the elections u/s
25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860,
has been declined leaving it open for the
appellant/writ petitioner to ventilate his
grievances at the appropriate stage before the
appropriate forum.

2. The record reveals that the
registration of the society in question had
4 All. Gajraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
349
been renewed till 10.10.2013. The Sub
Registrar, respondent No.2, while considering
the rival claims for renewal of the registration
of the Society came to the conclusion that no
elections of the Committee of Management
of the Society had been conducted and there
were no valid members of the General Body
of the Society amongst whom the elections
could be held. The Sub Registrar vide order
dated
09.09.2021
required
the
alive
members/office bearers who had signed the
list of office bearers at the time of registration
to undertake the task of enrolling new
members by making publication in the daily
news
papers.
Pursuant
thereto,
an
advertisement is alleged to have been
published in the News Daily "Dainik Jagran"
New Delhi edition on 21.09.2021. The
appellant/writ petitioner is stated to have
applied for life membership of the Society. A
total of 967 applications so received were
found in order and the applicants were
inducted as members and the list of such
inducted members was forwarded to the
office of the Sub Registrar, Meerut. The other
applications including the application of the
appellant/writ petitioner were found defective
and accordingly rejected by the Committee of
Management in its special meeting held on
31.10.2021.
The
rejection
has
been
communicated to the appellant/writ petitioner
vide communication dated 15.11.2021 of the
respondent No.2 requiring him to take back
the 1070 forms submitted.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop the
appellant/writ petitioner is stated to have
filed the objections dated 16.11.2021 and
30.11.2021 and prayed for decision on the
same.

4. It is vehemently contended by the
counsel for the appellant that the prayer
for decision on the pending objections
was liable to the considered but the
learned Single Judge committed grave
error in declining the said relief. The
appellant/writ petitioner could not be
termed a 'stranger' in the circumstances
so as to refuse the relief prayed for. It is
contended that the respondent No.2, Sub
Registrar, was under obligation to decide
the objections in exercise of the statutory
power conferred upon him u/s 4-B of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. Since
the objections were not being decided
which the Sub-Registrar was duty bound
to decide, a writ of Mandamus lay but the
learned Single Judge has proceeded to
hold otherwise. Reliance has been placed
upon a decision of a coordinate Bench
rendered in Writ Petition No. 58426 of
2017 (T.P. Singh vs. Registrar/Asst.
Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits,
Teliyarganj and others) decided on
10.10.2018 and reported in 2018 (11)
ADJ 586.

5. We have heard learned counsel for
the parties and have perused the record.

6. Much emphasis has been laid by
learned counsel for the appellant/writ
petitioner upon Section 4-B of Societies
Registration Act, 1860, as applicable to the
State of U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the
'Act'), inserted by U.P. Act No.23 of 2013
which reads as under:-

"4-B
(1)
At
the
time
of
registration/renewal of a society, list of
members of General Bodyof 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
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
account of induction, removal, resignation
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.

(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."

7. The above quoted Section 4-B was
inserted by the legislature realising that
there was no provision of filing of list of
General Body of Society and a large
number of disputes in Societies arose due
to non existence of correct list of General
Bodies with the Registrar. It was noticed
that in several cases an illegal person
fraudulently produced before the Registrar
incorrect list of General Body of Society
and claimed to be member and office
bearer of the Society.

8. A list of members of the General
Body of the Society has to be filed at the
time of registration or renewal of Society.
List must mention names, father's name,
address and occupation of members.
Registrar is under a statutory obligation
to examine correctness of list of members
of the General Body of such Society on
the basis of register of members of
General Body and minutes thereof, cash
book, receipt book of membership fee
and bank pass book of the society.
Apparently,
it
shows
that
members
included in the list, whether included
correctly, has to be examined by the
Registrar. If a member is not included in
the list, whether such non inclusion also
can be examined by Registrar is not very
clear from Section 4-B(1) of the Act, but
this is made clear by sub-section (2)
which says that if there is any change of
list of members of General Body of
Society referred to in sub-section (1) on
account
of
induction,
removal,
resignation or death of any member, a
modified list of members of General
Body shall be filed with Registrar within
one month from date of change.

9. A plain reading of the above
provision shows that at the time of
registration or renewal, a list of members
of General body of Society has to be filed
before the Registrar. Thereafter whenever
there is any change in the said list, same
has to be informed to Registrar by
submitting a modified list of members of
General Body. When such a modified list
is submitted to Registrar he is under an
obligation to examine the correctness of
list of members of General Body as
contemplated
under
sub-section
(1),
change having arisen on account of
induction, removal, resignation or death
of any member.

10. The extent of authority of the
Registrar to undertake such examination
i.e. whether an indepth examination which
may be termed as adjudication of dispute or
whether a summary enquiry subject to
adjudication of dispute by a Court of law
came to be examined by a coordinate
Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.
58426
of
2017
(T.P.
Singh
vs.
Registrar/Asst. Registrar, Firm Societies
and Chits, Teliyarganj & others) reported
in 2018 (11) ADJ 586. The said decision
has been relied upon by the appellant/writ
petitioner. This Court examined various
judicial precedents on the scope of enquiry
4 All. Gajraj Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
351
by Registrar under Section 4-B of the Act
and concluded as under:-

(a) The scope of enquiry by
Registrar is to see validity of enrollment of
members on the basis of documents
referred in Section 4-B and to ensure that
outsiders may not be able to control the
affairs of Society on the basis of fake
documents.

(b) The Registrar is not supposed
to
make
adjudication of
dispute
of
correctness of membership like a court but
whenever a list is submitted or there is any
change in the list of members and any
objection is raised or otherwise, Registrar
has to prima facie satisfy himself that
change has been made in accordance with
provisions of bye laws and prima facie
genuine. For this purpose the Registrar
may examine agenda, minutes of meeting
and other relevant steps take by the Society.
To this extent an enquiry can be made by
Registrar to find out whether list of
members or change in list of members is
correct or not.

(c) The Registrar is obliged to
examine the question of correctness of
alteration or change or modification in the
list of members when an objection is taken.
Cancellation/termination/removal
of
membership is a mode of alteration of list
of members which can be examined by
Registrar. Documents which are supposed
to be furnished to Registrar are also
specifically mentioned and from those
documents whatever facts discern may be
seen to find out whether Society in a bona
fide manner has followed its own procedure
laid down in the bye laws.

11. The claim of the appellant/writ
petitioner regarding the membership of the
Society in question along with 1070 other
applications has been rejected by the
Special Meeting of the Society convened
on 31.10.2021 for approving/disapproving
the induction of new members. The
proceedings of the Meeting held on
31.10.2021 which are on record as
Annexure -8 reveal that applications for
membership
were
invited
between
23.09.2021 upto 01.10.2021. Out of the
applications so received a total of 967
applications were scrutinized in terms of
the order dated 9.9.2021 of Registrar and
found in order in meeting of the Society
held on 2.10.2021 whereafter the 967 were
inducted as members of the society. The list
of members was forwarded to the office of
Registrar, Meerut on 6.10.2021. Now, the
office of the Registrar vide letter dated
12.10.2021 has intimated to collect 1070
forms received in the office on any working
day. The 1070 forms were collected in five
bundles, processed and found incomplete
and consequently rejected. The findings of
the
Meeting
dated
31.10.2021
is
reproduced below:-

"और
अब
पांच
बिलों
में
अिस्ताक्षररत सूच़ी के सार्थ कायाालय को
आवेदन फामा सकसके द्वारा सदये गए िैं, सजसक़ी
रसजस्ट्रार कायाालय में प्राण्डि ि़ी नि़ीं िैंA सफर ि़ी
रसजस्ट्रार
कायाालय
के
आदेश
सदनांक
12.10.2021 के अनुपालन में इस पर अपने
सवचार रिते हुए ससमसत के आज़ीवन सदस्य श्ऱी
बंश़ी ससंि ज़ी ने किा सक इन पांचों बिलों के
फामों क़ी अलग-अलग गणना कर ल़ी जायें A
इसके पिात ि़ी एक-एक फामा क़ी जांच क़ी
जाये A पांचों बिलों को िमवार िोला गया तो
पिले बिल में 199, दूसरे बिल में 167,
त़ीसरे बिल में 242, चौर्थे बिल में 185 तर्था
पांचवे बिल में 259, आवेदन फामा प्राि हुए,
पांचों बिलों में कुल 1052 आवेदन फामा हुये A
सफर एक-एक फामा क़ी जांच क़ी गय़ी, सजसमें
सि़ी फामा रसजस्ट्रार कायाालय के आदेश सदनांक
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
09.09.2021 के मानक के अनुसार अपूणा पाये
गये A सजस कारण इनक़ी सदस्यता स्व़ीकार नि़ीं
क़ी जा सकता इस पर काफ़ी सवचार-सवमशा
करने के पिात सिा द्वारा आवेदन पत्रों को
अस्व़ीकृसत देते हुए प्रस्ताव सवासम्मसत से पाररत
कर सदया गया A और सिा में यि ि़ी सनणाय
सलया गया क़ी िमने सदनांक 02.10.2021क़ी
बैठक में सजन 967 सदस्यों को सदस्यता ग्रिण
कराकर पत्रावल़ी रसजस्ट्रार कायाालय में सदनांक
06.10.2021 को प्राि करा द़ी र्थ़ीA उस पर कृत
कायावाि़ी के सलए रसजस्ट्रार कायाालय मेरठ से
सम्पका करके ससमसत के चुनाव कराने क़ी
असग्रम कायावाि़ी सकये जाने िेतु श्ऱी रणव़ीर ससंि
ज़ी को असधकृत सकया गया A"

12. The appellant/writ petitioner has
not challenged the above resolution of the
society.
He,
however,
has
preferred
objections
dated
16.11.2021
and
30.11.2021 before the Registrar. By way of
the objections the relief of recall of the
order dated 15.11.2021 by which the 1070
forms were returned and compliance of
order dated 09.09.2021 has been sought.

13. Having examined the extent of
the power of the Registrar under Section
4-B of the Act, we find that the list of
members has been finalized and the same
has been sent to the office of the
Registrar on 06.10.2021. The Registrar in
order to examine the correctness of the
list of members under Section 4-B of the
Act is only required to see the inclusion
and deletion of the members and to
modify the list accordingly. He is not
enjoined upon to go into the validity of
the list of members already finalized
except for deleting some of those
members who may have died or ceased to
be the members otherwise, which is not
the case at hand. The claim of the
appellant/writ petitioner that he along
with the 1070 applicants have been
denied the membership of the Society
cannot be gone into summarily and would
require appropriate examination after oral
and documentary evidences are led by the
parties in a Civil Suit.

14. The reliance placed by the
appellant/writ petitioner on the decision
rendered in Writ Petition No. 58426 of
2017 (supra) is misplaced in as much as
in the said case the membership of the
petitioner therein was terminated which
resulted in change in the list of members
of the Society. Since the petitioner therein
had been removed from membership of
General Body of the Society without
following procedure laid down in the bye
laws, this Court held that it was within
the domain of the Assistant Registrar to
consider the objections of the petitioner
therein in exercise of powers under
Section 4-B of the Act. This is not the
case here as the appellant/writ petitioner
has not been inducted as a member of the
General Body of the Society. In our
opinion the appellant/ writ petitioner is
required to establish his rights as a
Member of the General Body of the
Society before the Civil Court and only
thereafter approach the Registrar under
Section 4-B of the Act.

15. The learned Single Judge has
rightly observed that for issuance of a writ
of mandamus pre-existing statutory duty
must be shown to exist and failure to
discharge such statutory duty must also be
shown to exist. That stage has yet not
come.

16. Accordingly, no interference is
warranted in the impugned decision of the
learned Single Judge. The Special Appeal
lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
4 All. Dr. J.S. Yadav Vs. Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay & Ors.
353
----------
(2022)04ILR A353
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 27.04.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL,C.J.
HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Special Appeal No. 110 of 2022
(Arising out of Contempt Petition No. 716 of
2004)

Dr. J.S. Yadav ...Appellant
Versus
Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Mr. Amit Bose, Senior Advocate with Mr
Abhishek Bose, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vishal Kumar Upadhyay

A. Contempt of Court Act, 1971 - Sections
12 & 20 - Order could not be complied with,
however an order dismissing the contempt
proceeding as it become infructuous was
passed- An application to recall this order
was filed - Maintainability of application
challenged - Jurisdiction of contempt court,
extent thereof - Order dismissing contempt
as infructuous was recalled - Validity
challenged - Held, the learned Single Judge
rightly passed the order dated 02.12.2021
Ex-debito justitiae. The inherent powers of
the Court can very well be utilized to undo a
wrong and ensure that the path of justice
remains un-polluted and the orders passed
by it are taken to its logical conclusion,
which in turn reinforces the faith of the
public. (Para 34)
B. Constitution of India - Article 215 -
Plenary jurisdiction - Court of record -
Power of High Court to punish for contempt.
Extent of - Source explained - Held, High
Court is a court of plenary jurisdiction. The
High Court being the court of record has the
power to punish for contempt under Article
215 of the Constitution of India. A court of
record being a court of superior jurisdiction
is entitled to consider the question of its
own jurisdiction raised before it. Article 215
specifically confers upon the Court of record
such powers including the power to punish
for contempt of itself. (Para 20)
C. Practice and procedure - Order passed by
the Court of law, compliance thereof -
Liability not to leave any order to become a
futile order - Public faith in judicial system,
liability to maintain it - Held, the Courts of
law do not pass futile orders- Once an order
is passed, the same is binding on the parties
and must be capable of being executed and
complied with - The orders passed by the
Court have to be taken to their logical
conclusion so that the faith of the public at
large remains intact and the orders of the
Court are not to be taken lightly by those
who are bound to comply with the same.
(Para 23)
D. Maxim 'Actus Curiae neminem gravabit'
- Meaning and scope - It means that the
act of the Court shall prejudice no man -
The High Court being a court of record by
its very constitution and composition is
invested with inherent powers. All courts
are vested with inherent powers to undo a
wrong which may have occurred on
account of a mistake of the Court causing
prejudice to a party. (Para 25)
Special Appeal dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. State Vs Baldev Raj; 1991 SCC Online
(Allahabad)1070;
2. Durga Nagpal Vs Committee of Management,
Patronage Institute of Management Studies &
ors.; 2013 SCC Online All 13298
3.
Mahavir
Prasad
Verma
Vs
Central
AdministrativeTribunal, Lucknow & ors.; 2013
SCC Online All13904
4. South Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs St. of M.P.;
(2003) 8 SCC 648