# Garden View Owners Welfare Assc. Thru Secy. & Anr v. The Dy. Registrar Firms Societies & Chits Lko. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 10 ILRA 273
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-10-15
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 1001034 of 2015
- **Bench:** Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/garden-view-owners-welfare-assc-thru-secy-anr-v-the-dy-registrar-firms-51171
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C., Mukund Tewari, Sabita Lahiri, Vijai
Krishna

(A) Societies and Associations Law -
Membership
of
Apartment
Owners
Association - Societies Registration Act,
1860
-
Section
24,
Uttar
Pradesh
Apartment (Promotion of Construction,
Ownership, and Maintenance) Act, 2010 -
Section 3(e), Section 14(1) & (2) - All
apartment owners have a statutory right
to become members of the apartment
owners' association under Section 14 of
the U.P. Apartment Act - Deputy Registrar
has jurisdiction to direct compliance with
statutory
provisions
regarding
membership - Ownership of flats for the
purpose of membership of the society is to
be determined only on the basis of proof
of execution of sale deed of the flat, which
can
easily
be
done
by
the
Deputy
Registrar.
(Para - 20 to 24)

Petitioners challenged order passed by Deputy
Registrar - directing that all flat owners be
inducted as members of Garden View Owners
Welfare Association - deposit maintenance
amount in the society's account - dispute arose
after complaints from flat owners - alleging -
mismanagement
and
exclusion
from
membership. (Para 3-8)

HELD: - Petition lacks merit. All apartment owners
in the building have a statutory right to become
members of the welfare association. Deputy
Registrar acted within his jurisdiction. No illegality
in the impugned order. (Para 22,28-29)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

10 All. Garden View Owners Welfare Assn. Thru. Secy & Anr. Vs. The Dy. Registrar Firms
 Socities & Chits Lko. & Ors.
273
26. The subject matter relating to
revision of maps and records has been
placed under a separate chapter, namely,
Chapter IV of the Land Revenue Act. Upon
notification being published by the State
Government under Section 48, in respect of
any area which is to be brought under
record operations, the State Government
may appoint a Record Officer to be in
charge of the record operations or the
survey for the area and also Assistant
Record Officers, who shall exercise all the
powers conferred on them by the Act so
long as the said area is under record or
survey operations.

27. The scheme of the Act with
regard to revision of maps and records as
contained under Chapter IV of the Land
Revenue Act, does not contemplate any
control over the record operations by the
Divisional Commissioner. Under Section
49, it is the Record Officer appointed by
the State Government who is in charge of
the record operations so long as the area is
under the record or the survey operations
upon notification having been issued under
Section 48.

28. The order passed by the
Assistant Record Officer in an appeal under
sub-rule (3) of Rule 27 of the Survey Rules,
1978, against an order of the Survey Naib
Tahsildar under sub-rule (1) of Rule 26,
would therefore be subject to a revision to
be filed before the Record Officer, and not
the Commissioner, under the revisional
jurisdiction conferred under Section 219 of
the Land Revenue Act.

29. The order dated 02.06.2023
passed by the Additional Commissioner,
holding that a revision against an order
passed by the Assistant Record Officer
under Rule 27(3) of the Survey Rules,
would not be entertainable, before the court
of Commissioner, therefore cannot be said
to suffer from any error or illegality so as to
warrant interference.

30. Counsel appearing for the
petitioner has not been able to dispute the
aforesaid legal position.

31. Accordingly, learned counsel
submits that he does not wish to press the
petition and that the petitioner would seek
redressal of his grievances against the order
dated 25.05.2022, passed by the Assistant
Record Officer, by availing the remedy of a
statutory
revision
before
the
Record
Officer.

32. The petition stands disposed of
accordingly.

33. Office to return the certified
copy(ies) of the order(s) to the counsel for
the petitioner after retaining photostat
copy(ies) of the same.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 273
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ-C No. 1001034 of 2015

Garden View Owners Welfare Assc. Thru
Secy. & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Dy. Registrar Firms Societies & Chits
Lko. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ankit Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C., Mukund Tewari, Sabita Lahiri, Vijai
Krishna

(A) Societies and Associations Law -
Membership
of
Apartment
Owners
Association - Societies Registration Act,
1860
-
Section
24,
Uttar
Pradesh
Apartment (Promotion of Construction,
Ownership, and Maintenance) Act, 2010 -
Section 3(e), Section 14(1) & (2) - All
apartment owners have a statutory right
to become members of the apartment
owners' association under Section 14 of
the U.P. Apartment Act - Deputy Registrar
has jurisdiction to direct compliance with
statutory
provisions
regarding
membership - Ownership of flats for the
purpose of membership of the society is to
be determined only on the basis of proof
of execution of sale deed of the flat, which
can
easily
be
done
by
the
Deputy
Registrar.
(Para - 20 to 24)

Petitioners challenged order passed by Deputy
Registrar - directing that all flat owners be
inducted as members of Garden View Owners
Welfare Association - deposit maintenance
amount in the society's account - dispute arose
after complaints from flat owners - alleging -
mismanagement
and
exclusion
from
membership. (Para 3-8)

HELD: - Petition lacks merit. All apartment owners
in the building have a statutory right to become
members of the welfare association. Deputy
Registrar acted within his jurisdiction. No illegality
in the impugned order. (Para 22,28-29)

Petition dismissed. (E-7)
List of Cases cited:
1. U.O.I. & ors. Vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur, (2006)
11 SCC 696
2. Maharashtra Shikshan Mandal & ors. Vs St. of
U.P. & ors, 2016 (114) ALR 452
3. Board of Trustee of the Shia College and the
School & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors, 2015 (33)
LCD 1989
4. Amin Khan Vs St. of U.P., 2008 (26) LCD
1453

(Delivered by Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ankit Srivastava, the
learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri
Laxmi Mohan Khare, the learned Standing
Counsel for the State, Sri Vijai Krishna, the
learned counsel for the opposite parties
no.2 and 3 and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition
filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, the petitioner no.1 - Garden View
Owners Welfare Association and petitioner
no.2 - Sri. Sudhir S. Halwasiya, Secretary,
Garden View Owners Welfare Association,
have sought quashing of an order dated
06.02.2015,
passed
by
the
Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow, whereby the
petitioner no.2 has been directed to make
all the flat owners of Garden View
Apartments, 8 Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow
members of the petitioner no.1 association,
which is a society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. The flat
owners, who have not paid the membership
fee or annual subscription were directed to
deposit the same in the society's account
within one month. The petitioner no.2 has
been directed to deposit the one time
maintenance amount charged at the time of
execution of sale deeds of apartment in the
bank account of the society.

3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case
are that the petitioner no.2 along with M/s
Halwasiya Properties Private Limited had
developed a multi storied residential
building called 'Garden View Apartments',
8, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow. A Welfare
Association/Society called 'Garden View
Owners Welfare Association' was created
10 All. Garden View Owners Welfare Assn. Thru. Secy & Anr. Vs. The Dy. Registrar Firms
 Socities & Chits Lko. & Ors.
275
by the builder for maintenance of the
building and the society was registered in
the year 1999-2000. Its registration was
renewed from time to time and it expired in
October, 2009. An application for renewal
of registration of the society was filed on
30.06.2014. On 09.07.2014, the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow sent a letter
informing
the
petitioners
that
the
registration of the society was being
renewed subject to submission of certain
requisite papers mentioned in the letter.

4. It has been stated in para 11 of the
writ petition that while the matter of
renewal of the society was yet to be
finalized and the renewal certificate was
yet to be issued, the opposite parties no.2
and 3, who are merely occupants of two
flats in Garden View Apartments and who
are not members of Garden View Owners
Welfare Association, submitted a complaint
before the Deputy Registrar. However, the
copy of the complaint enclosed with the
letter dated 08.09.2014 sent by the Deputy
Registrar to the petitioner no.2 shows that
this complaint was submitted by as many as
8 complainants, including the opposite
parties
no.2
and
3.
The
other
6
complainants have not been arrayed as
opposite parties to the writ petition. The
complaints inter alia stated that the
petitioner no.2 does not reside in Flat
No.801, Garden View Apartment. Flat
No.801 has been constructed by the builder
illegally and it is not a part of the building
plan
sanctioned
by
the
Lucknow
Development Authority. The place where
Flat No.801 has been constructed has been
shown in the sanctioned building plan as
parking area. The flat owners' association
is not complying with its statutory
obligations and is neglecting maintenance
of the building. No meeting of the society
is held and no notice thereof is sent to the
flat owners. No accounts are placed before
the members of the society and no approval
for expenditure is taken from the members.

5. A copy of the aforesaid complaint
was sent to the petitioner no.2 along with
the letter dated 08.09.2014 sent by the
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Lucknow Division, Lucknow for
giving
an
opportunity
to
submit
a
reply/explanation against the complaint.
The petitioner no.2 was further directed to
produce the membership receipt and other
relevant evidence and to submit point wise
explanation on the complaint submitted by
the 8 complainants.

6. In reply to the aforesaid notice
dated 08.09.2014, the petitioner no.1-
Garden View Owners Welfare Association
through
its
Secretary-petitioner
no.2,
submitted a reply dated 17.11.2014 to the
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits stating that Sri Govind Prasad Laath
(the opposite party no. 3) and Sri Gaurav
Laath, son of Sri Govind Prasad Laath are
not members of Garden View Owners
Welfare Association. Sri S.K. Gupta (the
opposite party no. 2) is also not a member
of the association. Smt. Varsha Chatlani is
a member of the association but she has not
given any written complaint about any
alleged irregularities being committed by
the association. Smt. Shalini Srivastava is
not a member of the association. The
association does not have any record
concerning B.K.B. Engineering Pvt. Ltd.
purported owner of Flat No.502 and he is
not a member of the association. Sri
Jamshed Khan is also not a member of the
association.

7. The petitioners stated that except
for Smt. Varsha Chatlani, none of the
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complainants are the members of the
association and they have no locus-standi
to submit any complaint to the Deputy
Registrar. The petitioners further stated that
as per the provisions contained in Societies
Registration Act, 1860, in case any
members of the society have any grievance,
they should first give a written intimation
regarding the same to the office bearers of
the society and in case the authority/office
bearers failed to redress their grievance,
only then they can submit a complaint to
the Deputy Registrar. The petitioners did
not give any reply to the allegations leveled
in the complaint and they only raised
objection against the entertainability of the
complaint.

8. After taking into consideration the
complaint and the reply submitted by the
petitioners the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Lucknow Division,
Lucknow has passed the impugned order
dated 06.02.2015, whereby the petitioner
no.2 has been directed to induct all the flat
owners as members of the petitioner no.1
society
and
to
deposit
the
entire
maintenance amount charged from the flat
owners at the time of execution of the sale
deed, in the account of the petitioner no.1society.

9. It is also mentioned in the
impugned order dated 06.02.2015 that the
petitioner no.2 has submitted that several
flat owners had acted against the interests
of the society and their membership had
been terminated for the reason of violation
of rules of the society and failure to pay
annual maintenance amount.

10. The opposite party no. 1 - State of
U.P. has filed a counter affidavit and the
opposite parties no. 2 and 3 also have filed
a counter affidavit. The opposite party no. 1
has inter alia pleaded in its counter affidavit
that on 10.04.2015, 15 flat owners of
Garden View Apartments have given an
application
to
the
Deputy
Registrar
requesting for compliance of the order
dated 06.02.2015. It has also been pleaded
that another society in the name of "G. B.
Apartment Owners Association" has been
registered and there is no prohibition in law
against
registration
of
two
different
societies in two different names.

11. In the counter affidavit filed on
behalf of the opposite parties no. 2 and 3, a
preliminary objection has been raised that
the Writ Petition suffers from the defect of
non-joinder of necessary parties, which has
been denied by the petitioner in his
rejoinder affidavit.

12. While assailing the validity of the
aforesaid order, Sri Ankit Srivastava, the
learned counsel for the petitioners, has
submitted that the petitioner no.2 had not
submitted that several flat owners had acted
against the interest of the society and their
membership had been terminated for the
reason of violation of rules of the society
and failure to pay annual maintenance
amount and this narration made in the
impugned order is incorrect.

13. There is always a presumption
about correctness of the narration of
happenings in the Court made in a judicial
order and this presumption will also apply
to the orders passed by the quasi judicial
authorities.
In
exercise
of
its
Writ
jurisdiction, this Court cannot adjudicate
upon the disputed question of fact as to
whether the aforesaid submission was made
by the learned Counsel for the petitioners
or not. In any case, even if the plea had not
been raised by the petitioners, a mere
wrong mention thereof would not vitiate
10 All. Garden View Owners Welfare Assn. Thru. Secy & Anr. Vs. The Dy. Registrar Firms
 Socities & Chits Lko. & Ors.
277
the impugned order when this plea has not
formed the basis of passing of the
impugned order.

14. The second submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners is that
the
petitioners
had
raised
objections
regarding entertainability of the complaint
on the ground that the complainants are not
members of the society. It was incumbent
upon the Deputy Registrar to decide the
objection against the maintainability first
and only thereafter the aforesaid authority
could have proceeded to entertain the
complaint. In support of this contention the
learned counsel for the petitioners has
relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Union of
India and others Vs. Ranbir Singh
Rathaur: (2006) 11 SCC 696. In that case,
while allowing the appeal filed against an
order passed by the Delhi High Court, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Delhi
High Court had not dealt with the matter in
proper perspective and it would be proper
for the High Court to rehear the matter.
While remanding the matter the Hon'ble
Supreme Court directed the Delhi High
Court to decide the preliminary objection
raised
by
the
appellant
about
nonmaintainability of the writ petition before
proceeding to deal with any other question.
However, even while issuing the aforesaid
direction, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
categorically observed that normally such a
course is not to be adopted, but in view of
the peculiar facts involved in that case, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court felt it proper to
direct the High Court to decide the
preliminary
objection
regarding
maintainability first. Therefore, even as per
the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Ranbir Singh
Rathaur (Supra) normally there is no
necessity for deciding the question of
maintainability before proceeding to decide
the other questions.

15.

Moreover,
the
aforesaid
observations were made by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the light of the question
of maintainability of a writ petition
regarding which there are well established
principles e.g. a writ petition will not be
maintainable where there is a statutory
remedy available or it suffers from gross
unexplained latches or the dispute involved
falls within realm of private dispute or
there are disputed questions of fact etc. The
aforesaid
principle
regarding
maintainability of the writ petition would
not apply to the entertainability of an
objection filed before the Deputy Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow
Division, Lucknow.

16. The learned counsel for the
petitioners
thirdly
submitted
that the
complainants
have
no
legally
enforceable right of becoming members of
the petitioner no.1-society and, therefore,
the Deputy Registrar has no jurisdiction to
pass any such direction to the petitioners.
In support of this contention, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a
decision rendered by a coordinate Bench of
this court in Maharashtra Shikshan
Mandal and others Vs. State of U.P. and
others: 2016 (114) ALR 452. The
aforesaid case was decided keeping in view
the factual background where certain
persons had applied for becoming member
of a society which was running an
educational institution. The Managing
Committee of the society had resolved that
ordinary
membership
should
not
be
allowed to unmarried boys and girls who
are not earning and that it should be open to
persons who are graduates only. The
society considered all 37 applications
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
received for membership and accepted
membership request of 22 persons only.
The remaining 15 applicants submitted a
complaint to the Assistant Registrar.
Without interfering with the decision of the
society regarding membership requests, the
Assistant Registrar passed an order stating
that as the term of the Managing
Committee of the society was over, fresh
elections are to be held under Section 25
(2) of the Societies Registration Act and he
appointed District Inspector of Schools,
Jhansi for this purpose. The Assistant
Registrar wrote a letter to the D.I.O.S. and
sent a list of 89 members, including 7
persons whose applications for membership
had not been accepted by the society. The
D.I.O.S. informed that those 7 persons had
not been accepted by the society as its
members. However, the Assistant Registrar
passed an order directing the D.I.O.S. to
hold elections of the society on the basis of
the list of 89 members as submitted by him,
including 7 persons whose membership
requests had been declined. It was in light
of the aforesaid peculiar factual backdrop
that this court held that no person has any
vested or fundamental right to become a
member of a society merely for the reason
that he fulfills the eligibility conditions,
unless he is accepted to be a member by the
society itself.

17.
In
the present
case,
the
complainants claim to be owners of the
apartments in Garden View Apartment, 8
Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow. The Uttar
Pradesh
Apartment
(Promotion
of
Construction, Ownership and Maintenance)
Act, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Apartment Act, 2010") has been enacted to
provide for the ownership of an individual
apartment in a building, of an undivided
interest in the common areas and facilities
appurtenant to such apartment and to make
such apartment and interest heritable and
transferable
and
for
matters
connected therewith or incidental thereto.
The aforesaid Act has come into force with
effect from 21.07.2010.

18. Section 3 (e) of the Apartment
Act, 2010 provides that "association of
apartment owners" means all the owners of
the apartments therein, acting as a group
in accordance with the bye-laws"

19. Section 14 of the Apartment Act,
2010 provides that: -

(1) There shall be an Association
of
Apartment
Owners
for
the
administration of the affairs in relation to
the
apartments
and
the
property
appertaining
thereto
and
for
the
management
of
common
areas
and
facilities:

Provided that where any area has
been demarcated for the construction of
buildings, whether such area is called a
block or pocket or by any other name, there
shall be a single Association of Apartment
Owners in such demarcated area.

(2)
It
shall
be
the
joint
responsibility of the promoter and the
apartment owners to form an Association.
The promoter shall get the Association
registered when such numbers of apartments
have been handed over to the owners which
are necessary to form an association or sixty
percent of apartments, whichever is more, by
way of sale, transfer or possession provided
the building has been completed along with
all infrastructure services and completion
certificate obtained from the concerned
local authority:

* * *
10 All. Garden View Owners Welfare Assn. Thru. Secy & Anr. Vs. The Dy. Registrar Firms
 Socities & Chits Lko. & Ors.
279

20. As per the aforesaid statutory
mandate, there has to be an association of
apartment owners and all the owners of
apartments in the building shall form an
association
of
apartment
owners.
Therefore, in the present case all the
apartment owners in the building have a
statutory right to become a member of the
association
of
flat
owners,
which
association in the present case is Garden
View Owners Welfare Association-the
petitioner no.1. As the flat owners have
got a statutory right to become members of
the
Garden
View
Owners
Welfare
Association, the facts of the present case
are different and distinct from the facts on
the basis whereof the case of Maharashtra
Shikshan Mandal (supra) was decided and
the ratio of the aforesaid case will not apply
to the facts of the present case.

21. The learned counsel for the
petitioners has fourthy submitted that the
Deputy Registrar has no authority to pass
any order directing the petitioners to induct
the flat owners of the society as members
of the society and such an order can only be
issued by the competent civil court. In
support of this contention, the learned
counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a
decision of a coordinate Bench of this court
in the case of Board of Trustee of the
Shia College and the School and another
Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2015 (33)
LCD 1989. In that case, there were rival
disputes between parties regarding previous
election of the governing body which were
held on 15.11.2009. Thereafter, the election
was approved/recognized by means of an
order dated 31.03.2010 and the registration
of the society was also renewed on
30.10.2010 for a period of five years with
effect from 10.10.2010. During the term of
previous governing body some trustees
were removed prior to expiry of their term
and some new persons were inducted as
trustees on the same day. When election
proceedings based on the disputed list were
submitted for approval under Section 4-B
and Section 4 of Societies Registration Act
by the rival claimants, the Deputy Registrar
passed the impugned order. It was in these
circumstances that this Hon'ble Court had
held that the decision making authority of
the Registrar/Deputy Registrar is not
contemplated under Section 4-B of the Act,
but
what
is
contemplated
is
an
administrative exercise of power. The
membership disputes are amenable to the
jurisdiction of civil court in a civil suit and
Section 4-B does not divest the civil court
of this dominion either expressly or by
implication.

22. In the present case, all the
apartment owners in the building have a
statutory right to become a member of the
association of flat owners and the Deputy
Registrar has directed the petitioners to
make all flat owners members of the
welfare association. Ownership of flat is
not such a disputed question of fact as
requires any detailed evidence to be taken
and arguments to be heard for a finding to
be recorded regarding it. Ownership of flats
for the purpose of membership of the
society is to be determined only on the
basis of proof of execution of sale deed of
the flat, which can easily be done by the
Deputy Registrar. Keeping in view the facts
of the case and the law applicable thereto, it
cannot be said that the Deputy Registrar is
not competent to issue any direction for
making all the flat owners members of the
petitioner no.1-society.

23. The learned counsel for the
opposite parties no.2 and 3 has drawn
attention of the court to the statutory
provision contained in Section 24 of the
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Societies Registration Act, 1860 as applies
to the State of U.P. which provides as
follows: -

"24. Investigation of affairs of a
society.-(1)
Where
on
information
received under Section 22 or otherwise, or
in circumstances referred to in sub-section
(3) of Section 23, the Registrar is of
opinion that there is apprehension that the
affairs of a society registered under this Act
are being so conducted as to defeat the
objects of the society or that the society or
its governing body by whatever name
called, or any officer thereof in actual
effective control of the society is guilty of
mismanaging its affairs or of any breach of
fiduciary or other like obligations, the
Registrar may, either himself or by any
person appointed by him in that behalf,
inspect or investigate into the affairs of the
society or inspect any institution managed
by the society.

(2) It shall be the duty of every
officer of the society when so required by
the Registrar or other person appointed
under sub-section (1) to produce any books
of account and other records of or relating
to the society which are in his custody and
to give him all assistance in connection
with such inspection or investigation.

(3) The Registrar or other person
appointed under sub-section (1) may call
upon and examine on oath any officer,
member or employee of the society in
relation to the affairs of the society and it
shall be the duty of every officer, member
or employee, when called upon, to appear
before him for such examination.

(3-A) The Registrar or other
person appointed under sub-section (1)
may, if in his opinion it is necessary for the
purpose of inspection or investigation,
seize any or all the records including
account books of the society:

Provided that any person from
whose custody such records are seized
shall be entitled to make copies thereof or
to take extracts therefrom in the presence
of the person having the custody of such
records.

(4) On the conclusion of the
inspection or investigation, as the case may
be, the person, if any, appointed by the
Registrar to inspect or investigate shall
make a report to the Registrar on the result
of his inspection or investigation.

(5) The Registrar may, after such
inspection or investigation, give such
directions to the society or to its governing
body or any officer thereof as he may think
fit, for the removal of any defects or
irregularities within such time as may be
specified and in the event of default in
taking action according to such directions,
the Registrar may proceed to take action
under Section 12-D or Section 13-B, as the
case may be."

(Emphasis added)

24. The powers of the Registrar have
been delegated to the Deputy Registrar. In
exercise of the delegated powers the
Deputy Registrar entertained the complaint
submitted by the eight complainants and
forwarded its copy to the petitioners giving
them opportunity to submit a reply thereto.
The letter dated 08.09.2014 sent by the
Deputy
Registrar
to
the
petitioners
categorically mentions that the petitioners
may submit a point wise reply to the
complaint dated 21.08.2014 submitted by
Govind Laath and others and a copy of the
10 All. Garden View Owners Welfare Assn. Thru. Secy & Anr. Vs. The Dy. Registrar Firms
 Socities & Chits Lko. & Ors.
281
complaint was annexed with the notice
dated 08.09.2014. Although the petitioners
submitted a reply dated 17.11.2014, they
chose not to submit any point wise reply
and they confined their reply to preliminary
objections only. Therefore, the factual
allegations leveled in the complaint dated
21.08.2014
submitted
by
the
eight
complainants
remained
uncontroverted,
which amounts to an implied admission. In
these
circumstances, if
the
Deputy
Registrar felt that holding of a detailed
investigation and seizing of records was not
necessary, this court finds no illegality in
the approach adopted by the Deputy
Registrar. Therefore, this court finds no
force in the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy
Registrar had no authority to pass the
impugned order.

25. The learned Counsel for the
opposite parties no. 2 and 3 has submitted
that complaint that led to passing of the
impugned order, had been filed by 8
persons, all of whom have not been arrayed
as opposite parties to the Writ Petition and,
therefore, the Writ Petition suffers from the
defect of non-joinder of necessary parties.
In reply to this objection, the learned
Counsel for the petitioners has submitted
that a complainant is not a necessary party
to the Writ Petition. In support of this
contention, the learned Counsel for the
petitioners has placed reliance upon a
judgment rendered by a Division Bench of
this Court in Amin Khan versus State of
U.P.: 2008 (26) LCD 1453, in which this
Court was dealing with an application filed
by a complainant seeking leave to file
Special Appeal against an order passed by
an Hon'ble Single Judge Bench in a Writ
Petition in which the complainant was not a
party. The respondent No. 4 in that case
had been elected as a Gram Pradhan and
proceedings under Section 95(1)(g) of the
U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 had been
initiated against her on certain charges on
the basis of a complaint made by the
applicant. The District Magistrate found the
charges prima facie established and passed
an order depriving the respondent No. 4
from exercising financial and executive
powers till regular enquiry is concluded for
which he also appointed as Enquiry
Officer. The District Magistrate further
appointed a three Members Committee to
look after the day-to-day work of the Gram
Sabha. The applicant was also made a
member of the said Committee. The
respondent No. 4 challenged the order of
the District Magistrate by filing a Writ
Petition,
which
was
allowed.
The
complainant sought leave of the Court for
filing a Special Appeal. A preliminary
objection was raised regarding the right of
the appellant who was the complainant and
who had been appointed as a member of
the Committee to perform the duties of the
Pradhan pending regular enquiry on the
ground that the said applicant being the
complainant cannot be a party to the lis.
Moreso, he was a beneficiary of the order
depriving
the
said
respondent
from
exercising her financial and executive
powers, he cannot be permitted to file the
appeal. Rejecting the application seeling
leave to file the Special Appeal, this Court
held that: -

"5. Admittedly, the applicant is a
complainant and has also been included by
the District Magistrate in the three
Members Committee to look after the work
of the Pradhan pending final enquiry. The
issue as to whether such a beneficiary of
order, impugned in writ petition could be
heard by a Court was considered at length
by the Division Bench of this Court to
which one of us (Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.) was
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
a member in Smt. Kesari Devi v. State of
U.P., (2005) 4 A.W.C. 3563 : (2005 All LJ
(NOC) 50) wherein after noticing large
number of judgments of the Hon'ble
Supereme Court, the Court reached the
conclusion that such an applicant cannot
be a party in litigation for the reason that
he cannot be a person aggrieved. The said
judgment was challenged before the
Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. (Civil) No.
19761 of 2005 and the same was dismissed
vide order dated 3-10-2005."

26. Thus in Amin Khan (Supra), the
application seeking leave to file Special
Appeal was rejected in view of the peculiar
facts of the case where the Court came to
the conclusion that the applicant was not a
person aggrieved. However, in the present
case, the complainants, or at least those
complainants who admittedly own flats in
Garden View Apartments, have a statutory
right to become members of the Society
and they have an interest in proper
functioning of the society and proper
maintenance of the apartment complex and,
therefore, the complainants in this case are
persons aggrieved.

27. Further, the petitioners themselves
have chosen to implead two of the eight
complainants as opposite party nos. 2 and 3
to the Writ Petition even when the
petitioners' contention is that they do not
own any flat in the apartment complex,
which shows that the petitioners treat them
to be necessary or at least proper parties to
the Writ Petition. The petitioners admit that
at least one of the complainants Ms. Varsha
Chatlani owns an apartment in the complex
and that she is a member of the society and
yet she has not been arrayed as an opposite
party to the Writ Petition whereas she is a
person aggrieved and she would be affected
by the outcome of the Writ Petition.
Therefore, the Writ Petition suffers from
the defect of non-joinder of necessary
parties, which defect was not removed
even after a specific plea having been
raised in the counter affidavit. However,
as this Court has already examined the
merits of the matter, the Writ Petition is
not being dismissed on the preliminary
ground alone.

28. In view of foregoing discussion,
this court is of the considered view that
there is no illegality in the impugned order
dated 06.02.2015, passed by the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Lucknow Division, Lucknow, and the order
does not cause a failure of justice to the
petitioners. Therefore, the impugned order
does not warrant any interference by this
Court in exercise of its extraordinary Writ
jurisdiction vested in it under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

29. The Writ Petition lacks merit and
the same is dismissed.
----------
(2024) 10 ILRA 282
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 25.10.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE MOHD. FAIZ ALAM KHAN, J.

Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 8151 of 2024
Alongwith
Crl. Misc. Writ Petition No. 8254 of 2024

Pundrik Kumar Pandey @ Pundrik Pandey
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Alok Kirti Mishra, Dharmesh Kumar Dwivedi