# Gorakhpur District Eye Relief Society, Eye Hospital, Gorakhpur & Anr v. Asstt. Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Gorakhpur & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 8 ILRA 1501
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-07-12
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 16844 of 2000
- **Bench:** Umesh Chandra Sharma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gorakhpur-district-eye-relief-society-eye-hospital-gorakhpur-anr-v-asstt-50553
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Section 4-A - Amendment in byelaws - Only requirement is intimation to
Registrar - Registrar cannot adjudicate
upon merits - Registrar has limited power
to examine validity of meeting, notice,
quorum and majority - Petitioner (ex-Joint
Secretary) had no authority under byelaws to move or effect amendment -
1502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Termination of petitioner upheld - Petition
misconceived.

Held: The Assistant Registrar has limited
jurisdiction under Section 4-A of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 - to verify if the meeting
for amendment was validly convened, quorum
met and resolution passed by required majority.
He cannot adjudicate upon the merits of the
amendment itself. However, in the present case,
the petitioner (ex-Joint Secretary) had no
authority under the bye-laws to convene the
meeting or introduce amendments. Her status
as Joint Secretary ceased upon her termination,
which has been upheld by this Court. Thus, she
lacked locus to maintain the petition.

Case Law Discussed:

## Text

8 All. Gorakhpur District Eye Relief Society, Eye Hospital, Gorakhpur & Anr. Vs. Asstt. Registrar,
 Firms, Societies & Chits, Gorakhpur & Ors.
1501
considerations are pitted against each other,
the way should be given to substantial
justice. Further, the primary function of
Court of law is to adjudicate and decide the
matter between the parties on merits in
order to settle their grievances.

62. The learned Commissioner,
Moradabad
Division,
Moradabad
(respondent no.2) has also not considered
the above mentioned aspect of the case in
the light of the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court as well as the settled
legal position as discussed above and has
passed
the
impugned
order
dated
15.03.2023 in a mechanical manner. Hence,
the impugned orders dated 06.02.2023
passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate,
Sambhal (respondent no.3) and order dated
15.03.2023 passed by the Commissioner,
Moradabad
Division,
Moradabad
(respondent no.2) are not sustainable in law
and are accordingly quashed.

63. In view of the facts and reasons
narrated above, I am of the opinion that the
order of restoration dated 19.12.2022
passed by the Tehsildar Sambhal does not
suffer from any illegality. The Tehsildar
concerned has very rightly allowed the
application
for
restoration
with
the
direction to the office to restore the case to
its original number and directed the parties
to adduce their evidences before the court
on the date fixed.

64. The writ petition is allowed with
the direction to the Tehsildar, Sambhal,
District Sambhal to consider and decide the
Case
No.
849/850/851
of
2005
in
accordance with the provisions of Section
34/35 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901,
after affording the opportunity of hearing to
the parties concerned within a period of
three months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.

65. Till the aforesaid mutation
proceeding pending before the Tehsildar
concerned is finally concluded, the parties
are directed to maintain status-quo in
respect of the plots in question.

66. No order as to cost.

67. This Court appreciates the
valuable assistance provided by the Sri
Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Advocate, who
extended his full co-operation to this Court
during the course of hearing of this case.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1501
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE UMESH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.

Writ-C No. 16844 of 2000

Gorakhpur District Eye Relief Society, Eye
Hospital, Gorakhpur & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Asstt. Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits,
Gorakhpur & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shesh Kumar, Sri Sapan Kumar Singh,
Sri Shiv Kumar Singh Rajawat, Sri Ashok
Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anoop Trivedi, Sri Ashok Trivedi

Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Section 4-A - Amendment in byelaws - Only requirement is intimation to
Registrar - Registrar cannot adjudicate
upon merits - Registrar has limited power
to examine validity of meeting, notice,
quorum and majority - Petitioner (ex-Joint
Secretary) had no authority under byelaws to move or effect amendment -
1502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Termination of petitioner upheld - Petition
misconceived.

Held: The Assistant Registrar has limited
jurisdiction under Section 4-A of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 - to verify if the meeting
for amendment was validly convened, quorum
met and resolution passed by required majority.
He cannot adjudicate upon the merits of the
amendment itself. However, in the present case,
the petitioner (ex-Joint Secretary) had no
authority under the bye-laws to convene the
meeting or introduce amendments. Her status
as Joint Secretary ceased upon her termination,
which has been upheld by this Court. Thus, she
lacked locus to maintain the petition.

Case Law Discussed:

1. Adhyaksha, Committee of Management, Sri
Vimal Nath Digamber Jain Teerth Kshetra Vs Dy.
Registrar, 2011 (1) ADJ 37 (NOC)

2. Allahabad High School Society Vs St. of U.P.,
2011 (4) ADJ 887 (DB)

3. Liyakat Marquise Khan Vs Christ Church
College Society, 2010 (8) ADJ 465 (DB)

4. Managing Committee, Khalsa Middle School
Vs Mohinder Kaur, (1993) 4 SCC 26 (Supp)

Petition dismissed with costs.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Umesh Chandra
Sharma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the record.

2. This petition has been filed for
quashing
the
order
dated
25.02.2000
annexure no.18 to the writ petition passed by
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Gorakhpur and also to issue direction to
respondent no.1, Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur to accept the
amendment of the bye-laws as submitted by
the petitioners and to file the same in his
office and to take all action in accordance
therewith.

3. In brief, facts of the case are that
originally the aforesaid society was registered
on
04.11.1955
with
Registration
No.283/1955-56 i.e. annexure no.1 to the writ
petition. Petitioner no.2 was a member of the
general body of the society and was also its
Joint Secretary. The society has been
constituted with the objective of establishing,
running and managing eye hospitals and it
has established an eye hospital at Gorakhpur
city. The society does not receive any grantin-aid from the State Government. The
society has been established by a group of
persons seeking public interest including
private individuals and also persons holding
different public offices at the relevant point of
time. Memorandum of association dated
27.07.1955 is annexed as annexure no.2 to
the writ petition. The registration of the
society has been renewed from time to time
and has lastly been renewed on 20.02.1996
for a period of five years from 10.10.1995.
The certificate of renewal is annexed as
annexure
no.3.
The
memorandum
of
association and the bye-laws of the society
were amended in 1996 and the same have
been filed in the office of Assistant Registrar
concerned which is annexed as annexure no.4
to this writ petition. Under the bye-laws
several officers were ex officio to the society.
Such officers had neither been participating
in the meeting of the general body/committee
of management of the society nor taking any
interest in any work of the society and the eye
hospital run by it. On account of such facts,
repeated difficulties were felt in the smooth
management of the society and the eye
hospital run by it.

4. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, a meeting of the general
body of the society was convened for
8 All. Gorakhpur District Eye Relief Society, Eye Hospital, Gorakhpur & Anr. Vs. Asstt. Registrar,
 Firms, Societies & Chits, Gorakhpur & Ors.
1503
05.09.1999 by means of an agenda notice
dated 22.07.1999 that is annexure-5 to the
writ petition. In the meeting of the general
body a decision was taken at item no.4
resolving that the office bearers of the
society should be elected by the general
body and for amending the bye-laws of the
society for effectuating such purpose. It is
annexure no.6 to the writ petition.

5. In view of that decision taken by
the general body, a meeting of the
executive committee was convened for
22.09.1999 by means of an agenda notice
dated 06.09.1999. True copy of the agenda
notice is annexure-7 to this writ petition. In
the meeting of the executive committee
held
on
22.09.1999,
the
executive
committee considered the proposal for
amendment of the by-laws in exercise of
powers conferred under bye-laws no.24(5)
read with clauses 25 and 29 of the byelaws. The executive committee considered
and approved the proposed amendments to
the bye-laws and authorized the petitioner
no.2 Joint Secretary, to undertake further
proceeding in pursuance of such decision.
True copy of the proceeding of the
executive committee dated 22.09.1999 is at
annexure-8 to the writ petition. By means
of an agenda notice dated 23.09.1999, a
meeting of the general body was convened
for
08.10.1999
for
considering
the
aforesaid amendments to the bye-laws.
Copy
of
the
agenda
notice
dated
23.09.1999 is annexed as annexure-9 to the
petition.

6. In the meeting of the general body
held
on
08.10.1999,
the
proposed
amendments were considered and approved
and the petitioner no.2 was authorized for
convening a further meeting of the general
body
for
getting
such
proceeding
confirmed. True copy of the proceeding of
the general body dated 08.10.1999 is
annexed as annexure-10 to the petition. In
accordance with the decision of the general
body a meeting of the general body was
again convened and held on 28.11.1999 by
means of agenda notice dated 29.10.1999.
True copy of the agenda notice dated
29.10.1999 is annexed as annexure-11. In
the meeting of general body held on
28.11.1999 the amendments to the byelaws were approved and the proceeding of
the general body held on 08.10.1999 was
confirmed. Proceeding of the general body
dated 28.11.1999 is annexed as annexure
no.12. It is necessary to bring on record the
amendments accorded approval by the
general body on the said date. True copy of
the amendments to the bye-laws, as
approved by the executive committee and
its general body is annexed as annexure-13.

7. All the purpose pertaining to the
aforesaid were tendered by the office of the
Assistant Registrar by petitioner no.2 in the
month of November, 1999 itself which
were not accepted by the Assistant
Registrar. The papers were again submitted
alongwith
the
covering
letter
dated
12.12.1999 addressed to the Assistant
Registrar which is annexed as annexure-14
to the writ petition but the Assistant
Registrar has declined to take any action
thereon.
There
does
not
exist
any
justification for refusal of the Assistant
Registrar
regarding
approval
of
the
amendment in the bye-laws which have
been approved by the executive committee
and also by the general body of the society.

8. It was repeatedly felt that all ex
officio
office
bearers
like
District
Magistrate and CDO etc. were unable to
devote any time to the affairs of the society.
Consequently, the functioning of the
society was severely disrupted. Therefore, a
1504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
need of changing bye-laws of the society
was felt. Even the then DM has openly
stated that he may be relieved of his duties
as the president of the society as he was
unable to devote any time due to official
commitments. A copy of the minutes of the
said meeting is annexed as annexure-15 to
the writ petition. The problem of the ex
officio officer bearers, due to final
commitments preventing them to attempt to
the
affairs
of
the
society,
further
aggravated. The objection and aim of the
existence/affirmation of the society were
being defeated, as a result of this system of
ex officio officer bearers. Communications
were sent to the DM and other ex officio
officer bearers, regarding amendments with
their respective parts. The said letter is
annexed as annexure no.16 to the writ
petition. But no reply was sent by the
District Magistrate and other ex officio
office bearers to the said communication.

9. The Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur is under
pressure
of
the
District
Magistrate,
Gorakhpur and is unable to decide the
matter in an unbiased manner. Further he
has already disclosed his mind on the said
controversy. On account of the inaction on
the part of the Assistant Registrar,
petitioners were compelled to file Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.712 of 2000 with
the prayer to issue order/direction to the
respondent no.1 to accept the amendments
in the bye-laws as approved by the general
body within a specific period and also to
issue an order and direction to the
respondent no.1 to take all action pertaining
to the society in question on the basis of the
amended bye-laws, as approved by the
general body.

10. The aforesaid writ petition was
finally disposed of by Hon'ble Mr. Justice
R.S. Zaidi by means of judgment dated
07.01.2000. Its true copy is annexed as
annexure-17 to the writ petition.

11. Certified copy of the judgment
dated 07.01.2000 was filed before the
Assistant Registrar. Acting on the basis
thereof the Deputy Registrar has proceeded
to pass an order dated 25.02.2000 rejecting
the amendment in bye-laws which is
annexed as annexure-18 to the writ petition.

12. Under Section 4-A of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short
'the Act') an alteration in the rules of the
societies only required to be intimated to
the Registrar within 30 days of the
alteration. Such an intimation has already
been effected with regard to the alteration
effected in the rules, as detailed above. The
amendment so notified to the Assistant
Registrar are required to be accepted by
him. The Assistant Registrar has no power
under the Act to accept the amendments to
the rules of the societies. Rejection order
rejecting the amendment in the bye-laws is
totally
unauthorized
and
without
jurisdiction. The only power conferred
upon the Assistant Registrar with regard to
amendments is with regard to alteration in
the name of the society or in the objects of
the society. Apart from the aforesaid, the
Assistant Registrar has not been conferred
with any other power pertaining to the
amendments in the bye-laws/rules of the
society.

13. The Assistant Registrar has been
conferred
power
to
see
that
the
amendments have been made in accordance
with the provisions of the Act. He cannot
withhold alteration affected in accordance
with the Act. Under the original bye-laws,
the District Magistrate was the ex officio
President and the CDO was the ex officio
8 All. Gorakhpur District Eye Relief Society, Eye Hospital, Gorakhpur & Anr. Vs. Asstt. Registrar,
 Firms, Societies & Chits, Gorakhpur & Ors.
1505
Secretary of the society. Because both the
officers were office bearers of the society,
the Assistant Registrar was not taking any
action on the basis of the amendments.
Since it is a private society, the District
Magistrate and CDO cannot dictate the
constitution of the society. The impugned
order is the result of the influence exercised
by both the officers. The impugned order is
misconceived. The power of the general
body of the society cannot be curtailed in
any manner.

14. The Deputy Registrar had
committed error in holding that petitioner
no.2 was not authorized to convene the
meeting
in
which
the
decision
for
amending the bye-laws had been taken as it
was the meeting convened on requisition
on the request of several members of
general body. The petitioner was holding
the office of Joint Secretary and was duty
bound to convene requisition meeting of
the general body. The impugned order is
violative of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. The petitioners have no other
equally efficacious remedy, hence this writ
petition has been preferred.

15. All the documents referred, have
been annexed with the petition.

16. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of respondent no.1, Assistant
Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits,
Gorakhpur
that
the
society
runs
in
accordance with law without any difficulty.
It is incorrect that there is difficulty in
running the hospital due to the presence of
ex
officio
officers.
There
was
no
justification for sending the agenda by the
Joint Secretary acting as the Secretary.
Therefore, the Joint Secretary acted beyond
her
jurisdiction.
The
notice
dated
05.09.1999 issued by Dr. Manorama Singh
Agarwal was illegal and has been sent by
her in defiance of her rights. She had no
right to call for the meeting unless it is
approved by the President and Secretary for
which she had not been authorized. Since
the proceeding was not in accordance with
the regulation, therefore, it was not
registered. The authority to take action
under the relevant sections of the regulation
is vested in ex officio President/Secretary.
In this regard sufficient information has
been given by the office of the respondent
vide letter no.3518 dated 08.02.2000. In
compliance of the Hon'ble Court's order
dated 07.01.2000 the order no.2785/dated
25.02.2000 has been communicated to Dr.
Manorama Singh Agarwal. It is nowhere
prescribed that if any amendment is sent, it
would
be
deemed
to
be
permitted
automatically within thirty days. The
petitioners have no right to tamper with the
arrangements of the organization. Petitioner
no.2 can only maintain and operate the
hospital run by the institution. The act done
by petitioner no.2 was only to fulfil her
vested interest so that she could dominate
the hospital run by the institution. No such
resolution has been passed by the office
bearers/members of the society. It is wrong
to say that under the influence of District
Magistrate and CDO, the respondent no.1
had passed the order but since the
proposed
amendment
was
neither
presented in the executive nor in general
body, hence the proposed amendment was
rejected. Since the petitioner no.2 was the
Medical Superintendent of the Hospital
and there is provision that the Hospital
Superintendent
would
be
the
Joint
Secretary, therefore, she can only look
after the hospital arrangements. She had
no right to make amendment in the
arrangements of the organization by
increasing unauthorized person. Hence, the
petition be dismissed.
1506 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. Sri Raees Ahmad, the then
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Society and
Chits, Gorakhpur filed a supplementary
counter affidavit in which he has repeated
the previous version of the counter affidavit
and has said that the impugned order was
passed in accordance with law and the
meeting held by Dr. Manorama Singh had
been cancelled by the District Magistrate.
He has also annexed the bye-laws of the
committee from which it is very much clear
that the Joint Secretary has no right to
make an amendment in the bye-laws of the
society.

18. On behalf of respondent no.3,
CDO, Gorakhpur, a counter affidavit has
been filed by Sri Nand Kishor Singh by
which the allegations have been denied and
it has been said that petitioner no.2 is an
employee
on
the
post
of
Medical
Superintendent, Eye Hospital, Gorakhpur.
She has an arbitrary and callous manner of
working. There were several complaints
against her work and conduct. CMO,
Gorakhpur who happens to be the Vice
President of the society held an inquiry
against her. All the documents were in her
possession but she declined to furnish the
same. A report regarding misconduct and
misbehaviour of petitioner no.2 submitted
by CDO/Secretary has been annexed as
annexure no.CA-1. When the authorities
started
taking
stringent
action
in
accordance with the bye-laws of the
society, she came out in open deficiency
and started acting being prejudicial and
against the aim, object and interest of the
society. According to clause-9 of the byelaws, the Secretary would be the Chief
Executive Officer of the society to control
and manage all other works and only he
can institute/initiate legal action on behalf
of the society. The petitioner no.2 is merely
an employee and ex officio Joint Secretary
who is not authorized for instituting and
conducting any legal proceeding for or on
behalf
of
the
society.
The
CDO,
Gorakhpur/Secretary wrote a letter to
District Magistrate, Gorakhpur/President
regarding misconduct and irregularities
committed by petitioner no.2 which is
annexed
as
annexure
no.CA-2.
The
executive committee had also written a
letter (annexure CA-3) for taking action
against petitioner no.2 to the District
Magistrate/President. The President and
Secretary started initiation of inquiry and
SDM, Sadar, Gorakhpur was directed to
hold a preliminary inquiry who happens to
be a member of the executive committee
which is annexed as annexure no.CA-4.
The SDM concerned submitted preliminary
inquiry
report
dated
06.11.1999
i.e.
annexure
no.CA-5
and
recommended
suspension of petitioner no.2 after finding
her guilty for various irregularities and
misconduct. In a meeting dated 13.12.1999,
the executive committee recommended
suspension of petitioner no.2 (annexure
CA-6). Thereafter petitioner no.2 was
suspended vide order dated 23.12.1999
which is annexure no.CA-7. The CMO, as
inquiry officer, served a charge sheet on the
petitioner on 16.02.2000 which is annexure
no.CA-8. The report of CMO is annexure
no.CA-9
in
which
he
recommended
termination of the petitioner no.2 from the
service. In this regard a letter annexure
no.CA-10 was written by the Secretary to
District
Magistrate,
Gorakhpur
on
23.06.2000 to convene a meeting of the
executive committee
to consider the
recommendations of the inquiry officer
which was held on 07.07.2000. The
minutes of the meeting is annexure no.CA11. In this meeting a sub-committee was
constituted to consider the report of CMO
who submitted its report of 11.07.2000 and
gave a finding that the report of the inquiry
8 All. Gorakhpur District Eye Relief Society, Eye Hospital, Gorakhpur & Anr. Vs. Asstt. Registrar,
 Firms, Societies & Chits, Gorakhpur & Ors.
1507
officer was correct and the executive
committee should take proper action
against the petitioner no.2. It is annexure
no.CA-12. On 17.07.2000 a meeting of the
executive committee was held under the
presidentship
of
District
Magistrate,
Gorakhpur
in
which
the
executive
committee considered the report of the
inquiry officer and the sub-committee and
unanimously resolved that it is not in the
interest of society to allow petitioner no.2
to remain on the post of Medical
Superintendent. The minutes of the meeting
are annexed as annexure no.CA-13. In
pursuance
of
the
resolution
dated
17.07.2000, a final notice was served upon
the petitioner on 14.08.2000 which is
annexure no.CA-14. It appears that the
petitioners concocted and fabricated few
documents purporting to have been related
to some imaginary meetings and tried to
change the entire basic fabrication and
fundamental features of the society. She
attempted that no ex officio member should
remain as an office bearer in the said
society so that there may not be any control
over the misdeeds of petitioner no.2. Even
if it is assumed that any such meeting was
held, the same is not tenable in law in view
of clause 25 of the bye-laws.

19. The documents referred in the
counter affidavit are on record in the said
affidavit.

20. Two supplementary counter
affidavits have been filed stating therein
that the writ petition is not maintainable as
the petitioner no.2, Dr. Manorama Singh
Agarwal has no authority to file the writ
petition more so the status and capacity of
petitioner no.2 has seized to exist when she
was dismissed from services as medical
superintendent of the hospital vide order
04.12.2004 passed by District Magistrate,
Gorakhpur as ex officio President of the
society and she has also crossed the age of
superannuation on 02.07.2006 since she
was born on 02.07.1946. Even then she has
not vacated the official bungalow in spite
of several notices. Dr. Manorama Singh
Agarwal had filed this petition in the
capacity of Joint Secretary of the society,
hence the same has become infructuous as
the society is running as usual, she has no
legal authority to pursue or prosecute the
present petition after her superannuation on
02.07.2006. She was the Joint Secretary of
the
society
being
the
Medical
Superintendent of the Hospital as per byelaws but after dismissal from service on
04.12.2004 she has lost the status of Joint
Secretary of the society. The dismissal
order was challenged in Writ Petition
No.28159 of 2005 in which no interim stay
order was granted and the same has been
dismissed on merit vide judgment dated
17.08.2016. The amendment was rejected
on the ground that under the bye-laws the
Joint Secretary was not empowered to
bring such amendments and more so it was
not approved by the District Magistrate and
CDO in the capacity of ex officio President
and Secretary. The aforesaid judgment,
registration
certificate,
bye-laws,
registration renewal certificate, date of
birth certificate of Dr. Manorama Singh
and letters issued by CDO/Secretary of the
society have been annexed with the
petition.

21. The petitioner no.2 has filed
rejoinder affidavit, one supplementary
rejoinder affidavit, and two supplementary
affidavits in which she has reiterated the
version of the petition. No new facts have
been brought in the knowledge of the
Court. The petitioner no.2 could not
counter that there is any provision under
which a Joint Secretary can move an
1508 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amendment
and
she
had
not
been
suspended and terminated from the post of
Hospital Superintendent, that she has not
attained the age of superannuation and that
her termination has not been upheld from
this Court.

22.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners has relied on the judgment in
Adhyaksha, Committee of Management,
Sri Vimal Nath Digamber Jain, Teerth
Kshetra
Committee,
Kampil,
Farrukhabad and another Vs. Dy.
Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits,
Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur and another,
2011 (1) ADJ 37 (NOC) in which the
learned Single Judge of this Court held that
there is no need of registration of
amendment by the Registrar. It takes effect
in registered bye-laws on intimation of
amendment carried out in the rules of the
society. If such formality is completed, no
further action is necessary. If any person
disputes the resolution passed for the said
purpose, he has remedy to file civil suit.

23. In Allahabad High School
Society and others Vs. State of UP and
others, 2011 (4) ADJ 887 (DB) this Court
has referred the judgment of Prabha
Shanker Mishra and others Vs. State of
UP and others, 2009 (77) ALR 713 in
which it has been held that any amendment
made by the society in rules or bye-laws,
the only requirement is that its intimation is
given to the Registrar and the said
provision did not give any power to the
Registrar to adjudicate or decide the
objections
with
regard
to
the
said
amendment in the rules or regulation of the
society.

24. Further, the Court has referred the
precedent of Liyakat Marquise Khan Vs.
Christ Church College Society, Kanpur
and others, 2010 (8) ADJ 465 (DB) in
which it has been held that Section 4-A of
the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for
short 'the Act') does not require any
adjudication on the part of the Registrar
and the only requirement under the said
provision was to bring to the notice of the
Registrar the amendment in the rules.

25. In this regard some more judicial
precedents
are
also
relevant
which
propound a balanced view with regard to
Section 4-A of the Act. In Managing
Committee, Khalsa Middle School Vs.
Mohinder Kaur, (1993) 4 SCC 26 (Supp)
the Apex Court has held that the only
power vested in the Registrar under Section
4-A of the Act was to examine the fact as
to whether the meeting of the society had
been validly held in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and the rules of the
society. Only scope of this aspect could be
to make factual verification as to whether
the meeting was validly convened, due
notice was given, quorum was completed
and it was passed by the required majority.
Beyond that the Assistant Registrar could
not go into the question of the merits of the
amendments and adjudicate upon the same
while exercising powers vested under
Section 4-A of the Act.

26. In Allahabad High School
Society (supra) the Division Bench has
also held that under Section 4-A of the Act
the Registrar can examine as to whether the
meeting for amending the rules of the
society had been validly convened or not.
In Liyakat Marquise Khan (supra) it has
been held that under Section 4-A of the
Act, the Registrar will have the power to
examine whether amendments of the byelaws forwarded to him are from the list of
the office bearers taken on record under
Section 4 of the Act and at the time of
8 All. Rookame Alam Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1509
renewal,
to
examine
whether
the
amendments are such that renewal has to be
granted.

27.

From
the
above
judicial
precedents, it comes out that the Registrar
is not a silent spectator. At least he has to
see and examine as to whether the meeting
of the society had been validly held in
accordance with the provisions of the Act
and the rules of the Society. He shall see
that the meeting was validly convened, due
notice was given, quorum was completed
and the amendment was passed by the
required majority or not.

28. From the above discussion, it has
been established that the petitioner no.2 had
no right to sue. She had no right to
introduce an amendment in the bye-laws.
She is no longer Medical Superintendent of
the Hospital and she had been suspended
and terminated in accordance with law
which has been confirmed by this Court. If
it is accepted that she is a life member of
the society even then she had no right to
move
the
amendment
in
bye-laws,
therefore, the proposed amendment was
rightly declined by the Registrar. She has
no power or right to sue, institute and
maintain this petition.

29. On over all discussion, this Court
is of the view that the petition is totally
misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.

30. Accordingly, this writ petition is
dismissed with costs.
----------
(2023) 8 ILRA 1509
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.07.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No. 20980 of 2023

Rookame Alam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Zafar Abbas, Sri Imtiaz Husain

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Pradeep Kumar Rai, Sri Prajyot
Rai, Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma

Held - Order of recount of votes passed by the
Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate
without recording evidence or deciding framed
issues - violates Rule 4 of U.P. Panchayat Raj
(Settlement of Election Disputes) Rules, 1994 -
Recounting cannot be ordered on vague and
bald allegations - Secrecy of ballot is sacrosanct
- Procedure akin to trial under CPC must be
followed - Impugned order quashed with
direction to decide the election petition afresh
within two months.

Key Case Laws Referred:

1. Bhabhi Vs Sheo Govind AIR 1975 SC 2217

2. Ram Sewak Yadav Vs Hussain Kamil Kidwai
AIR 1964 SC 1249

3. Ram Adhar Singh Vs District Judge, Ghazipur
1985 UPLBEC 317

4. Dhani Prasad Vs SDO 1974 All LJ 371

5. Mohd. Mustafa Vs U.P. Ziladhikari 2007 (7)
ADJ 1

6. Abrar Vs St. of U.P. 2004 (5) AWC 4088

7. Dharmawati Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Writ-C No.
14662 of 2023

8. Smt. Maneeta Devi Vs St. of U.P. Writ-C No.
10442 of 2022