# Kalrav Agarwal and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 1 ILRA 296
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-03-02
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27795 of 2008
- **Bench:** Tarun Agarwala
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kalrav-agarwal-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41365
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India Article-226-Writ
jurisdiction-Election of Society-can be
challenged by 1⁄4 member of Society
under
Section
25
of
the
Societies
Registration Act- two members do not
represent 1⁄4 member-writ petition at the
instance
of
two
member-held
not
maintainable.

Held: Para 7 & 8:

In Dr. P.P. Rastogi and others Vs. Merrut
University, Merrut and another, 1997(1)
U.P.L.B.E.C. 415, a Division Bench of this
Court held that an individual member of
the Committee of Management had not
locus standi to file an application and
that if every member of the Committee
of Management was permitted to file
such application, it would create of lot of
problems.

Consequently, this Court is of the opinion
that
a
writ
petition
filed
by
and
individual
member
which
does
not
represent 1⁄4 members of the Society
cannot be entertained. The judgements
cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner has no application with regard
to
the
maintainability
of
the
writ
petition. The said judgement talks about
the validity of the election conducted by
a Committee after the expiry of the
stipulated
period
conducted
by
a
Committee
after the
expiry of the
stipulated period contemplated under it s
rule or bye laws.
Case law discussed:
43508 of 2006, 2000 (1) ESC 870, 2002 (1)
AWC 771, 1997 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 415.

## Text

296 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.03.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE TARUN AGARWALA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27795 of 2008

Kalrav Agarwal and another ...Petitioner

Versus
State of U.P. and others. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anoop Trivedi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Prabhakar Awasthi
S.C.

Constitution of India Article-226-Writ
jurisdiction-Election of Society-can be
challenged by 1⁄4 member of Society
under
Section
25
of
the
Societies
Registration Act- two members do not
represent 1⁄4 member-writ petition at the
instance
of
two
member-held
not
maintainable.

Held: Para 7 & 8:

In Dr. P.P. Rastogi and others Vs. Merrut
University, Merrut and another, 1997(1)
U.P.L.B.E.C. 415, a Division Bench of this
Court held that an individual member of
the Committee of Management had not
locus standi to file an application and
that if every member of the Committee
of Management was permitted to file
such application, it would create of lot of
problems.

Consequently, this Court is of the opinion
that
a
writ
petition
filed
by
and
individual
member
which
does
not
represent 1⁄4 members of the Society
cannot be entertained. The judgements
cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner has no application with regard
to
the
maintainability
of
the
writ
petition. The said judgement talks about
the validity of the election conducted by
a Committee after the expiry of the
stipulated
period
conducted
by
a
Committee
after the
expiry of the
stipulated period contemplated under it s
rule or bye laws.
Case law discussed:
43508 of 2006, 2000 (1) ESC 870, 2002 (1)
AWC 771, 1997 (1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 415.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Tarun Agarwala, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, the
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Prabhakar Awasthi, the learned counsel
for the respondent no. 6.

2. Two members of a society know
as Dharm Samaj Society Inter College
and Sanskrit Pathshala, Aligarh, has filed
the present writ petition challenging the
order dated 3rd May, 2008 passed by the
Deputy Registrars, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Agra under Section 4 of the
Societies Registration Act. By this order,
the office bearers of the managing body
has been registered.

3. At the outset, the writ petition
filed by two members of the Society is not
maintainable. A dispute with regard to the
election of the office bearers of a Society
can be challenged by 1⁄4 members of the
Society under Section 25 (1) of the Act.
The provisions of 1⁄4 members of the
Society was deliberately incorporated for
a purpose and one such reason is, that
frivolous dispute may not be raised by an
individual and that a majority of the
members of the society, if aggrieved by
the election could raise a dispute under
Section 25 which could be decided by an
authority in a summary manner.

4. In the light of the aforesaid
provision and the embargo placed under
1 All] Kalrav Agarwal and another V. State of U.P. and others
297
Section 25 for raising a dispute, this Court
is of the opinion that a writ petition
challenging the election of a Society or of
the Managing Committee of the Society
cannot
be
maintained
in
a
writ
jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon a
decision of the Court in Yogendra Singh
Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on
7th May, 2007 passed in writ petition no.
43508 of 2006 and submitted that an
individual member is competent to file a
petition.
For
facility,
the
relevant
paragraph which has been relied upon is
quoted hereunder.
-

"It is settled law that every valid
member or the general body has a right to
participate in the elections, which are to
take place for constituting the Committee
of
Management.
Such
right
of
participation, if taken away without
following due procedure provided by law
give a cause to the individual member
concerned
to
question
the
election
specifically in the circumstances, when
the election are held by a person not
competent to hold election.

This Court may record that right to
participate in the elections includes a
right to contest the elections. If a valid
member is deprived of his participation,
he alone gets a right to question his
ouster and denial of right of participation.
Ousting of a person from the electoral
college without any justifiable cause
vitiates the entire elections. In such
circumstances, it cannot be said that
merely
because
of
a
life
member
elections, he loses his right to challenge
the elections held. Legal right of member
to question such illegal elections cannot
be taken away under any principle of
law."

5. The learned counsel has also
placed reliance upon a decision of another
decision of this Court in Committee of
Management A.K. College and another
Vs. State of U.P. and others 2000(1)
ESC 870 and Sewa Samiti Allahabad
and another Vs. Assistant Registrars
Funds Societies and Chits Allahabad
and another 2002(1)AWC 771.

6. In my opinion, the judgement in
Yogendra Singh (supra) is not applicable
since the judgment is not under the
Societies Registration Act nor the Court
had noticed the provision of Section 25(1)
of the said Act. Under Section 25 of the
Act, 1⁄4 members of a Society can make a
reference to the Registrar Challenging the
election of the office bearers of the
managing body. The law recognizes a
right to raise a dispute and such dispute
can only be raised by 1⁄4 members of the
Society. The same principle would
equally apply if a writ is entertained
questioning a dispute with regard to the
election of the Managing Committee and
individual member of the general body
cannot be allowed to raise a dispute,
inasmuch if it is allowed, it would open a
flood gate of litigation.

7. In Dr. P.P. Rastogi and others Vs.
Merrut University, Merrut and another,
1997(1) U.P.L.B.E.C. 415, a Division
Bench of this Court held that an
individual member of the Committee of
Management had not locus standi to file
an application and that if every member
of the Committee of Management was
permitted to file such application, it
would create of lot of problems.

8. Consequently, this Court is of the
opinion that a writ petition filed by and
individual member which does not
298 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009
represent 1⁄4 members of the Society
cannot be entertained. The judgements
cited by the learned counsel for the
petitioner has no application with regard
to the maintainability of the writ petition.
The said judgement talks about the
validity of the election conducted by a
Committee after the expiry of the
stipulated
period
conducted
by
a
Committee after the expiry of the
stipulated period contemplated under it s
rule or bye laws.

9. In view of the aforesaid, writ
petition is dismissed as not maintainable.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.03.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AMAR SARAN, J.
THE HON'BLE R.N. MISRA, J.

Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 4983 of
2009

Pradeep Tyagi

...Petitioner

Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Diptiman Singh
Sri S.D. Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.G.A.

Constitution of India-Art. 226-Criminal
Writ-Challenging FIR seeking stay of
arrest-offence u/s 420, 423 and 424 IPC
read with U.P. Sugarcane (Regulation of
Supply and purchased Act 1953 Section
22-A-inspection by Sugarcane InspectorNotices several discrepancies in waittage
of loaded sugarcane trolly and empty
trolly-termed as fraud-challenged on
numerous grounds being compoundable
offence-court declined to interfere but
issued general mandamus to all the
judicial officer for strict compliance of
the guide lines given by Apex Court in Lal
Kamal Pratap Singh as well as the full
Bench in Amarauti Case by letter and
sprit.

Held: Para 11

In the light of the aforesaid observations
of the Apex Court in Lal Kamlendra
PratapSingh v. State of U.P. and the
observations of the Full Bench of this
Court in Amarawati it is provided that if
an application is moved before the
competent Magistrate within 3 weeks, a
date may be fixed for appearance of the
petitioner in about a week thereafter.
The petitioner may not be arrested
without permission of the Magistrate
between the date of moving of the
application for surrender and the date
fixed for his appearance in the Court.
The concerned Court may direct the
Public Prosecutor to obtain instructions
from the investigating officer by the date
fixed and thereafter dispose of the bail
application at the earliest in accordance
with the decision in Amarawati's case. It
will also be open for the Court concerned
to release the petitioner on interim bail
in an appropriate case on such terms and
conditions that the concerned Court
deems fit and proper till the next date of
hearing of the bail application, if the
hearing of the case is adjourned or the
Court for any reason is not in a position
to finally dispose of the bail application
on that day, or some further instructions
are needed.
Case law discussed:
AIR 1952 SC 12, AIR 1965 SC 745, Criminal
Appeal No. 538 of 2009, 2005 Cri.L.J. 755.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amar Saran, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned AGA.