# Khemraj Smarak Rashtritya Vidyapeeth v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 1 ILRA 721
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-01-17
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 4156 of 2017
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/khemraj-smarak-rashtritya-vidyapeeth-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48054
- **Pages:** 48

## Headnote

C.S.C., Akhilesh Kalra, Alqa Samreen,
Apoorva Tewari, Atul Kumar Dwivedi, Faiz
Ali Khan, Puneet Chandra, Shailendra Kr.
Singh, Siddharth Vikram Asthana, Surendra
Lal, Virendra Pd Srivastava

A. Society Registration Act, 1860 - Section
25 (1) - Amended provision made by the
UP Legislature - Proviso to Section 4 (1) -
Election dispute - Reference before the
Prescribed Authority, when called for -
Power of Deputy Registrar considered -
Held, if any objection is filed by Ex
members and they raise the dispute of the
election, it cannot be said that the Deputy
Registrar cannot decide such dispute and
he is bound to refer the dispute to the
Prescribed
Authority.
The
Deputy
Registrar in every case cannot be forced
to refer the dispute to the Prescribed
Authority - Section 25 (1) provides for
settlement of dispute in summary manner
and it does not all together oust the
authority of the Deputy Registrar to
accept the list of members. If such
interpretation is accepted, then the power
conferred on the Deputy Registrar by the
proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 4 will
become redundant and otiose. (Para 93)
722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. Society Registration Act, 1860 - Sections
4-B - Change in the list of members - Role
of Deputy Registrar - Held, the Deputy
Registrar
is
not
supposed
to
make
adjudication of dispute of correctness of
membership like a court, but whenever the
list is submitted or there is any change in
the list of members, and objection is raised
or otherwise, Deputy Registrar has to
prima facie satisfy himself that change has
been
made
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of the bylaws and is prima facie
genuine. (Para 103)
C. Society Registration Act, 1860 -
Inter-se dispute - Finding of facts
recorded by the Deputy Registrar -
Scope of interference - Lacking of
necessary pleading in writ petition -
Effect
- Held, in the entire writ
petition there is no foundation to
assert that findings of fact recorded in
the order impugned are erroneous. No
ground has been taken to challenge
the findings of fact recorded by the
Deputy Registrar - High Court refused
to interfere in the impugned order.
(Para 109 and 116)
D. Society Registration Act, 1860 -
Proceeding before the Deputy Registrar -
Nature - Remedy of approaching the Civil
Court - Scope - Held, the proceedings
before the Deputy Registrar are summary
proceedings
and
are
not
conclusive
findings of fact - Any person aggrieved
must go to the civil court where the
Presiding Officer has the training to sift
grain from chaff. (Para 112)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,894 of 167,601. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39894 for what follows._

1 All. Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
721
Amin Commissioner shows that during
inspection he noticed the tenant sitting with
a few tools of his trade, but the furnace had
not been fired. This would not go to show
that the original tenant was utilizing the
demised premises for carrying on his trade
of a blacksmith. A blacksmith's trade in the
absence
of
a
working
furnace
is
unimaginable. The description of the tenant
sitting in his shop, though this Court does
not intend to record any finding about it,
leaves an impression of doubt about the
case of the tenant doing business of a
blacksmith.

31. Now, about the surviving tenants,
or the landlord's son and the widow, there is
no material brought on record to show that
they are also engaged in the trade of
blacksmith. Apparently, the tenant has not
discharged his burden on the question of
comparative hardship, which again for a
principle is required to be proved by the
tenant once the landlord establishes his case
of bona finde need. It must also be remarked
that the Prescribed Authority has held on the
question of comparative hardship clearly in
favour of the tenant for good reasons
assigned, including the tenant's failure to
look for alternative accommodation. That
finding of the Prescribed Authority is again
unassailable, which the Appellate Authority
has disturbed on manifestly illegal premises.

32. In the result, this petition succeeds
and is allowed. The impugned order passed
by
the
Appellate
Authority
dated
16.08.2010, to the extent that it rejects the
landlord's application under Section 21(1)(a)
of the Act, is set aside and that of the
Prescribed Authority dated 04.08.2008
restored. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022)01ILR A721
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Writ C No. 4156 of 2017

Khemraj Smarak Rashtritya Vidyapeeth
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ....Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, Kartiket Dubey,
Vinod Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Akhilesh Kalra, Alqa Samreen,
Apoorva Tewari, Atul Kumar Dwivedi, Faiz
Ali Khan, Puneet Chandra, Shailendra Kr.
Singh, Siddharth Vikram Asthana, Surendra
Lal, Virendra Pd Srivastava

A. Society Registration Act, 1860 - Section
25 (1) - Amended provision made by the
UP Legislature - Proviso to Section 4 (1) -
Election dispute - Reference before the
Prescribed Authority, when called for -
Power of Deputy Registrar considered -
Held, if any objection is filed by Ex
members and they raise the dispute of the
election, it cannot be said that the Deputy
Registrar cannot decide such dispute and
he is bound to refer the dispute to the
Prescribed
Authority.
The
Deputy
Registrar in every case cannot be forced
to refer the dispute to the Prescribed
Authority - Section 25 (1) provides for
settlement of dispute in summary manner
and it does not all together oust the
authority of the Deputy Registrar to
accept the list of members. If such
interpretation is accepted, then the power
conferred on the Deputy Registrar by the
proviso to Sub Section (1) of Section 4 will
become redundant and otiose. (Para 93)
722 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. Society Registration Act, 1860 - Sections
4-B - Change in the list of members - Role
of Deputy Registrar - Held, the Deputy
Registrar
is
not
supposed
to
make
adjudication of dispute of correctness of
membership like a court, but whenever the
list is submitted or there is any change in
the list of members, and objection is raised
or otherwise, Deputy Registrar has to
prima facie satisfy himself that change has
been
made
in
accordance
with
the
provisions of the bylaws and is prima facie
genuine. (Para 103)
C. Society Registration Act, 1860 -
Inter-se dispute - Finding of facts
recorded by the Deputy Registrar -
Scope of interference - Lacking of
necessary pleading in writ petition -
Effect
- Held, in the entire writ
petition there is no foundation to
assert that findings of fact recorded in
the order impugned are erroneous. No
ground has been taken to challenge
the findings of fact recorded by the
Deputy Registrar - High Court refused
to interfere in the impugned order.
(Para 109 and 116)
D. Society Registration Act, 1860 -
Proceeding before the Deputy Registrar -
Nature - Remedy of approaching the Civil
Court - Scope - Held, the proceedings
before the Deputy Registrar are summary
proceedings
and
are
not
conclusive
findings of fact - Any person aggrieved
must go to the civil court where the
Presiding Officer has the training to sift
grain from chaff. (Para 112)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited :-
1. Committee of Management, Janta Shiksha
Niketan
Intermediate
College
Vs
Deputy
Registrar Basti; 1979 ALJ 314, (DB)
2. Sarafa Committee, Panchayati Dharam Kanta,
Mathura Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2011 (2) ADJ 262
3. Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti Junior High
School Sikandara, 2010 (7) ADJ 643
4. Chandigarh Administration Vs Manpreet
Singh; 1992 (1) SCC 380
5. St. of Andhra Pradesh Vs Chitra Venkata Rao;
1975 (2) SCC 557
6. Syed Yaqoob Vs K.S. Radhakrishnan AIR
1964 Supreme Court 477
7. Allahabad High School Society Vs St. of U.P.;
2011 (3) ESC 2034
8. Sanatan Dharma Sabha Vs Registrar; AIR
1989 All 189
9. Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti Vs Registrar;
2010 (7) ADJ 643
10. Anjuman Khairul Almin Allahganj Vs St. of
U.P.; 2014 (1) ADJ 44
11. Adarsh Krishak Junior High School; 2009 5
ESC 3506
12. Darul Uloom Ahle Sunnat Gulshan Taiyyaba
Banthewa Vs Deputy Registrar; 2016 (11) ADJ 844
13. Sarafa Committee, Panchayati Dharam
Kanta Mathura Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2011 (2)
ADJ 262
14. Shailendra Singh; 2017 (3) UPLBEC 2035
15. Malati Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2016 (4)
ESC 2146
16. Babu Ram Shiksha Prasar Samiti, District
Etah & anr.Vs Deputy
Registrar; 2007 (9) ADJ 262
17. T.P. Singh Vs Registrar/Assistant Registrar,
Firms Societies and Chits; 2019 (132) ALR 480
18. Committee of Management A. S. Degree
College Association Vs St. of U.P.; 2016 (4) ADJ
207
19. Anjuman Farogh E Islam Vs St. of U.P.;
2014 (5) ADJ 673
20. Sri Jain Dharam Pravarardhini Sabha,
Lucknow Vs St. of U.P.; 2016 (34) LCD 503
21. Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyalaya Vs Committee of
Management Ambedkar Nagar; 2016 (9) ADJ
679
22. Special Appeal No. 261 and 263 of 2015;
Syed Akhtar Hussain Rizvi Vs St. of U.P. decided
on 07.01.2016
1 All. Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
723
23. A.P. Abubakar Musaliar Vs District Registrar;
2004 11 SCC 247
24. Allahabad High School Society Vs St. of UP;
2011 (4) ADJ 341
25. Allahabad High School Society Vs St. of U.P.;
2011 (6) SCC 118
26. R.R. Verma versus Union of India; 1980 (3)
SCC 402
27. Shiksha Prasar Samiti Vs Deputy Registrar,
2002 (2) UPLBEC 1866
28. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs St. of U.P., 2012
AWC 2930
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner which is a Society through its
Secretary Tej Pratap Singh and one Pawan
Kumar Singh son of Babban Singh, the President
of the Society with the State of UP through the
Deputy Registrar Faizabad and the SDM
Ambedkar Nagar as respondents nos. 1,2 & 3
receptively and Narendra Pratap Singh, Raj
Bahadur
Vishwakarma,
Vikramaditya
Goswami, Rajkaran Verma, and Narendra
Pratap Narain Singh as respondents no. 4 to 8
respectively. It is the case of the petitioners that
Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Sangh
(hereinafter referred to as ''the Society') was
registered on 19.11.1965 under the provisions of
the Societies Registration Act at File No. 15328
and at the time of its registration the General
Body of the Society had 15 members and the
strength has now increased to 44. The Elections
of the Committee of Management of the Society
were
held
on
30.11.1965,
30.11.1967,
30.11.1969,
30.11.1971,
30.11.1973,
30.11.1975, 30.11.1977, and 30.11.1979.

2. On 11.10.1980 the registered by-laws
of the Society were amended and the
Amendment duly registered on 29.11.1980 in
the office of the respondent n. 2 by which
the term of the Committee was increased to 5
years and periodical elections were thereafter
held on 30.11.1983, 4.4.1988, 30.4.1993,
1.4.1998, 1.4.2003, and 1.4.2008 and the next
elections were due in the month of April
2013. It has also been submitted that after
registration of the Society its renewal has
been done from time to time and the last
renewal was done for a period of five years
with effect from 10.10. 2005.

3. On 31.02.1985 one Hira Singh
along with five others made a complaint
before the opposite party no.2 against the
amendment in the by-laws and Renewal
Certificate being issued to the office bearers
of the petitioner-Society. The complaint of
Hira Singh and five others was rejected by
the opposite party nos. 2 on 05.07.1986 with
liberty to the complainant to file a case
under Section 25 (1) of the Act before the
Prescribed Authority for redressal of their
grievance. Hira Singh along with others
filed a case under Section 25 (1) of the Act
on 23.10.1986 but it was dismissed for non
prosecution on 09.05.1988. No application
for recall of the order was made thereafter
and the order became final.

4. The Society continued to function
since 1980 under the amended by-laws.
One Shri Dinesh Pratap Singh son of Hira
Singh, who was a stranger to the Society
made a frivolous complaint before the
opposite party no. 2 on 19.12.2009 and
notices were issued by the opposite party
no. 2 to the petitioners. The petitioners
replied and raised a preliminary objection
regarding
the
maintainability
of
the
complaint and about the locus of Dinesh
Pratap Singh. Thereafter, Shri Dinesh
Pratap Singh again made a complaint on
24.4.2010 raising a question about the
724 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
affairs of the petitioners- Society. The
petitioners
again
raised
objections
regarding
locus
of
the
complainant.
Thereafter for the first time the opposite
party number 4 to 8 and three other persons
Late Surendra Bahadur Singh, Late Thakur
Prasad Singh and Late Udaybhan Singh
filed an affidavit on 16.05. 2010 that they
were life members of the Society right from
the time of its creation and that no meeting
was
held
in
the
Society
after
its
establishment and forged proceedings were
submitted for Renewal Certificates and the
Deputy
Registrar
should
declare
the
Managing Committee of the Society timebarred and recognise the applicants as valid
members. On 15.4.2011, the opposite party
no.2 erroneously declared all elections of
the Society after 29.11.1967 to have been
held by a Committee of Management
which was defunct and that such elections
could not be recognised.

5. The petitioners being aggrieved
filed a writ petition before this Court
namely Writ Petition No. 2816 (MS) of
2011
challenging
the
order
dated
15.04.2011.
The
writ
petition
was
dismissed. The Court directed the opposite
party no. 2 to hold fresh elections under his
supervision by its order dated 09.01.2012.
Several applications for modification and
review of the order dated 09.01.2012 were
made and the order modified by the learned
Single
Judge
several
times
which
complicated the matter and Special Appeal
No. 265 of 2014 and Special Appeal No. 84
of 2015 were filed thereafter by the parties.

6. In purported compliance of the
order passed by the writ court dated
09.01.2012, it has been argued that the
opposite party no.2 erroneously declared a
list of eight persons as life members of the
General Body of the Society on 17.03.2012
and requested the opposite party no. 3 to
hold the elections. The petitioners assailed
the order dated 17.3.2012 in a fresh Writ
Petition No.1804 (MS) of 2012. There was
no interim order and fresh elections as
directed by the order dated 17.3.2012 were
held. The petitioner amended the Writ
Petition No. 1804 (MS) of 2012 and
challenged the result of the elections so
held. The writ petition was dismissed on
the ground that subject matter of the writ
petition was pending adjudication in
Special Appeal No. 265 of 2014. Another
Special Appeal was, therefore, filed as
Special Appeal No. 81 of 2015 challenging
the order of the Writ Court dated
24.02.2015.
All
three
special
appeals,namely, Special Appeal No. 265 of
2014 , Special Appeal No. 81 of 2015 and
Special Appeal No. 84 of 2015 were
clubbed together and decided by a common
judgment and order dated 31.08.2016.

7. The Division Bench of the Court
allowed the three Special Appeals and
quashed the various orders passed in Writ
Petition No. 2816 of 2011 and the order
passed in Writ Petition No. 1804 (MS) of
2012 by the writ court. The Court also
quashed the order dated 15.04.2011 passed
by the opposite party no.2 which was
challenged in the writ petition as also the
orders dated 17.03.2012 and 26.04.2012
passed by the opposite party no.2, and
directed the opposite party no. 2 to decide
the dispute afresh and in case he found that
the tenure of the Committee had come to an
end,
to
proceed
and
finalise
the
membership of the Society in accordance
with the by-laws and hold the elections if
necessary within a period of three months.

8. It has been submitted by the
petitioners that the opposite party no.2
erroneously proceeded in the matter and
1 All. Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
725
reiterated the earlier order dated 15.04.2011
by
holding
that
the
Committee
of
Management had become defunct since
1967. Opposite party number 2 issued a
tentative
list
of
eight
members
on
28.12.2016 which list was the same as had
already been set aside by the Division
Bench of the Court, and invited objections
to finalise the list for holding elections.
Objections were filed that three members
of the list had already died. The opposite
party no.2 was requested to examine the
tentative list again but he proceeded in the
matter and again finalised the list of five
members on 09.02.2017 and directed the
SDM, Ambedkar Nagar to hold elections
on 02.03.2017.

9. The petitioners have, therefore,
filed the Writ Petition No. 4156 (M/S) of
2017 praying for quashing of the orders
dated 28.12.2016 (the tentative list) and
09.02.2017 (the final list), and also praying
for a direction to the opposite party no.2 to
renew the Registration Certificate of the
Society with effect from 10.10.2010 for an
extended period on the basis of last
undisputed election of office bearers of the
Committee
of
Management
held
on
01.04.2008, and also to conduct further
election of office bearers of the Society
after finalising the list of members of the
General Body on the basis of list used in
the last election held on 01.04.2008. A
further prayer has been made for a direction
to the opposite parties not to disturb the
working and functioning of the petitionerSociety with the petitioner no.2 and 3 as its
Secretary and President respectively.

10. It has been argued before this
Court that it was observed by the Division
Bench in its judgement dated 30.08.2016
that the term of the elected Committee of
Management had expired long ago
therefore the Deputy Registrar had no
jurisdiction to decide an infructuous
dispute. It has been argued by the
petitioners that the Division Bench in its
judgement and order dated 31.08.2016 had
referred to several issues that needed to be
framed by the Deputy Registrar and
considered again.

11. The Division Bench recorded the
arguments raised by the counsel appearing for
Pawan Kumar Singh and Tej Pratap Singh,
and the grounds for challenge to the orders
passed by the Writ Court. The learned counsel
for the appellants Pawan Kumar Singh had
argued that (1) if fresh elections of the Society
were to be held then they were to be held from
amongst members of the General Body as
existing on 1.4.2008. Putting the clock back to
1967 and reducing the membership to the
members as existing on that date was a totally
illegal exercise undertaken by the Deputy
Registrar. The election even if they were not
held within time could now be held only under
the existing list of members of the General
Body and not on the strength of electoral
college of 1967; (2) By the time the Deputy
Registrar had decided the dispute it had
become infructuous; (3) the election and their
status in 1967 could not have been the subject
matter of consideration by the Deputy
Registrar as the provisions of Section 25 (2)
were incorporated in the Statute only with
effect from 06.10.1975, any elections held
prior to that date could not have been made
subject matter of adjudication; (4) the Deputy
Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction with regard
to decision on disputed elections as that power
had been specifically conferred upon the
Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of
the Act; (5) if earlier elections had been
delayed it would not invalidate the same as no
order was passed by the Deputy Registrar or
726 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
any other authority declaring the Committee of
Management defunct in the meantime. The
Committee of Management continued to
function in the absence of any order passed
under Section 25 (2) and validly held elections
initially after two years and then after an
interval of five years regularly; (6) the Deputy
Registrar could not have gone into the issue of
membership of the General Body on the
strength of observation with regard to
amendment in the by-laws and Memorandum
of Association. There was no power of the
Registrar to review or cancel an amendment
after its registration as the said power can be
exercised only under Section 12 of the Act.
The annulment could not have been made by
the Deputy Registrar as the erstwhile Deputy
Registrar had approved the amendment of the
by-laws earlier; (7) Dinesh Pratap Singh had
no locus to move the application on 9.12.2009
and 08.02.2010 for reopening the question of
elections held in the past after it had been
carried out. Hira Singh his father had moved a
complaint on 03.12.1985 which could not
have been taken up for adjudication after 16
years in 2011; (8) the Deputy Registrar did not
frame any issue regarding validity of the
elections and there was no opportunity given
to Pawan Kumar Singh and others to
substantiate their claims that regular elections
were being held. The Deputy Registrar after
holding the amendments in the by-laws to be
invalid assumed that the Committee of
Management had become defunct as it was
holding elections on the basis of the amended
by-laws after every five years; (9) if the
Deputy Registrar had any doubt regarding the
elections and the continuance of office bearers
he should have referred the matter to the
Prescribed Authority for a decision under
Section 25(1).

12. Shri Anil Tiwari had appeared for
the private respondents in special appeal
filed by Tej Pratap Singh and Pawan
Kumar Singh, and had argued on the basis
of the order passed by the Deputy Registrar
on 15.04.2011 that the Deputy Registrar
had discovered serious irregularities, in the
amendment of the by-laws in 1980 and in
Memorandum of Association in 2001, and
he had not found any evidence of any
elections
having
been
held
after
1967,therefore, the only option left with
him was to direct fresh elections to be held
under under Section 25 (2) of the Act.

13. The Division Bench after
recording the submissions made by the
counsel for the contesting parties adverted
to the orders passed by the Writ Court in
Writ Petition No.2816 (MS) of 2011 which
had challenged the order passed by the
Deputy Registrar dated 15.04.2011. The
writ petition was initially dismissed on
09.01.2012 but thereafter serious dispute
arose with regard to the date of last
undisputed election and the order dated
09.01.2012 was modified and reviewed at
least four times by the writ court. The
Division Bench disapproved the orders
passed by the learned Single Judge from
time to time on the ground that the writ
court did not advert at all to the merits of
the
Deputy
Registrar''s
order
dated
15.04.2011. The Division Bench observed
that the Deputy Registrar while passing the
order dated 15.04.2011 framed only three
issues for deciding the matter namely, (1)
the status of amendment in the original bylaws of 1965, (2)whether the Principal of
the Institution established by the Society
can also be the founder member of the
parent Society and (3) the status of
members and membership. Regarding the
original bye-laws as against the amended
by-laws of the Society, the Division Bench
observed that the Deputy Registrar while
discussing the validity of the amendment
and membership went on to observe that all
1 All. Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
727
elections after 29.11.1967 had become
invalid , consequently , in the absence of
valid elections after 1967, the committee
had become defunct and,therefore, the
provisions of sub-Section (2) of Section 25
were invoked. The Division Bench gave a
finding that the date of 01.04.2008
recorded by the learned Single Judge in his
order can nowhere be found in the entire
order of the Deputy Registrar pertaining to
the elections of the Society.

14. The appellant in the Special
Appeal had mentioned the dates of
periodical elections allegedly held on
30.11.1969,
30.11.1971,
30.11.1973,
30.11.1975,
30.11.1977,
13.11.1979,
30.11.1983,
04.04.1988,
03.04.1993,
01.04.1998, 01.04.2003. According to the
contesting respondents all these dates were
fake as no records/documents supporting
the holding of any such elections could be
found in the office of the Deputy Registrar.
The Division Bench gave a finding that
from the perusal of the order of the Deputy
Registrar dated 15.04.2011 at least two
elections were found to have been referred
to in the correspondence. One that was
intimated through registered letter of the
Committee
of
Management
dated
11.12.1985, and the other related to the list
of office bearers and election proceedings
dated 29.11.1981. However, the Division
Bench observed that neither the Deputy
Registrar nor the Writ Court had examined
this issue to find out about the status of
such elections, therefore there was no basis
for the Writ Court to have arrived at the
conclusion that no elections were held after
01.04.2008 or that they had been held
periodically prior to that date. The Deputy
Registrar in fact had not even framed an
issue with regard to elections. The Division
Bench set aside the orders passed by the
Single Judge on 09.01.2012 and other
orders modifying the original judgment. It
also set aside the order passed by the
Deputy Registrar on 15.04.2011 and
allowed the Special Appeal Nos. 81 and 84
of 2015. It held that the order dated
15.04.2011 could not be sustained for the
reason that it had not framed any issue
pertaining to the holding of periodical
elections. Secondly, the validity of such
elections if held, the term thereof had
expired long ago, could not have been gone
into by the Deputy Registrar as otherwise it
was
within
the
jurisdiction
of
the
Prescribed Authority. Also the elections or
status of Committee of Management prior
to 16.10.1975 could not have been gone
into as the provisions of Section 25 came
into effect only after 1975 and therefore the
proceedings of 1967 could not have been
made the subject matter of the decision of
the Deputy Registrar.

15. The Division Bench rejected the
argument raised by Shri Anil Tiwari that
issue of the validity of amendments and its
consequences could be looked into if the
entire exercise was fraudulently done, on
the ground that the Deputy Registrar had
not adverted at all to the issue as to whether
he had the power to review earlier orders
passed by his predecessor approving such
amendment in the by-laws. It also observed
that there was no finding as to whether the
said amendments had been obtained by
fraud so as to invoke the power of review.
If the amendments were indeed invalid and
the renewal granted on the basis thereof
was also invalid then a person had a right to
question the same by raising an appropriate
challenge. Such a challenge was in fact
raised by Shri Hira Singh and others in
1985, but was defeated. The Division
Bench
observed
that
it
is
beyond
728 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
comprehension as to why such persons kept
quiet for sixteen years and it was ultimately
Dinesh Pratap Singh son of Hira Singh who
moved two applications one in 2009 and
one in 2010. The question of locus of
Dinesh Pratap Singh was also therefore
required to be examined. The Division
Bench observed that if the Deputy
Registrar was of the opinion that there was
no document pertaining to the holding of
any election after 1967, he should have
framed such an issue calling upon the
parties to submit the documents to establish
as to whether valid periodical elections had
been held or not and duly intimated to the
authorities. The Deputy Registrar also did
not take notice of the fact that he did not
have the authority to enter into any factual
dispute of Committee of Management
when the tenure thereof had come to an
end. The order passed by the Deputy
Registrar dated 15.04.2011 was therefore
set aside and that Writ Petition No. 2816
(M/S) of 2011 was allowed. The Division
Bench thereafter observed that the "Deputy
Registrar should now proceed to pass a
fresh order in the light of the observations
made
hereinabove
after
giving
an
opportunity of hearing to the parties and
after noticing their contentions and framing
issues arising out of the dispute raised
before him."

16. The Division Bench set aside the
order of the Single Judge dated 09.01.2012.
The Division Bench also set aside the writ
Court's
orders
dated
17.01.2012,
20.09.2012, 04.12.2012 and 08.05.2014.
Having set aside the order passed by the
Deputy
Registrar
dated
15.04.2011,
consequential actions like the order dated
17.03.2012 finalising the list of 40
members was also set aside, as also the
order dated 26.04.2012, recognizing the
new Committee of Management. A further
direction was issued to the Deputy
Registrar that in case he finds that the
tenure of the Committee of Management
had come to an end, he should proceed to
finalise the membership in accordance with
law and then proceed to hold elections
under Section 25(2), if necessary.

17. In response to the writ petition,
counter affidavit has been filed by the
official respondent, the respondent no.2,
and counter affidavits have also been filed
by respondent nos.4, 5 and 6. The
respondent no.4 is being represented by Sri
Atul Kumar Dwivedi and respondent no.5
is being represented by Sri Anil Kumar
Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri Apoorva Tiwari and Sri Prakhar
Mishra. Respondent no. 6 is being
represented by Sri Puneet Chandra.

18. In the counter affidavit filed by
the respondent no.2 the Deputy Registrar, it
has been stated that no elections were held
according to the earlier registered by-laws
or even in accordance with the amended
by-laws. After list of five members of the
General Body was finalised by the
respondent no.2, the elections of the
Society were held on 08.03.2017 and Shri
Raj Bahadur Vishwakarma was elected as
President and Shri Narendra Pratap Singh
was elected as Manager. The respondent
no.2 further submitted that the Society did
not furnish copies of election proceedings
allegedly held on 30.09.1979 which date
was later on changed to 30.11.1979.
According to the amended by-laws the
tenure of office bearers of the General
Body was to be five years and that of the
Committee of Management was to be two
years. In case the ammended by-laws were
accepted then after 1979, elections to the
Committee of Management were to be held
in 1984 but the petitioners were showing
1 All. Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
729
elections to be held in the year 1983. The
respondent no.2 in his counter affidavit has
also emphasised that after the judgement of
this Court in the Special Appeals on
31.08.2016, office orders dated 15.04.2011
as well as 17.3.2012 were cancelled. With
regard to the hearing before the Deputy
Registrar, it has been specifically stated
that notice was issued to the parties on
15.09.2016 and 07.11.2016 was fixed as
the date of hearing. Later on, another notice
was issued on 30.11.2016 after hearing the
parties some of whom appeared in person
while others through counsel the order was
issued on 28.12.2016. Similarly, when the
tentative membership list was published,
objections of both the parties were
considered and the list finalised only on
09.02.2017. Elections of the Society were
held in pursuance of the order dated
09.02.2017 and no challenge has been
raised in respect of such elections therefore
the writ petition deserved to be dismissed.

19. In the counter affidavit filed by
the respondent no.4 it has been averred that
the strength of the General Body at the time
of initial registration of the Society was 27
and that of the Managing Committee
elected on 30.11.1965 was 15. Such
Managing Committee became time-barred
after 29.11.1967, therefore, no member
could have been added in the General Body
by such Managing Committee nor could
they have held any election. The elections
that
were
held
were
forged
and
manipulated elections, only on paper. There
was no observation of the Division Bench
that undisputed elections were held on
01.04.2008. It has been submitted that the
alleged election proceedings held on
30.09.1979 and 13.08.1981 were not
produced in their original before the
Deputy Registrar. Photo copies of election
proceedings of the Society with effect
from 1967 till 1979 were submitted by Tej
Pratap Singh along with his application for
the first time on 09.07.2010. It has also
been stated that renewal of the Society was
lastly made on 09.11.2005 and thereafter
renewal certificate has been granted to the
respondent nos.4 and 5 on 15.10.2015
which is operative till 2020. The grant of
renewal certificate is only for the benefit of
the Society and does not confer any rights
on any of the members. Moreover, in the
order passed by the Division Bench on
31.08.2016 there was a specific direction to
the Deputy Registrar to grant renewal
certificate in time. Therefore, the same has
been granted. Dinesh Pratap Singh had died
in 2014 before the judgement dated
31.08.2016. His locus to file any complaint
therefore could not be seen after his death.
Independent and separate complaints were
filed by the respondent no.4 along with
several other life members which could
validly be looked into by the Deputy
Registrar.
The
respondent
no.4
has
specifically stated that he had filed a
separate written statement on 07.11.2016
and also submitted original documents on
11.11.2016 for perusal of the Deputy
Registrar. It has further been submitted that
the Division Bench had directed the Deputy
Registrar to decide the dispute and at the
time of deciding such dispute Section 25
had become operative and there was no
prohibition, for the Deputy Registrar to act
in accordance with Section 25 in the
judgement and order dated 31.08.2016. The
Deputy
Registrar
therefore
rightly
considered the issues raised before him
with regard to whether any valid elections
were held after 1967. The Division Bench
in its judgement dated 31.08.2016 had
made no observations with regard to the
alleged amendment of the by-laws of the
730 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Society by the petitioners. The court had
left it open to the Deputy Registrar by
issuing him a direction to consider all
aspects of the matter. The Deputy Registrar
therefore framed four issues on 30.11.2016
and after considering papers produced both
by the petitioners as well as the opposite
parties, and the records maintained in his
office, has come to the conclusion that
earlier orders passed by the Deputy
Registrar were passed on the basis of
fabricated documents. The members who
were signatories in the Memorandum of
Association of the Society were not given
any notice or information with regard to
termination of their membership on failure
to deposit subscription with Babban Singh,
nor were they given any notice of the
proposed amendment in the by-laws of the
Society. The proceedings dated 11.10.1980
submitted before the Deputy Registrar
showing that life members names were
deleted and the names of other persons who
had not been validly inducted by the
General Body had been mentioned. The
Deputy Registrar rightly came to the
conclusion that since papers regarding
General
Body
of
the
Society
were
submitted by Babban Singh and not by the
alleged Committee of Management elected
in the periodical elections proved that no
elections were held in time. The application
for renewal therefore was also not in
accordance with Section 3A of the Act.

20. The respondent no.4 in paragraph
16 of his counter affidavit states that the
name of Dinesh Pratap Singh is mentioned in
the list of members of the Society that has
been filed as an annexure 21 to the petition.
Name of the respondent no.4 can be found at
serial number 16 in the said list of life
members and that of respondent no.5 Raj
Bahadur Vishwakarma can be found at serial
number 24 of the same list. The name of
respondent no.6 Vikramaditya Goswami can
be found at serial number 25, the name of
respondent no.7 Raj Karan Verma can be
found at serial number 22, the name of
respondent no.8 Narendra Pratap Narain
Singh can be found at serial number 27 of the
list filed as annexure 21 to the writ petition.
Out of 27 life members of the Society in
1965, 15 were elected on 30.11.1965 as the
Committee of Management.

21. The respondent no.5 in his counter
affidavit has repeated most of the contents
of counter affidavit of respondent no.4 and
has also raised the question of the amended
by-laws being registered fraudulently in
1980 and also the issue of no elections
being conducted according to the registered
by-laws before the passing of the order
dated 28.12.2016. In pursuance of the order
dated 28.12.2016 and 09.02.2017, elections
were held on 08.03.2017. It has also been
submitted by the respondent no.5 that there
were 21 members originally when the
Society was constituted and the respondent
nos. 4 to 8 are all life members. No Agenda
was circulated amongst the members of the
General
Body
by
the
petitioners'
predecessor-in-interest
before
the
amendment was carried out and forged
proceedings have been submitted by the
petitioner no.3. No elections as have been
mentioned in paragraph 5 of the writ
petition, were ever held and no proceedings
were
submitted
before
the
Deputy
Registrar. The respondent nos. 4 to 8 had
filed their separate applications challenging
the right of the petitioners to hold elections.
Such a complaint by life members was
rightly looked into by the Deputy Registrar.
He gave proper opportunity of hearing by
issuing notices. The petitioners appeared
and took time to file documents. They did
not file documents in their original but only
photo copies were submitted.
1 All. Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
731

22. With regard to alleged amended
by-laws, it has been submitted by the
respondent no.5 that they were forged
documents
and
earlier
order
dated
05.07.1986 had been passed by the Deputy
Registrar on the basis of fraud and
misrepresentation of the then Committee of
Management, and therefore the current
incumbent was authorised to look into the
matter again by the Division Bench in
Special Appeal. Since the earlier orders
dated
15.04.2011,
26.04.2012
and
17.03.2012 had been set aside by the
Division Bench, it was open for the Deputy
Registrar to consider the matter afresh after
framing issues as had been observed in the
judgement and order dated 31.08.2016. The
Division Bench did not express any opinion
with regard to the date of last undisputed
election. The order of the Writ Court which
had referred to elections being held lastly
on 01.04.2008 was also set aside by the
Division Bench. It has also been reiterated
that the elections held in pursuance of the
order dated 9.2.2017 on 8.3.2017 have not
been challenged by amending the writ
petition. The petitioners were raising a
dispute which died its natural death after
fresh elections were held in pursuance of
the order dated 09.02.2017.

23. In the counter affidavit of
respondent no.5, it has also been stated that
Sushila Devi wife of Babban Singh had
submitted the papers for registration of
amended by-laws through her letter dated
30.10.1980 without annexing a copy of the
minutes of the meeting of the General Body
allegedly held on 11.10.1980. Only a copy
of the Resolution was submitted that the
amended by-laws had been unanimously
adopted by the General Body. However,
the
Resolution
did
not
state
what
amendments were being proposed and
adopted in the original by-laws. The
amended by-laws were got fraudulently
registered on 29.11.1980. The Deputy
Registrar therefore in the impugned order
dated 28.12.2016 has recorded a categorical
finding of fact that no amendment to the
by-laws was ever made by the General
Body of the Society in the alleged meeting
held on 11.10.1980. The Deputy Registrar
has recorded a finding also that along with
the letter dated 30.10.1980 a list containing
21 names, alleged to be members of the
General Body of the Society who had
attended the meeting on 11.10.1980, was
filed but the said list did not contain the
names of 13 out of 15 original signatories
to the Memorandum of Association. The
respondent no.5 has also pointed out in his
counter affidavit that the Agenda for a
meeting proposed to be held on 30.04.1972
is alleged to have been issued on
18.04.1972, under the signature of Babban
Singh as Sansthapak/founder. In the said
alleged meeting held on 30.04.1972,
Resolution no.7 was passed resolving that
deposit of subscription by the original
members at the time of registration of the
Society was mandatory and until the
aforesaid
members
deposited
the
subscription they would not be sent
intimation of future meetings. It was
alleged
that
through
letters
dated
01.05.1972 and 16.08.1972, nine members
had
been
directed
to
deposit
their
subscription with the Sansthapak Babban
Singh, but they failed to deposit the same
and
another
meeting
was
held
on
10.09.1972 wherein through the Resolution
no.6 it was resolved that membership of
such nine original members be terminated
as they had not deposited the subscription
in spite of written intimation given to them
through the two letters sent by Babban
Singh. It has been pointed out that Babban
732 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Singh was declared to be the Sansthapak of
the Society and given special rights through
the amended by-laws allegedly adopted on
11.10.1980 hence Babban Singh could not
have acted as Sansthapak of the Society in
1972 nor could he have convened the
alleged meeting on 10.09.1972 nor could
he have issued notices to the life members
of
the
Society
on
01.05.1972
and
16.08.1972 as Sansthapak.

24. It has been submitted by learned
counsel for the respondents that Clause 2A
of the original by-laws of Society defines
''Life Members' as those members who
were associated with the Society prior to its
registration,
or
those
who
deposited
Rs.1001/-
as
subscription
after
its
registration. The use of the word "OR"
meant that either one had to be associated
with the Society since its inception or who
had deposited one thousand and one rupees
as membership fees. Those signatories to
the Memorandum of Association like the
respondents herein would not be required
to deposit subscription in violation of the
original by-laws before such amended bylaws were actually adopted on 11.10.1980
and registered on 29.11.1980.