# Maulana Abdul Kalaam Azad Education Society, Aadelih, Dist Mau & Anr v. Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region Azamgarh & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 9 ILRA 310
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-24
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 20596 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ashutosh Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/maulana-abdul-kalaam-azad-education-society-aadelih-dist-mau-anr-v-assistant-49014
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Maintainability - Committee of
management
dispute
-
Bye-Laws
authorized
the
Manager
to
initiate
proceeding in a Court of Law, however,
the proceeding was initiated by the
President - Proceeding by the President in
individual capacity - Permissibility - Word
'pairvi' in the Bye-Laws of the society -
Scope defined - Held, word "pairvi" in
common
parlance
implies
that
all
proceedings including institution of legal
proceedings in a Court of Law is to be
done by the Manager and as such, there
appears
to
be
some
force
in
the
preliminary objection - However, the
Court finds that even if the writ petition is
held to be not maintainable by the
Committee of Management through its
President, it is certainly maintainable by
the
President
in
his/her
individual
capacity. (Para 10)
B. Societies Registration Act, 1860 -
Sections 4(1) & 25(1) - Election - Dispute
or doubt - Duty of Assistant Registrar to
refer the dispute, when can be discharged
- Assistant Registrar found the rival claim
not bonafide - Validity challenged - Held,
only genuine rival claim / disputes or
doubts about the office bearers of the
Society are required to be referred for
adjudication
by
Prescribed
Authority
under Section 25 (1) of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 and the Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits while
referring the dispute is not to function as
a post office/rubber stamp - High Court
found no error in the order of the
Assistant Registrar to proceed u/s 4(1) .
(Para 12, 13 and 14)
9 All. C/M Maulana Abdul Kalaam Azad Education Society, Aadelih, Dist Mau & Anr. Vs.
 Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region Azamgarh & Anr.
311
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-

## Text

310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
argument would have been justified in case
a provision such as Statute 36.01 (in case of
Meerut University which is akin to Statute
37.01
applicable
to
the
Lucknow
University) was not in existence in the first
Statutes and no approval was granted by
the Sate Government in that regard. The
reasoning given by learned Single Judge in
the case of the Ram Kumar (supra)
appears to be correct. The argument based
on Section 21(4) could be said to be
available to the learned State Counsel only
in absence of the provisions which are
contained in Statute 37.01 of the First
Statutes.

34. For the reasons aforesaid, we are
unable to find ourselves in agreement with
the submission made by the learned
counsel for the appellant- State authorities.
The judgment and order passed by learned
Single Judge which is under Appeal herein
does not warrant any interference by us in
this Special Appeal.

35. The Special Appeal is thus
dismissed.

36. However, there will be no order as
to Costs.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 310
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHUTOSH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 20596 of 2022

C/M
Maulana
Abdul
Kalaam
Azad
Education Society, Aadelih, Dist Mau &
Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and
Chits, Azamgarh Region Azamgarh & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Adarsh Singh, Sri Indra Raj Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Anshu Chaudhary, Sri G.K. Singh

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 -
Writ - Maintainability - Committee of
management
dispute
-
Bye-Laws
authorized
the
Manager
to
initiate
proceeding in a Court of Law, however,
the proceeding was initiated by the
President - Proceeding by the President in
individual capacity - Permissibility - Word
'pairvi' in the Bye-Laws of the society -
Scope defined - Held, word "pairvi" in
common
parlance
implies
that
all
proceedings including institution of legal
proceedings in a Court of Law is to be
done by the Manager and as such, there
appears
to
be
some
force
in
the
preliminary objection - However, the
Court finds that even if the writ petition is
held to be not maintainable by the
Committee of Management through its
President, it is certainly maintainable by
the
President
in
his/her
individual
capacity. (Para 10)
B. Societies Registration Act, 1860 -
Sections 4(1) & 25(1) - Election - Dispute
or doubt - Duty of Assistant Registrar to
refer the dispute, when can be discharged
- Assistant Registrar found the rival claim
not bonafide - Validity challenged - Held,
only genuine rival claim / disputes or
doubts about the office bearers of the
Society are required to be referred for
adjudication
by
Prescribed
Authority
under Section 25 (1) of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 and the Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits while
referring the dispute is not to function as
a post office/rubber stamp - High Court
found no error in the order of the
Assistant Registrar to proceed u/s 4(1) .
(Para 12, 13 and 14)
9 All. C/M Maulana Abdul Kalaam Azad Education Society, Aadelih, Dist Mau & Anr. Vs.
 Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region Azamgarh & Anr.
311
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti Junior High
School Sikandra District Manpur Dehat & anr. Vs
Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P.
Lucknow & ors.; 2010 (3) UPLBEC 2522
2. Ramadhar Shashtri & Anr. Vs Deputy Director
of Education, IV Region, Allahabad & ors.; 1987
UPLBEC 14
3. Committee of Management, Rashtriya Junior
High
School
(Society)
Vs
The
Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits & ors.;
2005 (61) ALR 74

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashutosh
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Shri Indra Raj Singh, learned
counsel for the petitioners and Shri G. K.
Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Shri Anshu Chaudhary, leaned counsel
appearing for the caveator-respondent No.
3. The learned Standing Counsel has
appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 &
2.

2. The challenge laid in the writ
petition is to an order dated 2.6.2022
passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms
Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region,
Azamgarh / respondent No. 1 whereby and
whereunder, the claim of the petitioner No.
2 to hold the post of President of the
Committee of Management has been
negated while the claim of the respondent
No. 3 has been approved.

3. The facts shorn of unnecessary
details, necessary for the purposes of
adjudicating the controversy involved in
the instant writ petition, briefly, stated are
that there is a Society in the name and style
of
"Maulana
Abdul
Kalaam
Azad
Education Society, Gram Aadedhi, Post
Umapur, Tehsil Sadar, Janpad Mau" duly
registered under the provisions of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. The
Society has its approved bye laws and the
Certificate of Registration is renewed from
time to time. The Society has established
and runs an educational institution in the
name of Maulana Abdul Kalaam Azad
Alpsankhayak
Shikshak
Prasikshan
Sansthan, Pardaha, Mau which is duly
recognized
under
the
U.P.
State
Universities Act, 1973 and is managed by
recognized Committee of Management
whose term is five years. The Certificate of
Registration of the Society was lastly
renewed vide order dated 16.10.2019 by
the Assistant Registrar/ respondent No. 1
for a period of five years on the
proceedings submitted by Shri Mohd.
Javed as Manager and Shri Amit Kumar
Singh, as President of the Committee of
Management of the Society.

4. The General Body of the Society in
its meeting held on 7.2.2021 presided over
by the President Amit Kumar Singh
resolved to induct at least two new
members and in furtherance thereof an
Advertisement
dated
9.2.2021
was
published in the News Daily "Devbrat",
Azamgarh. The petitioner No. 2 Smt.
Mridula Mishra and one Nisha Khan are
stated to have been inducted as Life
Members of the General Body of the
Society. Meanwhile, Shri Amit Kumar
Singh, the recognized President is stated to
have
died
on
16.4.2021.
The
Vice
President, Shri Wahadullah is stated to be
residing in a foreign country. A meeting of
the General Body is stated to have been
held on 3.10.2021 and the petitioner No. 2
is stated to have been elected as President
against the casual vacancy occurred on the
death of the President Shri Amit Kumar
Singh, for the remaining term of the
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Committee of Management of the Society.
The petitioner No.2 is stated to have
submitted the proceedings along with an
application dated 12.11.2021. Another set
of proceedings were submitted by one
Gulam Nabhi alleging himself to be
Manager and Ajit Kumar Singh, as
President with the Assistant Registrar /
respondent No. 1.

5. The Assistant Registrar, Firms
Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region,
Azamgarh/respondent No. 1 issued notices
to both the rival claimants and after hearing
them reserved the judgment on 12.5.2022.
By the impugned judgment dated 2.6.2022,
the respondent No. 1 has proceeded to
reject the claim of the petitioner No. 2 and
has approved the proceedings submitted by
Gulam Nabhi. The said order is under
challenge in the present writ petition.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners
has assailed the order dated 2.6.2022
principally on the ground that:-

the respondent No. 1 even after
reserving the judgment after hearing the
parties on 12.5.2022 has relied upon
documents submitted by the rival claimant
Gulam Nabhi on 20.5.2022 even without
serving a copy of the same upon the
petitioners.

the petitioners had submitted
written arguments with certain documents
and application on 19.5.2022, but the
respondent No. 1 failed to consider the
same in a prospective manner.

the impugned order has been
passed in violation of the principles of
natural justice.

the impugned order is without
jurisdiction inasmuch as the Assistant
Registrar is not vested with powers under
the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to
adjudicate any doubt or dispute with regard
to the office bearers of the Society and the
dispute was liable to be referred under
Section 25 (I) of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioners
Shri Indra Raj Singh in order to buttress his
arguments has placed reliance upon the
decisions in case of Gram Shiksha Sudhar
Samiti Junior High School Sikandra
District Manpur Dehat and another Vs.
Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P.
Lucknow and others reported in 2010 (3)
UPLBEC 2522 (Paras 7, 8 & 9) and in case
of Ramadhar Shashtri & Anr. Vs. Deputy
Director
of
Education,
IV
Region,
Allahabad & Ors., reported in 1987
UPLBEC 14 (Paras 2, 3 & 4).

8. A preliminary objection as to the
maintainability of the writ petition at the
instance of the petitioner No. 2 describing
herself as the President of the Committee of
Management has been raised by Shri G. K.
Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Shri Anshu Chaudhary, learned counsel
representing the respondent No. 3. The
objection proceeds on the premise that
under the approved bye laws of the Society
proceedings in a Court of Law on behalf of
the Society can be maintained on behalf of
the Manager of the Society and the
President is not authorized to maintain the
proceedings.

9. Considering the aspect of the
preliminary
objection
regarding
the
maintainability of the writ petition, the
Court finds that Clause 14 of the approved
bye laws of the Society which have been
brought on record as Annexure-1 to the writ
petition provides that the pairvi of the legal
proceedings for and against the Society is
to be done by the Manager.
9 All. C/M Maulana Abdul Kalaam Azad Education Society, Aadelih, Dist Mau & Anr. Vs.
 Assistant Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region Azamgarh & Anr.
313

10. In the opinion of the Court, the
word "pairvi" in common parlance implies
that all proceedings including institution of
legal proceedings in a Court of Law is to be
done by the Manager and as such, there
appears to be some force in the preliminary
objection raised by the learned counsel for
the respondent. However, the Court finds
that the President of the Society has arrayed
herself as petitioner No. 2 and even if the
writ petition is held to be not maintainable
by the Committee of Management through
its President, it is certainly maintainable by
the President in his/her individual capacity.
In such view of the matter, the preliminary
objection
raised
about
the
non
maintainability of the writ petition is
overruled. The writ petition is held to be
maintainable.

11. Now coming to the arguments
advanced by learned counsel for the
petitioner No. 2, on the merits, the Court
finds that the Assistant Registrar in the
impugned order has clearly recorded the
factum that arguments of the parties were
heard on 12.5.2022 and the judgment was
reserved. It was agreed between the parties
that they would submit written submissions
and original documents by 20.5.2022. In
pursuance to the order dated 12.5.2022,
Shri Gulam Nabhi submitted the original
documents pertaining to the proceedings
while Smt. Mridula Mishra failed to
produce any original documents and only
submitted her written arguments. The Court
is not impressed with the argument
advanced by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the respondent No. 1 even
after reserving the judgment, after hearing
the parties on 12.5.2022 relied upon
documents submitted by Gulam Nabhi on
20.5.2022 inasmuch as it had been agreed
between the parties to do so. The
respondent No. 1 had permitted the original
records to be filed. Shri Gulam Nabhi filed
the original records, but Smt. Mridula
Mishra, petitioner No. 2 failed to filed any
original documents and pleaded that the
documents had been stolen as an after
thought. The case law relied upon by the
learned counsel reported in Ramadhar
Shashtri's
case
(supra)
is
clearly
distinguishable on facts as in that case the
Deputy Director permitted both parties to
file documents after hearing the case on his
own, but in the case at hand, the parties had
themselves agreed to submit the original
records by a particular date. The impugned
order cannot be said to have been passed in
violation of principal of natural justice as
ample equal opportunity had been given to
the petitioner No. 2 to establish her case.

12. It has also been argued that the
impugned order dated 2.6.2022 passed by
the Assistant Registrar/respondent No. 1 is
without jurisdiction inasmuch as instead of
referring the rival claims set up before him
under Section 25 (I) of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, the Assistant
Registrar proceeded to adjudicate the doubt
or dispute with regard to the office bearers
of the Society. Learned counsel for the
petitioners has placed reliance upon the
decision of Division Bench of this Court
reported in Gram Shiksha Sudhar Samiti's
case (supra). There can be no quarrel about
the law laid down by Their Lordships in the
decision reported in Gram Shiksha Sudhar
Samiti's case (supra). However, the Court
is of the opinion that only genuine rival
claim / disputes or doubts about the office
bearers of the Society are required to be
referred for adjudication by Prescribed
Authority under Section 25 (i) of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits while referring the dispute is not to
function as a post office/rubber stamp.
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Sufficient, prima facie, material must be
produced before the Registrar before he can
validly exercise his jurisdiction of referring
the dispute.

13. In the case at hand, the Assistant
Registrar while, prima facie, considering
the existence of a bona fide dispute
regarding the office bearers of the Society
has recorded in his order that in the typed
copy of the proceedings submitted along
with her application / objection dated
12.11.2021, the petitioner No. 2 Smt.
Mridula Mishra, the details of the number
of members of present are not mentioned. It
has also not been mentioned as to who
convened the meeting of the General Body
and who informed the members. The said
aspect has neither been clarified nor any
evidence has been filed in support thereof.
In the absence of proof of convening the
meeting as per the registered bye laws of
the Society, the proceedings submitted by
Smt. Mridula Mishra appears to be
doubtful. Besides the above, the Assistant
Registrar has in its order recorded the
factum that in respect of the meeting of the
General Body on 3.10.2021 in which the
vacant post of the President Shri Amit
Kumar Singh has been filled up by Smt.
Mridula Mishra. Much prior to the said
date on 15.4.2021, the President Shri Amit
Kumar Singh is stated to have expired and
in terms of Rule 10, the then Manager
Mohd. Javed was authorized to convene the
meeting of the General Body on 3.10.2021
and send information to the members. No
statement has been made by Smt. Mridula
Mishra that the meeting had been convened
by Mohd. Javed nor any document to that
effect has been presented. In contrast to the
above, much before the submission of the
proceedings on 12.11.2021 i.e. 28.5.2021,
the proceedings of filling the casual
vacancy of the post of President has been
submitted
by
Mr.
Mohd.
Javed
on
29.4.2021. The Assistant Registrar has on
this basis returned a finding that the
meeting of the General Body convened on
3.10.2021 was convened unauthorizedly
and is void since the beginning. In contract
to the above, the proceedings presented by
Shri Gulam Nabhi and available in the
office file have been found to confirm to
the original records and as per the approved
bye laws, the Assistant Registrar thus
concluded that the application/objection
dated
12.11.2021
submitted
by
the
petitioner No. 2 Smt. Mridula Mishra as
President and the proceedings attached with
the objections are not found in accordance
with the registered bye laws of the Society.
In substance the Assistant Registrar has
found that the rival claim set up by the
petitioner No. 2 Smt. Mridula Mishra is not
bona fide and accordingly has declined to
refer the dispute to the prescribed authority
under Section 25 (I) of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 and has ordered for
proceeding under Section 4 (1) of the Act
in respect of the proceedings submitted by
Gulam Nabhi.

14. The Court finds no error in the
view taken by the Assistant Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits in refusing to
refer the rival disputes for adjudication to
the Prescribed Authority under Section 25
(I) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860
so as to warrant any interference in exercise
of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The view of the
Assistant Registrar is in consonance with
the ratio of the decision of a Division
Bench of this Court reported in Committee
of Management, Rashtriya Junior High
School (Society), Babhaniyaon, District
Jaunpur versus The Assistant Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi
Region, Varanasi and others, 2005 (61)
9 All. Smt. Kamla Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
315
ALR 74 decided on 11.8.2005. The relevant
paragraph 4 of the aforesaid decision is
being reproduced hereunder:-

"4. It is the standard law that if
any bona fide dispute as to two rival
Committees of Managements is shown to be
in existence to the Registrar or Assistant
Registrar, a reference by him of the dispute
to the Prescribed Authority follows as a
matter of course. But a bona fide dispute
does come into existence merely because
one member, even if he is a founder
member, chooses simply to he has say or
assert that he has a rival Committee and
therefore, a bona fide dispute as to
Management exists. Sufficient prima facie
material must be produced before the
Registrar before he can validly exercise his
jurisdiction of referring the dispute. He
must, simply put, be satisfied that there is
something to refer and he is not merely
sending litigations before the Prescribed
Authority, without there being even a
shadow of real cause for litigation."

15. In view of the above, the writ
petition lacks merit. It is accordingly
dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 9 ILRA 315
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ C No. 21038 of 2022

Smt. Kamla Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vivek Saran

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajeev Singh (Standing Counsel), Sri
J.N. Maurya

A. Acquisition Law
- Right to
Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation
and
Resettlement Act, 2013 - Sections 17(2) &
24(2) - Lapse of acquisition - Possession
u/s 17 (2) was taken place and name of
the Development Authority was entered in
revenue record - Effect - Held, if some of
the individual, who was the owner of the
land in possession at the time of
acquisition, continues in possession, may
be by building a house, or raising some
other construction, the act of the person
continuing
in
possession,
would
be
trespass - Shyoraj Singh's case relied
upon - High Court denied to accept the
claim of the petitioner to lapse the
acquisition u/s 24(2). (Para 16 and 18)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:-
1. Shyoraj Singh & anr. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.;
2021 SCC OnLine All 873
2. Indore Development Authority Vs Manoharlal
& ors.; (2020) 8 SCC 129
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed
challenging an order dated 26th May, 2022
passed by the State Government declining
to declare proceedings for acquisition of
the petitioner's land comprised of Gata No.
340/1,
measuring
0-10-3
(0.12836
hectares), situate in Village Kunda, District
Meerut lapsed under Section 24(2) of the
Right
to
Fair
Compensation
and
Transparency
in
Land
Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
(for short, ''the Act of 2013').