# Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Educational Society, Tehsil Sadar, Mau & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 269
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-11
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 13592 of 2024
- **Bench:** Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/maulana-abul-kalam-azad-educational-society-tehsil-sadar-mau-anr-v-state-of-u-p-52251
- **Pages:** 17

## Headnote

A. Civil/Society Law - Maintainability -
Alternative
Remedy
-
Societies
Registration Act, 1860 - Sectiuons 4(1) &
25(2) - The important consideration of
public
policy
is
that
the
decisions
pronounced
by
Courts
of
competent
jurisdiction should be final unless they are
modified or reversed by the appellate
forum and no one should be made to face
the same kind of litigation twice. (Para 31)

Where, what is complained of, is an
impudent disregard of an order of a Court,
the
fact
certainly
cries
out
that
a
prerogative writ shall issue. (Para 32)

Once an issue had been adjudicated by the
Court, then same parties cannot be allowed to
face litigation regarding the same issue again
and further if any authority while passing the
order has taken a different view to that of the
view settled by the Court, then against the said
order writ petition u/Article 226 of the
Constitution of India shall be maintainable and
the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the
ground of availability of alternative remedy
against the said order. (Para 33)

In the present case, once this Court is of the
view that dispute raised by petitioner has not
been decided by this Court in earlier rounds
of litigation and petitioners themselves agreed
that dispute raised may be decided by the
Prescribed Authority, now it is not open for
them to urge before this Court that they may
be allowed to bypass the remedy of statutory
appeal available u/s 25(1)(d) of the Act of
1860 against the impugned order dated
30.3.2024 on the ground that the impugned
order
dated
30.3.2024
passed
by
the
Prescribed Authority is contrary to decisions
rendered by this Court in earlier rounds of
litigation. (Para 44)
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ petition is dismissed on the ground of
statutory remedy of appeal available to
the
petitioners
u/s
25(1)(d)
of
the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,733 of 59,223. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39733 for what follows._

7 All. C/M Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Educational Society, Tehsil Sadar, Mau & Anr. Vs. State
 of U.P. & Ors.
269
perusal of the impugned order dated
01.03.2024 reveals that the Joint Director
in the garb of decision over the approval of
the amendments sought to be incorporated
in the Scheme of Administration of the
College has, in-fact tested the validity of
the resolution by which the Society has
been dissolved and decision to form the
trust has been taken, whereas if any
amendment is sought in the Scheme of
Administration of a College, the Joint
Director has to take decision for approval
of the said amendment strictly as per the
provisions made in Section 16(A) of the
Act of 1921.

15. In view of the aforesaid reasons,
this writ petition is allowed and impugned
order dated 01.03.2024 is quashed. The
matter is remitted to the Joint Director,
Secondary Education, Agra Region, Agra
to reconsider the amendments proposed by
the
petitioner
in
the
Scheme
of
Administration of the College strictly in
accordance with the provisions made in
Section 16(A) of the Act of 1921 by
passing speaking and reasoned order
within a period of two months from the
date of presentation of certified copy of
this order.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 269
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 13592 of 2024

C/M
Maulana
Abul
Kalam
Azad
Educational Society, Tehsil Sadar, Mau &
Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sri Rajendra Singh
Chauhan,
Sri
Gajendra
Pratap
(Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Gautam Baghel, Sri Om Prakash
Singh, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi

A. Civil/Society Law - Maintainability -
Alternative
Remedy
-
Societies
Registration Act, 1860 - Sectiuons 4(1) &
25(2) - The important consideration of
public
policy
is
that
the
decisions
pronounced
by
Courts
of
competent
jurisdiction should be final unless they are
modified or reversed by the appellate
forum and no one should be made to face
the same kind of litigation twice. (Para 31)

Where, what is complained of, is an
impudent disregard of an order of a Court,
the
fact
certainly
cries
out
that
a
prerogative writ shall issue. (Para 32)

Once an issue had been adjudicated by the
Court, then same parties cannot be allowed to
face litigation regarding the same issue again
and further if any authority while passing the
order has taken a different view to that of the
view settled by the Court, then against the said
order writ petition u/Article 226 of the
Constitution of India shall be maintainable and
the writ petition cannot be dismissed on the
ground of availability of alternative remedy
against the said order. (Para 33)

In the present case, once this Court is of the
view that dispute raised by petitioner has not
been decided by this Court in earlier rounds
of litigation and petitioners themselves agreed
that dispute raised may be decided by the
Prescribed Authority, now it is not open for
them to urge before this Court that they may
be allowed to bypass the remedy of statutory
appeal available u/s 25(1)(d) of the Act of
1860 against the impugned order dated
30.3.2024 on the ground that the impugned
order
dated
30.3.2024
passed
by
the
Prescribed Authority is contrary to decisions
rendered by this Court in earlier rounds of
litigation. (Para 44)
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Writ petition is dismissed on the ground of
statutory remedy of appeal available to
the
petitioners
u/s
25(1)(d)
of
the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs Taluk Land Board,
Peermade & anr., (1999) 5 SCC 590 (Para 21)

2. Capt. Dushyant Somal Vs Smt. Sushma Somal
& anr., 1981 (2) SCC 977 (Para 22)

Present petition assails the order dated
30.03.2024, passed by the Prescribed
Authority/Sub-Divisional
Magistrate,
Tehsil Mau Nath Bhanjan, District Mau
whereby direction has been given to the
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh for
holding fresh elections of the Committee
of Management of the Society.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.)

1. Heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rajendra
Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing
for
the
petitioners,
learned
Standing
Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1
to 3 and Sri Prabhakar Awasthi as well as
Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsels
appearing for Respondent No. 4.

2. Petitioners through this writ petition
have assailed the order dated 30.03.2024
passed by the Prescribed Authority/SubDivisional Magistrate, Tehsil Mau Nath
Bhanjan, District Mau whereby direction has
been given to the Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region,
Azamgarh for holding fresh elections of the
Committee of Management of the Society
under Section 25(2) of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860.

3.

Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 3 and
Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel
appearing for Respondent No. 4, at the very
outset, have raised preliminary objection
regarding maintainability of this writ
petition on the ground that the impugned
order dated 30.03.2024 has been passed by
the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional
Magistrate, Tehsil Mau Nath Bhanjan,
District Mau under Section 25 (1) of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 and
against the said order, petitioners have
efficacious statutory remedy of appeal
under Section 25(1)(d) of the Act of 1860.

4. Facts of the case, as culled out from
the writ petition, are that Maulana Abdul
Kalam Azad Educational Society, Village,
Aadedhi, Post Umarpur, Tehsil Sadar,
District Mau is a Society registered under
the provisions of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860.

5. The last undisputed elections of the
Committee of Management of the Society
took place on 17.09.2016 and under the
bye-laws of the Society, the term of the
Committee of Management of the Society
is five years i.e. the elections held on
17.09.2016 were valid up till 16.09.2021.
In the elections held on 17.09.2016, Mr.
Amit
Kumar
Singh
was
elected
as
President and Mohd. Javed was elected as
Secretary of the Committee of Management
of the Society. It has been claimed that Mr.
Ajit Kumar Singh was inducted as a
member of the general body of the Society
vide resolution dated 02.10.2020. Mr. Amit
Kumar Singh who was elected President in
the
elections
of
the
Committee
of
Management of the Society held on
17.09.2016, died
on 16.04.2021
and
thereafter it has been claimed that Mr. Ajit
Kumar Singh was elected/co-opted as
President of the Committee of Management
of the Society vide its resolution dated
7 All. C/M Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Educational Society, Tehsil Sadar, Mau & Anr. Vs. State
 of U.P. & Ors.
271
29.04.2021. It has further been claimed that
Mohd. Javed in the capacity of Secretary of
the Committee of Management of the
Society
submitted
an
application
on
28.05.2021 along with the minutes of the
meeting of the Committee of Management
held on 29.4.2021 before the Assistant
Registrar and prayed to register the list of
the office bearers and members of the
Committee of Management of the Society.

6. The Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region,
Azamgarh vide its order dated 07.06.2021
registered the list of the office bearers and
members of the Committee of Management
of the Society as contemplated under
Section 4(1) of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860 and in the said list in place of
Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Mr. Ajit Kumar
Singh has been shown as President of the
Committee of Management of the Society.

7. In the writ petition, it has been
claimed
that
the
Committee
of
Management of the Society vide its
resolution dated 04.07.2021 inducted nine
more members in the general body of the
Society including the Petitioner No. 2, Mr.
Gulam Navi and thereafter Mohd. Javed in
the
capacity
of
Secretary/Manager
submitted
an
application
before
the
Assistant Registrar on 28.07.2021 for
registration of the list of members of the
general body of the Society.

8. Since the term of the Committee
of Management of the Society was to
expire, it has been claimed that fresh
elections
of
the
Committee
of
Management of the Society took place on
12.09.2021 in which Mr. Ajit Kumar
Singh was elected as President and Mohd.
Javed was elected as Secretary/Manager.
Mohd.
Javed
in
the
capacity
of
Secretary/Manager of the Committee of
Management of the Society submitted the
list of the office bearers and members of
the Committee of Management of the
Society as well as the list of members of
the general body of the Society for
registration before the Assistant Registrar
and the Assistant Registrar vide its order
dated 22.09.2021 registered the aforesaid
list.

9. It has also been claimed in the
writ petition that Mohd. Javed submitted
his
resignation
from
the
post
of
Secretary/Manager of the Committee of
Management of the Society and the
Committee of Management of the Society
in its meeting held on 02.10.2021
elected/co-opted Mr. Gulam Navi as
Secretary/Manager for remaining term of
the Committee of Management of the
Society. Mr. Gulam Navi submitted an
application on 01.11.2021 before the
Assistant
Registrar
and
prayed
for
registration of the changed list of the
office-bearers
and
members
of
the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Society.

10. One Ms. Mridula Mishra filed
complaint before the Assistant Registrar on
12.11.2021 along with proceedings of the
Committee of Management of the Society
dated 07.02.2021 and 07.03.2021 and
claimed herself to be the President of the
Committee of Management of the Society
and further claimed that induction and
election/co-option of Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh
was based on forged documents. The
Assistant Registrar vide its order dated
02.06.2022 rejected the claim of Ms.
Mridula
Mishra
and
directed
for
registration of the list of the office bearers
and members of the Committee of
Management of the Society on the basis of
272 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the resolution of the Committee of
Management
of
the
Society
dated
02.10.2021.

11. The order dated 02.06.2022
passed by the Assistant Registrar was put to
challenge by Ms. Mridula Mishra in Writ-C
No. 20596 of 2022 and a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court dismissed the said writ
petition vide order dated 24.08.2022.
Thereafter Ms. Mridula Mishra filed
Special Appeal No. 614 of 2022 which too
was dismissed by the Division Bench of
this Court vide order dated 30.11.2022.

12. Mohd. Javed filed a complaint
before the Assistant Registrar claiming
therein
that
he
has
never
tendered
resignation
from
the
post
of
Secretary/Manager of the Committee of
Management of the Society and further
claimed
that
the
applications
dated
28.05.2021, 28.07.2021 and 20.09.2021
have been filed before the Assistant
Registrar under his forged signatures. He
also claimed that Mr. Ajit Kumar Singh has
never been inducted as a member of the
general body of the Society. On the
complaint of Mohd. Javed, the Assistant
Registrar issued notice to Mr. Gulam Navi
on 03.04.2023 and after hearing all the
concerned parties, the Assistant Registrar
vide its order dated 28.06.2023 recalled his
earlier order dated 02.06.2022 whereby list
of the office bearers and members of the
Committee of Management of the Society
was registered pursuant to resolution dated
02.10.2021 by which alleged resignation of
Mohd. Javed was accepted. The Assistant
Registrar
vide
aforesaid
order
dated
28.06.2023
also
declared
all
the
proceedings
of
the
Committee
of
Management of the Society held on or after
29.04.2021
including
the
alleged
proceeding dated 02.10.2020, whereby Mr.
Ajit Kumar Singh has been shown to be
inducted as member of the general body of
the Society, as forged. The Assistant
Registrar
passed
another
order
on
14.09.2023
whereby
he
appointed
Tehsildar Ghosi, District Mau as Election
Officer to conduct the elections of the
Committee of Management of the Society
under Section 25(2) of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860.

13. The petitioners challenged the
orders dated 28.6.2023 and 14.9.2023 by
filing Writ-C No.21962 of 2023 and a coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment
and order dated 6.10.2023 allowed the writ
petition and further set aside the orders
dated 28.6.2023 and 14.9.2023. The coordinate Bench of this Court vide judgment
and order dated 6.10.2023 also issued a
direction to the Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Azamgarh to refer the
dispute to the Prescribed Authority under
Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860. Pursuant
to the judgment and order dated 6.10.2023
passed in Writ-C No.21962 of 2023, the
Assistant Registrar passed an order on
27.10.2023 and referred the dispute raised
by Mohd. Javed to the Prescribed Authority
for adjudication under Section 25(1) of the
Act of 1860.

14. Though the petitioners in Writ-C
No.21962 of 2023 did not raise any serious
objection in reference of the dispute raised
by Mohd. Javed to the Prescribed Authority
for adjudication under Section 25(1) of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 but when
the Assistant Registrar referred the matter
vide order dated 27.10.2023, petitioners
filed Writ-C No.42723 of 2023 and
challenged the order dated 27.10.2023 on
the ground that the dispute referred by the
Assistant Registrar had already been
adjudicated by the orders passed by this
7 All. C/M Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Educational Society, Tehsil Sadar, Mau & Anr. Vs. State
 of U.P. & Ors.
273
Court in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022, Special
Appeal No.614 of 2022 and Writ-C
No.21962 of 2023 but this Court vide order
dated 31.1.2024, while recording finding
that petitioners had agreed that dispute may
be decided by the Prescribed Authority,
disposed of the writ petition with direction
to the Prescribed Authority to decide the
dispute of the Committee of Management
of the Society within a period of six weeks.

15. In the aforesaid background, the
Prescribed Authority has decided the
reference dated 27.10.2023 made by the
Assistant Registrar under Section 25(1) of
the Act of 1860 vide order dated 30.3.2024
wherein it has been held that Mohd. Javed
has not tendered resignation from the post of
Secretary/Manager of the Society and
therefore, the proceedings of the Committee
of Management of the Society by which his
resignation has been accepted and further
proceedings are invalid in the eyes of law.
The Prescribed Authority has also held that
applications dated 28.05.2021, 28.07.2021
and
20.09.2021
by
which
various
proceedings
of
the
Committee
of
Management of the Society and the general
body of the Society were forwarded to the
Assistant Registrar, bear forged signatures of
Mohd. Javed. The Prescribed Authority vide
order dated 30.3.2024 has also directed the
Assistant Registrar to hold fresh elections of
the Committee of Management of the Society
under Section 25(2) of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860.

16. It is to be noted that during
pendency of this writ petition, elections of
the Committee of Management of the
Society pursuant to the order dated
30.3.2024 have already been conducted.

17. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing
for
the
petitioners has submitted that as Mr. Amit
Kumar
Singh
who
was
elected
Secretary/Manager of the Committee of
Management of the Society in the elections
held on 17.9.2016, died on 16.4.2021, Mr.
Ajit Kumar Singh was elected/co-opted as
President vide resolution passed by the
Committee of Management of the Society
on 29.4.2021 and once the Assistant
Registrar
vide
order
dated
7.6.2021
registered the list of the office bearers and
the
members
of
the
Committee
of
Management of the Society, there cannot
be any occasion for the Assistant Registrar
to refer the dispute with respect to the
proceedings
of
the
Committee
of
Management of the Society held on
29.4.2021 to the Prescribed Authority. It
has further been submitted that after the
term of the Committee of Management of
the Society elected on 17.9.2016 ended,
fresh elections of the Committee of
Management of the Society took place on
12.9.2021 and once Mohd. Javed himself
moved an application before the Assistant
Registrar and on his application the list of
the office bearers and the members of the
Committee of Management of the Society
has been registered by the Assistant
Registrar, the question does not arise before
the Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute
to the Prescribed Authority vide order
dated 27.10.2023.

18. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing
for
the
petitioners has argued that once Mohd.
Javed tendered his resignation which was
accepted by the Committee of Management
of the Society on 2.10.2021 and further Mr.
Gulam Navi was elected/co-opted as
Secretary/Manager for remaining term of
the Committee of Management of the
Society, the Assistant Registrar while
referring the dispute to the Prescribed
274 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Authority has conducted himself in an
absolutely arbitrary manner.

19.

Learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing
for
the
petitioners
has
vehemently argued that Ms. Mridula
Mishra filed a complaint before the
Assistant Registrar on 12.11.2021 claiming
therein that she is the President of the
Committee of Management of the Society
and election/co-option of Mr. Ajit Kumar
Singh as Present and further proceedings
are forged. Since the complaint filed by
Ms. Mridula Mishra was rejected by the
Assistant
Registrar
vide
order
dated
2.6.2022 and further she was not granted
any relief by this Corut in Writ-C
No.20596 of 2022 and Special Appeal
No.614 of 2022 therefore, there cannot be
any occasion for the Assistant Registrar to
re-open the entire issue on the complaint of
Mohd. Javed and to refer the matter to the
Prescribed Authority therefore, the order
dated 30.3.2024 passed by the Prescribed
Authority on its face is erroneous.

20. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing
for
the
petitioners has argued that once a coordinate Bench of this Court vide its
judgment and order dated 24.8.2022 passed
in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022 has negated
the claim of Ms. Mridula Mishra and
thereby has affirmed the proceedings of the
Committee of Management of the Society
held on 29.04.2021, elections held on
12.9.2021
and
proceedings
of
the
Committee of Management of the Society
held on 2.10.2021 and further the said
judgment
dated
24.8.2022
has
been
affirmed by the Division Bench of this
Court vide its judgment rendered on
30.11.2022 passed in Special Appeal
No.614 of 2022, it was not open for the
Assistant Registrar to take a different view
in the matter and to refer the matter to the
Prescribed Authority and further it was also
not open for the Prescribed Authority to
take a different view contrary to the view
taken in the aforesaid judgments as such,
the order dated 30.3.2024 passed by the
Prescribed Authority cannot sustain in the
eyes of law. It has also been argued from
the side of the petitioners that this Court
while passing the order dated 6.10.2023 has
recorded a finding that the claim raised by
Mohd. Javed is not sustainable and
therefore, the consequential reference made
vide order dated 27.10.2023 and the order
passed by the Prescribed Authority dated
30.3.2024 allowing the claim of Mohd.
Javed cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

21. Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing
for
the
petitioners in support of his submissions
has relied on a judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Hope Plantations Ltd. Vs. Taluk Land
Board, Peermade and another, (1999) 5
SCC 590 and has submitted that in the said
judgment the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that when the proceedings have
attained finality, parties are bound by the
judgment
and
are
estopped
from
questioning it. He further submits that the
decisions
pronounced
by
courts
of
competent jurisdiction should be final
unless they are modified or reversed by the
appellate forum.

22.

Learned
Senior
Advocate
appearing for the petitioners has further
placed reliance on the judgment rendered
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Capt. Dushyant Somal vs. Smt.
Sushma Somal and another, 1981 (2)
SCC 977 wherein it has been held that
where what is complained of is an
impudent disregard of an order of a Court,
7 All. C/M Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Educational Society, Tehsil Sadar, Mau & Anr. Vs. State
 of U.P. & Ors.
275
the
fact
certainly
cries
out
that
a
prerogative writ shall issue and thus, has
submitted that in the present case once it is
apparent from the record of the case that
the order dated 30.3.2024 passed by the
Prescribed Authority is contrary to the
orders passed in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022,
Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 and Writ-C
No.21962 of 2023, the statutory remedy of
appeal available against the order dated
30.3.2024 shall not be an impediment for
this Court in exercising its extraordinary
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

23. On the other hand, Sri Prabhakar
Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No.4 submits that in earlier
rounds of litigation i.e. in Writ-C No.20596
of 2022, Special Appeal No.614 of 2022
and Writ-C No.21962 of 2023, the claim
raised by Mohd. Javed was not before this
Court and therefore, in the judgments and
orders passed in Writ-C No. 20596 of 2022,
Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 and Writ-C
No.21962 of 2023, there is no adjudication
made by this Court in respect of the claim
of Mohd. Javed that he never tendered
resignation and forged proceedings of the
Committee of Management of the Society
were filed before the Assistant Registrar by
making his forged signatures on the
applications therefore, the said judgments
cannot come in the way of adjudication
over the claim of Mohd. Javed as such, the
Assistant Registrar while referring the
dispute vide order dated 27.10.2023 and the
Prescribed Authority while deciding the
dispute vide order dated 30.3.2024 has not
committed any error. It has further been
submitted by the learned counsel appearing
for Respondent No.4 that in earlier rounds
of litigation i.e. in Writ-C No.20596 of
2022, Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 and
Writ-C No.21962 of 2023, the claim of Ms.
Mridula Mishra has been decided and it has
been found that her claim is not sustainable
in the eyes of law but so far as the claim
raised by Mohd. Javed that he never
tendered resignation and his signatures on
the applications filed before the Assistant
Registrar are forged, is concerned, that has
never been decided by this Court.

24. Mr. Prabhakar Awasthi, learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 has
further argued that so far as the judgment
and order dated 6.10.2023 passed by this
Court in Writ-C No.21962 of 2023 is
concerned, the Court while passing the
order dated 6.10.2023 has made a prima
facie observation that Mohd. Javed was the
Secretary/Manager of the Committee of
Management of the Society since 2016
therefore, it cannot give rise to a
presumption that he had no knowledge of
the proceedings of Writ-C No.20596 of
2022 and Special Appeal No.614 of 2022
but at the same time, accepted that there
exists a dispute raised by Mohd. Javed
which needs to be adjudicated by the
Prescribed Authority and therefore, the
Court directed the Assistant Registrar to
refer the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed to
the Prescribed Authority under Section
25(1) of the Act of 1860. The present
petitioners also did not raise any objection
regarding reference of the dispute before
the Prescribed Authority therefore, it is
patently manifest that the dispute raised by
Mohd. Javed has not been decided by this
Court at any point of time.

25. It has further been argued by Sri
Prabhakar
Awasthi,
learned
counsel
appearing for Respondent No.4 that when
the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed was
referred by the Assistant Registrar vide
order dated 27.10.2023 to the Prescribed
Authority, the petitioners challenged the
276 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
order dated 27.10.2023 by filing Writ-C
No.42723 of 2023 wherein they took
categorical ground that once the issue has
been decided by this Court in earlier rounds
of litigation, there was no occasion for the
Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute to
the Prescribed Authority but the grounds
raised by the petitioners did not find favour
of
the
Court
therefore,
petitioners
ultimately agreed that a direction may be
issued to the Prescribed Authority for
deciding the dispute expeditiously and once
petitioners themselves agreed for reference
of the dispute to the Prescribed Authority,
now they cannot be allowed to say that the
dispute could not have been decided by the
Prescribed Authority.

26. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned
counsel appearing for Respondent No.4 has
strenuously argued that once there is no
adjudication by this Court over the dispute
raised by Mohd. Javed and petitioners
themselves agreed that the dispute raised
by Mohd. Javed may be decided by the
Prescribed Authority, the petitioners cannot
be permitted to bypass the statutory remedy
of appeal available under Section 25(1)(d)
of the Act of 1860 against the impugned
order dated 30.3.2024 therefore, this writ
petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India is not maintainable.

27. I have considered the rival
arguments
advanced
by
the
learned
counsels appearing for the parties.

28. Since this Court is proceeding to
decide the issue of maintainability of this
writ petition therefore, the facts of the case
are not being repeated here.

29. The impugned order dated
30.3.2024
has
been
passed
by
the
Prescribed
Authority/
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate, Tehsil Mau Nath Bhanjan,
District Mau under Section 25(1) of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. Section
25(1)(d) of the Act of 1860 provides that
any person aggrieved by an order passed by
the Prescribed Authority under Section
25(1) of the Act of 1860 can file an appeal
before the Commissioner of concerned
region. For ready reference, Section 25(1)
of the Act of 1860 is extracted as under:-

"25. Dispute regarding election
of office-bearers.-(1) The prescribed
authority may, on a reference made to it by
the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of
the members of a society registered in
Haryana, meet and decide in a summary
manner any doubt or dispute in respect of
the election or continuance in office of an
office-bearer of such society, and may pass
such orders in respect thereof as it deems
fit:

[Provided that the election of an
office-bearer shall be set aside where the
prescribed authority is satisfied-

(a) that any corrupt has been
committed by such office-bearer; or

(b) that the nomination of any
candidate has been improperly rejected; or

(c) that the result of the election
insofar as it concerns to such office -bearer
has been materially affected by the
improper acceptance of any nomination or
by the improper reception, refusal or
rejection of any vote or the reception of any
vote which is void or by any noncompliance with the provisions of any rules
of the Society.

(d) An appeal against an order
made under this sub-section may be
preferred to the Commissioner of the
Division
in
whose
jurisdiction
the
headquarter of the Society lies, within one
month from the date of communication of
such order:
7 All. C/M Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Educational Society, Tehsil Sadar, Mau & Anr. Vs. State
 of U.P. & Ors.
277

Provided
that
the
appellate
authority may admit an appeal after the
expiry of such period if the appellant
satisfies the appellate authority that he had
sufficient cause for not preferring the
appeal within such period."

30. The petitioners, to come out from
the rigors of availability of statutory
remedy of appeal against the impugned
order and to maintain this writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, have taken ground that while
deciding the claim raised by Ms. Mridula
Mishra in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022 and
Special Appeal No.614 of 2022 this Court
had already upheld the validity of the
resolutions in question passed by the
Committee of Management of the Society
but the dispute raised by Mohd. Javed has
now been decided by the Prescribed
Authority in his favour by the impugned
order dated 30.3.2024 which is in the
teeth of the judgments and orders passed
in Writ-C No.20596 of 2022, Special
Appeal No.614 of 2022 and Writ-C
No.21962
of
2023
therefore,
the
petitioners cannot be relegated to the
statutory remedy of appeal and this writ
petition
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India is maintainable.

31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
its judgment rendered in the case of Hope
Plantations Ltd. Vs. Taluk Land Board,
Peermade and another, (1999) 5 SCC
590
has
held
that
the
important
consideration of public policy is that the
decisions
pronounced
by
Courts
of
competent jurisdiction should be final
unless they are modified or reversed by the
appellate forum and no one should be made
to face the same kind of litigation twice.
The relevant paragraphs of the judgment
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Hope Plantations Ltd. (supra)
are extracted as under:-

"17.
In
Devilal
Modi,
the
question before this Court was whether the
principle of constructive res judicata could
be invoked against writ petition filed by the
appellant
under Article
226 of
the
Constitution. The appellant had been
assessed to sales-tax for the year 1957-58
under Madhya Bharat Sales Tax Act, 1950.
He challenged the validity of the order of
assessment by a writ petition which was
dismissed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh. The Appellant's appeal by special
leave to this Court was also dismissed. At
the hearing of the appeal before this Court,
appellant sought to raise two additional
points, but he was not permitted to do so on
the ground that they had not been specified
in the writ petition filed before the High
Court and had not been raised at an early
stage. On those points which were not
allowed to be raised, the appellant filed
another writ petition in the High Court
challenging the validity of the same very
assessment for the year 1957-58. The High
Court considered the merits of the
additional grounds urged by the appellant
but rejected them. The Appellant again
came to this Court. This Court dismissed
the appeal on the ground that principle of
constructive res judicata was applicable in
the circumstances and referred to its
earlier decision in Daryao & Ors. vs. State
of U.P. holding that the general principle
underlying the doctrine of res judicata i.e.
ultimately based on considerations of
public policy. One important consideration
of public policy is that the decisions
pronounced
by
courts
of
competent
jurisdiction should be final, unless they are
modified
or
reversed
by
appellate
authorities; and the other principle is that
no one should be made to face the same
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
kind of litigation twice over, because such
a
process
would
be
contrary
to
considerations of fair play and justice.
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

26. It is settled law that principles
of estoppel and res judicata are based on
public policy and justice. Doctrine of res
judicata is often treated as a branch of the
law of estoppel though these two doctrines
differ in some essential particulars. Rule of
res judicata prevents the parties to a
judicial determination from litigating the
same question over again even though the
determination may even be demonstratedly
wrong.
When
the
proceedings
have
attained finality, parties are bound by the
judgment
and
are
estopped
from
questioning it. They cannot litigate again
on the same cause of action nor can they
litigate any issue which was necessary for
decision in the earlier litigation. These two
aspects are 'cause of action estoppel' and
'issue estoppel'. These two terms are of
common law origin. Again once an issue
has been finally determined, parties cannot
subsequently in the same suit advance
arguments or adduce further evidence
directed to showing that the issue was
wrongly determined. their only remedy is to
approach the higher forum if available. the
determination of the issue between the
parties gives rise to as noted above, an
issue
estoppel.
It
operates
in
any
subsequent proceedings in the same suit in
which the issue had been determined. It
also operates in subsequent suits between
the same parties in which the same issue
arises. Section 11 of the Code of Civil
Procedure contains provisions of res
judicata but these are not exhaustive of the
general doctrine of res judicata. Legal
principles of estoppel and res judicata are
equally applicable in proceedings before
administrative authorities as they are based
on public policy and justice."

32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court vide
its judgment rendered in the case of Capt.
Dushyant Somal vs. Smt. Sushma Somal
and another, 1981 (2) SCC 977 has held
that where, what is complained of, is an
impudent disregard of an order of a Court,
the
fact
certainly
cries
out
that
a
prerogative writ shall issue. The relevant
paragraph of the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Capt. Dushyant Somal (supra) is extracted
as under:-

"7. It was argued that the wife
had alternate remedies under the Guardian
and Wards Act and the CrPC and so a Writ
should not have been issued. True,
alternate remedy ordinarily inhibits a
prerogative writ. But it is not an
impassable
hurdle.
Where
what
is
complained of is an impudent disregard of
an order of a Court, the fact certainly cries
out that a prerogative writ shall issue. In
regard to the sentence, instead of the
sentence imposed by the High Court, we
substitute a sentence of three months,
simple imprisonment and a fine of Rupees
Five
hundred.
The
sentence
of
imprisonment or such part of it as may not
have been served will stand remitted on the
appellant-petitioner producing the child in
the High Court. With this modification in
the matter of sentence, the appeal and the
Special Leave Petition are dismissed.
Criminal
Miscellaneous
Petition
No.
677/81 is dismissed as we are not satisfied
that it is a fit case for laying a complaint.

33. In the aforesaid judgments
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it
had been categorically held that once an
issue had been adjudicated by the Court,
then same parties cannot be allowed to face
litigation regarding the same issue again
and further if any authority while passing
7 All. C/M Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Educational Society, Tehsil Sadar, Mau & Anr. Vs. State
 of U.P. & Ors.
279
the order has taken a different view to that
of the view settled by the Court, then
against the said order writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India
shall be maintainable and the writ petition
cannot be dismissed on the ground of
availability of alternative remedy against
the said order.

34. In view of the aforesaid law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, now
this Court proceeds to analyse as to
whether dispute raised by Mohd. Javed
vide his complaint dated 28.3.2023, before
the
Assistant
Registrar,
has
been
adjudicated by this Court while deciding
Writ-C No.20596 of 2022, Special Appeal
No.614 of 2022 and Writ-C No.21962 of
2023.

35. It is to be noted in categorical
terms that the dispute raised by Mohd.
Javed before the Assistant Registrar was
that he neither tendered resignation from
the post of Secretary/Manager of the
Society nor he ever filed any application
before the Assistant Registrar and has
submitted proceedings of the Committee of
Management
of
the
Society
and
proceedings of general body of the Society
on or after 24.9.2021. Mohd. Javed in his
complaint has categorically submitted that
resignation under his forged signatures and
certain applications under his forged
signatures have been presented before the
Assistant Registrar and on that basis, an
attempt has been made by certain persons
to take over the control of the Society.

36. This Court finds that Ms. Mridula
Mishra filed an application on 12.11.2021
before the Assistant Registrar annexing
therewith the minutes of the meeting of the
Committee of Management of the Society
held on 7.2.2021 and 7.3.2021 and thereby
she claimed that election/co-option of Mr.
Ajit Kumar Sigh as President of the Society
is based on forged documents and actually
she is the President of the Society. Since
the Assistant Registrar did not recognize
the claim raised by Ms. Mridula Mishra
and did not refer the election dispute to the
Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1)
of the Act of 1860, she filed Writ-C
No.20596 of 2022 and a co-ordinate Bench
of this Court vide order dated 24.8.2022
had held that since the claim raised by Ms.
Mridula Mishra on its face is not a valid
claim therefore, the Assistant Registrar was
not under obligation to refer the election
dispute under Section 25(1) of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 to the Prescribed
Authority for adjudication. The relevant
paragraphs of the judgment and order dated
24.8.2022 passed by this Court are
extracted as under:-

"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
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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).