# Shiv Narain Agarwal & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 8 ILRA 376
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-08-06
- **Case number:** Misc. Single No. 16656 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shiv-narain-agarwal-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47207
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C., Anjali Divedi

List of membership of the general body/
the electoral college -finalized-by Deputy
Registrar-by
removing
23
personsopportunity
of
hearing
to
only
one
Petitioner-further observation made that
committee of management has become
non-est-observation
is
in
excess
of
jurisdiction-further election schedule fixed
by the Deputy Registrar without going
into bye laws of the societies-violation of
Section
25
(2)
of
the
Societies
Registration
Act-impugned
order
set
aside.

W.P. allowed.(E-7)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
main
objective
of
'Namami
Gange
Mission'.
----------
(2021)08ILR A376
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Misc. Single No. 16656 of 2021
&
Misc. Single No. 16658 of 2021

Shiv Narain Agarwal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sharad Pathak, Pawan Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Anjali Divedi

List of membership of the general body/
the electoral college -finalized-by Deputy
Registrar-by
removing
23
personsopportunity
of
hearing
to
only
one
Petitioner-further observation made that
committee of management has become
non-est-observation
is
in
excess
of
jurisdiction-further election schedule fixed
by the Deputy Registrar without going
into bye laws of the societies-violation of
Section
25
(2)
of
the
Societies
Registration
Act-impugned
order
set
aside.

W.P. allowed.(E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1. Vishwabandhu Gupta Vs Returning Officer
[1990 (8) LCD 553]

2. Banwari Lal Kanchhal Vs Dr. Bhartendu
Agarwal & 8 ors. [2019 SCC online Allahabad
4739]
3. Committee of Mangement Moti Lal Memorial
Society Vs St. of U.P. & ors. [2020 SCC online
Allahabad 761]

4. Jagdambika Prasad Pandey Vs St. of U.P. &
ors. [2019 SCC online Allahabad 4195]

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta
Chandra, J.)

(Oral)

1. Writ petition No.16656(MS) of
2021 [Shiv Narain Agarwal vs. State of
U.P.
and
Others
and
Writ
Petition
No.16658 (MS) of 2021 [Anoop Kumar
and 17 Others vs. State of U.P. and Others
have been filed by members of general
body of the society registered as Sarvajanik
Vidyalaya Parishad, Haidergarh, District -
Barabanki
challenging
order
dated
14.7.2021 by which the Deputy Registrar
Societies, Firms and Chits, Ayodhya
Mandal, Ayodhya has finalized the list of
membership of the general body/ the
electoral college for holding the elections
of the Committee of management of the
society along with the election schedule.
The elections as per the order impugned are
due to be held on 07.8.2021.

2. In Writ Petition no.16658 (MS) of
2021 and order dated 19.11.2016 has also
been challenged which has been passed by
the Deputy Registrar under Section 25, Sub
Clause 2 of the Societies Registration Act
issuing a provisional list of members of
general body along with it and inviting
objections thereon. Since both these writ
petitions related to challenge being made to
the order dated 14.7.2021 on the day when
Writ Petition No.16658 (MS) of 2021 was
taken up as fresh the learned counsel for
the petitioner had made the request that
Writ Petition No.16656 (MS) of 2021 had
been listed as fresh in another Court. Both
8 All. Shiv Narain Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
377
these writ petitions relate to the same cause
of action and the request was made that
they should be heard together. The matter
was sent to the Hon'ble Senior Judge for
nomination
of
a
Bench
on
the
administrative side. The Hon'ble Senior
Judge nominated me to hear both the writ
petitions together.

3. These writ petitions have therefore
come up as fresh petition in the additional
cause list by second notice today.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that
Shri
Sarvajanik
Vidyalaya
Parishad,
Haidergarh,
District
-
Barabanki,
(hereinafter referred to as Society) was
registered in 1955 through the efforts of
Bibi Ram Dulari widow of Late Hazari Lal
Agarwal who had donated her land through
a registered gift-deed for establishment of
an
educational
institution
namely
Sarvajanik
Vidyalaya,
Haidergarh,
Barabanki. The Registration of Society has
been renewed from time to time and it was
lastly renewed on 29.10.2015 for 5 years
with effect from 10.10.2015 to 09.10.2020.

5. A dispute arose regarding office
bearers of the society in the year 1990 and
a writ petition was filed thereafter which
was disposed of by this Court on
21.12.1990 with the direction to the Dy.
Registrar to hold the elections of the office
bearers of the society after considering all
objections of the members. The undisputed
elections
were
held
thereafter
on
15.01.1991.

6. As per the byelaws of the society
filed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition, the
term of the Committee of Management
would be three years. This Committee of
Management was to be elected in a two
stage process of election. In the first stage
the general body, i.e., Sarvajanik Vidyalaya
Parishad would elect a 31 member
Committee called the Vishesh Samiti. The
Vishesh Samiti would thereafter elect from
amongst its members seven office bearers
of the Samiti and 5 more members as
members of the Committee of management
of the Society. These 12 members would
then co-opt three more members from
amongst the 'Vishesh Samiti' members. A
total of 12 such members co-opting three
others would constitute a 15 members
Committee of Management for the Society.
The office bearers of the society as per the
byelaws would be one President, two Vice
Presidents, One Manager, One Secretary,
One Joint Secretary and a Treasurer. A
total of 7 officer bearers plus 5 other
persons who would separately act as
Committee of Management for the School,
the Sarvajanik Vidyalaya. Hence, the first
stage would be the election of 31 members,
and the second stage would be the election
of the office bearers, i.e, 7 members + 5
members + 3 more co-opted members.

7. It has been argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that elections
were held every three years by the
Committee of management of the Society
and there was no dispute raised by any
person. In 2010, the opposite party no.3
issued a notice to the Manager of the
Society to submit yearwise list of members
of the Managing Committee, the Balance
Sheet, the list of General Body as per the
category of members mentioned in the
byelaws, and other details regarding receipt
of membership fee. In pursuance of notice,
the opposite party no.6 furnished all
relevant documents. The opposite party
no.3
registered
the
Committee
of
Management for the year 2010-2011 of 15
members on the basis of a list of 77
members of the General Body. At the time
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of submission of lists for the General Body
in 2010-2011 and 2011-2012 there was no
requirement of list of members of the
General Body being also registered, as
Section 4 B of the Societies Registration
Act came into effect only in October, 2013.

8. In 2011 opposite party no.8 along
with
5
other
persons
sought
some
information from opposite party no.3
regarding membership and the holding of
the elections. The opposite party no.3
issued notice and the opposite party no.6
replied. In 2013 opposite party no.8 again
submitted a representation for cancellation
of registered list of members and requested
that the matter be referred to the Prescribed
Authority under Section 25(1) of the
Societies Registration Act. This is how the
dispute with regard to the elections and
genuineness of office bearers and list of
membership of the General Body came
about.

9. The opposite party no.3 in the order
dated
19.11.2016
after
taking
into
consideration the representation made by
the opposite party no.8 and the replies
submitted by the opposite party no.6
somehow came to the conclusion that the
elections were not held within time every 3
years with effect from 1994. He declared
the Committee of management as defunct
with effect from 15.01.1994 in exercise of
power under Section 25 (2) of the Act and
declared a provisional list of 163 members
of the General Body/ Electoral College for
proposed elections to be held by him or his
nominee thereafter. Objections were invited
to the said provisional list.

10. In pursuance of the order dated
19.11.2016, the opposite party no.7 and 9
filed a detailed application, along with
affidavits of some such members in the
office of the opposite party no.3. The
opposite party no.3 issued a notice to the
opposite party no.6 to submit his reply.
After detailed correspondence in between
opposite party no.8 and 9 and opposite
party no.6 and 7, without providing any
opportunity to the petitioners herein. The
opposite party no.3 passed the impugned
order dated 14.7.2021 finalized a list of 89
General Body members.

11. It has been submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioners in Writ
Petition No.16656 that these 16 petitioners'
names were included in the tentative list of
163 persons issued by Deputy Treasurer by
his order dated 19.11.2016. There was no
reason for the petitioners to believe that
their names would be removed from the list
that was finalized on 14.7.2020. The
petitioners' names were excluded without
giving them an opportunity of hearing.

12. Only Shiv Narain Agarwal the
petitioner no.1 in Writ petition No.16656
(MS) of 2021 was heard. He filed a detailed
list of members giving the names and
addresses and parentage of such members
under his own signature. The representation
was ignored saying that the signature was
illegible.

13. It has been pointed out that in the
said list the name of petitioner no.3 and
petitioner no.7 have been removed showing
them as dead. Both these persons are alive.
The list also includes the name of one dead
person, Ram Naresh Mishra son of Kripa
Shankar Mishra at Sl No.37. This shows
that the entire exercise was done without
application of mind. The name of one Shri
Manoj Kumar Pandey who is an Assistant
Teacher has been shown at Sl no.48 who
could not be included as a member in view
of the provisions of regulation 5 of the
8 All. Shiv Narain Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
379
Regulations in Chapter III under the
Intermediate Education Act.

14. In Writ petition no.16658 of 2021
the petitioners who are 18 in number have
challenged the orders dated 19.11.2016 and
14.7.2021, on the ground that the names of
the petitioners were removed without
giving them opportunity of hearing only on
the basis of a false conclusion drawn by the
Dy. Registrar, exceeding his jurisdiction
under Section 25 Sub Clause (2) of the Act,
that all elections held after 15.01.1994 were
non-est as they were held by a Committee
of Management that had become time
barred. It has been held in orders impugned
that all members including the petitioners
herein who had been inducted after 1994 by
such Committee of Management cannot be
said to be validly inducted members and
therefore they have been removed from the
list of General Body.

15. It has been argued by the learned
counsel for the petitioner that no doubt the
Deputy Registrar has the power to
scrutinize the membership list submitted
from time to time by the Committee of
Management under Section 4 B of the Act
which was introduced in October, 2013,
however, Section 4 B of the Act provides
certain parameters like examination of
Proceedings Register of the General Body,
and that of the Committee of Management,
the Agenda Register, the Membership
Register, the Membership Fee Register,
pass book of the societies' account in the
bank; to come to a conclusion whether
membership fee has been duly deposited by
such members who were included as
members of the Society and that Agenda
notice was duly circulated and proceedings
held thereafter for induction of such
members in accordance with the byelaws of
the society. There was no examination of
the documents as mentioned in the
parameters given under Section 4 B of the
Act. No notice was issued to any of the
petitioners
to
explain
their
case.
Straightaway orders impugned have been
passed.

16. Shri Virendra Mishra appearing
for the opposite party no.7 and 9 and Shri
Shashank Singh, Advocate appearing for
the opposite party no.6, the Manager of the
Institution,
Shri
Purushottam Narayan
Agarwal, have argued that the writ petitions
are not maintainable and ought to be
dismissed because by the order dated
14.7.2021 list of electoral college has been
finalized and election schedule has been
published. Reference has been made by the
learned counsel for the opposite party to
judgments of this Court in Sheetla Prasad
Tiwari and Others vs. State of U.P. and
Others [2018 (36) LCD 93; and to Shri
Satyaveer Singh and Others vs. State of
U.P. and Others [2015 (33) LCD 1857].
On the basis of these judgments, it has been
argued that in other such judgments also
this Court had held that if writ petitions are
allowed to be filed by rival committees of
management or their members at the drop
of a hat, challenging the process of
elections, the statutory remedy of filing a
petition under Section 25 (1) of the Act
would become redundant. With regard to
the membership and disputes arising
therefrom, the learned counsel for the
opposite parties as pointed out from the
judgments cited that it has been held that
disputes involving questions of facts can be
best adjudicated in a Civil Court by filing
the civil suit.

17. It has also been argued by the
learned counsel for the opposite parties that
these writ petitions have been filed at the
instance of all the Manager of the
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Institution and are proxy petitions as the
Manager had not been able to procure an
authorization from the Committee of
Management through a valid resolution for
challenging these orders passed by the Dy.
Registrar. Several other points have been
argued by the learned counsel for the
opposite parties on the merits of the case
saying that all such matters are disputed
questions of fact which this Court should
not look into the writ jurisdiction.

18. However, it has been fairly
admitted by Shri Virendra Mishra that as
per the byelaws of the Society, election
process is required to be held in two stages.
Initially the Vishesh Samiti of 31 members
is to be elected by the Sarvajanik Vidyalaya
Parishad the General Body such 31
members are then to elect 5 + 7 members
who are in turn authorized to co-opt 3 other
members from the 'Vishesh Samiti' to act as
the Committee of Management of the
Society. In the orders impugned, however,
Dy. Registrar has published an election
schedule directing holding of elections of
the Committee of Mangement straightaway
by the General Body which General Body
has included members who were ineligible
as they were either dead or working as
employees in the institution.

19. It has also been fairly admitted by
Shri Virendra Mishra that while holding the
petitioners to be ineligible to participate in
the
elections
and
declaring
their
membership as non-est, the Dy. Registrar
did not provide any opportunity of hearing
to any of them except petitioner no.1 of
Writ petition no.16656 (MS) of 2021.

20. Learned counsel for the petitioner
Shri Sharad Pathak has placed reliance
upon two judgments of the Division Bench
of this Court in Vishwabandhu Gupta vs.
Returning Officer [1990 (8) LCD 553] and
Banwari Lal Kanchhal vs. Dr. Bhartendu
Agarwal and Others [2019 SCC online
Allahabad 4739] to argue that there is no
constitutional bar for entertaining writ
petitions challenging the election process of
Societies registered under the Societies
Registration Act.

21. Learned counsel has pointed out
that if the orders which are challenged are
vitiated due to violation of principle of
natural justice and also due to exercise of
jurisdiction far in excess of what has been
given under the Act by the Dy. Registrar
then this Court has interfered in writ
jurisdiction.

22. The learned counsel for the
petitioner has pointed out judgments of this
Court in Committee of Mangement Moti
Lal Memorial Society vs. State of U.P. and
Others [2020 SCC online Allahabad 761]
and Jagdambika Prasad Pandey vs. State
of U.P. and Others [2019 SCC online
Allahabad 4195] to buttress his arguments.

23. This Court having considered the
judgments cited by the parties and also
facts of the case finds that in Writ Petition
No.16656 (MS) of 2021 16 petitioners have
approached this Court saying that their
names have been removed from the
membership list only because that their
father's names and their addresses could not
be clearly made out by the Registrar despite
such a clear and legible list being submitted
by the petitioner no.1. In this case there is a
violation of the principles of natural justice
depriving the removed members from all
opportunity. It has been argued that no
opportunity of hearing was given to
petitioner no.2 to 16 to explain their case
which argument has not been denied by the
learned counsel for the respondents. The
8 All. Shiv Narain Agarwal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
381
petitioner no.1 was not asked to submit a
fresh clear and legible list if the first one
was illegible.

24. Writ Petition No.16658 (MS) of
2021 has been filed by 18 petitioners whose
names have been removed from the
membership list of the General Body/
Electoral College only because the Deputy
Registrar was of the opinion that they were
inducted by the Committee of Management
subsequent to 1994 which Committee of
Management had been declared defunct by
the Deputy Registrar by the order dated
19.11. 2016.

25. This Court finds from a perusal of
the
orders
impugned
and
from
the
arguments raised by the learned counsel for
the parties that although there is a direction
for removal of names of 23 persons from
the General Body, only Shiv Narain
Agarwal petitioner no.1, was heard. No
notice was issued to all the petitioners
individually to place their case before the
Deputy Registrar regarding their proposed
removal. There was a violation of the
principles of natural justice and denial of
opportunity of hearing by the Deputy
Registrar in passing the orders impugned.

26. Also, the Deputy Registrar by the
orders
impugned
has
held
that
the
Committee of Management that came in
1994 had become defunct because no
elections were held in time after 1994 and
that subsequent elections were hence nonest. Such observations of the Deputy
Registrar are in excess of his jurisdiction
under Section 25 sub-clause (2) of the
Societies Registration Act.

27. The Deputy Registrar moreover in
passing order impugned dated 4.7.2021 has
fixed an election schedule for conducting
of election of the Society without going
into the byelaws of the Society wherein
elections have been provided in two stages.
The General Body initially elects a 31
member body by the name of Vishesh
Samiti. The Vishesh Samiti then elects 5
members to work as Committee of
Management of the institution, and 7
members as Office Bearers of the Society.
These 12 members taken together, induct
three members from the 'Vishesh Samiti'
for
constituting
the
Committee
of
Management of the Society. On the other
hand in the election schedule declared by
Annexure 1 the Dy. Registrar has directed
holding of elections in one step only. Such
a blatant disregard of the byelaws by the
Deputy Registrar is in violation of the
provision of Section 25 (2) of the Societies
Registration
Act
which
specifically
provides that elections should be conducted
by either the Deputy Registrar or his
nominee strictly in accordance with the
byelaws of the Society concerned.

28. Since the learned counsel for the
parties are in agreement that the Order
dated 14.7.2021 vitiates the entire election
process because it has been passed ignoring
the byelaws, the order dated 14.7.2021 is
set-aside.

29. With regard to Annexure-2,
Deputy Registrar has held that all the
elections that have been held after 1991 are
void. Such an order exceeds the jurisdiction
of the Registrar under Section 25(2) of the
Act. It is settled law that a Committee of
Management does not become defunct only
because elections were not held within
time, and such Committee of Mangement
can conduct an election even after the due
date if there is no order passed by the
Deputy Registrar in the meantime under
Section 25(2).
382 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

30. Such an order being passed in
ignorance of law and in excess of
jurisdiction is also liable to be quashed, and
hence quashed.

31. The matter is remitted to the
Deputy
Registrar
to
give
proper
opportunity of hearing to all concerned by
issuing notice in the newspapers, if need
be, and asking for objections if any and
then
to
pass
appropriate
orders
in
accordance with law within a period of
three months from the date a copy of this
order is produced before him.

32. The writ petition stands allowed.

33. Shri Ved Prakash Nag who
appears for the State- respondents is
directed to inform of the orders passed
today to the Deputy Registrar as it has been
submitted by the learned counsel for the
parties that election as per the orders
impugned that have been quashed today is
due to be held tomorrow.
----------
(2021)08ILR A382
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Misc. Single No. 16858 of 2021

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Gvk Emri (Up) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sudeep Kumar, C.S.C., Mohit Jauhari

Counsel for the Respondents:
-----
Arbitral Tribunal order challenged-as far
as relates to the determination of fee
and administrative expenses payable to
each arbitrators-Section 11(14) and the
Fourth
schedule
of
Arbitration
&
Conciliation Act, 1996 are applicable to
even Arbitral Tribunal appointed by the
parties
in
terms
of
their
contract/agreement. Impugned orders
set aside.

Held, under Section 2 (d) of the Act the
Arbitral Tribunal is defined either as a sole
arbitrator or a Panel of arbitrators and the
language used in Sub Section (14) of Section
11 is for "determination of Fees of the
Arbitral
Tribunal".
Had
the
Legislature
intended that the Fee as mentioned in the
Fourth Schedule was to be given to each of
the
members
of
the
Arbitral
Tribunal
individually, in case it was a multi member
body, then it would have clarified the same
by appending another note to the Fourth
Schedule by saying that in the event the
Tribunal is a multi member body each of its
its members would be getting the Fee as
mentioned in the Schedule. (para 38)

W.P. allowed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:

1.
Delhi
State
Industrial
Infrastructure
Development Corporation Limited Vs Bawana
Infra & Development Private Ltd. , 2018 SCC
Online Delhi, 9241

2. U.O.I. Vs Singh Builders Syndicate reported
2009 (4) SCC 523

3.n State of Bihar & ors. Vs Bihar State
Sugarcane Corporation Ltd. & ors. decided on
05.03.2020 in C.W.J.C. Nos.14355 of 2019 and
23934
of
2018,
reported
in
MANU/BH/0720/2020,

4. Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Vs
U.O.I. & ors. Civil Writ Petition No.3962 of 2017
decided on 21.07.2017

5. Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. Vs St. of Bihar [AIR
1955 SC 661