# Shri Ram Chandra Mission & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1114
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-06
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 676 of 2015
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shri-ram-chandra-mission-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48426
- **Pages:** 34

## Headnote

Ms. Meenakshi Singh (State Law Officer),
Sri Ajit Kumar, Sri Krishna Mohan Garg, Sri
Manu Saxena, Sri Rishabh Srivastava, Sri
Mohit Kumar, Sri Nitin Kumar

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - Code of Civil Procedural
Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 8, Order 6 Rule
17,
Order
7
Rule
11
-
Societies
Registration Act, 1860 - Sections 3A,
3A(4), 3-B, 4, 6, 15, 25, 25(1) & 25(2) -
Appeals - arising out of dismissal of writ
petitions - in which petitioners are commonly
challenged the Election of office bearers,
approval of the list of working committee &
renewal of registration certificate of the Society
- no argument were addressed to concealment
of material facts as pointed out by writ court -
Supressio veri, expression faisi - Appellants are
not deserve to any relief from this Court, as
they are not only guilty of concealment of
material facts from Court but, also are indulged
in forum shopping as well as polluting the
stream of justice.(Para - 60, 63, 69)

Appeals are dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,955 of 111,120. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39955 for what follows._

1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment and order dated 25-11-2020
passed by the learned Single Judge, which
is under appeal. The Special Appeal is thus
allowed. The judgment and order dated 2511-2020 passed by the learned Single Judge
in Writ Petition No. 31660 (S/S) of 2019 is
hereby set aside and the Writ Petition is
dismissed.

39. However, there will be no order as
to costs.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1114
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED ALLAHABAD 06.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Special Appeal No. 676 of 2015
with other connected cases

Shri Ram Chandra Mission & Ors.
 ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants
Sri Anil Tiwari (Senior Adv.), Sri Anand
Prakash Paul, Sri S.K. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Ms. Meenakshi Singh (State Law Officer),
Sri Ajit Kumar, Sri Krishna Mohan Garg, Sri
Manu Saxena, Sri Rishabh Srivastava, Sri
Mohit Kumar, Sri Nitin Kumar

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article 226 - Code of Civil Procedural
Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 8, Order 6 Rule
17,
Order
7
Rule
11
-
Societies
Registration Act, 1860 - Sections 3A,
3A(4), 3-B, 4, 6, 15, 25, 25(1) & 25(2) -
Appeals - arising out of dismissal of writ
petitions - in which petitioners are commonly
challenged the Election of office bearers,
approval of the list of working committee &
renewal of registration certificate of the Society
- no argument were addressed to concealment
of material facts as pointed out by writ court -
Supressio veri, expression faisi - Appellants are
not deserve to any relief from this Court, as
they are not only guilty of concealment of
material facts from Court but, also are indulged
in forum shopping as well as polluting the
stream of justice.(Para - 60, 63, 69)

Appeals are dismissed. (E-11)

List of Cases cited: -

1. ABCD Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2020) 2 SCC 52

2. Abhyudya Sanstha Vs U.O.I., (2011) 6 SCC
145

3. Amar Singh Vs U.O.I. & ors., (2011)7 SCC 69

4. Chandra Shashi Vs Anil Kumar Verma, (1995)
1 SCC 421

5. Dalip Singh Vs St. of U.P., (2010) 2 SCC 114

6. Dhananjay Sharma Vs St. of Har. & ors.,
(1995) 3 SCC 757

7. G. Narayanaswamy Reddy Vs Govt. of Karn.,
(1991) 3 SCC 261

8. Hari Narain Vs Badri Das, AIR 1963 SC 1558

9. K.D. Sharma Vs Steel Authority of India Ltd.
& ors., (2008) 12 SCC 481

10. Kishore Samrite Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
(2013)2 SCC 398

11. Moti Lal Songara Vs Prem Prakash @ Pappu
& anr., (2013) 9 SCC 199

12. Pushpadevi M. Jatia Vs M.L. Wadhawan etc.,
(1987) 3 SCC 367

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh
Bindal, C. J.)

1. This order will dispose of a bunch
of 11 Special Appeals and one writ
5 All. Shri Ram Chandra Mission & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1115
petition. The Special Appeals arise out of a
common order passed by the learned Single
Judge dated July 10, 2015. The writ petition,
inter alia, challenges the orders dated
February 21, 2015 and October 12, 2015
whereby the list of the members of the
working committee for the year 2015-16 has
been approved and the registration certificate
of Ram Chandra Mission (Society) for the
year 2015-2020 has been renewed.

2. The issue primarily pertains to
control and management of Shri Ram
Chandra Mission, namely, appellant No.1
(hereinafter referred to as ''the Mission'). It is
said to be a spiritual society registered under
the
Societies
Registration
Act,
1860
(hereinafter referred to as ''the Act').

3. At the time of hearing, it was not
disputed that there are two rival groups, who
are seeking to retain the management of the
Mission. One set of persons is the appellants
(hereinafter referred to as ''Group-I') whereas
another set is the private respondents
(hereinafter referred to as ''Group-II').

BRIEF
OF
THE
WRIT
PETITIONS,
ORDERS
PASSED
WHEREIN ARE SUBJECT MATTER
OF
CHALLENGE
IN
PRESENT
SPECIAL APPEALS

4. The details of the parties and the
prayers made in the writ petitions (giving rise
to the present Special Appeals), are summed
up herein below.

(1) Writ-C No.8950 of 2001 (Special
Appeal No.712 of 2015)

The aforesaid writ petition was
filed by the Mission through Surendra Kumar
Dixit, claiming himself to be duly elected
Treasurer of the Mission, along with others
(members of Group-I) impleading the State,
Registrar and Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits as respondents. The
prayer made in the aforesaid writ petition was
for a direction to respondent No.3 to
handover
the
renewed
certificate
of
registration of the Mission for the year 20002005 to the duly elected working committee
of petitioner No.1 and not to any other
person. Further prayer was that in case any
such
recognition
had
been
given
to
Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari, the nominee
President (member of Group-II), the same
may be quashed.

(2)
Writ-C
No.40035
of
2004
(Special Appeal No.710 of 2015)

The aforesaid writ petition was filed
by the Mission through Navneet Kumar
Saxena, claiming himself to be elected
President of the Mission, along with K.V.
Reddy and Puneet Kumar Saxena (members
of Group-I) impleading the State, Registrar
and Assistant Registrar of the Firms, Societies
and Chits and Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari
and Uma Shankar Bajpai (members of GroupII) as respondents. Challenge in the aforesaid
writ petition was to the order dated June 19,
2004 whereby the application of Puneet
Kumar Saxena, for amendment in the
constitution and bye-laws of the Mission, was
rejected. Further challenge was to the order
dated August 9, 2004 whereby the application
filed by Puneet Kumar Saxena seeking recall
of the order dated June 19, 2004, was rejected.
Further prayer was for a direction to
respondent Nos.2 and 3 to recognise and
declare petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely,
Navneet Kumar Saxena and K.V. Reddy as
the President and the Secretary of the
Society/Mission as per Sections 3A(4) and 4
of the Act.
1116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(3)
Writ-C
No.66631
of
2005
(Special Appeal No.713 of 2015)

The aforesaid writ petition was
filed by the Mission through Amresh
Kumar, claiming himself to be elected
Member
of
the
working
committee
(member of Group-I), impleading the State,
Assistant Registrar, Societies, Chits and
Funds and Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari
(member of Group-II) as respondents. The
prayer in the aforesaid writ petition was for
a direction to respondent No.2 to accept the
list
of
the
elected
working
committee/managing body for the period
2005-2006.
Further
prayer
was
for
direction to respondent No.2 to act in
accordance with Section 3A of the Act and
the rules framed thereunder.

(4)
Writ-C
No.69081
of
2005
(Special Appeal No.701 of 2015)

The aforesaid writ petition was
filed by the Mission through Navneet Kumar
Saxena, claiming himself to be elected
President of the Mission, along with K.V.
Reddy and Amresh Kumar (members of
Group-I) impleading the State, Registrar &
Assistant Registrar, Societies, Chits and
Funds
along
with
Parthasarthi
Rajagopalachari and others (members of
Group-II) as respondents. Challenge in the
aforesaid writ petition was to the order dated
October 10, 2005 whereby registration
certificate of the Society/Mission was
renewed in favour of respondent No.5,
namely, Uma Shanker Bajpai (member of
Group-II) for the year 2005-2010.

(5) Writ-C No.5034 of 2010 (Special
Appeal No.676 of 2015)

The aforesaid writ petition was
filed by the Mission through Navneet
Kumar Saxena, claiming himself to be
elected President of the Mission, along with
K.V. Reddy and Amresh Kumar (members
of Group-I) impleading the State, Registrar
& Assistant Registrar, Societies, Chits and
Funds
along
with
Parthasarthi
Rajagopalachari and others (members of
Group-II) as respondents. Challenge in the
aforesaid writ petition was to the order
dated December 19, 2009 whereby list of
the members of the working committee for
the year 2009-2010 was approved.

(6)
Writ-C
No.24212
of
2011
(Special Appeal No.702 of 2015)

The aforesaid writ petition was
filed by the Mission through Navneet
Kumar Saxena claiming himself to be
elected President of the Mission, along with
Amresh Kumar (members of Group-I)
impleading the State, Assistant Registrar,
Society, Firm, Chits and Funds along with
Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and U.S.
Bajpai
(members
of
Group-II)
as
respondents. Challenge in the aforesaid
writ petition was to the order dated October
27, 2010 whereby registration certificate of
the Society/Mission was renewed in favour
of respondent No.4, namely, Uma Shanker
Bajpai (member of Group-II) for the year
2010-2015.

(7)
Writ-C
No.24214
of
2011
(Special Appeal No.709 of 2015)

The aforesaid writ petition was
filed by the Mission through Navneet
Kumar Saxena, claiming himself to be
elected President of the Mission along with
K.V. Reddy and Amresh Kumar (members
of Group-I) impleading the State, Assistant
Registrar, Society, Firm, Chits and Funds
along with Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari
and Uma Shanker (members of Group-II)
5 All. Shri Ram Chandra Mission & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1117
as respondents. Challenge in the aforesaid
writ petition was to the order dated March
16, 2011 whereby, while rejecting the
claim of the petitioners, the list of the
members of the working committee for the
year 2010-2011 submitted by respondent
Nos.3 and 4 (members of Group-II) was
approved.

(8)
Writ-C
No.41630
of
2012
(Special Appeal No.699 of 2015)

The aforesaid writ petition was
filed by the Mission through Navneet
Kumar Saxena claiming himself to be
elected President of the Mission along with
K.V. Reddy and Amresh Kumar (members
of Group-I) impleading the State, Registrar
and Assistant Registrar, Societies, Firms,
Chits and Funds along with Parthasarthi
Rajagopalachari
and
Uma
Shanker
(members of Group-II) as respondents.
Challenge in the aforesaid writ petition was
to the order dated May 5, 2011 whereby list
of the members of the working committee
submitted by respondent Nos.4 and 5 for
the year 2011-2012 (member of Group-II)
was approved.

(9)
Writ-C
No.41631
of
2012
(Special Appeal No.708 of 2015)

The aforesaid writ petition was
filed by the Mission through Navneet
Kumar Saxena, claiming himself to be
elected President of the Mission, along with
K.V. Reddy and Amresh Kumar (members
of Group-I) impleading the State, Registrar
and Assistant Registrar, Societies, Firms,
Chits and Funds along with Parthasarthi
Rajagopalachari
and
Uma
Shanker
(members of Group-II) as respondents.
Challenge in the aforesaid writ petition was
to the order dated January 18, 2012
whereby the list of the members of the
working committee for the year 2012-2013
submitted by respondent No.4 (member of
Group-II) was approved.

(10) Writ-C No.48669 of 2013
(Special Appeal No.711 of 2015)

The aforesaid writ petition was
filed by the Mission through Navneet
Kumar Saxena, claiming himself to be
elected President of the Mission, along with
K.V. Reddy, Amresh Kumar and Dinesh
Kumar (members of Group-I) impleading
the State, Registrar and Assistant Registrar,
Societies, Firms, Chits and Funds along
with Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and Uma
Shanker Bajpai (members of Group-II) as
respondents. Challenge in the aforesaid
writ petition was to the order dated April
24, 2013 whereby the list of the members
of the working committee for the year
2013-2014 submitted by respondent No.5,
namely, Uma Shankar Bajpai (member of
Group-II) was approved.

(11) Writ-C No.30767 of 2014
(Special Appeal No.700 of 2015)

The aforesaid writ petition was
filed by the Mission through Navneet
Kumar Saxena, claiming himself to be
elected President of the Mission, along
with Amresh Kumar (members of GroupI)
impleading
the
State,
Assistant
Registrar, Societies, Firms, Chits and
Funds
along
with
Parthasarthi
Rajagopalachari and Uma Shanker Bajpai
(members of Group-II) as respondents.
Challenge in the aforesaid writ petition
was to the order dated April 19, 2014
whereby the list of the members of the
working committee for the year 20142015 submitted by respondent No.4,
namely, Uma Shankar Bajpai (member of
Group-II) was approved.
1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. The aforesaid writ petitions were
dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide
common impugned judgment.

6. Writ-C No.7139 of 2016 was also
heard along with the bunch of aforesaid
Special Appeals. It has been filed by
Navneet Kumar Saxena claiming himself to
be the elected President of the Mission
along with Dinesh Kumar and Amresh
Kumar (members of Group-I) impleading
the State, Assistant Registrar, Societies,
Firms, Chits and Funds along with
Kamlesh Desaibhai Patel and Uma Shanker
Bajpai
(members
of
Group-II)
as
respondents. Inter alia, prayer in the
aforesaid writ petition is for quashing the
orders February 21, 2015 and October 12,
2015.

7. By order dated February 21, 2015,
the list of members of the working
committee
for
the
year
2015-2016
submitted by respondent No.4, namely,
Uma Shankar Bajpai was approved and by
order
dated
October
12,
2015
the
registration
certificate
of
the
Society/Mission for the period 2015-2020
was renewed in favour of respondent No.4.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
THE APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

8. Mr. Anil Tiwari, learned Senior
Advocate with Mr. Anand Prakash Paul,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
appellants, referred to the bye-laws of the
Mission
which,
according
to
him,
provided that the headquarter of the
Mission shall be at Shahjahanpur. It shall
work under the guidance and control of
the founder or his spiritual representative
in the direct line of succession. The entire
powers are vested with the President of the
Mission.

9. An amendment was carried out in
the Act by the State of Uttar Pradesh by
U.P. Act No.52 of 1975 vide which Section
3-A was added, which provided that
certificate of registration of a society shall
be valid for a period of two years.
Thereafter renewal will be required, which
is granted subject to fulfilment of the
requisites.

10. Section 25 of the Act provides for
resolution of dispute regarding election of
office bearers. As in the case in hand also,
the dispute is pertaining to management of
the society with reference to election, the
matter was required to be referred to the
competent authority in terms of Section 25
of the Act. Reference was also made to the
Statement of Object and Reasons for
carrying out the amendments in the Act
vide U.P. Act No.52 of 1975.

11. Further, reference was made to the
amendment carried out in the Act vide U.P.
Act No.13 of 1978, which received assent
of the Governor on April 27, 1978, by
which a proviso was inserted in Section 25
of the Act to even specify the grounds on
which the election can be set-aside. Earlier,
no such grounds had been specified.

12. Reference was also made to the
subsequent amendment made in the Act by
U.P. Act No.11 of 1984, which received
assent of the Governor on April 29, 1984.
In terms of the aforesaid, amendment was
carried out in Section 3A of the Act, which
provided that at the time of filing of
application for renewal of the certificate,
the application shall be accompanied by a
list of members of the managing body.

13. The argument is that ever since
the aforesaid amendments, which provided
for election in any society, the elections are
5 All. Shri Ram Chandra Mission & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1119
being carried out in terms thereof, whereas
the claim of the respondents is that the
elections were never held and are not
required to be held as such.

14. Assailing the order passed by the
learned Single Judge, it is submitted that
the learned Single Judge had gone wrong in
opining that the election would also mean
nomination. The provisions of the Act have
not
been
properly
appreciated.
The
amendments made in the Act and the spirit
thereof were totally ignored.

15. Reference has been made to the
previous litigations between the parties.
However, the same was properly explained
before the learned Single Judge. The
submission is that in terms of the
amendment carried out in the Act, elections
were required to be held. It is the definite
case of the appellants that elections have
regularly been held. However, the case set
up by the respondents is of nomination and
not election in terms of the provisions of
the Act. In case, the Society fails to hold
the elections, it is for the Registrar to do the
needful. Even the Registrar has failed to
discharge his statutory duty.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENTS

16. On the other hand, Mr. Ajit Kumar,
along with Mr. Krishna Mohan Garg and Mr.
Mohit Kumar, Advocates, appearing for the
respondents submitted that Shree Ram
Chandra Ji Maharaj was the first President of
the Mission, who had constituted the same.
He died on April 19, 1983. The appellant
No.2, is his grandson. Ever since the death of
Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj, the litigation
started for control of the Mission. The
appellants wanted to retain its control treating
the same to be their private property.

17. The first suit, bearing Original
Suit No.200 of 1983, was filed on
December 26, 1983 by some of the
followers of the Mission, namely, Uma
Shanker, Basudeo Singh and Bhagwan
Dayal, in the group of the appellants. The
prayer made therein was that defendant
No.1 Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari be
restrained from being the President of the
Mission. The learned trial court granted exparte
interim
injunction,
which
was
confirmed vide order dated January 4,
1984. The same was impugned by
Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari by filing
First Appeal From Order No.439 of 1984
before this Court. The interim injunction
granted in the suit was vacated by this
Court vide judgment and order dated
February 25, 1985. As a result thereof,
Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari continued as
the President of the Mission. Against the
aforesaid order, Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) No.7773 of 1985 was filed, which
was dismissed vide order dated September
27, 1985 with the observation that the
respondents Parthasarathi Rajagopalachari
and others shall not alienate or dispose of
any part of the property belonging to the
Mission and the Headquarter of the
Mission will not be changed to any other
place from Shahjahanpur. The aforesaid
suit was transferred to this Court. An
application was filed in the said suit by
plaintiff Nos.1 and 2, namely, Uma
Shanker and Basudeo Singh, to withdraw
the suit unconditionally whereas plaintiff
No.3 Bhagwan Dayal prayed that the suit
may be dismissed as withdrawn with
liberty to file fresh one, in case the cause of
action
still
survived.
Though
the
withdrawal application, as prayed for by
the plaintiffs, was allowed vide order dated
July 10, 1997, however, cost of ₹4,000/-
was imposed as the defendants in the suit
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
had contested the same for a period of
about 14 years.

18. Reference was made to an order
passed by this Court on an application filed
by the plaintiffs in the aforesaid Original
Suit No.200 of 1983 for amendment in the
plaint and for impleading Umesh Chandra
Saxena as defendant. Vide order dated May
24,
1996,
the
application
filed
for
impleadment of Umesh Chandra Saxena to
represent the Mission as its President was
dismissed. Observation was made by this
Court in the aforesaid order that no plea
was taken earlier in any litigation that
Umesh Chandra Saxena was the President
of the Mission. It was an afterthought.
Special Appeal No.561 of 1996 was filed
against the aforesaid order dated May 24,
1996, which was dismissed by a Division
Bench on November 24, 1998.

19. Further, reference was made to
Original Suit No.142 of 1986 filed by the
Mission through its Secretary S.A. Sarnad
praying for restraining the defendants,
namely, Basdeo Singh, Bhagwan Dayal,
Uma Shanker Arya and others from
interfering in functioning of the Mission.
Umesh Chandra Saxena was impleaded as
defendant No.5 in the aforesaid original
suit. It is claimed that the aforesaid suit was
dismissed as withdrawn, as the defendants
had accepted the claim made therein.

20. Reference was made to Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.22657 of 1991 filed
by the Mission through its Secretary B.D.
Mahajan, praying for recognition of the
working committee of the Mission. The
same was dismissed as withdrawn on July
10, 1997. Further, reference was made to
another writ petition bearing Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No.37023 of 1994 filed by the
Mission through its President Umesh
Chandra Saxena praying for quashing of
the order dated September 29, 1994 by
which
it
was
directed
that
P.
Rajagopalachari shall continue to work as
President of the Mission till the dispute
regarding nomination was decided by this
Court. The aforesaid writ petition was
dismissed by this Court on July 10, 1997.
Against the aforesaid order, Special Appeal
No.580 of 1997 was filed, which was
dismissed
on
November
24,
1998.
Reference was made to the pleadings in the
aforesaid writ petition wherein it was
claimed
that
the
matter
regarding
nomination of the President of the Mission
was considered in the meetings of the
General Body held on February 6, 7 and 8,
1984. P. Rajagopalachari abstained from
the meeting. Name of Umesh Chandra
Saxena was proposed as President of the
Mission, which was accepted.

21. Further, reference was made to
Testamentary Suit No.8 of 1993 (converted
into Testamentary Suit No.1 of 1994) filed
by Umesh Chandra Saxena and Sarvesh
Chandra Saxena, both sons of Shree Ram
Chandra Ji Maharaj. The Mission was also
impleaded through its Secretary B.D.
Mahajan as applicant No.3. The prayer
made in the aforesaid suit was that Umesh
Chandra Saxena be granted Letter of
Administration with reference to the
properties as mentioned in the suit, he
should be declared as President of the
Mission and applicant No.2 Sarvesh
Chandra Sexana, another son of Shree Ram
Chandra Ji Maharaj, be declared as
Secretary of the Mission. The aforesaid
plaint was rejected by this Court vide order
dated October 16, 1995. Special Appeal
No.829 of 1995 filed by Umesh Chandra
Saxena and others against the aforesaid
order, was dismissed by this Court vide
order dated November 24, 1998.
5 All. Shri Ram Chandra Mission & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1121

22. As the appellants had not
succeeded in its efforts to usurp the
properties of the Mission by filing one or
the other litigations, another Suit No.697 of
1995 was filed by the Mission through its
President Umesh Chandra Saxena praying
for a declaration that P. Rajagopalachari is
not the President of the Mission and he be
restrained from acting as such. It was
claimed that during his lifetime, the
founder President Shree Ram Chandra Ji
Maharaj had nominated plaintiff No.2,
namely, Umesh Chandra Saxena as the
spiritual representative in the direct line of
succession and as his successor President
of the Mission. The aforesaid suit was
dismissed on May 31, 1999 on the
application filed by defendant No.1 P.
Rajagopalachari under Order 7 Rule 11
C.P.C. Against the aforesaid judgment of
the learned trial court, Civil Appeal No.219
of 1999 filed before the learned lower
appellate Court, was dismissed on January
11, 2001. Second Appeal No.884 of 2001
filed against the aforesaid judgment, was
also dismissed by this Court vide order
dated November 26, 2001. Yet another
effort of the appellants to retain control
over the Mission and usurp its properties
failed. In the aforesaid suit, claim made by
Umesh Chandra Saxena was on the basis of
his nomination as President by Shree Ram
Chandra Ji Maharaj during his lifetime. No
election was claimed.

23. Another case, bearing Suit No.4
of 1999, was filed by D. Krishna and
Bhagwan Dayal, claiming themselves to be
the Office Superintendent and Manager of
the Mission, impleading Umesh Chandra
and P. Rajagopalachari as defendants
praying that a decree be passed against the
defendants declaring the plaintiffs as Office
Superintendent and Manager of the Mission
pursuant to the Will deed dated April 10,
1982. The said suit is stated to have been
dismissed on May 10, 1999 and Civil
Appeal No.90 of 1999 filed against the
same was also dismissed on January 5,
2004. The aforesaid orders have not been
referred to from record.

24. As the litigation was to continue
one after another, Suit No.403 of 2003 was
filed by the Mission through K.V Reddy,
claiming himself to be elected Secretary,
against
P.
Rajagopalachari
(died
on
December
20,
2014)
challenging
nomination of P. Rajagopalachari as
President of the Mission on March 23,
1974. A decree of permanent injunction
was prayed for restraining him from
claiming himself to be the President of the
Society/Mission. The aforesaid civil suit
was dismissed on February 10, 2010. It is
claimed that the aforesaid order is under
challenge before the lower appellate court.
Though K.V. Reddy, who was representing
the Mission in the aforesaid case and the
sole defendant Rajagopalachari, both had
expired, however, till date, no application
for substitution has been filed.

25. Forum shopping was the another
device used by the appellants, as a writ
petition bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.3091 (M/S) of 2010 was filed by the
Mission through Navneet Kumar Saxena,
son of late Umesh Chandra Saxena,
claiming himself to be the elected President
of the Mission, and Amresh Kumar,
claiming himself to be elected Member of
the working committee. Only the State of
U.P., Registrar and Assistant Registrar of
the
Societies
were
impleaded
as
respondents in the said writ petition.
Though the jurisdiction to entertain the lis
was with principal seat of this Court at
Allahabad, still the writ petition was filed
at Lucknow assailing the direction issued to
the Assistant Registrar by the Registrar
1122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated November 4, 2009. The said writ
petition was disposed of on May 21, 2010
directing the Assistant Registrar to hear all
the concerned parties and take a decision
without being influenced with the direction
issued by the Registrar vide letter dated
November 4, 2009. When the respondents
came to know about passing of the
aforesaid order, an application for recall
thereof was filed. The aforesaid order was
recalled vide order dated May 30, 2012 and
the writ petition was dismissed with a cost
of ₹10,000/-. It was observed therein that
when Writ Petition No.5034 of 2010 was
pending at Allahabad, there was no
occasion for the writ petitioners therein to
have moved Lucknow Bench. Special
Appeal against the aforesaid order is stated
to be pending (as submitted by learned
counsel for the appellants).

26. Reference was also made to
Original Suit No.587 of 1999 filed by
Umesh
Chandra
Saxena,
which
was
dismissed as withdrawn on November 26,
2001 unconditionally. No fresh suit for the
purpose could be filed.

27. While referring to a Division
Bench judgment of this Court dated
November 24, 1998 vide which four
Special Appeals bearing Special Appeal
Nos.829 of 1995, 561 of 1996, 580 and 594
of 1997 were dismissed, it was submitted
that the issues sought to be raised by the
appellants in the present appeals were taken
up in the aforesaid appeals and were
rejected. The issue regarding election was
also raised and rejected. Hence, there is no
occasion for this Court to deal with the
same time and again. The Mission is a
spiritual society where members do not pay
any fee, hence, no question of any
elections.

28. Reference was also made to a suit
bearing Civil Suit No.360 of 2000 filed by
certain followers of the Mission praying for
restraining the defendants including Umesh
Chandra Saxena from interfering in the
activities of the Mission, in which interim
injunction was granted restraining the
defendants from interfering in the activities
of the Mission or representing the same.
Writ petition bearing Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.53330 of 2000 filed by Umesh
Chandra Saxena impugning the order dated
November 27, 2000 by which application
filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the C.P.C.
for rejection of the plaint of Suit No.360 of
2000 was rejected, was dismissed by this
Court vide order dated November 19, 2002.
Certain adverse observations were also
made by this Court against Umesh Chandra
Saxena. Against the aforesaid order,
Review Application was filed by Umesh
Chandra Saxena, which is pending. During
pendency of the Review Application,
Special Leave Petition No.6585 of 2003
was filed before Hon'ble the Supreme
Court, which was also dismissed on July
25, 2003. Umesh Chandar Saxena died on
November 3, 2003.

29. Subsequent to the death of Umesh
Chandra Saxena, an application was filed
for impleadment of his sons as legal
representatives in Original Suit No.360 of
2000. The same was allowed vide order
dated January 30, 2004. A revision bearing
Civil Revision No.66 of 2004 was filed
against the aforesaid order, which was
dismissed on July 19, 2005. Even the
review application was also dismissed on
April
8,
2010.
After
the
legal
representatives of Umesh Chandra Saxena
were impleaded in the suit, specific order
dated January 30, 2004 was passed that the
interim injunction already granted would
5 All. Shri Ram Chandra Mission & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1123
continue
against
newly
impleaded
defendants.

30. The Constitution, Memorandum
of Association and Bye-laws of the Mission
were referred to. It was argued that the
Mission functions under the sole guidance
and control of its founder or its spiritual
representative
in
the
direct
line
of
succession and he shall be the President of
the
Mission.
Clause
4(h)
of
the
Memorandum of Association provides that
the President shall nominate, amongst his
spiritual successors, any person as his
representative, who will enjoy all the power
and authority vested in the President of the
Mission. Clause 6 clearly provides that
there is no fee for being a member of the
Mission. As there is no fee for being a
member of the Mission, no one has right to
cast vote and no elections are to be held, if
seen in light of Section 15 of the Act.

31. It was submitted by learned counsel
for the respondents that as all efforts of
Umesh Chandra Saxena to usurp and misuse
the properties of the Mission had failed,
during his life time, before his death on
November 3, 2003, he had executed a Will
on June 7, 1999 stating that after his death,
with reference to the Mission, he nominates
his three sons who will jointly appoint the
President. This clearly establishes that he was
treating the property of the Mission as his
personal property. In fact, on account of
pending litigations, he did not have any right
even to manage the working of the Mission
what to talk of bequeathing the same by way
of a Will. This clearly shows that he was
under the impression that properties of the
Mission are his private properties. It is not a
case of either nomination or election.

32. Though, one writ petition was
filed, before the death of Umesh Chandra
Saxena, in the year 2001, however, all
other writ petitions were filed after his
death by the persons, who did not have any
authority to file the same.

33. All the appeals were filed after the
death of Umesh Chandra Saxena in the year
2015. In fact, in terms of the order dated
November 27, 2011 passed by the trial
court directing that interim injunction
restraining Umesh Chandra Saxena from
acting and treating himself to be the
President of the Mission will continue even
against his legal representatives, who were
impleaded in the aforesaid Original Suit
No. 360 of 2000, they did not have any
right to file or prosecute any litigation on
behalf of the Mission. He has further
referred to list of the working committee of
the Mission while submitting that none of
the members affected has challenged the
same, rather it is Umesh Chandra Saxena
who was aggrieved as he was treating the
property of the Mission as his private
property.

34. He further referred to the
discrepancies in the stand taken by Puneet
Kumar Saxena son of Umesh Chandra
Saxena in the written statement filed in
Original Suit No.360 of 2000, as verified
on September 17, 2010, where in paragraph
50, he affirmed that Navneet Kumar
Saxena was nominated by his late father
Umesh Chandra Saxena as per the wish of
Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj in terms of
the Will dated June 7, 1999 executed by
him. Thereafter, Navneet Kumar Saxena
was elected as President.

35. He further submitted that in the
Will executed by Shree Ram Chandra Ji
Maharaj, he had specifically stated that part
of his property would go to the Mission
whereas part thereof will go to his legal
1124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
heirs. On the property, which had been
assigned to the Mission, the appellants
cannot claim the same to be their property
as the same has been given to the spiritual
body.

36. Further, the contention raised is
that the prayers made in the Special
Appeals have been rendered infructuous
and even the relief claimed. Though the
appellants
were
indulged
in
lot
of
litigations for the last about four decades,
in three writ petitions, namely, Writ-C
Nos.8950 of 2001, 69081 of 2005 and
24212 of 2011 challenge was to the
renewals of recognition of the Society for
the years 2000-2005, 2005-2010 and 20102015. The period being already over, the
aforesaid writ petitions had been rendered
infructuous, especially if considered in the
light of the fact that subsequent renewals
for the period 2015-2020 and 2020-2025
have not been challenged.

37. Further, argument is that in six writ
petitions, namely, Writ-C Nos.5034 of 2010,
24214 of 2011, 41630 of 2012, 41631 of
2012, 48669 of 2013 and 30767 of 2014, the
challenge was to the orders of approval of the
list of members of the working committee of
the Mission for six years from 2009-2010, to
2014-2015. The period being already over,
the aforesaid writ petitions had also been
rendered infructuous, especially if considered
in light of the fact that subsequent approvals
of the list of members of working committee
have not been challenged. The submission is
that annual applications had regularly been
filed along with list of members of the
working committee for its approval, which
were approved, with appellants no where in
picture.

38. Writ Petition No.40035 of 2004
was filed on behalf of the Mission through
Navneet Kumar Saxena for quashing the
order dated June 19, 2004 passed by the
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits
rejecting the amendment sought in byelaws of the Society through an application
filed by Puneet Kumar Saxena. Writ
Petition No.66631 of 2005 was filed on
behalf of the Mission through Amresh
Kumar, claiming himself to be elected
Member of the working committee, praying
for a mandamus to accept the list of the
Members
of
the
working
committee
submitted by the petitioners therein and
renew the registration certificate of the
society.

39. It was further argued that the
appellants are not entitled to any relief as
there is concealment of material fact. It is
so discussed by the learned Single Judge in
the impugned judgment, however, not
taken to its logical end.

REJOINDER ON BEHALF OF
APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS

40.
In
response,
learned
Senior
Counsel for the appellants submitted that
no formal elec tions are required, if there is
no nomination except one for the post.
However, the argument seems to be double
edged as there is other side, which is
refuting such a claim of the appellants. As
regards the challenge to the renewal of the
registration certificate of the working
committee, reference was made to Writ-C
No.7139 of 2016 in which renewal of the
working committee for the year 2014-15
was challenged. The said writ petition
forms part of this bunch of cases. Another
writ bearing Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.16788 of 2021 is also stated to be
pending. In the said writ petition prayer
was to quash the orders dated October 9, 16
and December 20, 2020 whereby the list of
5 All. Shri Ram Chandra Mission & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1125
the Members of the working committee of
the Mission for the year 2020-2021 was
registered and registration certificate of the
Society
was
renewed.
It
is
further
submitted that gist of the entire litigation is
available in the impugned order passed by
the learned Single Judge.

41. Further, the argument raised is
that in terms of Section 6 of the Act a
society can sue or be sued in its claim but
in the case in hand, in none of the cases,
writ petitions filed by the appellants, the
society was impleaded as a respondent,
rather the society is the writ petitioner,
though the Members, who are representing
the Mission, are not approved by the
Registrar of the Societies.

DISCUSSIONS

42. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the relevant materials
referred to.

43.

What
emerges
from
the
documents on record, as have been
referred to by learned counsel for the
parties, is that Shree Ram Chandra Ji,
Fatehgarh was a spiritual person. One
disciple was Shree Ram Chandra Ji
Maharaj of Shahjahanpur. He opted to
carry on spiritual mission of his Guru. He
got a society registered in the name of
Shree
Ram
Chandra
Mission
of
Shahjahanpur. The registration certificate
was issued on July 21, 1945. It is the
control and management of the aforesaid
Mission, which is in dispute after the
death of Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj
of Shahjahanpur. He expired on April 19,
1983. He is survived by:

44. It has come on record that there
was a document of nomination dated
March 23,1974 whereby the founder
President claimed to have nominated Sri
Parthasarthi Rajgopalachari as President of
Mission/Society. The founder President
died on April 19, 1983. The nomination
aforesaid
obviously
would
become
operative after the death of the founder
President. It is not disputed that Sri
Parthasarthi Rajgopalachari took the charge
as President of Mission/Society and started
managing its affairs. Firstly, his authority
was challenged by Sri Prakash Chandra
Saxena, one of the three sons of founder
President, and the matter was examined in
working committee of the Mission/Society
in its meeting dated July 10, 1983. The
claim of Sri Prakash Chandra Saxena was
doubted in the aforesaid meeting. The
matter was posted to October 23, 1983
giving opportunity to Sri Prakash Chandra
Saxena to substantiate his claim. In the
meeting held on October 23, 1983, the
working committee did not accept claim of
Sri
Prakash
Chandra
Saxena.
The
nomination document of March 3, 1974
was
honoured
and
Sri
Parthasarthi
Rajagopalachari continued to function as
the President.

HISTORY
OF
PREVIOUS
LITIGATIONS
1126 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

45. Brief facts from the previous
litigations between the parties are summed
up herein.

(A) Suit No.200 of 1983

(i) After the death of Shree Ram
Chandra Ji Maharaj on April 19, 1983, the
aforesaid suit was filed on December 26,
1983 by the persons from Group-I at
Shahjahanpur. An application was also
filed under Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. seeking
permission to prosecute the same in
representative capacity. The followers of
the Mission in Group-II including P.
Rajagopalachari
were
impleaded
as
defendants. The relief prayed for in the
aforesaid suit was for grant of injunction
restraining
P.
Rajagopalachari
from
interfering in the functioning of the
Mission. It was pleaded that the founder
President Shree Ram Chandra Ji Maharaj
had not nominated him as the successor.
The document, if any, of nomination
cannot be treated as Will of the founder
President, as the same is manufactured one.
The suit was contested by the defendants
therein. The trial court vide order dated
January 4, 1984 granted ex-parte interim
injunction in favour of the plaintiffs
therein.