# Smt. Girija Singh (In Wric 1004847 of 2012) v. C/m Intermediate College Amethi & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 940
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-06-14
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 212 of 2022
- **Bench:** Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, Subhash Vidyarthi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-girija-singh-in-wric-1004847-of-2012-v-c-m-intermediate-college-amethi-ors-48687
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

Rules, 1952 - Chapter VIII Rule 5 - Special
Appeal - Societies Registration Act of 1860
- Section 3 - registration of a society,
Section 3A - renewal of certificate of the
registration of a Society - renewal of
certificate of the registration of a Society -
applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh -
permits
renewal
of
certificate
of
registration even after expiry of the period
of registration on payment of late fee -
Section 6 - Suits by and against societies ,
Section
25(1)
-
Disputes
regarding
election of office -bearers - preliminary
objection must be adjudicated upon first -
Existence
of
society
will
not
get
extinguished only because of non-renewal
of its registration certificate.(Para - 22)
Non renewal of registration of Society - list of
112 members of General Body of Society in
question - declared to be valid for purposes of
holding election of Executive Body of Society -
Single Judge while passing the judgment and
order under appeal not considered issue relating
to maintainability of writ petition - allowed writ
petition - addition in list of 60 members of
General Body of the Society - whether legally
permissible. (Para -2,14,21)

HELD:-Society once duly registered, does not
lose its entity as a society on account of nonrenewal of certificate of registration. Society will
get extinct only when it is dissolved as per the
provisions contained in section 13 or 13-A of the
Act. Persons added in list of 60 members of
General Body of Society were illegally added. No
interference in the judgment and order passed
by learned Single Judge.(Para -22,23,28 )

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2022 in which only one Institute is there.
That means, all the Institutes have not even
challenged the order, realising that they had
committed fraud by submitting forged bank
guarantees, hence were liable to be
punished for the same.

10. We do not find any reason to take
a view different than the view taken by the
learned Single Judge. There is no merit in
the
present
appeal.
The
same
is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022)06ILR A940
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 212 of 2022

Smt. Girija Singh (In Wric 1004847 of
2012) ...Petitioner
Versus
C/m Intermediate College Amethi & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Anupam Mehrotra, Diwakar Singh Kaushik

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mahendra Bahadur Singh, C.S.C., Ram Kumar
Singh

(A) Election - The Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952 - Chapter VIII Rule 5 - Special
Appeal - Societies Registration Act of 1860
- Section 3 - registration of a society,
Section 3A - renewal of certificate of the
registration of a Society - renewal of
certificate of the registration of a Society -
applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh -
permits
renewal
of
certificate
of
registration even after expiry of the period
of registration on payment of late fee -
Section 6 - Suits by and against societies ,
Section
25(1)
-
Disputes
regarding
election of office -bearers - preliminary
objection must be adjudicated upon first -
Existence
of
society
will
not
get
extinguished only because of non-renewal
of its registration certificate.(Para - 22)
Non renewal of registration of Society - list of
112 members of General Body of Society in
question - declared to be valid for purposes of
holding election of Executive Body of Society -
Single Judge while passing the judgment and
order under appeal not considered issue relating
to maintainability of writ petition - allowed writ
petition - addition in list of 60 members of
General Body of the Society - whether legally
permissible. (Para -2,14,21)

HELD:-Society once duly registered, does not
lose its entity as a society on account of nonrenewal of certificate of registration. Society will
get extinct only when it is dissolved as per the
provisions contained in section 13 or 13-A of the
Act. Persons added in list of 60 members of
General Body of Society were illegally added. No
interference in the judgment and order passed
by learned Single Judge.(Para -22,23,28 )

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. PBNC Committee Vs Govt. of A.P., AIR 1958
AP 773

2. Pattada Uthayya Vs Pattada Somayya, AIR
1955 Mysore 149

3. Mahabir Prasad Vs Satyanarain, AIR 1963
Patna 131

4. Arya Samaj Vs Manmohan Tewari, 1994 (12) LCD 205

5. Adare Madarsa Ziaul-Ulum & ors. Vs
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits &
anr. , 2005 (23) LCD 1021

6. Umesh Chandra Vs Mahila Vidyalaya Society,
2006 (24) LCD 1373

7. Baba Bariyar Shah Association Vs St. of U. P.,
2019 (37) LCD 887
6 All. Smt. Girija Singh (In Wric 1004847 of 2012) Vs. C/m Intermediate College Amethi & Ors. 941
8. St. of U.P. Vs C.O.D. Chheoki... Cooperative
Society, (1997) 3 SCC 681

9. St. of Maha. Vs R. S. Nayak, AIR 1982 SC
1249

10. Bhagwati Prasad Vs Delhi St. Mineral
Development Corporation, (1990) 1 SCC 361

11. Ram Bali Vs St. of U.P., (2004) 10 SCC 598

12. St. of Assam Vs U.O.I., (2010) 10 SCC 408

13. Jitendra Vs St. (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 13
SCC 691

14. Madan Mohan Vs Arun Shourie, AIR 2010 All
66

15. Bishundeo Narain Vs Seogeni Rai, AIR 1951
SC 280

16. Purushottam Kumar Jha Vs St. of Jharkhand,
(2006) 9 SCC 458

17. U.O.I. Vs Ranbir Singh Rathaur, (2006) 11
SCC 696

18. St. of Assam Vs U.O.I., (2010) 10 SCC 408

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devendra Kumar
Upadhyaya, J. & Hon'ble Subhash
Vidyarthi, J.)

1. This intra-court appeal filed under
Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the
Court lays a challenge to the judgment and
order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the
learned
Single
Judge
in
Writ-C
No.1004847 of 2012 as corrected by
means of the order dated 06.05.2022.

2. At this juncture itself, we may
notice that in the aforesaid writ petition
under challenge was an order dated
13.08.2012
passed
by
the
Deputy
Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits,
Kanpur Region, Kanpur whereby a list of
112 members of General Body of the
Society in question was declared to be
valid for the purposes of holding the
election of the Executive Body of the
Society.

3. Shri Anupam Mehrotra, learned
counsel representing the appellant-Smt.
Girja Singh has argued that the learned
Single Judge while passing the judgment
and order under appeal has not considered
the issue relating to maintainability of the
writ petition at the instance of the
petitioner-society
and
without,
thus,
deciding the question of maintainability,
has allowed the writ petition thereby the
learned Single Judge has erred in law.
Elaborating this argument, it has been
contended by Shri Mehrotra, learned
counsel appearing for the appellant that
the last renewal of the registration of the
Society was done on 26.09.2003 for a
period of five years w.e.f. 10.10.2000 and
thereafter its registration has not been
renewed and accordingly the writ petition
filed by the Society whose registration
was not renewed, could not be entertained.
It has also been argued that in terms of the
provisions contained in section 6 of the
Societies Registration Act (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act') it is only a
registered society which may sue or be
sued. In support of this submission,
learned counsel for the appellant has relied
upon the judgments in the following cases:

(i) PBNC Committee vs. Govt. of
A.P., AIR 1958 AP 773

(ii) Pattada Uthayya vs. Pattada
Somayya, AIR 1955 Mysore 149

(iii)
Mahabir
Prasad
vs.
Satyanarain, AIR 1963 Patna 131

(iv) Arya Samaj vs. Manmohan
Tewari, 1994 (12) LCD 205

(v) Adare Madarsa Ziaul-Ulum and
others vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms,
942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Societies and Chits and another, 2005
(23) LCD 1021

4. It has further been argued on behalf
of the appellant that the writ petition even
at the behest of the petitioner no.2-Shiv
Bahadur Singh was not maintainable as he
filed the petition claiming to be a Manager
of the Society whereas the fact is that he
ceased to be the Manager on 24.05.2008. In
support of this submission, the judgments
cited by the learned counsel for the
appellant are as under:

(i) Umesh Chandra vs. Mahila
Vidyalaya Society, 2006 (24) LCD 1373

(ii) Baba Bariyar Shah Association
vs. State of U. P., 2019 (37) LCD 887
(iii) State of U.P. vs. C.O.D. Chheoki...
Cooperative Society, (1997) 3 SCC 681

5. Shri Mehrotra, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant has further
submitted that contradiction of statement
recorded in the order which was under
challenge in the writ petition before the
learned Single Judge was not permissible
as such statement available in an order is
the conclusive proof of its existence and
the same cannot be contradicted except
before the authority passing the order.
The judgments relied upon in this regard
are:

(i) State of Maharashtra vs. R. S.
Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249

(ii) Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi
State
Mineral
Development
Corporation, (1990) 1 SCC 361

(iii) Ram Bali vs. State of U.P.,
(2004) 10 SCC 598

(iv) State of Assam vs. Union of
India, (2010) 10 SCC 408

(v) Jitendra vs. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2019) 13 SCC 691

(vi)
Madan
Mohan
vs.
Arun
Shourie, AIR 2010 All 66

6. Further submission is that though
certain allegations of mala fides were
asserted by the petitioners against the
Deputy Registrar but since he was not
impleaded a party in person hence, in this
view as well the writ petition was not
maintainable. The judgments relied upon in
this context on behalf of the appellant are:

(i) Bishundeo Narain vs. Seogeni
Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280

(ii) Purushottam Kumar Jha vs.
State of Jharkhand, (2006) 9 SCC 458

(iii) Union of India vs. Ranbir Singh
Rathaur, (2006) 11 SCC 696

7. It has further been argued that in
absence of necessary parties, namely, the
persons who were included in the final list
of the members of the General Body by the
order dated 13.08.2012, the order could not
have been quashed by the learned Single
Judge. In this respect, learned counsel for
the appellant has relied upon the judgment
of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
State of Assam vs. Union of India, (2010)
10 SCC 408.

8. Several other arguments have also
been raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant stating that since the writ petition
involved adjudication of disputed question
of facts as such proper recourse opon to the
petitioners was to invoke the remedy of a
civil suit and not that of writ petition and
that once election process had commenced,
no interference in the writ petition was
permissible. It is also stated that the
petitioner no.2 did not approach the Court
with clean hands wrongly claiming to be
the Manager of the Society and hence he,
being guilty of misrepresentation, could not
6 All. Smt. Girija Singh (In Wric 1004847 of 2012) Vs. C/m Intermediate College Amethi & Ors. 943
have maintained the writ petition. It has
also been contended by the learned counsel
for the appellant that it is well settled
principle of law that preliminary objection
must be adjudicated upon first, however,
learned Single Judge has completely
overlooked the said well settled principle of
law by passing the judgment and order
under appeal.

9.

In
view
of
the
aforesaid
submissions, Shri Mehrotra has vehemently
argued that the learned Single Judge has
completely ignored the submissions made
on behalf of the appellant as also the legal
principles involved in the matter which
vitiates the judgment and order under
appeal. Accordingly, the prayer is that the
judgment and order passed by the learned
Single Judge be set aside and the writ
petition be also dismissed.

10. Countering the submissions made
on behalf of the appellant, Shri Prashant
Chandra, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by
Shri
Mahendra
Bahadur
Singh
representing the respondent no.2 has
opposed the prayers made in the special
appeal and has submitted that having
regard to the facts and circumstances of the
case the judgment rendered by the learned
Single Judge does not call for any
interference in this special appeal which is
liable to be dismissed at its threshold.

11. We have considered the rival
submissions made by the learned counsel
representing the respective parties and have
also perused the records available before us
on this special appeal. Before adverting to
the submissions raised for and against the
instant special appeal, we may notice
certain facts in brief which will have a
bearing on the adjudication of the issue
involved in this case.

12. A Society in the name of Gandhi
Junior High School, Korari Lachhan Shah,
Post Korari Heer Shah, Tehsil & District
Amethi (earlier District Sultanpur) was
registered on 01.12.1969 at File No.I10279. The registration of the said Society
was renewed from time to time and at a
subsequent stage the word "Gandhi"
occurring in the name of the Society was
removed. The registration of the Society in
the name of Intermediate College Korari
Lachhan Shah, District Sultanpur was
renewed on 26.07.2003 with effect from
10.10.1977
which
was
valid
till
09.10.2005. While renewing the Society till
09.10.2005, the change of the name of the
Society as also the amended Memorandum
of Association and rules were also taken on
record/registered.

13. Thereafter, on an application
preferred by one Paras Nath Singh on
05.04.2006, the certificate of registration
was renewed for a period of five years with
effect from 10.10.2005 and accordingly
renewed certificate of registration was
issued on 27.06.2006.

14. After renewal of the Society on
27.06.2006, the petitioner no.2 in the writ
petition, namely, Shiv Bahadur Singh
moved an application on 10.09.2009 stating
therein that the earlier Manager, Kali
Prasad Singh had died on 06.11.2004
whereafter for the remainder period he was
elected as Manager in a meeting of the
General Body of the Society held on
12.12.2004, however, Paras Nath Singh,
who was the former Principal of the School
run by the Society fraudulently got a
Society registered in the name of Korari
Inter College at registration File No.F17017. Accordingly, a dispute was raised
by Shiv Bahadur Singh in respect of the
renewal of the registration of the Society
944 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
done on 27.06.2006. The matter was
considered by the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Faizabad Division,
Faizabad, who by means of an order dated
21.07.2010 has categorically held that after
25.05.2003 no valid election of the office
bearers of the Society was held and
accordingly the Deputy Registrar declared
the Executive Body of the Society to have
become barred by time. The Deputy
Registrar, Faizabad also recorded a finding
in his order dated 21.07.2010 that the
renewal of registration of the Society was
made on 26.09.2003 on the basis of the
documents/papers presented by Kali Prasad
Singh and at that time there was no dispute
in the Society. He has also recorded in the
order dated 21.07.2010 that the papers
presented by Kali Prasad Singh at the time
of seeking renewal of the registration of the
Society contained a list of the members of
the General Body of the Society for the
year 2003-04 which comprised of 60
Members. The Deputy Registrar also
recorded a finding that the renewal of the
registration of the Society made in the year
2006 i.e. on 27.06.2006 was not proper and
lawful and as such he withheld the said
renewal of the registration of the Society
while passing the order dated 21.07.2010.

15. The Deputy Registrar, Faizabad
accordingly after giving the aforesaid
findings in the order dated 21.07.2010, as
observed above, declared the Executive
Body of the Society to have become barred
by time and accordingly issued the
tentative list of the Members of the General
Body of the Society comprising of 60
Members which he determined on the basis
of list of Members of the General Body for
the year 2003-04 presented by Kali Prasad
Singh while seeking renewal of the
registration of the Society which was done
on 26.09.2003. Thus, the Deputy Registrar,
Faizabad while passing the order dated
21.07.2010
recorded
the
following
findings:

(a) Renewal of the registration of the
Society done on 26.09.2003 on the basis of
the documents/papers presented by Kali
Prasad Singh was lawful and even
undisputed.

(b) Renewal of the registration made
in the year 2006 i.e. on 27.06.2006 was
improper and incorrect.

(c) The papers presented by Kali
Prasad Singh while seeking renewal of the
registration of the Society which was made
on 26.09.2003 contained a list of 60
Members of the general body of the Society
and since no dispute arose on the renewal
of the registration of the Society based on
these papers including the list of Members,
the list of 60 Members of the General Body
of the Society appears to be correct.

(d) After 25.05.2003 no valid election
of the Society was held as such the
Executive Body had become barred by
time.

16. After recording the aforesaid
findings as noticed in the preceding
paragraph, the Deputy Registrar, Faizabad
issued a list of 60 Members of the General
Body of the Society terming it to be
tentative list and inviting objections to the
said tentative list so that for the purposes of
executive body of the Society final
electoral college may be notified

17. It is very significant to note that
the aforesaid order dated 21.07.2010 was
not challenged by any of the parties to this
special appeal neither by any one else
before any forum or court. Thus, so far as
the findings recorded in the said order
dated 21.07.2010 are concerned, the same
became final between the parties.
6 All. Smt. Girija Singh (In Wric 1004847 of 2012) Vs. C/m Intermediate College Amethi & Ors. 945

18. Since the electoral college for the
purposes of holding election of the
Executive Body of the Society, as directed
by the Deputy Registrar Faizabad by means
of his order dated 21.07.2010, was not
being finalized, a writ petition was filed by
the respondent no.2-Shiv Bahadur Singh,
namely, Writ Petition No.6859 (M/S) of
2011 which was disposed of by a learned
Single Judge of this Court dated 17.11.2011
whereby a direction was issued to the
authority concerned to publish the final list
of the Members of the General Body of the
Society within a period of three months.

19. The Deputy Registrar instead of
finalizing the electoral college for the
purposes of holding election of the
Executive Body of the Society pursuant to
the earlier order dated 21.07.2010 passed
an order on 20.03.2012 whereby he
referred the matter for adjudication before
the Prescribed Authority under section
25(1) of the Societies Registration Act.

20. The said order dated 20.03.2012
was challenged before this Court by filing
writ petition no.1876 (M/S) of 2012. The
said writ petition was disposed of by means
of an order dated 05.04.2012 by quashing
the order dated 20.04.2012 and further
permitting the parties to file objections to
the tentative list. This Court by the said
order dated 05.04.2012 also directed the
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits to consider the objections which
could be raised by the parties against the
tentative list and take final decision and
publish the final list to hold the election of
the Executive Body of the Society. The
court also directed the Incharge Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits to place the
matter before a Deputy Registrar other than
the Deputy Registrar Faizabad Region,
Faizabad. It is thereafter that the Deputy
Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits,
Kanpur Division, Kanpur passed the order
dated 13.08.2012 which was challenged by
the petitioners before the learned Single
Judge by instituting Writ Petition No.4847
(M/S) of 2012 (which was assigned new
Number as Writ-C No.1004847 of 2012).
The judgment and order under challenge
herein dated 20.04.2022 has been passed
allowing the said writ petition and quashing
the order dated 13.08.2012, as a result of
which the order dated 21.07.2010 has been
revived and accordingly a direction has
been issued by the learned Single Judge to
the Deputy Registrar to pass a fresh order
in respect of the electoral college for the
purposes of holding the election of the
Executive Body of the Society by including
the members who were living out of 60
members as were finalized by means of the
order dated 21.07.2010. The learned Single
Judge also directed that if required the
election of the Executive Body of the
Society shall be held under the supervision
of the Deputy Registrar. Learned Single
Judge has also clarified that no person shall
be added in the list over and above 60
persons as mentioned in the order dated
21.07.2010.

21. Having noted the background
facts of the case as narrated above, the
questions which primarily fall for our
consideration are, (a) as to whether, as
contended by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the writ petition filed by the
petitioner nos.1 and 2 was maintainable
and, (b) as to whether any addition in the
list of 60 members of the General Body of
the Society as per the order dated
21.07.2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar,
Faizabad is legally permissible.

22. It has been argued on behalf of the
appellant that the registration of the Society
946 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
having not been renewed after 26.09.2003
(whereby renewal was valid for five years
w.e.f. 10.10.2000), the writ petition filed by
the
petitioner
no.1-Society
was
not
maintainable. When we consider this
submission, we find that the contention is
based solely on the ground of non-renewal
of the registration of the Society. Section 3
of the Act provides for registration of a
society upon presentation of Memorandum
of Association before the Registrar on
payment of certain fee. Section 3A of the
Act provides for renewal of certificate of
the registration of a Society. Scheme of
section 3-A of the Act as applicable in the
State of Uttar Pradesh permits renewal of
certificate of registration even after expiry
of the period of registration on payment of
late fee. Thus, a society once registered,
will not get extinct, that is to say, it will not
become non-existent in absence of renewal
of the certificate of registration after expiry
of the term of registration. The society shall
still exist though with a non-renewed
certificate. It will still be an entity for the
reason that section 3-A permits renewal of
certificate of registration even after expiry
of the term of registration on payment of
late fee. Existence of society will not get
extinguished only because of non-renewal
of its registration certificate. Section 13 of
the Act provides for dissolution of a society
and thereupon adjustment of its affairs.
Accordingly, we have no hesitation to hold
that a society once duly registered, does not
lose its entity as a society on account of
non-renewal
of
the
certificate
of
registration. The society will get extinct
only when it is dissolved as per the
provisions contained in section 13 or 13-A
of the Act.

23. So far as the judgments cited by
the learned counsel for the appellant in this
regard, as mentioned above, are concerned,
all the cases related to non-registered
society or and unincorporated club and it is
in this context that it has been observed that
such a society will have the character of an
association which cannot sue or be sued
except in the name of all the members of
the association. In the case of Arya Samaj
(supra) it has been held by a Division
Bench of this Court that as soon as a
society is registered, it acquires a legal
entity. We are, thus, of the opinion that nonrenewal of certificate of registration may
have certain consequences, however, that in
itself cannot be a cause of extinction of
existence of the society as an entity. The
existence/entity of a society comes to an
end only on its dissolution as envisaged
under sections 13 and 13-A of the Act.

24. Reliance placed by the learned
counsel for the appellant on paragraphs 12
& 13 of the judgment in the case of Adare
Madarsa and others (supra) is misplaced.
This judgment only holds that since
renewal of the society in question was
granted on the basis of some illegal list as
such the society had become unregistered
society within the meaning of section 3A(v) of the Act and the only remedy
available was to hold the fresh election in
terms of the provisions of section 25(2) of
the Act. Thus, this case does not help the
petitioner at all, rather it fortifies the
contention
of
the
learned
counsel
representing the respondents that once the
Deputy Registrar in his order dated
21.07.2010 has held the executive body of
the society being barred by time, it was
appropriate and proper on his part to have
proceeded to hold the election under
section 25(2) of the Act. Thus, in our
opinion, the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant that the writ
petition was not maintainable at the behest
of the petitioner no.1, is not tenable.
6 All. Smt. Girija Singh (In Wric 1004847 of 2012) Vs. C/m Intermediate College Amethi & Ors. 947

25. Similarly the submission raised by
the learned counsel for the appellant that
the writ petition was not maintainable at the
behest of the petitioner no.2, is also not
tenable for the simple reason that he is one
of the persons included in the list of 60
members of the General Body of the
Society as contained in the order dated
21.07.2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar
and he, in our considered opinion, did have
adequate locus to challenge the order dated
13.08.2012 passed by the Deputy Registrar,
Kanpur Region, Kanpur, who had extended
the list of 60 members to 112 members
which was contrary to the unchallenged
findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar
in his earlier order dated 21.07.2010. As
regards the submission that the petitioners
while
impeaching
the
order
dated
13.08.2012 in the writ petition before the
learned
Single
Judge
could
not
be
permitted to contradict the statement of
facts recorded in the said order as the facts
recorded in an order by an authority or
tribunal or court is conclusive, we may
only refer to the averments made in
paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit filed
in the writ petition by the Deputy Registrar
Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad where
it has been stated by the Deputy Registrar
that there are no provisions under the Act
which permit providing copies of the
documents submitted by the opposite party
no.5 in the writ petition to the petitioners,
however, under sections 23 and 24 of the
Societies
Registration
Act
related
documents can be inspected personally by
the Deputy Registrar and that copies of
such documents cannot be handed over to
any other person.

26. The said submissions were made
in reply to paragraphs 54 and 55 of the writ
petition, wherein it was stated by the
petitioner that the Deputy Registrar did not
supply copies of the reply and documents
submitted by the opposite party no.5 in the
writ petition and further that the Deputy
Registrar considered the documents filed
by the opposite party no.5 in the writ
petition, however, he did not supply copies
of those documents to the petitioners and
that such documents must have been
provided to them so that they were able to
put up their case before the Deputy
Registrar. If the averments made in
paragraph 29 of the counter affidavit filed
before the learned Single Judge by the
Deputy Registrar Faizabad is read in
juxtaposition with the submissions made in
paragraphs 52, 54 and 55 of the writ
petition, it is abundantly clear that there is
admission on the part of the Deputy
Registrar that copies of the documents
submitted before him by the opposite party
no.5 in the writ petition were not supplied
to the petitioner. In view of this admission
by the Deputy Registrar before the Single
Judge as made in paragraph 29 of the
counter affidavit filed by the him, the
submission made on behalf of the appellant
that the petitioners could not be permitted
to contradict the submissions of facts
recorded in the order of Deputy Registrar,
loses significance.

27. Yet another submission made by the
learned counsel representing the appellant
is that the persons whose names were
added amongst 112 members in addition to
60 members, by means of the order dated
13.08.2012 passed by the Deputy Registrar,
were not impleaded as parties in the writ
petition, hence the writ petition suffered
from the vice of non-joinder of necessary
parties and as such the same was not
maintainable.
While
considering
this
submission on behalf of the appellant, what
we find is that there is a categorical finding
recorded by the Deputy Registrar while he
948 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
passed the order dated 21.07.2010 that
documents
on
the
basis
of
which
undisputed renewal of the registration of
the society was done on 26.09.2003 also
contained a list of 60 members of the
General Body of the Society and this order
dated 21.07.2010 was never challenged by
any one, including those persons, who were
added in the list of 112 members over and
above 60 members of the General Body of
the
Society.
Since
the
order
dated
21.07.2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar
was never challenged, hence the finding
recorded in respect of the fact regarding
validity of 60 members of the General
Body of the Society remains undisputed.
Any addition of members apart from 60
members of the General Body of the
Society made by the subsequent order
passed by the Deputy Registrar on
13.08.2012, in our considered opinion, was
not permissible. It is also to be noticed in
this regard that vide order dated 21.07.2010
the
Deputy
Registrar
had
published
undisputed list of 60 members terming such
list of members of the General Body as
tentative list inviting objections so that
electoral college may be finalized for the
purposes of holding election of the
Executive
Body
of
the
Society
as
contemplated under section 25(2) of the
Act. Finalization of electoral college
pursuant to the order dated 21.07.2010, in
our considered opinion, was only meant for
removal of such member from amongst 60
members of the General Body of the
Society who for some or other reason might
have disqualified themselves to be member
of the General Body on account of certain
exigencies such as death or resignation or
any other like situation. Thus, amongst 60
members of the Society, while finalizing
the electoral college pursuant to the order
dated 21.07.2010 passed by the Deputy
Registrar, the only alteration which was
permissible in the said list of 60 members
was deletion of names of such persons who
might have disqualified themselves to be
members on account of the reasons as
aforesaid, such as death or resignation or
any other like situation. The Deputy
Registrar, thus, while passing the order
dated 13.08.2012 had clearly exceeded his
mandate and jurisdiction in view of the
undisputed findings recorded in his earlier
order dated 21.07.2010.

28. Accordingly, we have no hesitation
to hold that those persons, who were added in
the list of 60 members of the General Body of
the Society by means of the order dated
13.08.2012, were illegally added. Since the
Deputy Registrar while passing the order
dated 13.08.2012, thus, exceeded his mandate
which was available to him only for the
purposes of finalizing the electoral college
from amongst 60 members of the General
Body of the Society by means of the order
dated 21.07.2010, the submission made by
the learned counsel for petitioner merits
rejection, which is hereby thus, not accepted.

29. We also notice that in the writ
petition disputed questions of facts relating to
membership of the Society were not involved
as the issue related only to finalization of the
electoral college on the basis of determination
of the members of the General Body of the
Society made by the Deputy Registrar by
means of his order dated 21.07.2010.

30. For the reasons as aforesaid, we are
not inclined to interfere in the judgment and
order passed by the learned Single Judge.

31. There is yet another reason why
no interference in this special appeal is
warranted. The dispute relating to election
of the Executive Body of the Society has
been pending since fairly a long time and
6 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Sita Ram
949
as such we are of the opinion that such
dispute should be given quietus which shall
be not only in the interest of the warring
factions of the society but it shall also be in
the interest of the society of the college
being run, of the education of the students
as also the welfare of the teachers.

32. For all the aforesaid discussion
made above, we are of the opinion that the
instant appeal lacks merit. Resultantly, the
special appeal is, thus, dismissed.

33. The Deputy Registrar concerned
is directed to ensure compliance of the
directions issued by the learned Single
Judge in his order dated 28.04.2022 as
corrected by means of the order dated
06.05.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.4847
(M/S) of 2012 (New Number: Writ-C
No.1004847 of 2012) within the time
period specified for the said purpose in the
order passed by the learned Single Judge.

34. However, there will be no order as
to costs.
----------
(2022)06ILR A949
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.05.2022

BEFORE

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

Special Appeal (D) 155 of 2022

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Sita Ram ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Chandan Kumar, Standing Counsel

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Harindra Prasad
(A) Service Law - Condonation of huge
delay - limitation to file appeal - 30 days
from date of order - in addition to time
spent in obtaining certified copy thereof -
Claim on account of impersonal machinery
and inherited bureaucratic methodology
of
making
several
notes
cannot
be
accepted
in
view
of
the
modern
technologies being used and available -
seeing
the
repeated
inaction
and
casualness in approach on the part of the
authorities in filing the appeals after a
huge delay - view had to be revisited.
(Para - 10,11)

Condonation of huge delay of more than two
years and seven months in filing appeal - on
account of bureaucratic set up and impersonal
machinery - Covid-19 pandemic - Single Judge
allowed prayer for change of date of birth at
the fag end of the career of respondentemploye . (Para -2 )

HELD:-No case made out for condonation of
huge delay of more than two years and seven
months
in
filing
appeal.
Application
for
condonation of delay rejected. Appeal barred by
limitation.(Para -13 )

Special Appeal Defective dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. B.C.C.L. & ors. Vs Shyam Kishore Singh,
(2020) 3 SCC 411

2. Postmaster General & ors. Vs Living Media
India Ltd. & anr., (2012) 3 SCC 563

3. St. of M.P. & ors. Vs Bherulal, (2020) 10 SCC
654

4. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Harikesh Singh, Special
Appeal Defective No. 23 of 2019

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

1. The present intra-Court appeal has
been filed by the State impugning the order
dated July 30, 2019. Along with the appeal