# Sunil Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 901
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-11-06
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 8736 of 2023
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-kumar-jhunjhunwala-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49436
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Section 4(1-A) - Approval of
amended bye-laws by Deputy Registrar -
Remedy of Appeal - A plain reading of
Sub-sections (1), (1-A) and (2) of Section
4 of the Act, 1860 leads to the conclusion
that a person aggrieved by an order of the
competent authority made under Section
4
may
file
an
appeal
before
the
Commissioner of the Division. The appeal
provided under Sub-section (1-A) lies
against all orders passed under Section 4,
and not merely against an order passed
under Sub-section (1) of the said Section.
In
the
instant
case,
by
the
order
impugned, the Deputy Registrar approved
the amendments in the bye-laws of the
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
society
and
registered
the
same.
Consequently,
against
such
an
order
passed under Section 4 of the Act, 1860, a
statutory remedy of appeal is available
before the Commissioner of the Division.
(Paras 18, 28, 29)

Dismissed. (E-5)

## Text

11 All. Sunil Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
901

15. In view of the above discussion,
the orders terminating the services of the
petitioner are found to be unsustainable.

16. The writ petition succeeds and is,
accordingly, allowed.

17. The orders impugned dated
10.07.1998 and 04.08.1998 passed by District
Judge, Maharajganj are hereby quashed.

18. The petitioner is already continuing
in service and is getting a consolidated
amount.

19. A writ of Mandamus is issued to the
District Judge, Maharajganj to forthwith
regularize the services of the petitioner in
accordance
with
the
Rules
of
2001
maintaining his seniority as already directed
under the order impugned dated 04.08.1998
and quashing of the said order is to be
understood only to the extent it is against the
petitioner i.e. "reappointment".

20. The break of 24 days in service as
described herein-above shall not be treated as
a break and the same would not affect the
continuity in service of the petitioner for the
purposes of regularization.

21. The petitioner shall be entitled for
all consequential and financial benefits.

In Re:- Correction Application No.31
of 2023

1. Heard learned counsel for the
applicant.

2. This is an application seeking
correction in my order dated 03.10.2023.

3. The correction application is
allowed.

4. Date "01.12.1999" appearing in
second line of second paragraph of the order
is
corrected
and
replaced
by
date
"01.12.1990".

5. This order shall be treated as part
and parcel of previous order dated
03.10.2023.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 901
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 06.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ-C No. 8736 of 2023

Sunil Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Apoorva Tewari, Anil Kumar Tiwari, Vivek
Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C, Raj Kumar Singh, Rajesh Kumar
Singh

Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Section 4(1-A) - Approval of
amended bye-laws by Deputy Registrar -
Remedy of Appeal - A plain reading of
Sub-sections (1), (1-A) and (2) of Section
4 of the Act, 1860 leads to the conclusion
that a person aggrieved by an order of the
competent authority made under Section
4
may
file
an
appeal
before
the
Commissioner of the Division. The appeal
provided under Sub-section (1-A) lies
against all orders passed under Section 4,
and not merely against an order passed
under Sub-section (1) of the said Section.
In
the
instant
case,
by
the
order
impugned, the Deputy Registrar approved
the amendments in the bye-laws of the
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
society
and
registered
the
same.
Consequently,
against
such
an
order
passed under Section 4 of the Act, 1860, a
statutory remedy of appeal is available
before the Commissioner of the Division.
(Paras 18, 28, 29)

Dismissed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard Shri Anil Tiwari, Senior
Advocate assisted by Shri Apoorva Tiwari
for
the
petitioners,
learned
Standing
counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 & 2
as well as Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh,
learned counsel appearing for caveatorrespondent no.4 and Shri Raj Kumar Singh,
who
has
filed
an
application
for
impleadment and has been permitted to
argue the matter as an intervenor.

2. The instant petition has been filed
praying for quashing of the order dated
26.08.2023 passed by the Deputy Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits, Ayodhya
Region, Ayodhya, a copy of which is
annexure 1 to the petition with a further
prayer of mandamus commanding the
respondent no.2 to not give effect to the
amended
bye-laws
as
contained
in
annexure no.2 to the petition, and to declare
the amended bye-laws as non-est and to
restrain the respondent nos.3 & 4 from
taking any decision on the basis of
amended bye-laws and the impugned order
dated 26.08.2023.

3. A preliminary objection has been
raised by Shri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
private
respondents which is also supported by
Shri Raj Kumar Singh, learned counsel
who
has
filed
an
application
for
impleadment
that
against
the
order
impugned, the petitioner has a statutory
remedy of appeal as provided under
Section
4
(1-A)
of
the
Societies
Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred
to as "Act, 1860") as applicable in State of
Uttar Pradesh.

4. Elaborating the same, the argument
of
learned
counsel
for
the
private
respondents is that as by means of
impugned order dated 26.08.2023, the
Deputy
Registrar
has
approved
the
amended bye-laws of the society and has
registered the said amendments as such, an
appeal lies against the said order to the
Commissioner of the division in whose
jurisdiction the Headquarter of the society
lies, in this case Ayodhya, and it is thus
prayed that the writ petition be dismissed
on the ground of alternate remedy.

5. Contradicting the same, Shri Anil
Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate argues
that as Sub-section (1-A) of Section 4 of
the Act, 1860 has been inserted after Subsection (1) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860
and prior to Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of
the Act, 1860 as such, the remedy of appeal
would only lie against the order passed by
the competent authority under Sub-section
(1) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860.

6. Elaborating the same, the argument
is that it is only Sub-section (2) of Section
4 of the Act, 1860, per which, after the
order is passed under Sub-section (1)
of Section 4 of the Act, 1860, that the
Registrar
while
sending
the
list
mentioned
in
Sub-section
(1)
of
Section 4 of the Act, 1860, would
send to the Registrar a copy of
Memorandum
of
Association
including any alteration, extension or
abridgement of purposes made under
Section 12, and of the rules of the
society corrected up to date.
11 All. Sunil Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
903

7. The argument is that as the
amendments of the rules of the society are
to be sent under Sub-section (2) of Section
4 of the Act, 1860 and Sub-section (1-A) of
Section 4 of the Act, 1860 gives the remedy
of an appeal under that section, meaning
thereby, that it would only be where the
order has been passed under Sub-section
(1) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860 that an
appeal can be filed but as in the instant
case, it is the amended rules which have
been accepted which would take the order
impugned within the realm of Sub-section
(2) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860 and thus,
the petitioners would not be having a
remedy of appeal against the said order
leaving the only remedy available to them
to approach this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.

8. Heard the learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.

9. From the arguments as raised by
learned counsels for the contesting parties
and perusal of records, this Court first
proceeds to consider the preliminary
objections.

10 . By means of the order impugned
dated 26.08.2023, the Deputy Registrar has
approved the amendment in the bye-laws of
the society and has also registered the
same.

11. As per the preliminary objections,
the said order is appealable under Subsection (1-A) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860.
In view of the preliminary objections
raised, the Court proceeds to consider as to
whether there is a remedy of an appeal
against the order impugned.

12. For the purpose of deciding the
issue, the provisions of Section 4 of the
Act, 1860 as applicable in Uttar Pradesh,
would have to be considered.

13. For the sake of convenience,
Section 4 of the Act, 1860 along with
amendments made from time to time are
reproduced as under:

"4 (1)'. Annual list of managing
body to be filed - Once in every year, on or
before the fourteenth day succeeding the
day on which, according to the rules of the
Society, the annual general meeting of the
society is held, or, if the rules do not
provide for an annual general meeting, in
the month of January, a list shall be filed
with the [Registrar]2, of the names,
addresses
and
occupations
of
the
governors, council, directors, committee,
or other governing body then entrusted
with the management of the affairs of the
society.

[1: In its application to the state
of Uttar Pradesh, "section 4" renumbered
as "section 4 (1)" Vide U.P. Act 52 of
1975, section 4 (w.e.f. 10.10.1975)].

[2: In its application to the state
of Uttar Pradesh, In section 4, for the
words
"Registrar
of
Joint
Stock
Companies"
was
substituted
by
"Registrar" vide U.P. Act 25 of 1958,
Section 2 (w.e.f. 25.8.1958)]

3Provided that if the managing
body is elected after the last submission of
the list, the counter signatures of the old
members, shall, as far as possible, be
obtained on the list. If the old office bearers
do not counter sign the list, the Registrar
may, in his discretion, issue a public notice
or notice to such persons as he thinks fit
inviting objections within a specified period
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and shall decide all objections received
within the said period.

[3: Vide U.P. Act no. 11 of 1984,
Section 4 (w.e.f. 30.4.1984)].

(1A)4 An Appeal against an
order made under this section may be
preferred to the commissioner of the
division
in
whose
jurisdiction
the
Headquarter of the society lies, within one
month from the date of communication of
such order:

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

[4: Vide U.P. Act no. 08 of 2022,
Section 3 (w.e.f. 18.7.2022)].

(2)5 Together with list mentioned
in sub-section (1), there shall be sent to the
Registrar a copy of memorandum of
association
including
any
alteration,
extension, or abridgement of purposes
made under section 12, and of the rules of
the society corrected up to date and
certified by not less than three of the
members of the said governing body to be a
correct copy and also a copy of the
balance-sheet for the preceding year of
account.

[5: Vide U.P. Act no. 52 of 1975,
section 4 (w.e.f. 10.10.1975)].

SECTION 4-A AND 4-B

"4-A.6 Changes, etc., in rules to
be intimated to Registrar.- A copy of every
change made in rules of the society and
intimation of every change of address of the
society, certified by not less than three of
the members of the governing body shall be
sent to the Registrar within thirty days of
the change."

[6: Vide U.P. Act 52 of 1975,
Section 5 (w.e.f. 10.10.1975)].

"4-B.8 (1) At the time of
registration/renewal of a society, list of
members of General Body of that society
shall be filed with the Registrar mentioning
the name, father's name, address and
occupation of the members. The Registrar
shall examine the correctness of the list of
members of the General Body and minutes
book thereof, cash book, receipt book of
membership fee and bank passbook of the
society.

(2) If there is any change in the
list of members of the General Body of the
society referred to in sub-section (1), on
account of induction, removal, resignation
or death of any member, a modified list of
members of General Body, shall be filed
with the Registrar, within one month from
the date of change.

7"Any change in the list of
General Body shall not be valid unless it is
approved by the managing body."

[7: Vide U.P. Act no. 08 of 2022,
Section 4 (w.e.f. 18.7.2022)]

(3) The list of members of the
General Body to be filed with the Registrar
under this section shall be signed by two
office- bearers and two executive members
of the society.

[8: Vide U.P. Act no. 23 of 2013,
Section 2 (w.e.f. 09.10.2013)]."
11 All. Sunil Kumar Jhunjhunwala & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
905

14. It would also be convenient to
reproduce the statement of objects and
reasons which led to the amendment of
Section 4 of the Act, 1860 by insertion of
Sub-section (1-A) which for the sake of
convenience is reproduced as under:

"STATEMENT OF OBJECTS
AND REASONS

The Societies Registration Act,
1860 (Act No. 21 of 1860) has been enacted
by the Parliament to provide for the
registration of literary, scientific and
charitable societies. There is no provision
of appeal in the said Act against the
decision of the Registrar given under
sections 3 and 4 and the decision of the
Prescribed Authority given under section
25 of the said Act due to which the only
remedy available is to file a writ petition
which is time-consuming and expenditureprovable for the common man. Therefore, it
has been decided to amend the said Act to
make Commissioner as the appellate
authority for the decision of the Registrar
and the Prescribed Authority given under
the said sections. Further, in order to
ensure that changes in the list of General
Assembly happens in a rational way, it has
been decided to amend section 48 to
provide that any change in the list of
General Assembly should be considered
valid only after the approval of the
managing body. Also, in order to ensure
that the transfer of immovable properties
does not take place in an irregular manner,
it has been decided to insert a section in the
said Act providing that if the immovable
property of the society is transferred
without prior permission of the competent
Court, the same shall not be lawful. A need
has also been felt to put an end to the
representation of unqualified persons in
societies. Hence, it has been decided to
amend the said Act to provide that a person
who is found guilty by the competent Court
in
any
criminal
matter
where
the
punishment is a sentence of two years or
more, then such a person shall be ineligible
to hold office in a Society.

In order to incorporate the
aforesaid amendments, it has been decided
to amend the aforesaid Act.

The Societies Registration (Uttar
Pradesh
Amendment)
Bill
2021
is
introduced accordingly."

15. A perusal of the aforesaid section
thus makes it clear that Subsection (1) of
Section 4 of the Act, 1860 provides for
filing of a list every year of managing body
to be filed with the Registrar. The proviso
to Sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Act,
1860 provides that if the Managing Body is
elected after the last submission of the list,
the counter signature of the old members be
obtained on the list. If the old office bearers
do not counter sign the list, the Registrar
may issue a public notice or notice to such
persons as he thinks fit inviting objections
within a specified period, and he shall
decide all objections received within the
said period.

16. Sub-section (1-A) of Section 4 of
the Act, 1860 provides an appeal against an
order made under this section to be
preferred to the Commissioner of the
Division within one month but the
appellate authority may admit an appeal
even after the expiry of the said period,
provided sufficient cause is shown.

17. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the
Act, 1860 provides that together with the
list mentioned in Sub-section (1) i.e. the list
which is to be filed with the Registrar of
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the names, addresses and occupations of
the Governors, Council, Director etc.
entrusted with the management of the
affairs of the society, the Registrar shall
also send a copy of the Memorandum of
Association
including
any
alteration,
extension or abridgment of purposes made
under Section 12 and of the rules of the
society corrected up to date.

18. Thus, a plain reading of Subsection (1), (1-A) and (2) of Section 4 of
the Act, 1860 leads to the conclusion that a
person aggrieved by an order of the
competent authority made under Section 4
may file an appeal to the Commissioner of
the Division. The appeal as provided under
Sub-section (1-A) lies against all order
passed under Section 4 and not only against
an order passed under Sub-section (1) of
Section 4 of the Act, 1860.

19. Though from the aforesaid
discussion, it is clear that an appeal shall lie
against all orders passed under Section 4 of
the Act, 1860 yet as an abundant
precaution, the Court may also see the
statement of objects and reasons which led
to the aforesaid amendment, per which
Sub-section (1-A) of Section 4 of the Act,
1860 was brought into force.

20. However, whether the statement
of objects and reasons can be used to
determine the true meaning and effect of
the substantive provisions of a statute ?

21. This aspect of the matter has been
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the cases of Narain Khamman Vs.
Parduman Kumar Jain (1985) 1 SCC 1
as well as Kumar Jagdish Chandra
Sinha and Others Vs. Eileen K. Patricia
D'Rozarie (MRS) (1995) 1 SCC 164.

22. The Apex Court in the case of
Narain Khamman (supra) has held as
under:

"12. It is now well settled that
though the Statement of Objects and
Reasons accompanying a legislative Bill
cannot be used to determine the true
meaning and effect of the substantive
provisions of a statute, it is permissible to
refer to the Statement of Objects and
Reasons accompanying a Bill for the
purpose of understanding the background,
the
antecedent
state
of
affairs,
the
surrounding circumstances in relation to
the statute, and the evil which the statute
sought to remedy."

23 . Likewise in the case of Kumar
Jagdish Chandra Sinha (supra), the Apex
Court has held as under:

"13. It is undoubtedly true that
the Statement of Objects and Reasons
accompanying a legislative bill cannot be
used to ascertain the true meaning and
effect of the substantive provisions of the
legislation, but it can certainly be pressed
into service for the limited purpose of
understanding
the
background,
the
antecedent state of affairs and the object
the legislation sought to achieve."

24. From perusal of the aforesaid
judgments, it emerges that though it is
undoubtedly true that the statement of
objects and reasons accompanying a
legislative bill cannot be used to ascertain
the true meaning and effect of the
substantive provisions of the legislation but
it can certainly be pressed into service for
the limited purpose of understanding the
background, the antecedent state of affairs
and the object the legislation sought to
11 All. Riyaz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
907
achieve or the evil which the statute sought
to remedy.

25. Considering the aforesaid, the
Court now has to consider the statement of
objects and reasons in order to find out the
object the legislation by way of introducing
the provision of appeal, sought to achieve
or the evil which the statute sought to
remedy.

26. Perusal of statement of objects
would
indicate
that
the
object
the
legislation sought to achieve was that as
there was no provision of appeal in the Act,
1860 against the decision of the Registrar
given under Sections 3 & 4 and the
decision of the prescribed authority given
under Section 25 of the said Act due to
which the only remedy available was to file
a writ petition which was a time-consuming
and expenditure provable for the common
man therefore, it was decided to bring in
the provision of an appeal.

27. Thus from the statement of
objects also it clearly emerges that a
provision of appeal has been made against
the orders passed under Section 4 of the
Act, 1860.

28. The Court concludes that Subsection (1-A) of Section 4 of the Act, 1860
provides for an appeal against an order
made under Section 4 of the Act, 1860 to
the Commissioner and not only against
Section 4(1) of the Act, 1860.

29. Accordingly, as by means of the
order impugned dated 26.08.2023, the
Deputy
Registrar
has
approved
the
amendment in the bye-laws and has
registered the same, consequently against
the order passed under Section 4 of the Act,
1860 a statutory remedy of appeal is
available to the petitioners before the
Commissioner of the Division.

30. Keeping in view of the aforesaid
discussion, the preliminary objection as
raised by the private respondents is upheld.

31. However, as the petitioners have
directly approached this Court against the
order impugned despite having the remedy
of appeal and this Court has been seized of
the matter as such it is provided that in case
an appeal is filed by the petitioners
before the appropriate authority within
a period of two weeks from today along
with a certified copy of this order then
the appellate authority shall proceed to
decide the appeal in accordance with
law on merits after hearing all the
parties concerned within a period of
two months from the date of filing of
the appeal.

32. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed on the ground of alternate
remedy, subject to aforesaid observations.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 907
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.11.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

Writ-C No. 9521 of 2023

Riyaz Ahmad ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Satish Kumar Sharma, Anurag Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.