# Sunit Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 7 ILRA 391
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-07-01
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 62734 of 2015
- **Bench:** Manjive Shukla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunit-kumar-verma-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52270
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Societies Registration Act, 1860-Petitioner
aggrieved by order accepting the registration of
Manav Vikas Siksha Samiti and further directing
the Deputy Registrar to renew the registration of
the society u/s 3-A of the Act, 1860- claiming
the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar, (Head
quater), Lucknow to be beyond jurisdiction as
the said authority has transferred the matter to
itself from Kanpur-Petitioner claims himself to be
office bearer of the Committee of Management
of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti-on the strength
that another society-Manav Vikas Shiksha
Sansthan having Petitioner as a member
merged in the earstwhile Samiti-as a result
Petitioner claim that he became member of the
general body of the Samiti-the said claim
rejected by Prescribed Authority in the absence
of evidence-despite this order-Deputy Registrar
renewed
the
registration
of
the
SamitiCommittee of Management challenged it -High
Court quashed the said order and held the
Petitioner as rank trespasser -both the orders
not challenged by the Petitioner-quashing the
order will lead to perpetuating an illegality and
will give leverage to the Petitioner to raise his
claim despite rejection of his claim by High
Court.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

7 All. Sunit Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
391
the matter, precluding the petitioner from
re-litigating
settled
issues.
Continued
defiance would not only undermine the
authority of the judiciary but also impede
the timely fulfillment of YEIDA's public
duty
to
disburse
the
additional
compensation to the farmers. In the face of
such compelling legal and constitutional
imperatives, the petitioner's contentions fail
to withstand scrutiny. We find that
YEIDA's actions in levying interest and
demanding additional compensation are
legally justified and essential for upholding
legal obligations in the public interest, and
ensuring
equitable
treatment
of
all
stakeholders involved.

107. In the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, we are not inclined to
interfere in the matters. Both the writ
petitions lack merit and are accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 7 ILRA 391
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.07.2024
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

Writ C No. 62734 of 2015

Sunit Kumar Verma ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Alok Dwivedi

Societies Registration Act, 1860-Petitioner
aggrieved by order accepting the registration of
Manav Vikas Siksha Samiti and further directing
the Deputy Registrar to renew the registration of
the society u/s 3-A of the Act, 1860- claiming
the jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar, (Head
quater), Lucknow to be beyond jurisdiction as
the said authority has transferred the matter to
itself from Kanpur-Petitioner claims himself to be
office bearer of the Committee of Management
of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti-on the strength
that another society-Manav Vikas Shiksha
Sansthan having Petitioner as a member
merged in the earstwhile Samiti-as a result
Petitioner claim that he became member of the
general body of the Samiti-the said claim
rejected by Prescribed Authority in the absence
of evidence-despite this order-Deputy Registrar
renewed
the
registration
of
the
SamitiCommittee of Management challenged it -High
Court quashed the said order and held the
Petitioner as rank trespasser -both the orders
not challenged by the Petitioner-quashing the
order will lead to perpetuating an illegality and
will give leverage to the Petitioner to raise his
claim despite rejection of his claim by High
Court.

Writ Petition dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011 (Manav Vikas
Shiksha Samiti Vs St. of U.P. & ors.)

2. Jai Bahadur Singh & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
2016 (1) UPLBEC 368

3. Chandra Singh Vs St. of Raj. & anr. (2003) 6
S.C.C. 545

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

1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Kumar Saxena,
learned
counsel
appearing
for
the
petitioner,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 4 and
learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No. 5.

2. Petitioner through this writ
petition has assailed the order dated
24.08.2015
passed
by
the
Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
(Headquarter), U.P. at Lucknow whereby
392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
claim of Respondent No. 5 in respect of the
renewal of registration of Manav Vikas
Siksha Samiti has been accepted and
direction has been issued to the Deputy
Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits,
Kanpur Nagar to issue necessary order for
renewal of registration of the society in
terms of Section 3-A of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 and further to
register the list of the office bearers and
members of the Committee of Management
of the Society filed by Mr. Gyan Chandra
Tripathi
and
Mr.
Vinod
Chandra
Srivastava.

3. Facts of the case, in brief, are
that Mahatama Gandhi Shiksha Samiti,
Kanpur was registered on 16.11.1951 and
was assigned Registration No. 127/195152. Later on name of the aforesaid society
was changed on 09.05.1976 to Manav
Vikash Shiksha Samiti. The said society
continued to perform its work and its
registration remained valid till 10.10.1995,
thereafter the registration of the society
could not be renewed.

4. It appears that taking advantage
of non renewal of the registration of Manav
Vikas Siksha Samiti, petitioner got one
society registered in the name of Manav
Vikas Shiksha Sansthan, Kanpur Nagar
having Registration No. 331 of 1989 and
thereafter claimed that the said Manav
Vikas Shiksha Sansthan has been merged
in Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti and
thereby presented proceedings of the
elections of the Committee of Management
of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti before the
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Kanpur Region, Kanpur. Another
election proceeding was also placed before
the Deputy Registrar by the actual office
bearers of the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti
before the Deputy Registrar.
5. Since there were two rival
claims in respect of elections of the
Committee of Management of Manav
Vikas
Shiksha
Samiti,
the
Deputy
Registrar, Kanpur Nagar referred the matter
for decision to Prescribed Authority/Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Sadar,
Kanpur
Nagar under Section 25(1) of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 on 16.11.2005.

6. The Prescribed Authority/Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Sadar,
Kanpur
Nagar decided the aforesaid reference vide
order dated 17.03.2008 wherein he has
recorded a finding that present petitioner
i.e. Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma could not
produce
the
documents
regarding
registration of his society and also could
not produce any document to show that at
any point of time merger of Manav Vikas
Shiksha Sansthan in Manav Vikas Shiksha
Samiti has taken place and thereby it was
held that election proceedings filed by Mr.
Sunit Kumar Verma are not in respect of
the elections of the Manav Vikas Shiksha
Samiti. The Prescribed Authority vide its
order dated 17.03.2008 further directed Mr.
Vinod
Chandra
Srivastava
to
file
application for renewal of the registration
of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti before the
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Kanpur Nagar with a direction that
Deputy Registrar may decide the said
application.

7. Though the claim of the present
petitioner was rejected by the Prescribed
Authority/Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Kanpur Nagar but the Deputy Registrar in a
very cursory manner passed an order on
05.02.2011 whereby he accepted the claim
of Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma and renewed
the registration of the society in his favour
and also registered the list of the members
of the general body of the society for the
7 All. Sunit Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
393
year 2010-11 provided by Mr. Sunit Kumar
Verma. In the aforesaid circumstances,
Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti challenged
the order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Kanpur Nagar by filing Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011 (Manav
Vikas Shiksha Samiti Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.) and this Court decided the writ
petition vide order dated 23.02.2011
wherein categorical finding has been
recorded that once the Prescribed Authority
vide order dated 17.03.2008 had rejected
the claim of Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma, the
Deputy Registrar cannot sit in appeal over
the decision of the Prescribed Authority
and therefore the Deputy Registrar was
only required to pass order for renewal of
registration on the basis of application filed
by Mr. Vinod Chandra Srivastava. The
aforesaid
judgment
and
order
dated
23.02.2011 passed by this Court in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011 has
attained finality as no one has raised any
challenge against the said judgment.

8. Pursuant to the judgment and
order dated 23.02.2011 passed in Civil
Misc Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011
proceedings started before the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Kanpur Nagar but an application was filed
by Mr. Gyan Prakash Tripathi Manager of
the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti on
20.06.2014 before the Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, (Headquarter) U.P. at
Lucknow for transfer of the case from the
Deputy Registrar, Kanpur Nagar to any
other Deputy Registrar on the ground that
the Deputy Registrar, Kanpur Nagar is
relative of Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma. The
Registrar on the said application passed an
order on 01.07.2014 whereby he directed
for transfer of the aforesaid case to the
Headquarter at Lucknow.
9. Pursuant to the order dated
01.07.2014 passed by the Registrar, all the
concerned parties appeared before the
Deputy Registrar (Headquarter) U.P. at
Lucknow
and
contested
their
matter
without raising any issue in respect of the
jurisdiction
of
the
Deputy
Registrar
(Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow. The
Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits (Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow after
hearing all the parties had passed a detailed
order on 24.08.2015 whereby direction was
given to renew the registration of the
society on the basis of the papers filed by
Mr. Gyan Prakash Tripathi and Mr. Vinod
Chandra Srivastava and also a direction for
registration of the list of the office bearers
and the members of the Committee of
Management of the society. The petitioner
has challenged the aforesaid order dated
24.08.2015 by filing this writ petition.

10. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner has vehemently argued that
the Deputy Registrar under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 exercises the same
powers which are exercised by the
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
therefore the Registrar was not empowered
to transfer the case from the Deputy
Registrar, Kanpur Nagar to the Deputy
Registrar (Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow,
accordingly the order dated 24.08.2015
passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits (Headquarter) U.P. at
Lucknow is without jurisdiction and thus
cannot sustain in the eyes of law.

11. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner in support of his arguments
has relied on the judgment rendered by a
co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case
of Jai Bahadur Singh & Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. & Ors. 2016 (1) UPLBEC 368,
wherein it has been held that under the
394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Societies Registration Act, 1860 Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits does not have
power to transfer a case pending before one
Deputy
Registrar
to
another
Deputy
Registrar.

12. Learned counsel appearing for
the petitioner has thus vehemently argued
that his case is squarely covered by the
judgment rendered by this Court in the case
of Jai Bahadur Singh (Supra) and therefore,
this writ petition is liable to be allowed.

13. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1
to 4 has argued that the Prescribed
Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate vide
order dated 17.03.2008 had declared that
the petitioner is a rank trespasser in respect
of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti and the
said order has already been affirmed by this
Court vide judgment and order dated
23.02.2011 passed in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 11073 of 2011 wherein it has
been categorically held that petitioner has
no concern with the Manav Vikas Shiksha
Samiti. The Judgment and order dated
23.02.2011 has attained finality, therefore
by no stretch of imagination registration of
the society in question can be renewed in
favour of the petitioner and further his list
of office bearers for managing affairs of the
society cannot be registered.

14. Learned Standing Counsel has
vehemently argued that even if this court
comes to the conclusion that transfer of the
case from the Deputy Registrar, Kanpur
Nagar to the Deputy Registrar (Headquarter)
U.P. at Lucknow was without jurisdiction and
thereby the impugned order dated 24.08.2015
cannot sustain in the eyes of law, this court
may not interfere in the matter as by
interfering in the impugned order dated
24.08.2015
only
illegality
shall
be
perpetuated as it has already been held by this
court vide judgment and order dated
23.02.2011 passed in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 11073 of 2011 that petitioner has
no concern with the Manav Vikas Shiksha
Samiti.

15 . Learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 5 has argued that the case
was transferred from Deputy Registrar,
Kanpur
Nagar
to
Deputy
Registrar,
(Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow vide order
dated 01.07.2014 passed by the Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits, (Headquarter)
U.P. at Lucknow but petitioner at no point of
time has challenged the said order and even
the said order is not under challenge in the
present writ petition and further petitioner
himself participated in the proceedings before
the Deputy Registrar (Headquarter) U.P. at
Lucknow without raising any protest in
respect of his jurisdiction, therefore now the
petitioner cannot be allowed to challenge the
impugned order dated 24.08.2015 only on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction.

16. It has further been argued by
the
learned
counsel
appearing
for
Respondent No. 5 that petitioner has no
concern with the Manav Vikas Shiksha
Samiti and he is just trying to enter in the
affairs of the society by creating fake
paper work and once this court by
recording categorical findings in the
judgment and order dated 23.02.2011
passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
11073 of 2011 had held that the
registration of the society cannot be
renewed in favour of the petitioner and he
has not challenged the said order till date,
there may not be any occasion for this
Court to interfere in the impugned order
dated 24.08.2015 on the ground of lack of
jurisdiction as the said interference will
only perpetuate illegality.
7 All. Sunit Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
395
17. Learned counsel appearing for
Respondent No. 5 has vehemently argued
that if interference by this Court in an order
leads to perpetuating an illegality, then this
Court
may
deny
to
exercise
its
extraordinary jurisdiction enshrined under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
even if the order under challenge is without
jurisdiction.

18. Learned counsel appearing for
the Respondent No. 5 has thus concluded
his arguments and has submitted that the
writ petition filed by the petitioner is liable
to be dismissed by this Court.

19. I have considered the rival
arguments
advanced
by
the
learned
counsels appearing for the parties, and I
find that petitioner claims himself to be the
office
bearer
of
the
Committee
of
Management of Manav Vikas Shiksha
Samiti on the strength that another society
which was registered in the name of Manav
Vikas Shiksha Sansthan having petitioner
as member was merged in Manav Vikas
Shiksha Samiti and therefore as as result of
the said merger petitioner became member
of the general body of the Manav Vikas
Shiksha Samiti.

20. The aforesaid claim raised by
the petitioner has not been accepted by the
Prescribed
Authority/Sub
Divisional
Magistrate vide his order dated 17.03.2008
on the ground that the petitioner could not
produce any document to show that at any
point of time merger of Manav Vikas
Shiksha Sansthan with Manav Vikas
Shiksha Samiti has taken place. The
Prescribed Authority negated the claim of
the petitioner and vide order dated
17.03.2008 directed the Deputy Registrar to
renew the registration of the Manav Vikas
Shiksha Samiti on the application filed by
Mr. Vinod Chandra Srivastava. In spite of
the categorical order passed by the
Prescribed Authority negating the claim of
the present petitioner, the Deputy Registrar
in the garb of the proceedings for renewal
of registration of the society entertained the
application given by present petitioner i.e.
Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma and renewed the
registration of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti
in his favour and also registered the list of
members of the general body of the society
provided
by
him
vide
order
dated
05.02.2011.

21.

The
Committee
of
Management of the Manav Vikas Shiksha
Samiti
challenged
the
order
dated
05.02.2011 passed by the Deputy Registrar
by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
11073 of 2011 ( Manav Vikas Shiksha
Samiti Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.) and the
said writ petition has been allowed by a coordinate Bench of this Court vide order
dated 23.02.2011. The relevant paragraphs
of the order dated 23.02.2011 are extracted
as under :-

 "The challenge is to the order
passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies & Chits, Kanpur Nagar, dated
5.2.2011, whereby on a request for renewal
of the Society known as Manav Vikas
Samiti of the petitioners has been rejected
and the Society has been renewed through
the respondent No.3 as an office-bearer of
the Society. The petitioners have come up
questioning the correctness of the said
order primarily on the ground that it is
without jurisdiction and that it proceeds on
a presumption as if the respondent No.3
was the rightful claimant to get the Society
renewed through him. It is urged by Sri
Dwivedi that this procedure adopted by the
Assistant Registrar virtually accepts a rank
trespasser as an office-bearer which is also
396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in teeth of the final order passed by the
Prescribed Authority on 17.3.2008 in
relation
to
the
same
Society.
The
contention, therefore, in short is that the
Respondent No.3 had virtually no right to
get the renewal of the Society made in his
favour that too even after the order of the
Prescribed Authority dated 17.3.2008.

 Sri Saxena contends that as a
matter of fact the Assistant Registrar has
taken into consideration all the documents
that were on record to conclude that the
answering respondent was the rightful
claimant and therefore there being no error,
the petitioners should, if aggrieved, raise
the dispute elsewhere and the same cannot
be gone into by exercising jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India. Learned Standing Counsel has also
adopted the same arguments.

 Having heard learned counsel for
the parties, it is evident that the dispute
relating to the validity of the elections and
office-bearers was allegedly raised before
the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed
Authority
called
for
comments
and
objections and it was ultimately found that
there was no dispute which remained to be
decided, on the premise that the claim of
the petitioners was in respect of Manav
Shiksha Samiti whereas the claim of Sunit
Kumar Verma emanated on the strength of
a Society by the name of Manav Vikas
Sansthan that had ultimately merged with
Manav Vikas Samiti. The Prescribed
Authority found that no document was
produced by Sunit Kumar Verma to
establish the alleged merger and, therefore,
the order dated 17.3.2008 virtually rejected
the claim of Sunit Kumar Verma and
directed the petitioner - Vinod Chandra
Srivastava
to
approach
the
Deputy
Registrar for renewal after payment of late
fee. The said order dated 17.3.2008
remained unchallenged and in pursuance
thereof, the petitioners appears to have
approached the Deputy Registrar for
renewal which remained pending for the
past 3 years.

 The impugned order proceeds to
accept the claim of Sunit Kumar Verma,
which, in the opinion of the Court, had
already been rejected by the Prescribed
Authority under the order dated 17.3.2008.
In this view of the matter, the Deputy
Registrar has virtually sat in Appeal over
the order of the Prescribed Authority which
is impermissible in law. The Deputy
Registrar could have proceeded to decide
the claim of renewal only under the
provisions of Section 3A of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, but it was not open
to the Deputy Registrar to have ignored the
impact of the order dated 17.3.2008.

 In this view of the matter, the writ
petition is allowed. The order dated
5.2.2011 is unsustainable and is hereby
quashed. All the consequential actions
pursuant to the impugned order are also
quashed.
The
Deputy
Registrar
-
Respondent No.2 shall now proceed to pass
fresh orders in accordance with law and in
the light of the observations made herein
above."

22. The Co-ordinate Bench of this
court in its order dated 23.02.2011 passed
in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11073 of
2011 has recorded a categorical finding that
present petitioner i.e. Mr. Sunit Kumar
Verma could not prove merger of Manav
Vikas Shiksha Sansthan in the Manav
Vikas Shiksha Samiti and therefore, his
claim in respect of Manav Vikas Shiksha
Samiti stood rejected, as such the Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
7 All. Sunit Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
397
Kanpur
Nagar
while
renewing
the
registration of the society in favour of Mr.
Sunit Kumar Verma and registering the list
of the members of the general body of the
Society provided by him has acted illegally
and thereby this Court quashed the order
dated 05.02.2011 passed by the Deputy
Registrar.

23. This Court finds that order
dated 17.03.2008 passed by the Prescribed
Authority/Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Sadar, Kanpur Nagar and judgment and
order dated 23.02.2011 passed by the coordinate Bench of this court in Civil Misc.
Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011 have not
been challenged by the present petitioner.
Once the petitioner has not challenged the
aforesaid orders wherein it has been
categorically held that petitioner has no
connection with the Manav Vikas Shiksha
Samiti then he cannot be allowed to raise
any claim in respect of the Manav Vikas
Shiksha Samiti.

24. So far as the argument
advanced by the learned counsel appearing
for the petitioner that the Registrar does not
have any jurisdiction under the provisions
of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to
transfer any case from one Deputy
Registrar to another Deputy Registrar and
thereby the Registrar while transferring the
case in question from the Deputy Registrar,
Kanpur
Nagar
to
Deputy
Registrar
(Headquarter) U.P. at Lucknow has acted
without jurisdiction and consequently the
impugned order dated 24.08.2015 passed
by the Deputy Registrar (Headquarter) U.P.
at Lucknow is without jurisdiction is
concerned, this Court finds that issue as to
whether the Registrar can transfer a case
from one Deputy Registrar to another has
already been thrashed out by a co-ordinate
Bench of this court vide its judgment
rendered in the case of Jai Bahadur Singh
& Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 2016 (1)
UPLBEC 368 wherein it has been held that
the Registrar does not have power to
transfer the case from one Deputy Registrar
to another Deputy Registrar.

25. The relevant paragraphs of the
judgment rendered in the case of Jai
Bahadur Singh (supra) are extracted as
under :-

 "So far as the Registrar is
concerned,
the
Legislature
itself
by
enacting the Act has vested certain
authority and power in him, however, it is
the Legislature itself which has empowered
the State Government for conferring the
functions of Registrar to an Additional
Registrar or a Joint Registrar or a Deputy
Registrar or an Assistant Registrar. The
Additional Registrar or other such officers
who are administratively subordinate to the
Registrar, thus, can not exercise any of the
functions assigned to the Registrar under
the Act merely because they are appointed
in the department to hold such posts. They
will have their jurisdiction or power vested
in them to exercise the functions of
Registrar under the Act only and only when
the State Government confers such power
or authority on these officers by a general
or special order. Once conferment by the
State Government by a general or special
order is made on these officers to discharge
the functions and powers of Registrar
under the Act, these officers no more
remain subordinate to the Registrar so far
as discharge of statutory functions under
the Act is concerned. Once conferment by
the State Government has been made upon
these officers, the powers and functions to
be
exercised
by
the
Additional
Registrar/Joint
Registrar/Deputy
Registrar/Assistant Registrar become co-
398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
extensive with the powers and functions of
the Registrar. Thus, these subordinate
officers, in so far as the statutory functions
under the Act as conferred by the State
Government are concerned, cannot be
termed to be subordinate to the Registrar.
The proceedings relating to a Society are
drawn and conducted by the Deputy
Registrars and such officers under the Act
only when the State Government confers
such powers on these officers and they
conduct their authority and proceedings
under the Act and not administratively.

 The proceedings which in the
present case are pending consideration and
for decision before the Deputy Registrar
are statutory in nature and they are to be
decided as per the requirement and in
terms of the provisions contained in
Sections 4-B and 15 of the Act. Thus, the
Deputy Registrar while dealing with the
proceedings in question between the parties
in this case is not acting in his capacity as
an ordinary administrative officer, rather
he has to consider and decide the matter
statutorily.

 Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner that since there is only one
Registrar in the State of Uttar Pradesh and
all
the
Deputy
Registrars
are
his
subordinate, as such the Registrar will
have
ample
power,
authority
and
jurisdiction to transfer the proceedings, in
my considered opinion, is not tenable for
the reason that the nature of proceedings,
as observed above, are not administrative
in their terms, rather the same are statutory
in nature as the proceedings are to be
decided as per the requirement of the Act.
It may be true that the Registrar in certain
administrative matters may exercise certain
powers
over
the
Deputy
Registrars,
however, when it comes to the proceedings
under the Act, it cannot be said that the
Registrar will have supervisory jurisdiction
or power. I may reiterate that the Deputy
Registrar and such other officers as are
mentioned in Section 21 of the Act are
conferred with the powers of the Registrar
under the Act by the State Government and
once such conferment is in existence, they
have the same authority which is at par
with that of the Registrar under the Act, in
other words, the powers of the Deputy
Registrar are co-extensive with those of the
Registrar

 It may also be noticed that the
State Government by a notification dated
20.07.1981 has established three regional
offices in addition to the office of Registrar
at Lucknow. These regional offices have
been set up at Varanasi, Bareilly and
Meerut. The said notification further states
that the functions being discharged by the
Registrar pertaining the districts falling in
the
Divisions
mentioned
in
the
said
notification will be discharged by the offices
mentioned in the said notification. The State
Government by means of another notification
dated 07.01.1982 issued under Section 21 of
the Act conferred the powers of Registrar on
all the Deputy Registrars and Assistant
Registrars. The said notification dated
07.01.1982 is quoted below:

 "सोसाइटी रजजस्टरीकरण अजधजनयम
1860 (अजधजनयम संख्या 21 सन 1860) की धारा
21 के अधीन शस्क्त का प्रयोग करके राज्यपाल
रजजस्टरार, फमि और सोसाइटी, उिर प्रदेश के
संगठन के समस्त उप रजजस्टरार और सहायक
रजजस्टरार को उपयुिक्त अजधजनयम के अधीन
रजजस्टरार की समस्त शस्क्तयों प्रयोग प्रदान करते
है, जजनका प्रयोग वे अपनी-अपनी अजधकाररता के
क्षेत्र के भीतर करेंगे"

 By means of another notification
dated 31.07.1985, apart from Varanasi,
7 All. Sunit Kumar Verma Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
399
Bareilly and Meerut, regional offices at
Kanpur, Agra and Gorakhpur as well were
established and the territorial jurisdiction
was, thus, distributed. According to said
notification,
the
Registrar
at
the
headquarter at Lucknow was to exercise
his jurisdiction on all the districts of
Lucknow and Faizabad Divisons, that is to
say the Registrar at Lucknow was to
exercise his jurisdiction on all the disputes
relating to the Societies Registration Act
arising in all the districts of Lucknow and
Faizabad Divisions. The said jurisdiction
of the regional offices was altered by a
notification dated 24.01.1987. By means of
another notification dated 29.10.1991, the
territorial jurisdiction of regional offices
was
further
altered
and determined,
according to which, the regional office of
the department at Faizabad is to exercise
the jurisdiction relating to all the districts
of Faizabad Division. There was some
discrepancy in the english version of the
notification dated 07.01.1982 which was
rectified by another notification dated
28.07.1994 which reads as under:

 "In exercise of the powers under
Section 21 of the Societies Registration Act,
1860 (Act no.XXI of 1860) the Governor is
pleased to confer on all the Deputy
Registrars and Assistant Registrars of the
organization of the Registrar of firms and
Societies, Uttar Pradesh, all the powers of
the Registrar under the aforesaid Act to be
exercised within the area of their respective
jurisdiction."

 On the basis of the occurrence of
the words 'इनके अधीनथि क्षेत्रीय कायािलयों
का कायिक्षेत्र जनम्नानुसार जनधािररत करने की
सहशि स्वीकृजत प्रदान करते है' in the
notification dated 29.10.1991, it has been
submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners that all the regional offices are
subordinate to the office of Registrar and
hence, the officers working in the regional
offices will be subordinate to the Registrar
as well.

 The
aforesaid
submission
of
learned counsel for the petitioners may be
true but only in respect of and in regard to
the general administrative powers which
are exercised by the Registrar while
working as the Head of the Department,
however, the said submission cannot be
taken to be correct in so far as the statutory
functions under the Act, as conferred by the
State
Government
on
these
officers
including the Deputy Registrar under
Section 21, are concerned. The distinction
between the statutory functions under the
Act and general administrative functions
are to be kept in mind while dealing with
the submissions being advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioners. There
are various functions assigned to the
Registrar as Head of the Department in his
organization. He will have all the authority
and power to exercise his administrative
control
over
the
Deputy
Registrars.
However, unless and untill the Legislature
while enacting the Act vests an express
authority in the Registrar to transfer the
proceedings being drawn and continued
under the Act by the Deputy Registrar, in
my considered opinion, the Registrar will
have no source of power or authority
backed by the legislation to withdraw the
proceedings from one Deputy Registrar
and transfer the same to some other Deputy
Registrar.

 A close scrutiny of the scheme of
the Act does not leave any room of doubt
that the Legislature has not vested any
authority on the Registrar to transfer the
proceedings under the Act from one Deputy
Registrar to the other Deputy Registrar.
400 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
The Registrar may only exercise certain
control
over
the
Deputy
Registrars
administratively such as issuing certain
instructions and circulars for the guidance
of the Deputy Registrars or taking
departmental action in case he receives any
complaint.

 Assuming that the Registrar,
being
the
highest
authority
in
the
department/in his organization, is vested
with the power to transfer the statutory
proceedings under the Act from one Deputy
Registrar to the other Deputy Registrar, it
will amount to vesting an authority in the
Registrar which the Legislature never
intended to vest in him.

26. This Court is in complete
agreement with the aforesaid judgment
rendered by the co-ordinate Bench of this
court in the case of Jai Bahadur Singh
(supra) but certain issues which are
peculiar in the case in hand are to be taken
note of i.e. case in question was transferred
by the Registrar vide his order dated
01.07.2014 from the Deputy Registrar,
Kanpur Nagar to the Deputy Registrar
(Headquarter) at Lucknow but petitioner did not
challenge the said order rather he appeared
before the Deputy Registrar (Headquarter) at
Lucknow and contested the matter. Even till
today petitioner has not challenged the order
dated 01.07.2014 passed by the Registrar
whereby the case was transferred. The
petitioner has only challenged the order dated
24.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar
(Headquarter) at Lucknow on the ground that
the said order is without jurisdiction. Apart
from the ground of jurisdiction the petitioner
has not taken any other ground on merits to
challenge the aforesaid order dated 24.08.2015.

27. Once the petitioner did not
challenge the order of transfer of the case
passed by the Registrar and in fact
contested the matter before the authority
where the case was transferred, that
changes the complete texture of the case
that too when the petitioner even in this
writ petition has not challenged the order
dated 24.08.2015 on merits and the
challenge is based on only on the ground of
jurisdiction.

28. This Court finds that once the
Prescribed Authority vide order dated
17.03.2008 had declared petitioner to be a
rank trespasser in respect of the Manav
Vikas Shiksha Samiti and even the coordinate Bench of this Court in its
judgment and order dated 23.02.2011
passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
11073 of 2011 had recorded a finding that
petitioner has no concern with the Manav
Vikas
Shiksha
Samiti
and
the
said
judgment had attained finality, there cannot
be any occasion for the Deputy Registrar to
revisit the matter and by hook and crook
induct the petitioner in the affairs of Manav
Vikas Shiksha Samiti.

29. Though this Court finds that
the impugned order dated 24.08.2015
passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits (Headquarter) at
Lucknow may be an order without
jurisdiction but if the said order is
interfered by this Court at this stage that
may lead to perpetuating an illegality and it
is settled proposition of law that this court
may refuse to interfere with an order if the
said interference leads to perpetuating an
illegality, even if the order is patently
illegal.

30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court
vide its judgment rendered in the case of
Chandra Singh Vs. State of Rajasthan &
Anr. (2003) 6 S.C.C. 545 had categorically
7 All. Priyanka Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
401
held that the High Court can refuse to
exercise
its
extraordinary
jurisdiction
enshrined
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India in the cases where such
exercise
of
jurisdiction
may
lead
to
perpetuating an illegality.

31. The relevant paragraphs of the
judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Chandra Singh (supra)
are extracted as under :-

 " 42. In any event, even assuming
that there is some force in the contention of
the appellants, this Court will be justified in
following
Taherakhatoon
vs.
Salambin
Mohammad (1999) 2 SCC 635 wherein this
Court declared that even if the appellants
contention is right in law having regard to
the overall circumstances of the case, this
Court would be justified in declining to grant
relief under Article 136 while declaring the
law in favour of the appellants.

 43. Issuance of a Writ of Certiorari
is a discretionary remedy. [See Champalal
Binani vs. CIT, AIR 1970 SC 645]. The High
Court and consequently this Court while
exercising its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under
Articles 226 or 32 of the Constitution of India
may not strike down an illegal order although it
would be lawful to do so. In a given case, the
High Court or this Court may refuse to extend
the benefit of a discretionary relief to the
applicant. Furthermore, this Court exercised its
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of
the Constitution of India which need not be
exercised in a case where the impugned
judgment is found to be erroneous if by reason
thereof substantial justice is being done. [See
S.D.S. Shipping (P) Ltd. vs. Jay Container
Services Co. (P) Ltd. & Ors. [2003 (4) Supreme
44]. Such a relief can be denied, inter alia,
when it would be opposed to public policy or in
a case where quashing of an illegal order
would revive another illegal one. This Court
also in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article
142 of the Constitution of India is entitled to
pass such order which will do complete justice
to the parties."

32. This court is of the categorical
view that the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
had already considered the petitioner's case in
detail and vide judgment and order dated
23.02.2011 rendered in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No. 11073 of 2011 had affirmed that
the petitioner is a rank trespasser in respect of
Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti, Kanpur Nagar
and the said judgment had attained finality,
therefore, even if the impugned order dated
24.08.2015 may be without jurisdiction, this
Court in exercise of its extraordinary
jurisdiction enshrined under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India should not interfere
in the said order as the same will lead to
perpetuating
an
illegality
and
the
consequence of setting a aside the order dated
24.08.2015 would give leverage to the
petitioner to raise his claim before the
concerned Deputy Registrar even though the
co-ordinate Bench of this Court had already
rejected the petitioner's claim.

33. In view of the aforesaid
reasons, this writ petition lacks merit and
accordingly is dismissed.
---------
(2024) 7 ILRA 401
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.07.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ C No. 1007064 of 2015

Priyanka Dubey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents