# Surendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 926
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-08-04
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1254 of 2010
- **Bench:** F.I. Rebello, C.J. A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-singh-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41825
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Societies Registration Act 1860 Sections
4(i) and 25 (i) and (ii)-Dispute regarding
election of office bearers -registration of
list of office bearers-Asst, Registrar
Firms Societies and chits proceeded to
register the list of 76 new office bearers
and
members-order
challenge
challenged-terms-election of new-office
bearers disputed Single Judge relegating
the case before Prescribed Authority and
not Asst. Registrar-held,such a dispute
lay within the scope of Sec 25 (i)-matter
to be referred to Prescribed Authority
after setting aside the order passed by
Asst Registrar-order of Single Judge set
aside.

Held: Para 15

For all the aforesaid reasons the order of
the Assistant Registrar dated 20.3.2010
is unsustainable in law. In our opinion,
the learned Single Judge ought to have
set aside the order of the Assistant
Registrar and remitted the matter to the
prescribed
authority
for
decision
in
accordance with the rules and the
provisions of Section 25 of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. The learned
Single Judge therefore fell in error in
relegating the appellants on the ground
of availability of alternative remedy
without setting aside the order of the
Assistant Registrar who was bound to
refer
the
dispute
in
view
of
the
provisions referred to herein above. The
moot question which was to be decided
was the validity of the elections and its
office bearers who were elected on
14.9.2008. This was essentially a dispute
within the scope of Section 25(1) and
the jurisdiction whereof lay in the hands
of the Prescribed Authority and not the
Assistant Registrar. Accordingly we set
aside the order of the Assistant Registrar
dated 20.3.2010 and the judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 19.7.2010,
and direct the Assistant Registrar to
refer the dispute to the prescribed
authority within 15 days of the date of
production of a certified copy of this
order
before
him.
The
prescribed
authority shall thereafter proceed to
decide the dispute within three months
thereafter.

## Text

926 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.08.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE F.I. REBELLO, C.J.
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 1196 Of 2010

Har Charan

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P.and others ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri P.K. Dubey
Sri Dharampal Singh
Sri S. Niranjan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service-U.P.
Basic
Education(Teachers)
Service Rules 1981-Rule 29, readwith Rule
2(aa)-Superannuation of Headmaster-date
of birth being 1st July 1948-his retirement
on
30/06/2010-whether
entitled
to
continue till 30th June 2011 in the next
session-held,2004(2)
AWC
1005(LB)
Single Judge taking contra view is per
incuriam-no longer resintegra-controversy
decided
in
terms
of
Division
Bench
judgement reported in 1987 UPLBEC 566.

Held: Para 3, 5 and 6

We find that the issue is no longer resintegra as it already stands answered by
a learned Coordinate Bench of this Court
in the case of Ram Lal Prasad Vs. State
of U.P. and others, reported in 1987
UPLBEC 566 (Paras 26 to 28).

It appears that the judgment of the
Division Bench in the case of Ram Lal
Prasad (supra) was not brought to the
notice of the learned Single Judge in the
case of Mannu Lal (supra).

In view of the judgment in the case of
Ram Lal Prasad (supra) the judgment in
the case of Mannu Lal and others (supra)
stands overruled.
Case law discussed:
2004 (2) AWC 1005 (LB), 1987 UPLBEC 566,
2004 (2) AWC 1005 (LB) overruled

(Delivered by Hon'ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.)

1. The appellant who is a Head
Master in Senior Basic School has been
served with an order dated 7th April,
2010 retiring him from service with
effect from 30th June, 2010. The date of
birth of the appellant is 1st July, 1948.

2. The contention raised by Sri
Dharmapal
Singh
learned
Senior
Counsel for the appellant is that the
appellant is entitled to continue in the
next session i.e. after 30th June, 2010
till 30th June, 2011. Sri Singh relies on
the provisions of Rule 29 of the U.P.
Basic
Education
Teachers
Service
Rules, 1981 read with Rule 2(aa) of the
same rules.

3. We find that the issue is no
longer res-integra as it already stands
answered by a learned Coordinate
Bench of this Court in the case of Ram
Lal Prasad Vs. State of U.P. and others,
reported in 1987 UPLBEC 566 (Paras
26 to 28).

4. A judgment of a learned Single
Judge of the Lucknow Bench to the
contrary in the case of Mannu Lal and
others Vs. State of U.P. and others
reported in 2004 (2) AWC 1005 (LB)
has been relied on by the learned
counsel.

5. It appears that the judgment of
the Division Bench in the case of Ram
3 All] Surendra Pratap and others V. State of U.P.and others
927
Lal Prasad (supra) was not brought to
the notice of the learned Single Judge in
the case of Mannu Lal (supra).

6. In view of the judgment in the
case of Ram Lal Prasad (supra) the
judgment in the case of Mannu Lal and
others (supra) stands overruled.

7. The appeal accordingly stands
dismissed.
---------
APPELLARTE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.08.2010

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE F.I. REBELLO, CJ.
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 1254 of 2010

Surendra Singh and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri P.N. Saxena
Sri Jamal Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.S. Baghel
C.S.C.

Societies Registration Act 1860 Sections
4(i) and 25 (i) and (ii)-Dispute regarding
election of office bearers -registration of
list of office bearers-Asst, Registrar
Firms Societies and chits proceeded to
register the list of 76 new office bearers
and
members-order
challenge
challenged-terms-election of new-office
bearers disputed Single Judge relegating
the case before Prescribed Authority and
not Asst. Registrar-held,such a dispute
lay within the scope of Sec 25 (i)-matter
to be referred to Prescribed Authority
after setting aside the order passed by
Asst Registrar-order of Single Judge set
aside.

Held: Para 15

For all the aforesaid reasons the order of
the Assistant Registrar dated 20.3.2010
is unsustainable in law. In our opinion,
the learned Single Judge ought to have
set aside the order of the Assistant
Registrar and remitted the matter to the
prescribed
authority
for
decision
in
accordance with the rules and the
provisions of Section 25 of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860. The learned
Single Judge therefore fell in error in
relegating the appellants on the ground
of availability of alternative remedy
without setting aside the order of the
Assistant Registrar who was bound to
refer
the
dispute
in
view
of
the
provisions referred to herein above. The
moot question which was to be decided
was the validity of the elections and its
office bearers who were elected on
14.9.2008. This was essentially a dispute
within the scope of Section 25(1) and
the jurisdiction whereof lay in the hands
of the Prescribed Authority and not the
Assistant Registrar. Accordingly we set
aside the order of the Assistant Registrar
dated 20.3.2010 and the judgment of the
learned Single Judge dated 19.7.2010,
and direct the Assistant Registrar to
refer the dispute to the prescribed
authority within 15 days of the date of
production of a certified copy of this
order
before
him.
The
prescribed
authority shall thereafter proceed to
decide the dispute within three months
thereafter.

(Delivered by Hon'ble F.I. Rebello, C.J.)

1. This appeal arises out of a
judgment of the learned Single Judge in
relation to a dispute of a society registered
under the Societies Registration Act
known
as
'Gramopyogi
Shiksha
Pracharini Samiti, Bakarganj, Goraju,
Kaushambi. The challenge in the writ