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

- **Citation:** (2010) 3 ILRA 927
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2010-08-11
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1254 of 2010
- **Bench:** F.I. Rebello, Cj. A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/surendra-singh-and-others-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41826
- **Pages:** 5

## 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

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
928 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
petition was to the order dated 20th
March, 2010 passed by the Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits
Allahabad who proceeded to register the
list of officer bearers and the members of
the committee of management under
Section 4(1) of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860 submitted by the contesting
respondents No. 4 and 5. The said list of
office bearers are alleged to have been
elected in the elections held on 14.9.2008.

2. The undisputed position is that the
elections were previously held in the year
2001 and since the term of the said
elections expired, a meeting is stated to
have been convened on 10th April, 2004
for holding of fresh elections on 6th June,
2004. One Mr. Durga Prasad Singh was
appointed as the Election Officer. The
contesting respondents allege that 76
members had been newly enrolled. This
position was resisted by the appellants
and Durga Prasad Singh the Election
Officer passed an order on 6.6.2004
staying the elections till the dispute of the
aforesaid 76 members was decided.
Consequently no elections were held and
the matter remained pending.

3. The society also manages
educational institutions including Dilip
Singh Inter College Bakarganj, District
Kaushambi. According to the scheme of
administration of the said institution as
alleged by the appellants, the same
electoral college of the parent society also
holds the elections of the committee of
management of the institution. The
elections of the committee were also
being delayed and on a direction of the
High Court in a writ petition filed, the
Joint Director of Education finalized the
electoral
college
vide
order
dated
23.1.2008 holding that the 328 members
of the parent society were entitled to
participate in the elections.

4. The appellants contend that the
said 328 members are the valid members
with whom the elections have to be held
and the 76 members stated to have been
allegedly inducted were not entitled to
participate in the elections. It is submitted
on behalf of the appellants that since the
electoral college is the same therefore the
elections of the parent society which is
presently in dispute has to be held on the
basis of the same electoral college. The
appellants allege that the term of the
committee of management elected in
2001 had expired long back and no fresh
elections had been held therefore in such
a situation the Assistant Registrar was
empowered to hold elections under Sub
Section 2 of Section 25 of the Societies
Registration Act,1860. In view of the said
provision the outgoing President of the
society Smt. Urmila Devi made a request
on 8th February, 2008 to the Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits
Allahabad to get fresh elections held.

5. The Assistant Registrar vide order
dated 12th February 2008 called for a list
of the electoral college from the Joint
Director of Education who had finalized
the same vide his order dated 23.1.2008.
The
Joint
Director
of
Education
forwarded the said list to the Assistant
Registrar on 22.2.2008.

6. It is alleged that the some notice
was published on 27.8.2008 for holding of
the elections on 14.9.2008. A complaint
was made by Suryabali Singh respondent
on 28.8.2008 against the holding of such
elections on the ground that no such
meeting was convened for holding of
elections. It is also alleged that one
3 All] Surendra Pratap and others V. State of U.P.and others
929
Madan Singh who is a Lekhpal of the
same village and is also alleged to be a
life member of the society was nominated
to act as an Election Officer. It is on the
strength of such a notice that the alleged
elections is claimed to have been held by
the respondent Awadhesh Singh on
14.9.2008 in which 6 members and 6
officer bearers are stated to have been
elected.

7. A complaint was made by the
appellants Surendra Singh on 24.9.2008
to the Assistant Registrar that the said list
of office bearers stated to have been
elected on 14.9.2008 could not be
accepted inasmuch as the Assistant
Registrar has not held the said elections,
the elections are founded on an incorrect
electoral college, no meeting had been
convened
for
holding
of
the
said
elections, no report of the elections
having been actually held has been
submitted by the Election Officer and
there were no documents to support the
same and finally the constitution of the
committee which requires one patron six
office bearers members and five members
is not in accordance with the bye-laws.

8. The Assistant Registrar who had
no jurisdiction to decide the matter
according to the learned counsel for the
appellants was proceeding to decide the
same on an undue influence exercised by
the contesting respondents as such a
complaint was made before the Registrar
on 19.8.2009 that the Assistant Registrar
be asked not to proceed with the matter
and the file be summoned from him. The
Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits Uttar
Pradesh Lucknow accordingly summoned
the file but instead of taking any action
the file was returned to the Assistant
Registrar on 7.12.2009. The Assistant
Registrar thereafter accordingly appears
to have summoned the Election Officer
for producing the documents who did not
produce the same and without following
the principles of natural justice and
without conducting any proper hearing
the Assistant Registrar proceeded to pass
the impugned order. Prior to this the
appellants had filed a writ petition No.
11659 of 2010 apprehending that the
Assistant Registrar might pass a mala fide
order, which was dismissed on the ground
that such objections can be raised before
the Assistant Registrar himself.

9. The Assistant Registrar has
proceeded to accept the list of office
bearers and has recorded a finding that
Madan Singh the Election Officer appears
to have been won over by the appellants
and has deliberately not produced the
documents in relation to the conduct of
the elections, therefore, the office bearers
having been elected on 14.9.2008 were
validly elected.

10. Learned counsel for the
appellants Sri P.N. Saxena contends that
the aforesaid procedure adopted by the
Assistant
Registrar
was
without
jurisdiction as he had no authority to
declare an election valid or invalid and
even otherwise the order was in violation
of principles of natural justice and also for
the reasons stated hereinabove.

11. The learned Single Judge
dismissed the writ petition on the ground
that the issues raised by the petitioner are
factual in nature and therefore it can be
determined by the prescribed authority
under Sub Section (1) of Section 25 of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 which is
an alternative remedy to be availed of by
the appellants. The learned Single Judge
930 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2010
observed that in case the matter is
entertained by the prescribed authority the
same shall be decided by hearing the
parties within a period of three months.

12. Sri Saxena contends that the
learned Single Judge once having arrived
at the conclusion that the matter could
have decided by the prescribed authority,
the order of the Assistant Registrar ought
to have been quashed. He submits that the
Assistant Registrar was bound to have
referred the dispute as it was in relation to
the election of the office bearers held on
14.9.2008. The validity of the elections
being directly involved, the matter ought
to have been referred to the prescribed
authority and the learned Single Judge
erred in dismissing the writ petition
treating the said remedy to be an
alternative
remedy.
In
essence
the
submission is that the order of the
Assistant Registrar deserves to be set
aside whereafter the matter has to be
decided by the prescribed authority under
Section 25(1) of the Act.

13. Learned counsel for the
contesting respondents Sri P.S. Baghel
submits that the Assistant Registrar was
well within his jurisdiction to have
registered the list of office bearers
keeping in view the proviso contained in
Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act
as amended and applicable in the State of
UP. He submits that the Assistant
Registrar was within his authority to
invite objections and thereafter register
the list of office bearers which has been
done in the instant case. He further
submits that the Election Officer Madan
Singh has colluded with the appellants
and has not appeared before the Assistant
Registrar which would not amount to lack
of any evidence in support of the elections
dated 14.9.2008. He further submits that
the list of office bearers of the contesting
respondents is a valid list and the
contention raised on behalf of the
appellants is without any substance.
Learned Standing counsel has also been
heard for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3.

14. Having heard learned counsel
for the parties, the first issue which has to
be determined was the validity of the
meeting that had been convened for the
purpose of holding of the elections dated
14.9.2008. The meeting ought to have
been convened by the outgoing committee
and it could not have been a decision by
persons who are not entitled to proceed
with the elections. The order of the
Assistant Registrar does not reflect on this
issue and even otherwise the same would
be a matter of consideration by the
prescribed authority while proceeding to
consider any doubt or dispute with regard
to the elections of office bearers. It is also
on record that the elections which had
been convened in the year 2004 were
never held and there was an ongoing
dispute with regard to the alleged
induction of 76 new members. It is also
on record that the Joint Director of
Education had found 328 members
entitled to participate in election which
was a piece of evidence to be looked into
before finalizing the electoral college.
Apart from this if the elections of the
committee of management of the society
were not held within time then after such
a finding is recorded by the prescribed
authority, it is the Assistant Registrar who
can proceed to hold the elections under
Sub Section 2 of Section 25. In the instant
case the elections were not held after
2001. This issue was also relevant and
which has been completely over looked
3 All] Cantonment Board Varanasi and another V. Shambhu and another
931
by the Assistant Registrar while passing
the impugned order dated 20.3.2010.

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.

16. The appeal is accordingly
allowed. No order as to costs.
---------

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.1342 of 2006

Cantonment Board, Varanasi and another

...Appellants
Versus
Shambhu and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri S.D.Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri M.M. Sahai
Sri Ashok Nigam
A.S.G.I.

Constitution of India Art.226-Terminationon medical grounds-employee working as
(Class IV) Safai Karamchari in Cantonment
Board-employee suffering from pulmonary
tuberculosis,
with
Pott's
spine
and
backpain-medical board declared unfit to
carry out hard work-but recommended
sheltered appointment on compassionate
ground as per fitness reports-no indication
in
medical
report
about
absolutely
unfitness-further
recommendations
of
sheltered appointment also not extended
to him-Single Judge held that termination
unless certified to be completely unfit for
any work and-also that disease was a
curable one-direction to medically reexamine
and
consideration
of
other
benefits-during
pendency
of
Special
Appeal Medical Board re-examine him
after
a
lapse
of
about
five
yearsimprovement found-declared medically fit
without any neurological deficit and can do
moderate work-Held not disentititled to
raise claimafter receiving Retiral benefitssuch directions can be issued in the larger
interest of justice,principle of equality and
good conscience-view of Single Judge
affirmed.