# The Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Sangh Faizabad & Anr v. State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Finance Lko.& Ors.46(Revp)12(Ms

- **Citation:** (2016) 8 ILRA 431
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-08-31
- **Bench:** Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Dr. Vijay Laxmi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-khemraj-smarak-rashtriya-vidyapeeth-sangh-faizabad-anr-v-state-of-u-p-throu-44324
- **Pages:** 22

## Headnote

Special Appeal-Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Section 25(2) - Deputy Registrar - Committee of
Management - Society - amendment in byelaws - Memorandum of Association - membership of the
society - elections - Committee of Management declared defunct - direction for holding fresh elections -
writ petition - modification application - review application - principles of natural justice - framing of
issues - jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar - validity of elections - order dated 15.04.2011 - learned Single
Judge - Special Appeals - order set aside - order of Deputy Registrar quashed - fresh decision after
opportunity of hearing

These three appeals relate to the elections of the Committee of Management and affairs of a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 namely, the Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth
Sangh, Khemapur Faizabad, district Ambedkar Nagar, the focus whereof is the challenge raised to the order of
the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad dated
15.04.2011 whereby the contention raised on behalf of the appellants had been accepted and the Deputy
Registrar had after declaring the tenure of the Committee of Management of the society to have come to an
end, further issued directions for holding of fresh elections in exercise of powers under Section 25 (2) of the
1860 Act.(Para 1)

It may be put on record that all elections after 29.11.1967 were declared invalid on the ground that the
membership of the society was highly disputed as it was based on amendment in the byelaws and
Memorandum of Association that was illegal, and any consequential action or elections being claimed were all
invalid.(Para 2)

The aforesaid order had been passed against the respondent petitioners No.9 and 10 holding that all the
activities that were carried out under the amended byelaws of 24.11.1980 and the amendment in the
Memorandum of Association dated 12.06.2001, were invalid as the amendment itself was impermissible and,
therefore, the elections should now be held on the strength of the membership that existed as on 29.11.1967.
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Accordingly, a direction was issued by the Deputy Registrar to submit a list of members of the general body
for holding elections.(Para 3)
The aforesaid society has established an Intermediate College namely, Kehmraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapith
Sangh, Khemapur, Faizabad, district Ambedkar Nagar, which is duly recognized under the provisions of the
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and is governed by the provisions of a scheme of administration
approved by the competent authority under the provisions of the said Act.(Para 4)

Held:(Paras 51-58)
1.The learned Single Judge, therefore, committed a manifest error in dismissing the writ petition. The order of
the Deputy Registrar dated 15.04.2011 being invalid for the aforesaid reasons, therefore, had to be set aside
and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Instead, the learned Single Judge entered into the exercise of
changing of the dates and passed orders on the review application and on a modification application in a
manner which is unsupported in law about which we have already indicated hereinabove. The Deputy
Registrar had acted in a way that did not conform to the correct procedure under the provisions of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. He has also not taken notice of the fact as to whether he did have the
authority to enter into an infructuous dispute of the Committee of Management the tenure whereof had long
come to an end. All these issues, therefore, require being addressed to that was not done by the Deputy
Registrar. The writ petition therefore, deserves to be allowed for which we have also to set aside the
impugned judgment herein.

2.Accordingly, the judgment dated 09.01.2012 arising out of Writ Petition No.2816 (M/S) of 2011 is hereby set
aside. The order of the Deputy Registrar dated 15.04.2011 is quashed. The Deputy Regis

## Text

_Characters 0–39,831 of 71,913. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39831 for what follows._

8 All. The Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Sangh Faizabad & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.
 Throu. Princ. Secy. Finance Lko. & Ors. 46 (Revp) 12 (Ms
431
(2016) 8 ILRA 431
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 31.08.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J.
THE HON'BLE DR. VIJAY LAXMI, J.

Special Appeal No.- 265 Of 2014
&
Connected With Other Cases

The Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Sangh Faizabad & Anr. ...Appellants
Versus
State Of U.P.Throu.Prin.Secy.Finance Lko.& Ors.46(Revp)12(Ms ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Shailendra Kumar Singh, Sabhapati Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Pt.S.Chandra, Sushil Kumar Singh

Special Appeal-Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Section 25(2) - Deputy Registrar - Committee of
Management - Society - amendment in byelaws - Memorandum of Association - membership of the
society - elections - Committee of Management declared defunct - direction for holding fresh elections -
writ petition - modification application - review application - principles of natural justice - framing of
issues - jurisdiction of Deputy Registrar - validity of elections - order dated 15.04.2011 - learned Single
Judge - Special Appeals - order set aside - order of Deputy Registrar quashed - fresh decision after
opportunity of hearing

These three appeals relate to the elections of the Committee of Management and affairs of a society
registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 namely, the Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth
Sangh, Khemapur Faizabad, district Ambedkar Nagar, the focus whereof is the challenge raised to the order of
the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad dated
15.04.2011 whereby the contention raised on behalf of the appellants had been accepted and the Deputy
Registrar had after declaring the tenure of the Committee of Management of the society to have come to an
end, further issued directions for holding of fresh elections in exercise of powers under Section 25 (2) of the
1860 Act.(Para 1)

It may be put on record that all elections after 29.11.1967 were declared invalid on the ground that the
membership of the society was highly disputed as it was based on amendment in the byelaws and
Memorandum of Association that was illegal, and any consequential action or elections being claimed were all
invalid.(Para 2)

The aforesaid order had been passed against the respondent petitioners No.9 and 10 holding that all the
activities that were carried out under the amended byelaws of 24.11.1980 and the amendment in the
Memorandum of Association dated 12.06.2001, were invalid as the amendment itself was impermissible and,
therefore, the elections should now be held on the strength of the membership that existed as on 29.11.1967.
432 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Accordingly, a direction was issued by the Deputy Registrar to submit a list of members of the general body
for holding elections.(Para 3)
The aforesaid society has established an Intermediate College namely, Kehmraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapith
Sangh, Khemapur, Faizabad, district Ambedkar Nagar, which is duly recognized under the provisions of the
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and is governed by the provisions of a scheme of administration
approved by the competent authority under the provisions of the said Act.(Para 4)

Held:(Paras 51-58)
1.The learned Single Judge, therefore, committed a manifest error in dismissing the writ petition. The order of
the Deputy Registrar dated 15.04.2011 being invalid for the aforesaid reasons, therefore, had to be set aside
and the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Instead, the learned Single Judge entered into the exercise of
changing of the dates and passed orders on the review application and on a modification application in a
manner which is unsupported in law about which we have already indicated hereinabove. The Deputy
Registrar had acted in a way that did not conform to the correct procedure under the provisions of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. He has also not taken notice of the fact as to whether he did have the
authority to enter into an infructuous dispute of the Committee of Management the tenure whereof had long
come to an end. All these issues, therefore, require being addressed to that was not done by the Deputy
Registrar. The writ petition therefore, deserves to be allowed for which we have also to set aside the
impugned judgment herein.

2.Accordingly, the judgment dated 09.01.2012 arising out of Writ Petition No.2816 (M/S) of 2011 is hereby set
aside. The order of the Deputy Registrar dated 15.04.2011 is quashed. The Deputy Registrar shall proceed to
pass a fresh order in the light of the observations made hereinabove after giving an opportunity of hearing to
the parties and after noticing their contentions and framing issues arising out of the dispute raised before him.

3.We now advert to Special Appeal No.81 of 2015. The learned Single Judge while dismissing Writ Petition
No.1804 (M/S) of 2012 has simply expressed his inability to interfere in the matter on account of the passing
of the orders dated 09.01.2012, 17.01.2012, 20.09.2013 and 08.05.2014 in Writ Petition No.2816 (M/S) of
2011. We have by this judgment today set aside the judgment dated 09.01.2012 and have also declared the
orders dated 17.01.2012, 20.09.2013, 04.12.2012 to be a nullity and have quashed the order dated
08.05.2014.

4.Writ Petition No.1804 (M/S) of 2012 has been filed basically challenging the consequential decision of the
Deputy Registrar finalizing the list of the members and then holding of the elections of the society pursuant to
the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2816 (M/S) of 2011. Since the judgment in
relation thereto, as noted above has been set aside and the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 15.04.2011
has been quashed, then all consequential actions also fall through and, therefore, this appeal also deserves to
be allowed and the challenge raised in the writ petition also deserves to be accepted.

5.We accordingly allow this appeal setting aside the judgment dated 24.02.2015. We also set aside all the
actions taken pursuant to the order of the Deputy Registrar dated 15.04.2011 as the order dated 15.04.2011
itself has been quashed by us today. Consequential finalization of membership, and holding of elections vide
orders dated 17.03.2012 and 26.04.2012 are also set aside.

6.The Deputy Registrar shall accordingly, in case he finds that the tenure of the committee has come to an
end, proceed to finalize the membership in accordance with law and then proceed to hold elections if
necessary.

7.Consequently, all the three appeals are allowed subject to the directions hereinabove.
8 All. The Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Sangh Faizabad & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.
 Throu. Princ. Secy. Finance Lko. & Ors. 46 (Revp) 12 (Ms
433
8.The Deputy Registrar shall decide the matter expeditiously preferably, within a period of three months from
the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order before him.

Case Law discussed:·
1.Kalabharti Advertising Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and others, (2010) 9 SCC 437 - para 37
2.Committee of Management, Vidyawati Higher Secondary School, Azamgarh and another Vs. Assistant
Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Azamgarh and others, 2005 (2) ESC (All) 847 - para 37
3.Shiksha Samiti Degree College, Garua Maksudpur and others Vs. Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P.
Lucknow, AIR 1990 Allahabad 110 - para 38
4.Sri Krishna Educational Society, Deoria and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, (1995) 2 UPLBEC 732 -
para 38
5.Committee of Management, Hari Shyam Khadi Gram Udyog Sewa Sabha, Allahabad and others Vs. State of
U.P. and others, 2006 (3) ESC 1570 (All) - para 38
6.Improvement Trust, Ludhiyana Vs. Ujagar Singh and others, 2010 (28) LCD 1531 - para 26
7.Executive Officer, Antiyur Town Panchayat Vs. G. Arumugam (D) by Lrs., 2015 (33) LCD 602 - para 26

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, J.
&
Hon'ble Dr. Vijay Laxmi, J.)

1. These three appeals relate to the elections of the Committee of Management and affairs
of a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 namely, the Khemraj Smarak
Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Sangh, Khemapur Faizabad, district Ambedkar Nagar, the focus whereof is
the challenge raised to the order of the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Faizabad
dated 15.04.2011 whereby the contention raised on behalf of the appellants had been accepted and
the Deputy Registrar had after declaring the tenure of the Committee of Management of the society
to have come to an end, further issued directions for holding of fresh elections in exercise of
powers under Section 25 (2) of the 1860 Act.

2. It may be put on record that all elections after 29.11.1967 were declared invalid on the
ground that the membership of the society was highly disputed as it was based on amendment in
the byelaws and Memorandum of Association that was illegal, and any consequential action or
elections being claimed were all invalid.

3. The aforesaid order had been passed against the respondent petitioners No.9 and 10
holding that all the activities that were carried out under the amended byelaws of 24.11.1980 and
the amendment in the Memorandum of Association dated 12.06.2001, were invalid as the
amendment itself was impermissible and, therefore, the elections should now be held on the
strength of the membership that existed as on 29.11.1967. Accordingly, a direction was issued by
the Deputy Registrar to submit a list of members of the general body for holding elections.

4. The aforesaid society has established an Intermediate College namely, Kehmraj Smarak
Rashtriya Vidyapith Sangh, Khemapur, Faizabad, district Ambedkar Nagar, which is duly
recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and is governed by
434 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

the provisions of a scheme of administration approved by the competent authority under the
provisions of the said Act.

5. The appellants allege that the Principal of the institution Mr. Babban Singh had an evil
eye over the institution as well as the society and he gradually tried to take over the affairs of the
society as well as the institution as would be evident from the facts narrated and brought on record.
On account of such nefarious activities and complaints being lodged, the Management of the
college was superseded by the State Government invoking the provisions of Section 16-D of the
1921 Act, vide order dated 22.02.2011. One Sri Ashok Kumar Singh filed Writ Petition No.1288
(M/S) of 2011, assailing the said order of supersession on several grounds including the mala fides
alleged against a local MLA Sri Bhagelu Ram who had influenced the Secretary, Secondary
Education Sri Jitendra Kumar to pass the said order. The writ petition was entertained and the
following order was passed on 10.03.2011:-

"Through the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.2.2011 passed by the opposite party No.1-Secretary,
Secondary Education, Uttar Pradesh and issued by the opposite party No.2-the Special Secretary,
Sanskrit Shiksha Anubhag, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, whereby the Principal of Government Inter
College, Akbarpur has been appointed as Authorized Controller of the Committee of Management
of the petitioner's institution in exercise of the powers under Section 16-D of the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921.

The main grounds on which the impugned order has been challenged are that the
Principal, who has been appointed as an Authorized Controller is a tainted person and closely
associated to the M.L.A. of the ruling party, namely, Sri Bhagelu Ram. It has been alleged that at
the behest of the said MLA, who is taking keen interest in the affairs, the State Government
supersede and terminate the Committee of Management of the petitioner's institution illegally and
arbitrarily and without application of mind.

In order to verify the averments made in the writ petition, this Court, vide order
dated 4.3.2011, the Principal Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow, was directed to appear in
person along with the relevant record to assist the Court.

In compliance thereof, Sri Jitendra Kumar, Secretary, Secondary Education,
Lucknow, U.P., is present in person along with the entire records.

Sri Jitendra Kumar, Secretary, Secondary Education, Lucknow, U.P., on the basis
of the records, submits that on the basis of the recommendation of the Director in exercise of power
under Section 16 (D) (4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 with regards to
irregularities, which have been committed by the Committee of Management of the petitioner's
institution, Authorized Controller has been appointed.
8 All. The Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Sangh Faizabad & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.
 Throu. Princ. Secy. Finance Lko. & Ors. 46 (Revp) 12 (Ms
435
The petitioner in para 18 of the writ petition has specifically stated that action with
regards to appointment of authorized controller in the petitioner's institution has only been initiated
on the influence of the opposite party No.9-Sri Pawan Kumar, who is the Regional Co-ordinator
and also local Member of Legislative Assembly of Uttar Pradesh of the ruling party.

On perusal of the records, which have been produced by Sri Jitendra Kumar,
Secretary, it reflects that the irregularities, which has been pointed out by the Director in his
recommendation for appointment of Authorized Controller was for the year 2003-2004 and
thereafter, no specific irregularities has been either pointed out by the Secretary nor are reflected
from perusal of the records. The Member of Legislative Assembly, namely, Sri Bhagelu Ram,
wrote a letter, which has been received in the office of Chief Minister on 2.2.2011 and Sri Net
Ram, Chief Secretary, Government of U.P., directed the Secretary, Secondary Education,
Lucknow, to do necessary action, on 1.2.2011. Immediately thereafter, on 22.2.2011, Authorized
Controller in the petitioner's institution has been appointed.

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also on perusal of
the records, I am of the view that the officers of the State Government are acting under the
influence of the elected Member of Legislative Assembly without applying their own independent
minds in the instant case. Fairness and transparency is the essence of the State Act. The
Government Officers are bound to pass order after applying their independent mind and strictly in
accordance with law. The order cannot be the result of political influence.

For the reasons aforesaid, the Chief Secretary, State of U.P., shall call an
explanation from Sri Jitendra Kumar, Secretary, Secondary Education, Government of U.P., within
three days from today as to under what circumstances and how he proceeded to in utter breach of
the provisions of law, specifically, under Section 16 (D) (5) of the U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921 insofar as without issuing any notice, he appointed authorized controller under the
influence of the political leader.

List the matter on 16.3.2011, on which date, Sri Jitendra Kumar, Secretary,
Secondary Education, U.P., who is present in person, shall also appear in person.

The Chief Secretary, State of U.P., shall also ensure that an officer not below the
rank of Joint Secretary, in his office, is present in the Court along with the show cause notice given
to Sri Jitendra Kumar and the explanation so tendered by Sri Jitendra Kumar, Secretary,
Government of U.P., on the date fixed.

The Bench Secretary shall seal the records, which have been produced by Sri
Jitendra Kumar, Secretary, Government of U.P., and transmit the same to the Registrar of this
Court. The Registrar shall keep the record in sealed envelop in a safe custody and ensure that the
records in sealed cover are made available on the date fixed before this Court.
436 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In the event, Sri Jitendra Kumar, Secretary, Secondary Education, Government of
U.P., wants to inspect the records for tendering his explanation, he shall move an appropriate
application before the Registrar of this Court. In case such an application is received, the Registrar
shall open the seal cover and allow Sri Jitendra Kumar to inspect the file in his presence and shall
also allow him to note down the points. This can be done in any working day. Immediately
thereafter, the Registrar shall seal the records in his presence.

Order Date :- 10.3.2011

Ajit/-

Let a copy of this order be sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of U.P.,
Lucknow through FAX today."

6. The appellants, who are also contesting the continuance of Sri Babbann Singh and the
contesting respondent No.9 and 10 in the society, are stated to have adopted the same method and
through the influence of the then Secretary, Secondary Education Sri Jitendra Kumar to rake up the
matter of the society by filing two applications: one dated 09.12.2009 said to have been moved by
the respondent No.8 Dinesh Pratap Singh son of Hira Singh and the second application dated
08.02.2010 by the same person. The aforesaid facts are available from the narration made in the
order of the Deputy Registrar dated 15.04.2011. The said order also narrates the availability of a
complaint dated 03.12.1985 said to have been moved by Sri Hira Singh and five others, referring to
an earlier complaint dated 06.11.1985. These complaints had been controverted by the then office
bearers of the society. The respondent No.9 and 10 contend that this was again a mala fide exercise
to somehow or the other disturb the functioning of the society at the instance of the same MLA and
the same Secretary, Secondary Education under whose influence, the Deputy Registrar under the
garb of looking to all the complaints, including the amendments in the byelaws and Memorandum
of Association of the society, proceeded to annul all the elections of the society and its activities
after 20.11.1967. This order came to be challenged by the contesting respondent No.9 and 10 in
Writ Petition No.2816 (M/S) of 2011.

7. Thus, the order of supersession of the management of the College that was assailed in
Writ Petition No.1288 (M/S) of 2011 and the above mentioned order of the Deputy Registrar dated
15.04.2011 in relation to the management and affairs of the appellant society challenged in Writ
Petition No.2816 (M/S) of 2011, came to be heard together by a learned Single Judge of this Court
who delivered two separate judgments in both the writ petitions. The judgment of the case of
supersession of the management of the College in Writ Petition No.1288 (M/S) of 2011, dated
09.01.2012 is extracted hereinabove:-

"Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The instant writ petition has been filed assailing the appointment of Authorized
Controller superseding the duly elected Committee of Management inter alia on the ground that the
8 All. The Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Sangh Faizabad & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.
 Throu. Princ. Secy. Finance Lko. & Ors. 46 (Revp) 12 (Ms
437
order appointing Authorized Controller has been passed by the State Government at the instance of
one Member of Legislative Assembly, namely, Baghelu Ram.

While entertaining the writ petition, vide order dated 4.3.2011, this Court directed
the Principal Secretary (Madhyamik) to appear in person alongwith the relevant records on
10.3.2011. In compliance of the order dated 4.3.2011, the Principal Secretary (Madhyamik)
appeared and produced the relevant record.

On perusal of the records, it was found that the material procedural irregularities
were committed while appointing the Authorized Controller. Therefore, the records were directed
to be sealed. Today, when the case was taken up, records were opened and on perusal, it further
reflects that it is only on the basis of letter written by the MLA, action has been initiated by the
State Government appointing the Authorized Controller. Neither any report was called for from the
concerned educational authorities nor from the petitioner. Law is well settled that any action which
entails civil consequences must be in consonance with the principles of natural justice. At this
juncture, it would be useful to refer the law enunciated by the Apex Court.

In D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries; (1993) 3 SCC 259 the Apex Court while
laying emphasis on affording opportunity by the authority which has the power to take punitive or
damaging action held that orders affecting the civil rights or resulting civil consequences would
have to answer the requirement of Article 14. The Hon'ble Apex Court concluded as under: -

"The procedure prescribed for depriving a person of livelihood would be liable to
be tested on the anvil of Article 14. The procedure prescribed by a statute or statutory rule or rules
or orders affecting the civil rights or result in civil consequences would have to answer the
requirement of Article 14. Article 14 has a pervasive procedural potency and versatile quality,
equalitarian in its soul and principles of natural justice are part of Article 14 and the procedure
prescribed by law must be just, fair and reasonable, and not arbitrary, fanciful or oppressive.

In National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan; (1998) 7 SCC
66, the Apex Court in unequivocal words that a person is entitled to judicial review, if he is able to
show that the decision of the public authority affected him of some benefit or advantage which in
the past he had been permitted to enjoy and which he legitimately expected to be permitted to
continue to enjoy either until he is informed the reasons for withdrawal and the opportunity to
comment on such reasons.

As the order appointing Authorized Controller has been passed in violation of
provisions of Section 16 (D) (5) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, it is liable to be
quashed. Furthermore, the Standing Counsel has failed to point out that any notice or opportunity
of hearing was provided before passing the impugned order. Thus, it is clear that the order was
passed in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice.
438 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated
22.2.2011 is hereby quashed. The record, which is produced and kept in this Court, shall be
returned to the Standing Counsel or the official concerned."

The writ petition was allowed and the appointment of the Authorized Controller in
the institution was quashed.

The dispute now presently in question began with the dismissal of Writ Petition
No.2816 (M/S) of 2011 that had raised the challenge to the order of the Deputy Registrar dated
15.04.2011. The judgment dismissing the said Writ Petition No.2816 (M/S) of 2011, dated
09.01.2012, is extracted hereinunder:-

"Heard Pt. S. Chandra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Tiwari, Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the opposite
partiesand Mr. M. B. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3.

During pendency of writ petition No.1288 (MS) of 2011, the Deputy Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits has issued a notice to all the concerned parties requiring to convene a
meeting of General Body. When a compliant has been filed on 19.12.2009 by Sri Dinesh Pratap
Singh, it was investigated and it was found that last election of the Committee of Management was
held on 1.4.2008 and thereafter, no election took place and as such, in exercise of powers conferred
under Section 25 (2) of Societies Registration Act, elections were notified. Being aggrieved by the
said action, the instant writ petition has been filed.

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that no election
took place after 1.4.2008 and the term of Committee of Management has also been expired and
as such, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders. No interference is required
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. The Deputy Registrar is directed to
hold elections within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order."

8. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge in the second last paragraph
concluded that since no election had taken place after 01.04.2008 and the tenure of the committee
has already expired, the writ petition was dismissed as no interference was called for with a
direction that the Deputy Registrar shall proceed to hold election within time period given therein.

9. It is this date of 01.04.2008 which raised the controversy afresh. The contesting
respondent No.9 and 10 who are the petitioners in the writ petition, however, felt satisfied with the
said date and at that point of time, they did not raise any objection to the aforesaid fact having been
recorded by the learned Single Judge which was in complete variance with the last date of the
tenure of the Committee of management of the society i.e., 29.11.1967 mentioned by the Deputy
8 All. The Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Sangh Faizabad & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.
 Throu. Princ. Secy. Finance Lko. & Ors. 46 (Revp) 12 (Ms
439
Registrar in the order impugned dated 15.04.2011. The Deputy Registrar had concluded that the
tenure of the society as was then under the byelaws was two years, and the Committee of
Management had been constituted in November, 1965 whereafter no valid elections have been held
as such the committee had become defunct after 1967.

10. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition but recorded the date as
01.04.2008. The appellants contend that the Deputy Registrar had rightly found that no elections
were held after 1967 and the aforesaid date 01.04.2008 was got confused with the elections of the
Committee of Management of the Intermediate College. According to the appellants since the
mentioning of the said date was absolutely incorrect, a modification application was filed by the
appellants herein, who were the respondents in the writ petition, on 16.01.2012 and the said
modification application was taken up on 17.01.2012 by the learned Single Judge and the following
order was passed on 17.01.2012:-

"Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in the judgment and order dated
9.1.2012, date of last election of the Committee of Management was held on 1.4.2008. In this
context, learned Counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the
impugned order dated 15.4.2011 wherein it has been mentioned that on 29.11.1967, Committee of
Management has expired.

Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 9.1.2012 is modified to the extent
that the undisputed elections for the office bearers of the Committee of Management was held
and the Committee of Management has expired on 29.11.1967.

The application is disposed of in above terms."

11. The learned Single Judge accepted the modification holding that the date of the expiry
of the tenure of the last valid elections of the society was 29.11.1967 which was the date mentioned
by the Deputy Registrar in the impugned order dated 15.04.2011.

12. The petitioners therein who are the respondent No.9 and 10 in the present appeal, filed
a Review Application No.46 of 2012 along with a recall application for recall of the order dated
17.01.2012 contending that the said order dated 17.01.2012 was without jurisdiction as it amounted
to review of the entire judgment changing the date without even serving a copy of the application
on the counsel for the petitioners. The modification was, therefore, carried out in violation of
principles of natural justice.

13. This application remained pending and in between in view of the modified order dated
17.01.2012, the Deputy Registrar, who was to proceed with the elections in terms of his order dated
15.04.2011, finalized the list of the members of the general body on 17.03.2012. This action of the
Deputy Registrar became subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.1804 (M/S) of 2012. The
440 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

elections were also held on 26.04.2012 pursuant to the said electoral list finalized by the Deputy
Registrar and the said elections were also challenged by way of an amendment in the same writ
petition.

14. During the pendency of the said writ petition, certain developments more took place in
respect of the modification order and the review application filed by the respondent No.9 and 10 in
Writ Petition No.2816 (M/S) of 2011. The Review Application No.46 of 2012 referred to
hereinabove, was taken up by the learned Single Judge on 14.12.2012 and an order was passed
recording that the review petition "was" allowed with certain modification for "the reasons to be
recorded later on". The order passed on the review application is extracted hereinunder:-

"This review petition was allowed with certain modification for the reasons to
be recorded later on. During the course of dictation of judgment, the record reveals that certain
new developments had taken place, which were not brought to the notice of the Court during
hearing. Therefore, it is necessary to get clarification from the parties' counsel.

Accordingly, list this case as and when I sit singly.

Registry shall issue counsel notice in this regard."

This order in several ways contradicts itself with regard to which we will delve
later on, as it is this order which further complicated the issues giving rise to this appeal and the
connected appeals. As directed by the learned Single Judge in the aforesaid order to list the matter
after issuing notice with a view to seek clarification from the learned counsel, the same was taken
up on 20.09.2013 and the following order was passed:-

"Vide judgment and order dated 17.1.2012 passed in C.M.Application No. 5633 of
2012 in re: Writ petition No. 2816 of 2011, this Court has passed the following order :

"Heard Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the applicant.

Learned Counsel for the applicant submits that in the judgment and order dated
9.1.2012, date of last election of the Committee of Management was held on 1.4.2008. In this
context, learned Counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of this Court towards the
impugned order dated 15.4.2011 wherein it has been mentioned that on 29.11.1967, Committee of
Management has expired.

Accordingly, the judgment and order dated 9.1.2012 is modified to the extent that
the undisputed elections for the office bearers of the Committee of Management was held and the
Committee of Management has expired on 29.11.1967.

The application is disposed of in above terms."
8 All. The Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Sangh Faizabad & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.
 Throu. Princ. Secy. Finance Lko. & Ors. 46 (Revp) 12 (Ms
441
Not being satisfied with the above judgment and order dated 17.1.2012, instant
review petition has been preferred inter alia on the ground that the Deputy Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Faizabad, by the impugned order dated 15.4.2011, illegally cancelled the
election of the petitioners' society since 29.11.1967 though the record pertaining to election since
the year 1967 (29.11.1967) is available in the office of Deputy Registrar.

During the course of arguments, learned Counsel for the review petitioners
submits that the judgment and order dated 17.1.2012 be reviewed only to the extent that
undisputed elections for the office bearers of Committee of Management was debarred on
29.11.1967.

It is not in dispute that Committee of Management was debarred on
29.11.1967.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, review petition is
allowed in part and the above order dated 17.1.2012 is recalled and following order is being
passed :

"The judgment and order dated 9.1.2012 is modified to the extent that undisputed
elections for the office bearers of Committee of Management was debarred on 29.11.1967." "

15. A perusal of the aforesaid order would indicate that the Court reiterated that the
undisputed elections that were held, had come to an end on 29.11.1967 by using the word,
"debarred".

16. The aforesaid order, however, purports to allow the review petition in part but at the
same time, the matter was again taken up on 08.05.2014 and a fresh order was passed holding
that since the petitioners in the writ petition have brought on record the details of certain elections
last of which were held on 01.04.2008, then the date of expiry of last elections from 29.11.1967
was again changed to 01.04.2008 as existed in the original order dated 09.01.2012.

17. It is against this order that the present Special Appeal No.265 of 2014 has been filed.

18. It appears that after filing of this appeal and the grounds taken herein, the respondent
No.9 and 10 were advised to question the correctness of the original judgment dated 09.01.2012
whereby the writ petition had been dismissed and also prayed for quashing of the order of the
Deputy Registrar dated 15.04.2011 by filing Special Appeal No.84 of 2015.

19. There is yet another development which deserves to be put on record namely, that the
list that was finalized by the Deputy Registrar on 17.03.2012 and the elections which were held
pursuant thereto on 26.04.2012, as per the modified order of the High Court dated 17.01.2012, was
subject matter of challenge in Writ Petition No.1804 (M/S) of 2012 as noted above. The said writ
petition was dismissed by a detailed judgment on 24.02.2015 by a learned Single Judge on the
442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

ground that it would not be possible to question the correctness of the elections already held
pursuant to the order dated 15.04.2011 of the Deputy Registrar and the intervening judgment of the
High Court dated 17.01.2012 as well as the subsequent orders dated 14.12.2012, 20.09.2013 and
08.05.2014 that are subject matter of Special Appeal No.265 of 2014 namely, the present appeal.
Learned Single Judge thus, found that the said proceedings could not be adjudicated independently
as everything was dependent now on the outcome of the Special Appeal No.265 of 2014 that was
considering all the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2816 (M/S) of
2011 referred to hereinabove.

20. The respondent No.9 and 10 aggrieved by the judgment dated 24.02.2015 of the
learned Single Judge, have filed Special Appeal No.81 of 2015.

21. Thus, the subsequent two appeals namely, Special Appeal No.84 of 2015 and Special
Appeal No.81 of 2015 were clubbed together and heard by a Division Bench that came to connect
the present appeal along with the same and passed the following order dated 20.03.2015:-

"An application seeking impleadment has been moved today supported by affidavit
of Sri Narendra Pratap Singh, copy thereof has been supplied to the learned counsel for the
appellants as also to the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.1.

The matter is essentially of election/management dispute of a society registered as
The Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapith Sangh Khemapur, Faizabad and this special appeal is by
the same named appellant who had filed Writ Petition No.1804 (M/S) of 2012 wherein, the learned
Single Judge of this Court has declined to exercise writ jurisdiction essentially for the reason of the
pendency of Special Appeal No.265 of 2014, said to be having a direct bearing on the issues sought
to be raised in Writ Petition No.1804 (M/S) of 2012.

It is also noticed that the contesting parties seek to take varying stands as regards
purport, implication as also validity of the order dated 09.01.2012 as passed by the learned Single
Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.2816 (M/S) of 2011, which has been subjected to review
and then, recall applications and is said to be now forming the subject matter of Special Appeal
No.265 of 2014.

The present appellants have chosen to put a direct challenge to the aforesaid order
dated 09.01.2012 also by way of another Special appeal No.84 of 2015, which is obviously time
barred by about three years. Therein, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed as
also an application for impleadment has been moved after duly serving copies thereof to the learned
counsel of other sides.

In the totality of the circumstances, it appears appropriate as also expedient that
these two fresh matters, being Special Appeal No.81 of 2015 and 84 of 2015 as also pending appeal
bearing Special Appeal No.265 of 2014 and applications moved therein, be heard together.
8 All. The Khemraj Smarak Rashtriya Vidyapeeth Sangh Faizabad & Anr. Vs State Of U.P.
 Throu. Princ. Secy. Finance Lko. & Ors. 46 (Revp) 12 (Ms
443
Therefore, this special appeal is ordered to be listed for admission along with
Special Appeal No.84 of 2015 and Special Appeal No.265 of 2014 on 30.03.2015 as fresh."

22. Pt. S. Chandra, learned counsel for the appellants has urged that firstly, the delay in
Special Appeal Defective No.84 of 2015 be condoned keeping in view the fact that a bona fide
litigation was continuing and pending before the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.2816
(M/S) of 2011 while several orders passed are under consideration in connected Special Appeal
No.265 of 2014. The contention is that in the aforesaid background coupled with the observations
made in the judgment dated 24.02.2015 by a learned Single Judge and the observations made in the
order dated 24.03.2015 in Special Appeal No.265 of 2014, delay deserves to be condoned.

23. Sri Anil Tewari, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting respondents and the learned
standing counsel have, however, opposed the delay but they could not contradict the peculiar
situation of the case on account of the orders passed from time to time in Writ Petition No.2816
(M/S) of 2011 where both the parties were advancing arguments and still continue to contest the
dispute in Special Appeal No.265 of 2014. It was on account of the intervening orders passed in
Writ Petition No.2816 (M/S) of 2011 that Special Appeal No.84 of 2015 had to be filed challenging
the order dated 09.01.2912. We find that the challenge raised to the judgment dated 09.01.2012
was, therefore, essential but had not been raised earlier on account of the orders passed in the same
writ petition on the review application. This ultimately has been made subject matter of Special
Appeal No.265 of 2014 and the outcome thereof, will have a direct bearing on Special Appeal
Defective No.84 of 2015. In the above background, we find that the delay in Special Appeal
Defective No.84 of 2015 deserves to be condoned as the cause shown is sufficient and the entire
dispute deserves to be addressed simultaneously.

24. Pt. S. Chandra advancing his arguments has rightly relied on the observations made in
the ratio of two Supreme Court decisions reported in [2010 (28) LCD 1531]: Improvement Trust,
Ludhiyana. Vs. Ujagar Singh & others, and [2015 (33) LCD 602]: Executive Officer, Antiyur
Town Panchayat. Vs. G. Arumugam (D) by Lrs.

25. We accordingly, condone the delay and treat Special Appeal Defective No.84 of 2015
to be within time for being heard along with Special Appeal No.265 of 2014 and Special Appeal
No.81 of 2015.

26. Pt. S.