The court reaffirmed that the authority to question the representation of a society lies within civil proceedings, and recurrent petitions that reiterate previously dismissed issues constitute misuse of judicial process.

JUDGMENT :

SACHIN DATTA, J.

1. At the outset, it is noted that both petitions arise from overlapping causes of action and involve common issues. Accordingly, it is considered appropriate to hear and adjudicate both petitions together.

2. In W.P. (C) 10990 of 2025, the petitioner has prayed as under –

“a) Issue a writ of 'quo warranto' calling upon Respondent No.2 to show under what authority she claims to represent Raj Vidya Kender in legal proceedings including CS (OS) 470/2019, despite the absence of a valid resolution or governing body authorization;

b) Direct Respondent No.1, the Bar Council of Delhi, to initiate proceedings under ' Section 35 of the Advocates Act, 1961' against Respondent No.2 for professional misconduct;”

3. In W.P. (C) 13444/2025, the petitioner has prayed as under –

4. The petitioner has approached this Court asserting that he is associated with the affairs of Raj Vidya Kender (RVK), a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, formerly known as the Divine United Organization (DUO).

5. It is submitted that the background of the present petitions traces back to events of 07.05.2015, when an email purportedly sent from RVK’s official ID levelled allegations of embezzlement of Rs.550.30 crores against one Deepak Raj Bhandari. It is submitted that this communication was widely circulated among the members of RVK, causing considerable confusion and concern. However, on the same date, another email from the same official ID clarified that the earlier message was the result of a hacking incident and that an unknown individual had obtained unauthorized access to the society’s official email account. It is submitted that on 08.05.2015, RVK circulated yet another email assuring its members that an internal inquiry had been initiated and that appropriate action would be taken against the persons responsible for disseminating fraudulent communications.

6. It is submitted that thereafter, RVK (as plaintiff no. 1) and Mr. Deepak Raj Bhandari, a Nepalese national (as plaintiff no. 2), instituted CS (OS) 470/2019 before this Court against the petitioner. The petitioner emphasises that the record in CS (OS) 470/2019 reveals multiple irregularities and procedural lapses, including the absence of valid authorization and misleading representations, in the initiation and prosecution of the suit.

7. The petitioner asserts that RVK is presently being run by an unelected and unauthorized body. Consequently, any litigation purportedly instituted in the name of RVK, including CS (OS) 470/2019, is without legal authority, as no resolution passed by a duly elected governing body exists authorizing the institution of such proceedings.

8. In support of these assertions, the petitioner places reliance on the RTI replies dated 27.09.2023 and 20.11.2023 issued by the concerned Registrar of Societies.

9. The petitioner further contends that the Registrar of Societies, through a communication dated 27.05.2024, has admitted that Raj Vidya Kendra is a defunct society and has indicated that the Registrar of Societies functions merely as the registering authority and that a serious error had occurred in recording the name of a non-existent person in the society’s records. It is, however, noticed that the petitioner has not enclosed this communication with the present petitions. The said letter is annexed as Anne