SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Jhk) 2319

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Mahuwa Minz - Opposite Party
Civil Review No. 37 of 2024
Decided On : 07-02-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Sachin Kumar, AAG-II, Mr. Ravi Prakash Mishra,
AC to AAG-II
For the Respondent:Mr. Binod Singh, Advocate

A court’s power of review is strictly limited to addressing patent errors or discovery of new evidence and cannot function as an appeal in disguise. Administrative authorities may investigate internal society management and subversive activities but lack jurisdiction to adjudicate specific election disputes reserved for civil courts.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order 47 Rule 1 - Scope of Review - Power of review is strictly limited and cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise - It is only exercisable on discovery of new evidence after due diligence, error apparent on the face of the record, or analogous grounds - It does not permit re-adjudication of merits or rehearing of the case. (Paras 8-11)

(B) Societies Registration Act - Determination of disputes - Regulatory authority’s jurisdiction - While an administrative official has the power to enquire into activities subversive to a society’s objects under statutory rules, the adjudication of internal election and membership disputes between members falls under the exclusive domain of the principal civil court of original jurisdiction. (Paras 16-20, 23-25)

Facts of the case:
The review petition was filed against an order where the court had disposed of a writ petition by directing a regulatory authority to consider a representation regarding various grievances and alleged irregularities within a society. The review petitioner challenged the court's direction, contending that the regulatory authority lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate election disputes, arguing that such matters are exclusively reserved for civil courts.

Findings of Court:
The court found no apparent error in the original order that would justify a review. The regulatory authority possesses statutory powers to investigate activities deemed subversive to a society’s objects. While specific election disputes must be adjudicated by a civil court, the authority retains the mandate to conduct preliminary inquiries into allegations regarding the proper functioning and administration of registered societies.

Issues: The main issues were the parameters of the court’s review jurisdiction under the governing procedural code and whether the regulatory body acted within its legal mandate when directed to consider a representation concerning both election and administrative irregularities.

Ratio Decidendi: Review jurisdiction is circumscribed to instances of self-evident errors or discovery of new facts; the court cannot re-evaluate the merits of its original findings under the guise of an appeal. Administrative authorities may conduct investigations into structural or subversive conduct of registered societies, even if they lack the final authority to settle contested election results, which remain the domain of civil courts.

Result: Review petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of the case history and background of the original order (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. scope of jurisdiction under the societies registration act regarding elections and internal disputes (Para 4 , 5 , 14 , 21 , 22 , 23)
3. limitations on the power of review under order 47 rule 1 cpc (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 27 , 28)
4. harmonious interpretation of section 23 of the act and rule 12 regarding regulatory inquiries (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 24 , 25 , 26)
5. final order of dismissal of the review petition (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

The present Civil Review has been filed for reviewing the order dated 19.10.2022 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3425 of 2022 claiming that there is certain apparent error in the said order.

2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the respondent namely, Mahuwa Minz had filed a writ petition being W.P.(C) No. 3425 of 2022 for the following reliefs:

(i) For quashing/setting aside the entire result of election pertaining to North Western G.E.L. Church, Ranchi held on 21.11.2021 and published vide letter no. XIII/1-Election-629 dated 04.12.2021 whereby the respondent no. 7 has been elected as Arch Bishop and the respondent nos. 8 and 9 have been elected as Bishops.

(ii) For quashing/setting aside the office order no. 02/2022 issued vide memo no. VII/5- Ministerial/27 dated 31.01.2022, whereby several “Purohits” have been transferred and posted from one place to another place.

(iii) For quashing/setting aside the minutes of proceeding as contained in letter/memo no. XVII/7-Admin./101 dated 17.05.2022, whereby several “Purohits”/candidates have been transferred from one “Parish”/department to another “Parish”/department.

(iv) For quashing/setting aside the notification no. XIII/1-Election/08 dated 16.06.2022, whereby the “Kalisya” Election 2022 (Session 2022-26) of North Western G.E.L. Church has been declared to be held on different dates by the respondent no. 4 in contrary to the constitution of the NWGEL Church Society as well as the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) of the NWGEL Church Society.

3. It is further submitted that the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 19.10.2022 in following terms:

“4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 12 of the Act, 1965, without entering into the merit of the case, the petitioner is given liberty to prefer a representation before the respondent no. 2 on the present issue. On receipt of the said representation, the respondent no. 2 shall take up the same and after issuing notices to the concerned parties as well as on providing due opportunity of hearing to them, shall take an appropriate informed decision within three months from the date of receipt of the representation.

5. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with aforesaid liberty and direction.

4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Bihar (now Jharkhand) Societies Registration Rules, 1965 do not empower the Inspector General of Registration to adjudicate the dispute relating to a society or dispute among members of a society. The writ petitioner had challenged the election of North Western G.E.L. Church, Ranchi held on 21.11.2021 and published vide letter no. XIII/1- Election-629 dated 04.12.2021 whereas as per the Rules, 1965, the Inspector General of Registration is not empowered to enquire into the election matters of a society. In case of dispute arising among the governing body and the members of a society, the same can only be adjudicated in a civil suit.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, puts reliance on the following judgments:

(i) Sri Ram Krishna Seva Sangh Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 1151 of 2020] reported in 2023 SCC OnLine Jhar 1302;

(ii) Supreme Court Bar Association Vs. The Registrar of Societies & Ors. [W.P.(C) No. 3260 of 2010] reported in 2012 SCC OnLine De

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top