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

2016 Supreme(All) 1979

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Dr. Dhananjaya Yashwant Chandrachud, CJ., Yashwant Varma, J.
C/M Baba Mangal Das Shiksha Samiti And 3 Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Prescribed Authority And 12 Ors. - Respondent
Special Appeal No. - 92 of 2016
Decided On : 22-02-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Dinesh Chandra Mishra.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Ashok Kumar Yadav, S.P. Pandey, Shiva Nand Pandey.

The court emphasized the limitations on the maintainability of special appeal and the entertainability of mandamus in disputes relating to private societies under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

Headnote:

Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Election Proceedings - Dismissal of writ petition challenging orders passed by Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) - Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Special appeal not maintainable - Mandamus not entertainable - Dispute relating to a private society

Fact of the Case:

The case involved seeking relief for setting aside election proceedings and an order of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. A recall application was also filed before the Prescribed Authority.

Finding of the Court:

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging the orders passed by the Prescribed Authority, stating that a special appeal would not be maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. It also held that the mandamus sought directing the respondents to approve the election proceedings could not be entertained in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226, as the dispute related to a private society.

Issues: Validity of election proceedings, maintainability of special appeal, entertainability of mandamus in a private society dispute

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the special appeal was not maintainable under the relevant court rules and that the mandamus sought could not be entertained in the jurisdiction under Article 226 due to the nature of the dispute.

Final Decision: The special appeal was dismissed, and the appellants were advised to pursue the appropriate remedy available in law. No order as to costs was made.

JUDGMENT

The reliefs which were sought before the learned Single Judge was for setting aside an election proceeding dated 27 June 2003, 26 June 2005 and 25 June 2010 and an order of the Prescribed Authority dated 26 February 2011 holding that the first two elections were valid. Thereafter, a recall application was filed before the Prescribed Authority on which an order was passed on 8 October 2015. Since the orders have been passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 challenging those orders, a special appeal would not be maintainable under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Moreover, the mandamus which was sought directing the respondents to approve the election proceedings upon which the appellants placed reliance could not have been entertained in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 since the dispute relates to a private society. The appellants are at liberty to pursue the appropriate remedy available in law.

The special appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.


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