Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
JASPREET SINGH, J.
Dr. Dheeraj Singh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P.Thru Addl.Chief Secy./Prin.Secy. Finance & Ors. – Respondents
Misc. Single No.9735 of 2020, 4515 of 2020
Decided on : 07-06-2021
President of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha- No Confidence Motion - Validity of the certain proceedings of meeting – Petitioner has been removed from being the President of the society and further the Deputy Registrar by means of the impugned order -issue regarding enrolling a new member or expelling a member is conferred on legally constituted Committee and an Administrator is not empowered to take any policy decision.
Finding of the Court:
individual rights of Devendra Pal Verma has been called in question, thus, he as petitioner no. 2 in his personal capacity does have a right to maintain the petition though it may be correct to state that in so far as the impleadment of the Society as petitioner no. 1 and indicating Devendra Pal Verma as its president is concerned, the same is not quite appropriate as there is neither any authorization by the Society in favour of Sri Devendra Pal Verma to institute the writ petition and the learned counsel for the petitioner Devendra Pal Verma could not dispute the same, hence, to that extent the objection of Sri Mehrotra does have substance. Accordingly, the petition though may not be maintainable at the behest of the Society being represented by Sri Devendra Pal Verma but nevertheless this Court is considering the petition squarely on the premise and treating Devendra Pal Verma as sole petitioner who in his personal capacity and as an aggrieved person, in light of the decision of Jagdimbaka Prasad Pandey (supra) is agitating his rights and hold that the petition is maintainable at the behest of petitioner no. 2 Devendra Pal Verma alone.
JUDGMENT :
1. These two writ petitions assail two different orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Lucknow. The first Writ Petition bearing No. 9735 (MS) of 2020 has been preferred by Dr. Dhiraj Singh who claimed to be the President of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Uttar Pradesh and he has assails the validity of the certain proceedings of an alleged meeting said to have been held on 16.02.2020 wherein a No Confidence Motion, initiated at the behest of respondent no. 4, is said to have been successfully passed, as a consequence, the petitioner has been removed from being the President of the society and further the Deputy Registrar by means of the impugned order dated 19.02,2020 has approved and accepted the alleged minutes of meeting tacitly and directed the registration of a fresh list of members submitted by the respondent no. 4. The order dated 19.03.2020 and consequential order dated 20.03.2020 are under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The other writ petition No. 4515 (MS) of 2020 has been filed by Sri Devendra Pal Verma, who claimed himself to be the elected President of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Uttar Pradesh, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. In an earlier round of litigation the issue of membership of Devendra Pal Verma was raised and the same was directed to be decided by the Deputy Registrar. In furtherance of the order passed by this Court dated 30.07.2019 the Deputy Registrar after hearing Sri Devendra Pal Verma found that his expulsion was in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society and he declined to interfere with the complaint/ representation of Sri Verma. This order dated 02.11.2019 and the consequential order dated 07.11.2019 have been assailed by Sri Verma in W.P. No. 4515 (MS) of 2020.
3. Since the dispute in both the writ petitions are linked by chronological events and are in continuation of certain events which were made the subject matter of earlier petitions, hence, both the petitions were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
4. In order to appreciate the controversy giving rise to the instant petitions, it will be necessary to notice certain background events which also includes previous litigation for comprehensive and clear understanding of the facts and disputes involved in the present petitions.
(A) Background Facts
5. Historically, Arya Samaj was founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in the year 1875 with the prime objective to promote social, spiritual, cultural upliftment of the society. The aforesaid Arya Samaj has a four tier composition namely (i) Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidi Sabha (ii) Pradeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (iii) Zila Arya Pratinidhi Sabha (iv) Arya Samaj Units.
6. The Arya Pratinidh Sabha was formed in the State of Uttar Pradesh on 03.07.1987 and was duly registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Arya Pratinidh Sabha has its own registered bye-laws which regulates and governs the functioning of the Society. The bye-laws also define the constitution of the Arya Pratinidh Sabha and further indicates the powers and duties of the General Body, the Governing Body as well as the office bearers of the Governing Body. The registered office of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha is situate at Narayan Swami Ashram at 5 Meera Bai Marg, Lucknow. The said Society has been renewed from time to time and it was last renewed on 10.10.2015 for a period of five years.
7. There are approximately 300 units of Arya Samaj spread over the various districts within the State of Uttar Pradesh which constitutes the electoral units of the Arya Pratinidh Sabha to elect its general body. It has been stated that at present that there are approx 1300 members in the General Body of the Society. The General Body of the Arya Pratinidh Sabha elects its own Governining body which is known as 'Antrang Sabha'. It is also stated that the Sarvadeshik Arya Pratinidhi Sabha at New Delhi has its own rules which are known as Rules-Sub R
Arya Pratinidh Sabha – No confidence motion - issue regarding enrolling a new member or expelling a member is conferred on legally constituted Committee and an Administrator is not empowered to take ....
Point of Law : Parties could not have been relegated to avail the remedy provided under Section 25 (1) of the Act. In fact, the Deputy Registrar in the order impugned was not concerned only with elec....
Section 4-B of Act, 1860, Registrar is not supposed to make adjudication of dispute of correctness of membership like a Court but whenever a list is submitted or there is any change in the list of me....
The Deputy Registrar must apply judicial reasoning when assessing conflicting claims of election within a society, ensuring valid elections are not undermined by unsubstantiated disputes.
Vacancies in society leadership require legally conducted elections under the Societies Registration Act.
The court affirmed that the Assistant Registrar must assess the bona fides of disputes before deciding on their referral to the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
