Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(All) 403

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Rajesh Bindal, CJ., Piyush Agrawal, J.
Shri. Ram Chandra Mission through President and others - Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. and others - Respondents
Special Appeal No.676, 700, 701, 699, 708, 702, 709, 710, 711, 712, 713 of 2015 (Arising out of Writ-C No.5034 of 2010, 30767 of 2014, 69081 of 2005, 41630 of 2012, 41631 of 2012, 24212 of 2011, 24214 of 2011, 40035 of 2004, 48669 of 2013, 8950 of 2001, 66631 of 2005) Writ-C No.7139 of 2016
Decided On : 06-05-2022

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Anil Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Anand Prakash Paul, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Meenakshi Singh, State Law Officer and Mr. Ajit Kumar with Mr. Krishna Mohan Garg, Advocates

Point of Law : Appellants do no deserve any relief from this Court, as they are not only guilty of concealment of material facts from Court but had also indulged in forum shopping. They made efforts at all level to mislead Court.

Headnote:
Code of Civil Procedural Code, 1908 - Order 1 Rule 8 - Order 6 Rule 17 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Sections 3A, 3A(4), 3-B, 4, 6, 15, 25, 25(1), 25(2) – Appeals - Resolution of dispute regarding election of office bearers - Appellants do no deserve any relief from Court, as they are not only guilty of concealment of material facts from Court but had also indulged in forum shopping (Para 69).
Findings of Court : Truth constituted an integral part of justice-delivery system in pre Independence era, however, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. materialism has overshadowed old ethos and quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in court proceedings - In last 40 years, values have gone down and now a litigants can go to any extent to mislead court - They have no respect for truth - principle has been evolved to meet challenge posed by this new breed of litigants - Now it is well settled that a litigant, who attempts to pollute stream of justice or who touches pure fountain of justice with tainted hands, is not entitled to any relief, interim or final - Suppression of material facts from court of law, is actually playing fraud with court – Maxim supressio veri, expression faisi, i.e. suppression of truth is equivalent to expression of falsehood, gets attracted.
Result : Appeals dismissed.

JUDGMENT :

RAJESH BINDAL, CJ.

1. This order will dispose of a bunch of 11 Special Appeals and one writ petition. The Special Appeals arise out of a common order passed by the learned Single Judge dated July 10, 2015. The writ petition, inter alia, challenges the orders dated February 21, 2015 and October 12, 2015 whereby the list of the members of the working committee for the year 2015-16 has been approved and the registration certificate of Ram Chandra Mission (Society) for the year 2015-2020 has been renewed.

2. The issue primarily pertains to control and management of Shri Ram Chandra Mission, namely, appellant No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Mission’). It is said to be a spiritual society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

3. At the time of hearing, it was not disputed that there are two rival groups, who are seeking to retain the management of the Mission. One set of persons is the appellants (hereinafter referred to as ‘Group-I’) whereas another set is the private respondents (hereinafter referred to as ‘Group-II’).

BRIEF OF THE WRIT PETITIONS, ORDERS PASSED WHEREIN ARE SUBJECT MATTER OF CHALLENGE IN PRESENT SPECIAL APPEALS

4. The details of the parties and the prayers made in the writ petitions (giving rise to the present Special Appeals), are summed up herein below.

(1) Writ-C No.8950 of 2001 (Special Appeal No.712 of 2015)

The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission through Surendra Kumar Dixit, claiming himself to be duly elected Treasurer of the Mission, along with others (members of Group-I) impleading the State, Registrar and Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits as respondents. The prayer made in the aforesaid writ petition was for a direction to respondent No.3 to handover the renewed certificate of registration of the Mission for the year 2000-2005 to the duly elected working committee of petitioner No.1 and not to any other person. Further prayer was that in case any such recognition had been given to Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari, the nominee President (member of Group-II), the same may be quashed.

(2) Writ-C No.40035 of 2004 (Special Appeal No.710 of 2015)

The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission through Navneet Kumar Saxena, claiming himself to be elected President of the Mission, along with K.V. Reddy and Puneet Kumar Saxena (members of Group-I) impleading the State, Registrar and Assistant Registrar of the Firms, Societies and Chits and Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and Uma Shankar Bajpai (members of Group-II) as respondents. Challenge in the aforesaid writ petition was to the order dated June 19, 2004 whereby the application of Puneet Kumar Saxena, for amendment in the constitution and bye-laws of the Mission, was rejected. Further challenge was to the order dated August 9, 2004 whereby the application filed by Puneet Kumar Saxena seeking recall of the order dated June 19, 2004, was rejected. Further prayer was for a direction to respondent Nos.2 and 3 to recognise and declare petitioner Nos.2 and 3, namely, Navneet Kumar Saxena and K.V. Reddy as the President and the Secretary of the Society/Mission as per Sections 3A(4) and 4 of the Act.

(3) Writ-C No.66631 of 2005 (Special Appeal No.713 of 2015)

The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Mission through Amresh Kumar, claiming himself to be elected Member of the working committee (member of Group-I), impleading the State, Assistant Registrar, Societies, Chits and Funds and Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari (member of Group-II) as respondents. The prayer in the aforesaid writ petition was for a direction to respondent No.2 to accept the list of the elected working committee/managing body for the period 2005-2006. Further prayer was for direction to respondent No.2 to act in accordance with Section 3A of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.

(4) Writ-C No.69081 of 2005