JUDGMENT :

1. This intra-court appeal filed under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court lays a challenge to the judgment and order dated 28.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ (C) No. 1004847 of 2012 as corrected by means of the order dated 06.05.2022.

2. At this juncture itself, we may notice that in the aforesaid writ petition under challenge was an order dated 13.08.2012 passed by the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Region, Kanpur whereby a list of 112 members of General Body of the Society in question was declared to be valid for the purposes of holding the election of the Executive Body of the Society.

3. Shri Anupam Mehrotra, learned counsel representing the appellant-Smt. Girja Singh has argued that the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order under appeal has not considered the issue relating to maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner-society and without, thus, deciding the question of maintainability, has allowed the writ petition thereby the learned Single Judge has erred in law. Elaborating this argument, it has been contended by Shri Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the last renewal of the registration of the Society was done on 26.09.2003 for a period of five years w.e.f. 10.10.2000 and thereafter its registration has not been renewed and accordingly the writ petition filed by the Society whose registration was not renewed, could not be entertained. It has also been argued that in terms of the provisions contained in section 6 of the Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) it is only a registered society which may sue or be sued. In support of this submission, learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the judgments in the following cases:

(i) PBNC Committee vs. Govt. of A.P. AIR 1958 AP 773

(ii) Pattada Uthayya vs. Pattada Somayya, AIR 1955 Mysore 149

(iii) Mahabir Prasad vs. Satyanarain, AIR 1963 Patna 131

(iv) Arya Samaj vs. Manmohan Tewari, 1994 (12) LCD 205

(v) Adare Madarsa Ziaul-Ulum and Others vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and Another, 2005 (23) LCD 1021

4. It has further been argued on behalf of the appellant that the writ petition even at the behest of the petitioner no. 2-Shiv Bahadur Singh was not maintainable as he filed the petition claiming to be a Manager of the Society whereas the fact is that he ceased to be the Manager on 24.05.2008. In support of this submission, the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are as under:

(i) Umesh Chandra vs. Mahila Vidyalaya Society, 2006 (24) LCD 1373

(ii) Baba Bariyar Shah Association vs. State of U.P. 2019 (37) LCD 887

(iii) State of U.P. vs. C.O.D. Chheoki, Cooperative Society, (1997) 3 SCC 681

5. Shri Mehrotra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that contradiction of statement recorded in the order which was under challenge in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge was not permissible as such statement available in an order is the conclusive proof of its existence and the same cannot be contradicted except before the authority passing the order. The judgments relied upon in this regard are:

(i) State of Maharashtra vs. R. S. Nayak, AIR 1982 SC 1249

(ii) Bhagwati Prasad vs. Delhi State Mineral Development Corporation, (1990) 1 SCC 361

(iii) Ram Bali vs. State of U.P. (2004) 10 SCC 598

(iv) State of Assam vs. Union of India, (2010) 10 SCC 408

(v) Jitendra vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2019) 13 SCC 691

(vi) Madan Mohan vs. Arun Shourie, AIR 2010 All. 66

6. Further submission is that though certain allegations of mala fides were asserted by the petitioners against the Deputy Registrar but since he was not impleaded a party in person hence, in this view as well the writ petition was not maintainable. The judgments relied upon in this context on behalf of the appellant are:

(i) Bishundeo Narain vs. Seogeni Rai, AIR 1951 SC 280

(ii) Purushottam Kumar Jha vs. St