Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Kshitij Shailendra, J.
C/M Majlishe Shura, Darul Uloom Ahalle Sunnat Tanvirul Islam And Another – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. And Others – Respondents
Writ - C No. - 36342 of 2022, WRIT - C No. - 13882 of 2023
Decided On : 13-10-2023
Societies Registration Act-1860 - Dispute over elections - Section 25(1) - Sections 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The court found that the Assistant Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction by declaring documents as forged and fabricated. The court referred to key legal provisions such as Sections 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to emphasize that such determinations are within the purview of the civil court. The court directed the Assistant Registrar to make a reference to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860, and maintained status quo till the decision by the Prescribed Authority.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over elections in a society, with rival claimants contesting the validity of the elections held in 2020. The Assistant Registrar declined to make a reference to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act-1860, and approved the elections set up by the contesting respondents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Assistant Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction by declaring documents as forged and fabricated, and emphasized that such determinations are within the purview of the civil court. The court directed the Assistant Registrar to make a reference to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860, and maintained status quo till the decision by the Prescribed Authority.
Issues: The key issues included the jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar to declare documents as forged and fabricated, and the authority to make a reference to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the Assistant Registrar exceeded his jurisdiction and the relevant legal provisions under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
Final Decision: The court directed the Assistant Registrar to make a reference to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860, and maintained status quo till the decision by the Prescribed Authority.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Arun Kumar for the contesting respondents.
2. Writ C No.36342 of 2022 has been filed challenging the order of Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur, Region Gorakhpur dated 02.11.2022 whereby he has declined to make a reference to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act-1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1860'). Writ C No.13882 of 2023 has been filed challenging consequential attestation of signatures of the respondent-Committee pursuant to the order dated 02.11.2022.
3. Since the basic dispute involved in both the petitions is same, both writ petitions are being decided simultaneously as affidavits have also been exchanged between the parties.
4. For the purposes of decision, Writ C No.36342 of 2022 is being treated as a leading case.
5. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that there were rival claims pertaining to the elections in between the petitioner and private respondent and on 15/17.06.2016, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur, Regional Gorakhpur referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860.
6. The contesting respondents filed Writ C No.37487 of 2016 (C/M Darul Uloom Ahale Sunnat Tanvirul Islam And Another v. State of U.P. And Others), in which, this Court by order dated 11.08.2016, stayed the effect and operation of the order dated 15/17.06.2016 till the next date listing.
7. It is contended that stay order was not extended on certain occasions and, in the mean time, the contesting respondents filed Writ C No.13395 of 2017 (C/M Majlishe Shura, Darul Uloom A.S.T. Islam And Another v. State of U.P. And Others) challenging the order dated 16.03.2017 whereby the District Minority Welfare Officer, Sant Kabir Nagar had directed single hand operation of the accounts of Madarsa in question.
8. The Writ C No.37487 of 2016 and Writ C No.13395 of 2017 were connected together for consideration.
9. Later on, the respondent no.3 withdrew both the aforesaid writ petitions by filing Civil Misc. Withdrawal application Nos.3 of 2022 and 8 of 2022. Both the applications were allowed on 02.09.2022 dismissing the writ petitions as withdrawn.
10. Though, it is contended by Shri Arun Kumar that after dismissal of the aforesaid writ petitions as withdrawn and holding of subsequent elections, the controversy involved in the said two petitions had rendered infructuous, it has been argued by Shri Dwivedi that there is no such recital in the orders withdrawing writ petitions. Even otherwise, it is quite natural that in absence of any restrictions to hold subsequent elections, they are held by respective Committees/Societies. In the present case, two rival elections in the year 2020 were held; one by the petitioners dated 12.10.2020 and the other by the contesting respondents dated 04.10.2020.
11. It is contended that the matter reached to the Assistant Registrar who has passed the order impugned observing that the list of members of the General Body produced by the petitioners is quite different from the one which is preserved on his file. Further observation has been made that documents produced by the petitioners' side are proved to be forged and fabricated and the Assistant Registrar has arrived at a conclusion that no doubt or dispute stands substantiated so as to persuade him to refer the matter under Section 25 (1) of the Act, 1860. Consequently, he has accepted and approved the elections set up by the contesting respondents on 04.10.2020 and directed registration of list of office bearers.
12. The submission of Shri Dwivedi is that once in 2016, almost identical situation arose and matter was referred to the Prescribed Authority, which order was suspended for the time being, in view of dismissal of the writ petitions as withdrawn on 02.09.2022, earlier order would s
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the determination of documents as forged and fabricated falls within the purview of the civil court, and the Assistant Registrar exceeded his ....
The court established that disputes regarding the election of office-bearers in societies must be resolved through the prescribed statutory mechanisms, and that prior judicial determinations do not p....
The Assistant Registrar lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate on the validity of elections under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, and any disputes must be referred to the prescribed authority under S....
The Assistant Registrar has the authority to reject election claims based on insufficient documentation, but must first resolve membership disputes under Section 4-B before conducting elections under....
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.
The Assistant Registrar lacks the authority to declare election results or cancel prior elections as per the Societies Registration Act; only the Prescribed Authority has such jurisdiction.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of genuine rival claims or disputes and the need for prima facie material before the Registrar can validly exercise jurisdiction....
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
