Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.
Sunit Kumar Verma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 4 Others – Respondents
Writ C No. 62734 of 2015
Decided on : 01-07-2024
JURISDICTION - SOCIETIES REGISTRATION - Sections 3-A, 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 - The court discussed the powers of the Deputy Registrar under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, particularly focusing on the jurisdictional authority to transfer cases between Deputy Registrars. It emphasized that the Registrar does not have the power to transfer cases, as established in previous judgments. The court concluded that the Deputy Registrar's order was without jurisdiction, but interference would perpetuate an illegality due to prior findings against the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of the Deputy Registrar accepting the renewal claim of the Manav Vikas Siksha Samiti, which had been previously rejected. The petitioner claimed a merger with another society, but this was not substantiated. The Prescribed Authority had ruled against the petitioner, and the Deputy Registrar's subsequent acceptance of the petitioner's claim was contested.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Deputy Registrar acted beyond jurisdiction by renewing the registration based on the petitioner's claim, which had already been dismissed by the Prescribed Authority. The court noted that the petitioner had not challenged the earlier rulings that denied his claims.
Issues: Whether the Deputy Registrar had the jurisdiction to renew the registration of the society in favor of the petitioner despite previous orders rejecting his claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Deputy Registrar cannot override the decisions of the Prescribed Authority and that the Registrar lacks the authority to transfer cases between Deputy Registrars. The court emphasized that allowing the petition would perpetuate an illegality, as the petitioner had already been declared a trespasser regarding the society.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, affirming the previous orders that denied the petitioner's claims and recognizing the potential illegality of interfering with the Deputy Registrar's order.
JUDGMENT :
Hon'ble Manjive Shukla, J.
1. Heard Mr. Yogesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Respondents No. 1 to 4 and learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 5.
2. Petitioner through this writ petition has assailed the order dated 24.08.2015 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, (Headquarter), Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow whereby claim of Respondent No. 5 in respect of the renewal of registration of Manav Vikas Siksha Samiti has been accepted and direction has been issued to the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Kanpur Nagar to issue necessary order for renewal of registration of the society in terms of Section 3-A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and further to register the list of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Society filed by Mr. Gyan Chandra Tripathi and Mr. Vinod Chandra Srivastava.
3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that Mahatama Gandhi Shiksha Samiti, Kanpur was registered on 16.11.1951 and was assigned Registration No. 127/1951-52. Later on name of the aforesaid society was changed on 09.05.1976 to Manav Vikash Shiksha Samiti. The said society continued to perform its work and its registration remained valid till 10.10.1995, thereafter the registration of the society could not be renewed.
4. It appears that taking advantage of non renewal of the registration of Manav Vikas Siksha Samiti, petitioner got one society registered in the name of Manav Vikas Shiksha Sansthan, Kanpur Nagar having Registration No. 331 of 1989 and thereafter claimed that the said Manav Vikas Shiksha Sansthan has been merged in Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti and thereby presented proceedings of the elections of the Committee of Management of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Region, Kanpur. Another election proceeding was also placed before the Deputy Registrar by the actual office bearers of the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti before the Deputy Registrar.
5. Since there were two rival claims in respect of elections of the Committee of Management of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti, the Deputy Registrar, Kanpur Nagar referred the matter for decision to Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Kanpur Nagar under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 16.11.2005.
6. The Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Kanpur Nagar decided the aforesaid reference vide order dated 17.03.2008 wherein he has recorded a finding that present petitioner i.e. Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma could not produce the documents regarding registration of his society and also could not produce any document to show that at any point of time merger of Manav Vikas Shiksha Sansthan in Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti has taken place and thereby it was held that election proceedings filed by Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma are not in respect of the elections of the Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti. The Prescribed Authority vide its order dated 17.03.2008 further directed Mr. Vinod Chandra Srivastava to file application for renewal of the registration of Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Nagar with a direction that Deputy Registrar may decide the said application.
7. Though the claim of the present petitioner was rejected by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar but the Deputy Registrar in a very cursory manner passed an order on 05.02.2011 whereby he accepted the claim of Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma and renewed the registration of the society in his favour and also registered the list of the members of the general body of the society for the year 2010-11 provided by Mr. Sunit Kumar Verma. In the aforesaid circumstances, Manav Vikas Shiksha Samiti challenged the order dated 05.02.2011 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Nagar by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 11073 of 2011
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....
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....
Vacancies in society leadership require legally conducted elections under the Societies Registration Act.
The principles of natural justice must be adhered to in administrative decisions, particularly when such decisions have civil consequences, ensuring that all affected parties are given a fair opportu....
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 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....
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
