SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(All) 14

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
ARUN BHANSALI, CJ, KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
Sushil Kumar Sinha – Appellant
Versus
The State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Special Appeal No. 1195 of 2025
Decided On : 04-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Anil Tiwari, Adiba Khatoon, Uday Pratap Singh, Anmol Bartaria
For the Respondents: R.K. Ojha, Prabhakar Awasthi, Ram M. Kaushik, Anuj Srivastava, Varad Nath, A.K. Goyal, Jagdish Pathak

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.

Headnote:(A) Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Section 25(1) and Section 4(1) - Election dispute of office bearers - The Assistant Registrar lacks authority to set aside elections or decide subsequent appointments without a proper jurisdiction - The learned Single Judge upheld that only the Prescribed Authority could declare election results post recount, and thus, challenged orders lacked legal status. (Paras 10, 20, 30, 34)

(B) Jurisdiction of Courts - The writ petition cannot question actions of the Assistant Registrar when a statutory appeal against the Prescribed Authority’s order is pending. (Paras 11, 21)

Facts of the case:
The appellant contested the election for President of a registered Society, was declared elected, but the election was later questioned by the respondent leading to a recount, which resulted in cancellation of the appellant's certificate and the respondent being declared the new President. Appeal against that decision was still pending when the case was brought to court.

Findings of Court:
The interim appeal, challenging the validity of the election certificate, was dismissed as the issued certificate had no independent legal standing.

Issues: The main issue revolved around the authority of the Assistant Registrar vis-à-vis the Prescribed Authority and the validity of interim challenge while an appeal was pending against a related order.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that maintaining proper statutory procedures and appealing decisions to the correct authority is crucial; the Assistant Registrar acted beyond his jurisdiction in declaring election results post recount without a fresh election being ordered.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to election result based on procedural errors (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
2. appellant's claims regarding jurisdiction and procedures (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 12)
3. state respondents argue against appellant's writ petition (Para 11)
4. court's analysis of jurisdiction and statutory provisions (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21)
5. determining validity of election certificate and procedural correctness (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
6. court's decision based on existing statutory framework (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33)
7. final dismissal of the appeal with no merit (Para 34 , 35)

JUDGMENT :

KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Heard Shri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Uday Pratap Singh, Shri Anmol Bartaria and Ms. Adiba Khatoon Advocates appearing for the appellant, Shri A.K. Goyal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Shri Jagdish Pathak, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Radha Kant Ojha alongwith Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Advocates assisted by Shri Anuj Srivastava and Shri Varad Nath Advocates appearing for the respondent no. 4.

THE CHALLENGE

2. The present intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the final order dated 15.11.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ-C No. 9752 of 2025 which had been filed by the appellant questioning the order (election certificate) dated 28.03.2025 issued by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Prayagraj, pursuant to an order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Prayagraj on a reference earlier made to him.

3. The dispute is regarding Kayasth Pathshala, Prayagraj, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (‘the Act’). The appellant and the respondent no. 4 (in short ‘the respondent’) contested the election for the post of President of the Society. Elections were held on 25.12.2023, counting of votes was done on 26.12.2023 and the appellant, having received highest number of votes, was declared elected President on 26.12.2023, consequent whereupon a certificate of his election was issued to him by the Returning Officer.

Reference before the Prescribed Authority

4. The respondent approached the Assistant Registrar questioning the election of the appellant. The Assistant Registrar, by order dated 06.04.2024, referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority who, by his order dated 22.03.2025, directed the Assistant Registrar to conduct recounting of votes and declare the result. In pursuance of the said order, the Assistant Registrar, after getting the recounting of votes done, issued an election certificate dated 28.03.2025 declaring the respondent as President of the Society and also cancelled the election certificate dated 25.12.2023 earlier issued by the Returning Officer in favour of the appellant.

Statutory Appeal before the Commissioner

5. Against the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority, the appellant has filed an appeal under the proviso (d) of Section 25(1) of the Act before the Commissioner, Prayagraj, which appeal is still pending.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT AT INTERIM STAGE

6. Assailing validity of the certificate dated 28.03.2025 issued by the Assistant Registrar, the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal was filed and interim relief was claimed requesting the Court to stay effect and operation of the order dated 28.03.2025 and to restrain respondent no. 4, i.e. the elected President, not to interfere in the functioning of the appellant as President of the Society during the pendency of the writ petition.

7. The writ court, by an order dated 25.04.2025, refused to grant interim relief to the appellant. Challenging the said order, the appellant filed Special Appeal No. 388 of 2025, which was dismissed by order dated 21.05.2025. The said order was carried to Hon’ble Supreme Court in the form of S.L.P. No. 16985 of 2025, however, the same was also di

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top