HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Vindhyavasini Singh .....Appellant(s)

Versus State of U.P. and 3 others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Arvind Kumar Yadav, Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Meenakshi Singh (A.C.S.C.)

Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 18.12.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ - C No. 44755 of 2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant against order dated 30.11.2023 as well as communication dated 10.01.2025 passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur has been dismissed.

2. The writ petition was filed seeking to question the validity of order dated 30.11.2023, whereby the Assistant Registrar, after examining the objections filed by the appellant, came to the conclusion that the objections, which were raised earlier, have again been repeated, which objections were rejected and writ petition and special appeal against the same had already been dismissed and consequently, ordered the Election Officer for holding of the elections with the final list of 23 valid members. 3. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that the list of members was determined by order dated 21.11.2011 against which, writ petition was filed, which came to be dismissed and special appeal arising therefrom was also dismissed and as the said list finalized in the year 2011, became final after excluding the names of the deceased members, the final list was correctly prepared. The learned Single Judge was also of the opinion that there was laches on part of the petitioner in approaching the Court as the order was passed on 30.11.2023 and petition was filed on 12.12.2025, i.e., after two years without any explanation.

4. Counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that learned ground of laches and on merits. Submissions have been made that the Assistant Registrar was bound to decide the proceedings in terms of Section 4B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 ('Act') and having failed to comply with the requirements of Section 4B of the Act, the order was bad in law and therefore, the same required interference.

5. Further submissions were made that though the order was passed on 30.11.2023, the same was sought to be implemented in January, 2025 and therefore, it cannot be said that the petition was delayed and as such, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

6. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record.

7. Irrespective of the challenge laid by the petitioner, which resulted in passing of the order dated 30.11.2023, it is a fact that the list of valid members was approved by the Assistant Registrar in the year 2011 against which, on filing of the writ petition, the same was stayed by the Court, however, the writ petition was subsequently, dismissed. The special appeal filed against the said order also came to be dismissed and as such, the list of 2011 became final.

8. Once the said list had become final, there was no question of thereafter entertaining the same objections all over again raised by the appellant and the Assistant Registrar and the learned Single Judge were justified in coming to the conclusion that except for deleting the names of the deceased members, nothing more was required to be done.

9. The delay sought to be explained on account of the date of issuance of direction to the Election Officer by the Assistant Registrar has no substance inasmuch as once the order was passed on 30.11.2023 and the appellant was well aware of the said order, if aggrieved, should have questioned its validity in a reasonable time.

10. Filing of the petition, after two years simply reflects that except for putting spokes in the working of the Society/holding of elections, there has been no other intention and as such, learned Single Judge was 11. Consequently, we do not