Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Committee Of Management Baba Raghunandan Das Vidyalay Vaishnav Nagar And Another - Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. And Others - Respondents
WRIT - C No. - 10721 of 2026
Decided On : 06-05-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. proper representation and verification of affidavits in legal proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. factual context of society member list disputes and prior litigation history. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. scope of registrar's jurisdiction under section 4-b of societies registration act. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 19 , 20) |
| 4. registrar's power to review incorrect filings and failure to prove legality of member changes. (Para 12 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. dismissal of petition due to failure to establish legal validity of membership roll. (Para 30) |
JUDGMENT :
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. This is a bunch of two writ petitions whereby same order is under challenge, i.e., an order dated 23.01.2026 passed by Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Region, Kanpur.
2. First writ petition, being Writ-C No. 10721 of 2026 was filed on 12.03.2026 by Committee of Management, Baba Raghunandan Das Vidyalay Vaishnav Nagar, Billhor, Kanpur Nagar through its President, Dr. Rajendra Katiyar and it is supported by an affidavit sworn by one, Gyanendra Awasthi declaring himself to be a pairokar without any further declaration that under what capacity he is connected with petitioners’ Committee of Management. The writ petition is accompanied by a resolution dated 08.02.2026 whereby the said deponent was authorized to do pairavi. There is an earlier resolution dated 02.09.2025 whereby Dr. Rajendra Katiyar was authorized to file writ petition instead of Sri Ashok Kumar Katiyar, the Manager of Committee of Management.
3. Second writ petition, being Writ-C No. 13322 of 2026 was filed on 28.03.2026, i.e., subsequent to above referred writ petition by same Committee of Management but now through its Manager, Ashok Kumar Katiyar. This writ petition is accompanied by an affidavit of said petitioner. In this writ petition there is no reference, whether petitioner was authorized to file this writ petition even after earlier writ petition was filed challenging same impugned order through its President.
4. The aforesaid circumstances are explicit example that it was necessary that a conscious decision be taken by Committee of Management not only to challenge any adverse order but to authorize a person, i.e., Office Bearer or Member of Committee of Management as per bye laws. In no circumstance a stranger can be appointed to sworn an affidavit on behalf of Committee of Management and its Office Bearers since in no circumstance it can be assumed that he would be aware with affairs of Committee of Management.
5. In aforesaid circumstances, both writ petitions can be dismissed with cost though at this stage the Court is dismissing only first petition, i.e., Writ-C No. 10721 of 2026 filed by Committee of Management through its President since it is accompanied by an affidavit of a stranger though the Court takes note that there was an authorization but said authorization cannot be treated to be a proper authorization being contrary to its bye-laws whereby Manager is authorized to represent Committee of Management in legal cases. A cost of Rs. 50,000/- each is imposed on the President of Committee of Management and deponent of referred writ petition.
6. Now only the second writ petition, i.e., Writ-C No. 13322 of 2026 survives wherein petitioners are represented by Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri A.N. Pandey and Sri Y.K. Saxena, Advocates, Respondents-1 and 2 are represented by learned Standing Counsel and Respondents-3 and 4 are represented by Sri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Alok Dwivedi, Advocate.
7. This is a case arising out of a dispute of list of Members of General Body of petitioners’ Committee of Management. Earlier a dispute of list of Members was considered by this Court in Writ-C No. 36738 of 2025, wherein an order dated 04.09.2025 was challenged whereby the Deputy Registrar, Kanpur has passed an order that a list dated 30.07.2023 submitted
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....
Section 4-B of Act, 1860, Registrar is not supposed to make adjudication of dispute of correctness of membership like a Court but whenever a list is submitted or there is any change in the list of me....
The Assistant Registrar lacked jurisdiction to review prior decisions regarding membership induction, and the failure to notify affected members violated natural justice principles.
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 absence of proper notice for the meeting invalidated the resolution passed, supporting the Deputy Registrar's decision.
Vacancies in society leadership require legally conducted elections under the Societies Registration Act.
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
