HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1263 of 2025 with WRIT - C No. - 4172 of 2025 with WRIT - C No. - 4500 of 2025 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gaurav Mehrotra, Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra, Maria Fatima, Santosh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Abhishek Yadav, Archana Yadav, Atul Kumar Dwivedi, Sunil Kumar Maurya Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amit Jaiswal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Atul Kumar Dwivedi, Gaurav Mehrotra Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Nishchay Anand, Karunanidhi Yadav, Prateek Pal Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lko. Thru. President (Pradhan), Dr. Ram Ratan Chaturvedi And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Finance, Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lko. Thru. Manti / Secy. And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt., Lko. And Others .....Respondent(s) Balram Prasad @ Balram Singh And Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief / Prin. Secy., Deptt. Of Finance, Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) with WRIT - C No. - 702 of 2025 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE PANKAJ BHATIA, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. All the petitions are being decided by this common judgement. 3. The writ petitions have been filed challenging an order dated 09.01.2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, wherein the Deputy Registrar has declared the Committee of Management of the Society to be time barred and has directed a fresh election to be held based upon the list of the members as existing on 27.03.2016. 4. The neat submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the powers under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act could not have been exercised without there being any material to suggest that the elections held by either of the rival fractions were invalid. He argues that it is very well settled in the case of Committee of Management, Dadar Ashram Trust Society and others Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi and others 2016 SCC OnLine All 1072, wherein the Full Bench of this Court has held as under: "17. In our considered view, the conclusion reached by the Division Bench is based upon the assumption that Section 25(2) is firstly of a mandatory character, and secondly that the same confers exclusive jurisdiction and authority on the Registrar alone. Here it becomes WRIC No. 1263 of 2025 2 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anurag Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra, Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra, Maria Fatima, Santosh Kumar Tripathi Arya Pratinidhi Sabha U.P., Lko. Thru. Mantri/ Secy. Sri. Bhuwan Tewari And Another .....Petitioner(s) Registrar, Firms, Societies And Chits, U.P. Lko. And Another .....Respondent(s) pertinent to note that the powers exercisable by the Registrar in terms of sub-section (2) by the very nature of the power conferred is apparently directory in nature. The power conferred on the Registrar becomes exercisable upon him being satisfied that an election of office bearers of a society has not been held within the time specified under its rules or bye laws. The provision then prescribes that upon such satisfaction being arrived at, the Registrar "may" call a meeting of the general body of such society for election of its office bearers. It becomes further relevant to note that all further actions that the Registrar takes from this point onwards has to be in accordance with the provisions of the rules of the society relating to meetings and elections. The very language of the provisions indicates that the power vested in the Registrar under sub- section (2) is directory and permissive. Sub-section (2) in our considered opinion, is neither couched in mandatory terms nor is it liable to be interpreted in a manner where we may be compelled to hold that the Registrar must necessarily convene a meeting of the general body of the society immediately upon the term of the erstwhile committee having come to an end or fresh elections having not been held. This we so hold in light of the fact that there may be varied circumstances in which elections of office bearers of a society may not come to be held within the time specified under its rules. It cannot be said that in all situations where elections of office bearers of the society have not been held, the same is attributable to a deliberate default on the part of the existing office bearers. A stark example is the present case itself where on account of the appointment of the Authorised Controller as far back as in 1988, the elected office bearers stood removed and were unable to hold any elections whatsoever. These and other similar situations may result in elections of office bearers not being held within the time specified under the rules of the society. It is in this sense that we have found the powers of the Registrar to be directory and permissive. On a thoughtful consideration of the nature of the power conferred, the circumstances in which it is liable to be exercised, it is apparent that sub section (2) confers a discretionary power upon the Registrar to convene a meeting of the general body of the society. Our conclusion on this aspect is further buttressed by the use of the word "may" in sub-section (2) insofar as the power of the Registrar to convene a meeting of the general body is WRIC No. 1263 of 2025 3 concerned. 18. The second assumption on which the conclusion of the Division Bench appears to rest is the understanding that the Registrar was conferred with exclusive "jurisdiction" and authority to convene a meeting of the general body. This assumption in our considered view is clearly misplaced when one reads sub-section (3) of Section 25 which is in the following terms: "Where a meeting is called by the Registrar under sub-section (2), no other meeting shall be called for the purpose of election by any other authority or by any person claiming to be an office-bearer of the society." 19. As would be evident from a reading of sub-section (3), the power and jurisdiction of any other authority or person to call a meeting for the purpose of elections stands eclipsed only in a situation where a meeting has already been called by the Registrar under sub-section (2). In fact sub-section (3) recognises that a meeting for the purposes of elections may in fact be convened by any other authority or by any other person. The power of that other authority or person to convene such a meeting stands taken away only if the Registrar has assumed jurisdiction and taken steps under sub-section (2) to convene a meeting."' 5. As the order impugned is clearly contrary to the judgement of the Full Bench, the same cannot be sustained and is set aside. 6. The matter is remanded to the Deputy Registrar to pass fresh order after hearing the rival claims. While doing so, the Deputy Registrar shall specifically take into consideration the judgement of this Court dated 7th June, 2021 passed in Writ Petition Nos.9735 of 2020 and 4515 of 2020 as well as judgement dated 16th August, 2023 passed in Review Application No.94 of 2021. The Deputy Registrar shall also take into consideration the judgement dated 18th September, 2024 passed in Writ-C Nos.3418 of 2022 and 14794 of 2021. 7. All the parties would be entitled to place before the Deputy Registrar the relevant material/their submissions in support of their contentions. The Deputy Registrar shall consider the material that are placed before him by either of the parties and shall take a decision in respect of the rival WRIC No. 1263 of 2025 4 elections claimed by rival parties. He shall complete the said exercise within a period of four weeks from today. 8. All the parties shall appear before the Deputy Registrar on 1st September, 2025 at 4:00 pm. No fresh notices shall be served to the parties, who are present. 9. All the writ petitions are disposed of. August 26, 2025 Ashutosh WRIC No. 1263 of 2025 5 (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench