Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:47716 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7862 of 2025 Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Singh And 41 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. Lko And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vikas Singh,Mahendra Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ali Moid,Aviral Raj Singh,Mohd. Yasir Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ali Moid, Shri Aviral Raj Singh and Shri Mohd. Yasir, learned counsels appearing for opposite party no.4, 5 and 6 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent(s) and perused the material brought on record. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 31.07.2025, whereby the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits in exercise of powers under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act has refused to accept the list, as were submitted. 3. The facts in brief are that, the petitioners before this Court claimed to have been inducted as a member in the Society in question on payment of the requisite fees in terms of the bye- laws of the society. It is argued that the membership of the petitioners was recorded in the minutes of meeting dated 15.12.2024 (Annexure No.4), wherein, the name of the petitioners appeared in the list of members who were inducted in the said meeting. It is stated that, the agenda of the meeting along with the requisite documents was forwarded to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, on which, certain endorsements were made, however, subsequently, as there was a dispute, the Society approached this Court by filing Writ-C No. 6580 of 2025, in which directions were issued on 15.07.2025 directing the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to finalize the list based upon the documents available and whatever may be produced by the parties. In terms of the said, directions, the order impugned has been passed. The order impugned records that the documents with regard to the originals of the society pertaining to the induction were not produced. It was also recorded that the President and the Secretary of the Society, has refused to endorse that any membership tried was done in which, the petitioners were inducted as members. It was also stated that the documents not being made available, the list as submitted for approval could not be approved. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that, after the minutes of meeting held on 15.12.2024 were submitted, the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits had recorded his approval, as has been extracted with Para No.19 of the petition, based upon the said, it is stated that once, the documents were available on which, the endorsement, as extracted above, was recorded, it was incumbent upon the Deputy Registrar to have pass orders on the list submitted based upon whatever documents were available, which was also the directive of this Court. 5. Counsel for the petitioner further argues that despite directive of this Court, no record were submitted by the society before the Deputy Registrar and earlier thereto some records were submitted, which led to inscriptions as is contained in para no.19 of the writ petition. The said fact is denied by counsel for the respondent. 6. The petitioners have placed reliance on the receipts issued in their favour by the society, as contained in Page No. 204, to argue that once, the receipt had been issued, their membership ought to have been considered and the impugned order to that extent is bad in law. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent-society on the other hand, denies that any meeting was held, as pleaded by the petitioners on 15.12.2024, states that the President and the Secretary of Society specifically stated that they never signed the minutes of meeting. It is also argued that the receipts furnished by the petitioners in support of their contention are forged receipts and even the name of the society has been incorrectly transcribed, the actual receipt issued by the society, is contained on Page No. 284, which is different from the receipt which is on Page No. 204. 8. In view of the said rival contentions, the sole basis for filing the petition by the petitioners is that once they were inducted as a member of the society their names ought to have been approved by the Deputy Registrar and non-approval of the name depicts their right to become the member of the society on payment of the requisite charges. 9. The said contention merits rejection for the sole reason that, the claim to become a member of the society is not sanctioned by any statutory provisions contained in the Society Registration Act, the Act of including any member of the society or non-inclusion can at best give right to the petitioners to sue the society, no right to be included in the list of members can be claimed specifically in absence of there being material before the Deputy Registrar to endorse the list in terms of the mandate of Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, no right flows in favour of the petitioners under the Societies Registration Act, for the common law rights, the petitioners would be entitled to take such steps, as available under law. 10. The order impugned also does not warrant interfere in view of the rival contentions with regard to the validity of the documents, which cannot be deemed to be exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. The petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Praveen Digitally signed by :- PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench