HARI PRAKASH @ BABLOO YADAV v. STATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
WPIL/709/2025 · 2025-10-27
Public Interest Litigationbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 172589 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 172589 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 709 of 2025 Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This petition, purportedly in public interest, has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the State Authorities to take appropriate action including lodging of FIR against respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and restoration of property back to the Society, i.e., Shiksha Prasar Samiti. 2. Submissions have been made that in the year 2010, a part of property of the said Society (Shiksha Prasar Samiti) has been gifted to B.K. Jain College of Education in contravention of provisions of Section 5A of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 ('Act'), wherein without previous approval of the Court, any immovable property belonging to the Society cannot be transferred. Further allegations have been made that wife of the present Manager of the Society is President of the said College. 3. Qua the petitioner himself, submissions have been made that the petitioner is an agriculturist and is a social activist in the field of education. 4. A response to the allegations has been made by respondent Nos. 5 and 6, inter alia, indicating that Shiksha Prasar Samiti is the Society and B.K. Jain College of Education is the College established by the said Society and one of the conditions for establishment of the College was that the land must be owned by the said College and for fulfilling the said requirement, the property in question was gifted by the Society to its Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajnish Kumar Srivastava, Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ankit Gaur (S.C.), Prabhakar Awasthi, Shashank Bhushan Pandey for Shivendra Bahadur Singh Hari Prakash @ Babloo Yadav .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and 5 others .....Respondent(s)
College. Further submissions have been made that provisions of Section 5A of the Act were not in existence on the date when the transfer took place in the year 2010 and therefore, the plea sought to be raised is baseless. Allegations have also been made against the petitioner that his daughter was studying at the College in question and on account of fees being outstanding, notices were issued to the petitioner and out of vengeance, the present petition has been filed. 5. A rejoinder has been filed seeking to contest the submissions made. 6.
We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record. 7. In the present petition, the petitioner has claimed himself to be an agriculturist, however, he has failed to disclose as to under what circumstances he was required to examine the status of transfer in favour of the College by the Society and as to whether he has examined the status of transfer of each and every institution within the District where the petitioner is residing. 8. It has not been denied that the petitioner's daughter was student of the College in question, however, it is claimed that entire fees have already been paid and nothing is outstanding. 9. Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the land has been transferred by the Society to the College being run by it and the land in question is being used by the College only. Merely because the President of the College is wife of Manager of the Society, by itself, it cannot be taken as a ground for assailing the transfer in question. 10. So far as the violation of provisions of Section 5A of the Act is concerned, the said provision of Section 5A of the Act came to be repealed by U.P. Act No.13 of 2009 w.e.f. 11.12.2008 and it has again been inserted by U.P. Act No.8 of 2022 w.e.f. 18.07.2022. Therefore, admittedly, on the date of transfer, the provision was not on the Statute, therefore, the plea sought to be raised pertaining to violation of provisions of the Act also apparently has no substance. The petition filed by the petitioner is without any basis. WPIL No. 709 of 2025 2
11. Consequently, the petition is dismissed. October 28, 2025 Mukesh Pal/Jyotsana WPIL No. 709 of 2025 3 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad