HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 11063 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Shri Mohiuddin Khan, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Pradeep Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits (Annexure No.3 to the petition) whereby the Deputy Registrar has rejected the complaint raised by the petitioner through his letter dated 26.06.2020. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 04.12.2021 by filing an Appeal No.2068 of 2021 under Section 12 (D) (2) of Societies Registration Act, which appeal has been dismissed by means of an order dated 27.04.2023 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow. Thereafter, the petitioner's filed an application for recall of the order dated 27.04.2023, which has been dismissed by means of an order dated 06.08.2025 passed by the Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and the petitioners have challenged all the aforesaid three orders through this petition. 3. The aforesaid proceedings were instituted on the basis of a complaint dated 26.06.2020 submitted by the petitioner-6 Adarsh Kumar to the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies & Chits, Lucknow stating that Shiv Durga Pandit Devi Sahai Seva Samiti is a fake Institution which is being run for grabbing the property of Devi Sahai, which has been framed by forging the signatures of Shri Devi Sahai and his nephew Triveni Prasad whereas both the aforesaid persons were illiterate and they used to put their thumb impressions. 4. The petitioner's complaint was rejected by means of an order dated 04.12.2021 wherein it is recorded that the petitioners had not submitted any evidence in support of the allegations contained in the complaint. The petitioners did not appear to advance any submission in support of the complaint. Earlier Triveni Prasad- uncle of the petitioner, who is referred to in the petitioners' complaint, had also filed a complaint on the same set of allegations which was rejected by means of an order dated Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohiuddin Khan, Mohd.Zaid Khan Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ravi Shankar And 7 Others .....Petitioner(s) Commissioner Lko. Division Lko. And 5 Others .....Respondent(s) 27.05.2000 passed by the Deputy Registrar. Triveni Prasad had challenged the aforesaid order dated 27.05.2000 by filing a writ petition No.1977 (M/S) of 2000, which was dismissed for want of prosecution by means of an order dated 12.05.2014. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that an application for recall of the order dated 12.05.2014 is pending and the writ petition has not been restored till date. 6. In these circumstances, there was no good ground to act on the complaint of the petitioner when earlier complaint on the same allegations has been rejected and the petitioners' could not adduce any evidence in support of the allegations. 7. The appellate authority has affirmed the order. 8. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Deputy Registrar has passed the order without jurisdiction and the order is antedated. 9. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner himself had invoked the jurisdiction by filing a complaint before the Deputy Registrar. 10. In case the Deputy Registrar examined the complaint and found no good ground to take any action on the complaint, it cannot be said that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to record a satisfaction that there was no substance in the complaint, more so when the learned counsel for the petitioners could not show any provision of law under which any such complaint would lie to any other party. 11. The question of the order dated 04.12.2021 having not been passed by antedated, is a disputed question of fact and there is no material on record on the basis of which this question can be decided. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not give any reply to the query put regarding filing of earlier complaint by the petitioners' uncle Triveni Prasad, rejection of the same and a writ petition filed against the rejection order having been dismissed for want of prosecution way back in the year 2014 and it having not been restored till date. 13. In these circumstances, this Court finds no good ground to interfere in the order order dated 04.12.2021 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Lucknow. 14. Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and the same is hereby dismissed. November 20, 2025 -Amit K- WRIC No. 11063 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench