Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:39729 Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41329 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vijay Pratap Singh And 5 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P And 2 Others. Counsel for Petitioner :- Yogesh Kumar Saxena Counsel for Respondent :- Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari,C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Yogesh Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Bhanu Bhushan Jauhari, learned counsel for the respondent no.3. 2. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have assailed the order dated 08.11.2019 passed by respondent no.2- Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly Mandal, Bareilly, whereby the objection/application filed by the petitioners for holding fresh election was rejected, and simultaneously the order was passed for acceptance of list of the members under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 3. Challenging the aforesaid order, three contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted that no election of the Society namely, Janta Welfare Society Shahjahanpur had been held since 2013, and therefore, it is incumbent upon the Assistant Registrar to invoke his jurisdiction under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1960 and hold the election under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as the impugned order records that the petitioners submitted application on 30.09.2019 but did not file any document in support of the said application, whereas one Surendra Singh Seth filed original documents on 21.09.2019 namely, bank passbook, membership register for the years 1990-91 to 2019-20. It is submitted that no date was fixed on 21.09.2019, and thus, the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. 4. It is further contended that since it is established on record that no election of the Society has taken taken place since 2013, therefore, the alleged list of membership submitted by the respondent no.3 is contrary to Section 4-B (3) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 inasmuch as list of members of the General Body to be filed with the Registrar under this Section shall be signed by two office bearers and two executive members of the Societies, whereas in the instant case, no Committee of Management was in existence since 2013, therefore, the list could not have been submitted in the absence of the signature of two office bearers and two executive members of the Society. Accordingly, it is submitted that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that the petitioners are not the life members of the Society inasmuch as according to the petitioners, petitioner no.1-Vijay Pratap Singh became the life member of the Society in the year 1979, whereas he was born in the year 1978, therefore, he could not become a member within one year after his birth, therefore, petitioner no.1 has no locus standi to file the writ petition. Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned order. 6. To the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner no.1 became the member of the Society in the year 2015, and he has filed fee receipt of membership of the year 2015, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner no.1 became member in the year 1979 is contrary to the record. 7. The petitioners in paragraph nos. 6 & 7 of the writ petition have made categorical averments that no election of the Society had taken place since 2013. Paragraph nos. 6 & 7 of the writ petition are reproduced herein-below:- "6. That it is stated here that since long time the election of the Committee of Management of the Society has not been held. In fact after the year 2012- 2013, there is no valid election in the Committee of Management of the Society. The respondent no.3 had got Society renewed from time to time but as far as Committee of Management of the Society is concerned, neither there was any election nor it was ever registered u/s 4 of the Societies Registration Act. 7.That since the term of Committee of Management of the Society is 3 years, and since there was no election of the Society, the members filed complaint before the respondent по 2 on 07.08 2019, 18.10.2019 and 04.04.2019 clearly stating therein that there is no election of the Committee of Management of the Society since last many years nor it was ever registered u/s 4 of the Societies Registration Act and hence the Committee of Management has become time barred and election should be held u/s 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act." 8. The averments made in paragraph nos. 6 & 7 of the writ petition have been replied by the respondent no.2 in paragraph nos. 5 &6 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under: "5 That the contents of paragraphs No.6 of the writ petition are not correct as stated hence denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted that list of management committee is not registered U/s 4 of Society Act despite of this during renewal proceeding election of management committee was shown. 6. That the contents of paragraph-7 of the writ petition denied. In reply thereto, it is submitted that persons who gave complaint letter are not members of the Society nor they provide any original documents regarding their membership." 9. The respondent no.3 has also replied to the averments made in paragraph 6 & 7 of the writ petition in paragraph nos. 30 & 31 of the counter affidavit, which reads as under:- "30.That the contents of paragraph no.6 of the writ petition as has been framed are incorrect, hence, are denied. It is wrong to say that the election of the Committee of Management of the society has not been held. The detailed facts have already been mentioned in the preceding paragraphs. 31. That the contents of paragraph no.7 of the writ petition as has been framed are incorrect, hence, are denied. It is wrong to say that the election of the Committee of Management of the Society has not been held. It is further submitted that Vinod Kumar Sharma who is alleged to have moved an application before the Assistant Registrar is not a petitioner in the present petition and as regards Vijay Pratap Singh, in his complaint he has mentioned that he is taking part in the election of the committee and meetings of the society but has not annexed any document regarding the facts stated in the complaint which makes it clear that none of the petitioner has any concern with the society and thus, the Assistant Registrar is not bound to act on the application of any third party who has no concern with the society." 10. The averments contained in the counter affidavits of respondent nos. 2 & 3, extracted above, discloses that there is no specific denial to the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph nos. 6 &7 of the writ petition that no election of the Society had taken place since 2013. In such view of the fact, there was no valid Committee of Management is in existence since 2013. 11. Thus, this Court also finds substance in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the respondents could not submit the list of general body, inasmuch as as per Section 4-B(3) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the list of general body is to be duly signed by the two office bearers and two executive members of the Society. 12. The Court also finds substance in the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch no date was fixed on 21.09.2019 and the documents received by the Assistant Registrar by the respondents on 21.09.2019 was not the date which was fixed by the Assistant Registrar. It is also pertinent to note that according to the petitioners, after the application had been filed by the petitioners on 30.09.2019, no further date was fixed, and there was no occasion for the petitioners to file further documents. The petitioners in this respect have made necessary averments in paragraph nos. 16 & 17 of the writ petition, which have not been denied by the respondent nos. 2 & 3 in the counter affidavit. Thus, the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. 13. So far as the question whether the petitioner no.1 is life member of the Society or not, it is a disputed question of fact inasmuch as on the one hand, respondents allege that the petitioner no.1 was born in the year 1978 and therefore, he could not become member in the year 1979, whereas the petitioner no.1 states that he became the member of the Society in the year 2015, and therefore, this Court cannot enter into the validity of membership of the petitioner no.1 in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is also pertinent to note that no such objection was raised by the respondents before the Assistant Registrar, therefore, there was no occasion for the Assistant Registrar to return a finding on the issue about the validity of membership of the petitioner no.1. 14. For the reasons given above, this Court finds that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law, and therefore, is set aside. 15. Since, this Court has held that no election of Committee of Management had taken place since 2013, therefore, in such view of the fact, this Court directs the respondent no.2-Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Bareilly Mandal, Bareilly to hold the election of the Society by invoking the power under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 expeditiously preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order in accordance with the bye-laws of the Society. 16. Subject to the observations made above, the writ petition stands allowed. Order Date :- 19.3.2025 NS Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad