2026:UHC:4259 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition Misc. Single No. 1580 of 2026 29 May, 2026 Virendra Pal Singh --Petitioner Versus The State Of Uttarakhand and others --Respondents ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. M.S. Pal, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Apurv Chauhan, learned counsel i/b Mr. Amreen Bano, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Devendra Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State. Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned Counsel has put-in-appearance on behalf of respondent no.5. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in proceedings under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, whereby the election dated 20.04.2025 relating to ‘Chauhan Sabha Samiti’ was set aside and a direction was issued to respondent no.2 for holding fresh elections of the society. 2. Facts of the case are that petitioner claims to be associated with a society known as Chauhan Sabha Samiti, which is stated to be a registered society governed by its bye-laws. The dispute in the present writ petition relates to the election of the office bearers of the said society. According to pleadings, a meeting of the General House of the society was held on 13.04.2025 under the chairmanship of the then President, Shri Ram Kunwar Singh Chauhan. In the said meeting, Shri R.P. Singh 1 2026:UHC:4259 Chauhan was nominated as Election Officer and certain other members were appointed to assist in the conduct of the election. It was resolved that the election of the society would be held on 20.04.2025. A public notice in respect thereof is stated to have been published in the newspaper Amar Ujala on 17.04.2025. The petitioner asserts that the election was thereafter conducted on 20.04.2025 and that he was elected as President of the society. Certain objections, however, came to be raised regarding the validity of the said election, which led to proceedings before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in Case No.01/2024-25, passed order dated 13.05.2026 in exercise of powers under Section 25(1) of the Act. By the said order, election dated 20.04.2025 was set aside and directions were issued for holding fresh elections of the society. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 13.05.2026, petitioner has instituted the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the said order and consequential reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the Prescribed Authority/SDM, Kashipur, is wholly unsustainable in law and the same has been passed without properly appreciating the provisions of the bye- laws governing the society. It is contended that the outgoing President, Shri Ram Kunwar Singh Chauhan, convened a meeting of the General House on 13.04.2025, wherein an Election Officer and other Assistant Election Officers were duly appointed and a resolution was passed 2 2026:UHC:4259 for holding elections on 20.04.2025. Pursuant thereto, due publication of the election programme was made in the newspaper Amar Ujala on 17.04.2025. 4. It is further submitted that Clause 7 of the bye- laws requires the election process to be undertaken before expiry of the tenure of the existing executive body. According to learned counsel, the tenure of the then President was to expire on 16.04.2025 and, therefore, the steps taken on 13.04.2025 for conducting elections, were fully in consonance with the bye-laws. It is argued that the petitioner was elected as President in the election held on 20.04.2025 and that there was no provision under the bye-laws permitting any parallel or subsequent election at the instance of respondent no. 5. 5. Learned counsel would further contend that the dispute in the present case essentially relates to the validity of rival elections and questions arising out of the interpretation of the society's bye-laws. According to him, while exercising powers under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the Prescribed Authority could not have adjudicated disputed questions of fact in the manner undertaken in the impugned order and, while doing so, it travelled beyond the scope of its statutory jurisdiction. It is also submitted that respondent no. 5 was aware of the election process initiated pursuant to the resolution dated 13.04.2025 and the publication of the election programme, yet, he chose to challenge the same only subsequently. The findings recorded in the impugned order are, therefore, stated to be contrary to the bye-laws and the material available on record. On such submissions, it is prayed that the order dated 13.05.2026 be quashed and the election dated 20.04.2025 be permitted to hold the field. 3 2026:UHC:4259 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would support the impugned order and submit that the Prescribed Authority, upon consideration of the material available on record and the provisions of the bye-laws, found irregularities in the election process and, therefore, rightly exercised its jurisdiction under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to set aside the election dated 20.04.2025 and directing for fresh elections. It is contended that the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. 7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar in exercise of powers under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The dispute in the present case pertains to the validity of the election process and rival claims relating to the management of the society. The Prescribed Authority, upon consideration of the material available before it, has directed holding of fresh elections. This Court does not find any jurisdictional error, manifest illegality or perversity in the exercise of such power so as to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court is also of the view that the continuance of disputes regarding the validity of the election would not be conducive to the smooth functioning of the society. The interest of the society and its members would be better served by permitting a fresh electoral process to be undertaken in accordance with law and the applicable 4 2026:UHC:4259 bye-laws, thereby enabling a duly elected body to assume charge of its affairs. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage itself. It is, however, observed that the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Udham Singh Nagar, shall take all necessary steps to ensure that the election process of the society is undertaken and concluded expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, strictly in accordance with law and the bye- laws governing the society. All concerned parties shall extend full cooperation in the conduct of the election process. 9. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 29.05.2026 Rdang 5