Allahabad High Court

Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra Region, Agra to undertake determination of the General Body of Sri Baburam Vidyalay Samiti, Alinagar, Kenjra, Firozabad in terms of Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and conduct the elections of the Society in exercise of the power conferred by Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 within a period of time specified by this Hon'ble Court."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no personal hearing was afforded by the respondent no. 2 while passing the order impugned. He further submits that entire proceedings have been set aside although there was no such prayer made in the objections and the respondent no. 2 has granted the relief which was not sought for. He further submitted that the respondent no. 2 has passed the order impugned without perusing the records and documents which have been submitted before him. He further submits that the petitioner and certain members have been wrongly held to be non-members. 2 WRIC No. 39118 of 2025

4. Per contra, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents states that there was no reason for granting personal hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners have failed to provide any documents before the respondent in spite of time granted to them and thus having failed to establish their membership, the order impugned which has been passed in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Writ-C No. 18674 of 2023, requires no interference.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. This court finds that the parties have approached this Court on numerous occasions assailing various orders. This court while deciding Writ-C Nos. 1753 of 2023 (Hirdesh Bihari Yadav and 8 others vs. State of U.P. and three others) and 14090 of 2023 (C/M Sri Baburam Vidyalay Samiti Alinagar Kenjra Firozabad and another vs. State of U.P. and four others) by common order dated 27.3.2023, has disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:- "With consent of learned counsels for both the parties, the matter is remitted to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra Region, Agra to execute the following directions: (1). The parties shall submit their pleadings, supporting evidences as well as original documents before the certified authority within a period of two weeks from today. (2). The Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra Region, Agra shall record its satisfaction in the ordersheet that the parties have exchanged pleadings and also the documents in support of their respective cases. (3). The Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra Region, Agra shall give an opportunity of hearing to both the parties before deciding the controversy by a reasoned order in accordance with law. (4). The entire exercise shall be completed preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of finally."

7. Thereafter, in another petition being Writ-C No. 18674 of 2023 (Hirdesh Bihari Yadav and 13 others vs. State of U.P. and three others) where order of this Court after noting all the various directions given by this Court in various petitions filed by either of the parties while allowing 3 WRIC No. 39118 of 2025 the said writ petitions by order dated 26.10.2023 has passed the following orders:- "18. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

19. The order impugned dated 02.03.2023 passed by the District Inspector of Schools is quashed.

20. The salary account of the Institution shall be operated by the District Inspector of Schools under Single hand operation till a validly elected Committee of Management is appointed and signatures of the Manager are attested by the District Inspector of Schools.

21. Since, next elections are dependent upon determination of valid Electoral College, about which, directions have already been issued on 27.03.2023, it is directed that the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra, Region Agra shall conclude the proceedings pending before him on or before 15.01.2024 after providing full opportunity of hearing to the rival parties.

22. As soon as the valid Electoral College is determined by the Deputy Registrar, fresh elections of the Committee shall be held in accordance with law."

8. Thus, the Deputy Registrar had to determine the valid electoral college prior to holding the fresh elections as per the direction contained in order dated 26.10.2023 in Writ-C No. 18674 of 2023 and thus the question of membership of the petitioners was required to be answered.

9. It is noted that there is nothing on record to reflect the directions issued in Writ-C No. 1753 of 2023 which was decided along with Writ-C No. 14090 of 2023 by order dated 27.3.2023 on the order passed in Writ-C No. 18674 of 2023 dated 26.10.2023 were put to challenge.

10. Therefore the Deputy Registrar while proceeding in the matter issued notice dated 20.5.2025 to the petitioner, copy of which is appended as Annexure No. 13 to the petition. The petitioner was required to file his objection along with all the supporting documents including those related to his membership in original.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners although submitted before this Court that entire documents which has been appended as annexure no. 2 to the petition were before the respondent no. 2, however on pointed query about the manner/mode regarding its filing in the proceedings before the respondent no. 2/ the Deputy Registrar, he could not 4 WRIC No. 39118 of 2025 demonstrate from record.

12. This Court finds that in the order impugned there is a recital about various dates being fixed by the respondent no. 2, on which the petitioners could have submitted the original documents in support of their membership claim, the categorical recital in the order impugned is reproduced as below:- "इस प्रकार प्रकरण में अधोहस्ताक्षरी के स्तर से प्रत्यावेदनों के िनस्तारण हेतु सुनवाई की ितिथ िदनांक

25.10.2024, िदनांक 20.11.2024, िदनांक 09.12.2024, िदनांक 16.01.2025, िदनांक 31.01.2025 िदनांक 12.02.2025 िदनांक 18.02.2025 िदनांक 17.03.2025, िदनांक 07.04:2025 िदनांक

16.05.2025 िदनांक 26.05.2025, िनयत करते हुए िदनांक 10.06.2025 को पत्रावली िनणर्य हेतु सुरिक्षत की, तथा पक्षकारों को िदनांक 24.06.2025 तक मूल अिभलेख एवं साक्ष्य प्रमाण प्रस्तुत करने का भी अवसर िदया गया।..." "मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेशों के अनुपालन में प्रत्यावेदनों के िनस्तारण के क्रम में सभी याचीगणों को अपनी सदस्यता के संबंध में न्यायिहत में पक्ष रखने का अवसर प्रदान करने के िलये अधोहस्ताक्षरी के स्तर से पत्रांक 1488 िदनांक 09.07.2025, पत्र संख्या 1536 िदनांक 16.07.2025, पत्र संख्या 1717 िदनांक

30.07.2025 तथा पत्र संख्या 1894 िदनांक 20.08.2025 के द्वारा सभी पक्षकारों से अपनी-अपनी साधारण सभा की सदस्यता के संबंध में साक्ष्य प्रमाण व अिभलेख प्रस्तुत करने का अवसर प्रदान िकया गया तथा इस हेतु िदनांक 08.09.2025 की ितिथ अंितम रूप से दी गई। िजसके अनुपालन में िकसी भी पक्षकार के द्वारा अपनी सदस्यता के संबंध में कोई साक्ष्य प्रमाण व अिभलेख प्रस्तुत नहीं िकया गया। कायार्लय में िदनांक 08.09.2025 को याची श्री रामदास यादव, श्री हृदेश िबहारी यादव, श्री समीक यादव, श्रीमती सिरता यादव एवं श्री ब्रेश बाबू द्वारा िदनांक 10.06.2025 के बाद िकसी भी पक्षकार द्वारा प्रस्तुत िकए अिभलेख व साक्ष्य प्रमाणों की मांग की गयी। िकतु अपनी सदस्यता के संबंध में कोई साक्ष्य प्रमाण व अिभलेख प्रस्तुत नहीं िकया। माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में योिजत यािचका में पािरत आदेश के अनुपालन में याचीगण द्वारा साधारण सभा की सदस्यता के संबंध में कोई साक्ष्य प्रमाण व अिभलेख पयिप्त अवसर प्रदान िकए जाने के बावजूद भी कायार्लय में प्रस्तुत नहीं िकए गए तथा िदनांक

05.09.2024 से िदनांक 20.09.2025 तक की अविध में साक्ष्य, प्रमाण व अिभलेख प्रस्तुत िकए जाने हेतु पयार्प्त अवसर प्रदान िकए जाने के बावजूद लगातार समय मांग की जाती रही है। पक्षकारों को पयार्प्त अवसर प्रदान िकए जाने के उपरान्त श्री समीक पत्रावली आदेश हेतु सुरिक्षत की गयी। यादव के अनुरोध पर अंितम रूप से िदनांक

20.09.2025 तक का समय प्रदान करते हुए सुनवाई पूणर् कर पत्रावली आदेश हेतु सुरिक्षत की गयी।"

13. In view of the categorical recital about dates being fixed for production of original documents/evidence before the respondent no. 2, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not granted any opportunity, is incorrect. It is also to be noted that the documents which the petitioner had relied to establish his case, filed as 5 WRIC No. 39118 of 2025 Annexure No. 2 to the petition cannot be taken note of for testing the correctness of order impugned as the petitioners failed to demonstrate that he had produced the original documents before the respondent no. 2.

14. It is to be noted that the petitioner engaged Smt. Sarita as lawyer and who appeared before the respondent no. 2 on 16.1.2025 along with the petitioner and thereafter either or both of them appeared on most of the date fixed. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was provided is also incorrect in view of the aforesaid orders passed by the respondent no. 2.

15. It is further to be noted that the petitioner no. 1 has personally appeared in the proceedings and had engaged an advocate, namely, Smt. Sarita. The relevant extract of order dated 16.5.2025 of the proceedings before respondent no. 2 wherein the presence of the petitioner has been recorded is as follows:- " प्रकरण में सुनवाई हेतु पत्रावली प्रस्तुत हुयी श्री ह्रदेश िबहारी उपिस्थत स्वयं उपिस्थत है। श्री जय प्रकाश उपिस्थत हुये। श्री समीक यादव की ओर से िवद्वान अिधवक्ता श्री मनु श्रीवास्तव उपिस्थत हुये। श्री जय प्रकाश यादव ने अपना प्रितउत्तर। अिभकथन प्रस्तुत िकया िजसकी प्रित अन्य पक्षकारों को उपलब्ध करायी गयी। श्री ह्रदेश िबहारी यादव ने मा0 उच्च न्यायालय में योिजत यािचकाओं में पािरत आदेश िद0 26.09.1990, 03.09.1996 एवं 30.05.18 की सत्यप्रितिलिप प्रस्तुत करने हेतु समय की मांग की। श्री जय प्रकाश यादव द्वारा दो शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत िकये श्री अिनल प्रकाश यादव एवं श्री जय प्रकाश यादव उक्त की प्रित भी अन्य पक्षकारो को उपलब्ध करायी प्रकरण में अ० तय ितिथ िद० 26.05.25 िनयत की जाती है।"

16. This Court finds that opportunity of hearing and opportunity of production of original documents/evidence have been granted to the petitioner.

17. Since under the orders of this Court dated 26.10.2023 the respondent No. 2 had to determine the electoral college for which it was necessary to determine the question of membership of the petitioner in the general body. In absence of any original document being produced from the side of the petitioners, the respondent no. 2 rightly proceeded to examine on the available document on record.

18. The respondent no. 2 while proceeding with the matter had taken into note the question of reference dated 25.10.1989 purported to be under 6 WRIC No. 39118 of 2025 section 25(1) and found no such record existed and its disposal was made by a forged order dated 18.7.1992. The recital in the order impugned about various facts which were considered some of them are as follows:- "7. इस तथ्य की पुिष्ट हो जाने पर िक कायार्लय से िदनांक 25.10.1989 को संदिभत िववाद के िनस्तारण हेतु संस्था की पत्रावली (संस्था के गठन से लेकर वषर् 1989 तक की पत्रावली कु ल पेज 1 से 321) िविहत प्रािधकारी/उपिजलािधकारी िफरोजाबाद के न्यायालय को प्रेिषत ही नहीं की गयी तथा वषर् 1992 में िविहत प्रािधकारी/उपिजलािधकारी िफरोजाबाद के फजीर् व कू टरिचत हस्ताक्षर से िदनांक 18.07.1992 का पत्र प्रेिषत कर, िववाद का फजीर् िनस्तारण दशार्करर, संस्था का नवीनीकरण एवं संस्था के िवधान में संशोधन की कायर्वाही तथा पश्चातवतीर् कायर्वािहयां नवीन पत्रावली पर तत्कालीन उपिनबन्धकों को श्री बाबूराम यादव एवं श्री हृदेश ितवारी सेवा देकर छल व कपट से करायी हैं तथा संस्था का नाम पिरवतर्न कर श्री बाबूराम िवद्यालय सिमित, अलीनगर कैं जरा िफरोजाबदा िकया गया।" "9. श्री ह्रदेश िबहारी यादव के द्वारा उक्त नोिटसों के अनुपालन में कायार्लय को सदस्यता सूची सम्बन्धी सूचना िनधार्िरत प्रारूप मय साक्ष्य, प्रमाण, मूल अिभलेख प्रस्तुत नहीं की और ना ही सािधकार िनयंत्रक को साधारण सभा की सूची िदनांक 30.01.2019 के पत्र द्वारा मांगे जाने पर उपलब्ध करायी गयी।" "21. पत्रावली के गहन परीक्षण से यह तथ्य स्पष्ट प्रमािणत है िक कायार्लय के पत्र संख्या 3698 िदनांक

25.10.1989 के द्वारा संस्था में प्रबन्धकीय िववाद को िविहत प्रािधकारी को संदिभत करने के बाद संस्था की साधारण सभा में सदस्य बनने का श्री ह्रदेश िबहारी व अन्य याचीगण का दावा स्वीकार िकये जाने योग्य नहीं है। वह संस्था से िनतांत बाहरी व्यिक्त है, जो िबना िकसी साक्ष्य, प्रमाण व आधार के संस्था में िनरन्तर हस्तक्षेप कर रहा है। एक्ट की धारा 4 बी में साधारण सभा के सदस्यों की शुद्धता के िनधार्रण अद्योहस्ताक्षरी के स्तर से संस्था के मूल अिभलेख सदस्यता रिजस्टर, कायर्वाही रिजस्टर, एजेण्डा रिजस्टर, सदस्यता रसीद, बही, कै शबुक, बैंक स्टेटमेन्ट, पासबुक के आधार पर ही िकया जा सकता है, जो िक मा0 उच्च न्यायालय के आदेषों के बाद याचीगण को पयार्प्त अवसर प्रदान करने के बाद भी उनके द्वारा कायार्लय में उपलब्ध नहीं कराये गये। इस कारण पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध प्रपत्रों के आधार पर प्रकरण का िनस्तारण िकया गया।"

19. Thus, the respondent no. 2 while deciding the matter had perused the records available before him including the fact of purported reference is of the year 1989. The respondent no. 2 found that the petitioner No. 1/ Hridesh Bihari Yadav and his associates had produced forged document and has not come up with clean hands inasmuch as on certain occasion had even forged signature of the then SDM, Firozabad which stood proved as per the documents available before him. He further examined the affidavit of Jai Prakash Yadav son of late Sunhari Lal Yadav President of Firozabad wherein a statement on affidavit was given that he was not a member of Society and had not deposited any membership fee and 7 WRIC No. 39118 of 2025 Hridesh Bihari Yadav for last couple of years had got his name included in the list of general body and he has not even attended a single meeting. In absence of original document filed by the petitioners before the respondent no. 2 the categorical finding so recorded are justified.

20. Division Bench of Court in the case of Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti and another vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and another, 1995 (2) UPLBEC 1242 has held in paragraph no. 3 as under :- "3. ...in the present case, the Registrar has applied his mind to the facts of the case to find out whether the second appellant herein or was not a member of the Shiksha Sadan. He found that he was not even a member of a Society. It is a pure question of facts. If any person feels aggrieved by such a decision, the proper course open to him is to approach the Civil Court and seek appropriate relief. The Registrar is bound by the decision of the Civil Court and his decision will be subject to the decree passed by the Civil Court."

21. This Court in the case of Committee of Management, Shiksha Pracharini Sangh, Isari Salempur, Ballia vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh, 2005 1 AWC 99, has held in paragraph no. 10 as under:- "10. It is, however, needless to point out that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority u/s 25 (1) of the Act and that passed by the Assistant Registrar u/s 25 (2) of the Act are summary in nature and always subject to the orders to be passed in a regular civil proceedings."

22. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 24.9.2025 requires no interference. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

23. No order as to costs. November 18, 2025 Sushma (Vivek Saran,J.)

Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra Region, Agra to undertake determination of the General Body of Sri Baburam Vidyalay Samiti, Alinagar, Kenjra, Firozabad in terms of Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and conduct the elections of the Society in exercise of the power conferred by Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 within a period of time specified by this Hon'ble Court."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that no personal hearing was afforded by the respondent no. 2 while passing the order impugned. He further submits that entire proceedings have been set aside although there was no such prayer made in the objections and the respondent no. 2 has granted the relief which was not sought for. He further submitted that the respondent no. 2 has passed the order impugned without perusing the records and documents which have been submitted before him. He further submits that the petitioner and certain members have been wrongly held to be non-members. 2 WRIC No. 39118 of 2025

4. Per contra, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents states that there was no reason for granting personal hearing to the petitioners. The petitioners have failed to provide any documents before the respondent in spite of time granted to them and thus having failed to establish their membership, the order impugned which has been passed in compliance of the directions issued by this Court in Writ-C No. 18674 of 2023, requires no interference.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. This court finds that the parties have approached this Court on numerous occasions assailing various orders. This court while deciding Writ-C Nos. 1753 of 2023 (Hirdesh Bihari Yadav and 8 others vs. State of U.P. and three others) and 14090 of 2023 (C/M Sri Baburam Vidyalay Samiti Alinagar Kenjra Firozabad and another vs. State of U.P. and four others) by common order dated 27.3.2023, has disposed of the writ petition with the following directions:- "With consent of learned counsels for both the parties, the matter is remitted to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra Region, Agra to execute the following directions: (1). The parties shall submit their pleadings, supporting evidences as well as original documents before the certified authority within a period of two weeks from today. (2). The Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra Region, Agra shall record its satisfaction in the ordersheet that the parties have exchanged pleadings and also the documents in support of their respective cases. (3). The Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra Region, Agra shall give an opportunity of hearing to both the parties before deciding the controversy by a reasoned order in accordance with law. (4). The entire exercise shall be completed preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, both the writ petitions are disposed of finally."

7. Thereafter, in another petition being Writ-C No. 18674 of 2023 (Hirdesh Bihari Yadav and 13 others vs. State of U.P. and three others) where order of this Court after noting all the various directions given by this Court in various petitions filed by either of the parties while allowing 3 WRIC No. 39118 of 2025 the said writ petitions by order dated 26.10.2023 has passed the following orders:- "18. In view of the above, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed.

19. The order impugned dated 02.03.2023 passed by the District Inspector of Schools is quashed.

20. The salary account of the Institution shall be operated by the District Inspector of Schools under Single hand operation till a validly elected Committee of Management is appointed and signatures of the Manager are attested by the District Inspector of Schools.

21. Since, next elections are dependent upon determination of valid Electoral College, about which, directions have already been issued on 27.03.2023, it is directed that the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra, Region Agra shall conclude the proceedings pending before him on or before 15.01.2024 after providing full opportunity of hearing to the rival parties.

22. As soon as the valid Electoral College is determined by the Deputy Registrar, fresh elections of the Committee shall be held in accordance with law."

8. Thus, the Deputy Registrar had to determine the valid electoral college prior to holding the fresh elections as per the direction contained in order dated 26.10.2023 in Writ-C No. 18674 of 2023 and thus the question of membership of the petitioners was required to be answered.

9. It is noted that there is nothing on record to reflect the directions issued in Writ-C No. 1753 of 2023 which was decided along with Writ-C No. 14090 of 2023 by order dated 27.3.2023 on the order passed in Writ-C No. 18674 of 2023 dated 26.10.2023 were put to challenge.

10. Therefore the Deputy Registrar while proceeding in the matter issued notice dated 20.5.2025 to the petitioner, copy of which is appended as Annexure No. 13 to the petition. The petitioner was required to file his objection along with all the supporting documents including those related to his membership in original.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioners although submitted before this Court that entire documents which has been appended as annexure no. 2 to the petition were before the respondent no. 2, however on pointed query about the manner/mode regarding its filing in the proceedings before the respondent no. 2/ the Deputy Registrar, he could not 4 WRIC No. 39118 of 2025 demonstrate from record.

12. This Court finds that in the order impugned there is a recital about various dates being fixed by the respondent no. 2, on which the petitioners could have submitted the original documents in support of their membership claim, the categorical recital in the order impugned is reproduced as below:- "इस प्रकार प्रकरण में अधोहस्ताक्षरी के स्तर से प्रत्यावेदनों के िनस्तारण हेतु सुनवाई की ितिथ िदनांक

25.10.2024, िदनांक 20.11.2024, िदनांक 09.12.2024, िदनांक 16.01.2025, िदनांक 31.01.2025 िदनांक 12.02.2025 िदनांक 18.02.2025 िदनांक 17.03.2025, िदनांक 07.04:2025 िदनांक

16.05.2025 िदनांक 26.05.2025, िनयत करते हुए िदनांक 10.06.2025 को पत्रावली िनणर्य हेतु सुरिक्षत की, तथा पक्षकारों को िदनांक 24.06.2025 तक मूल अिभलेख एवं साक्ष्य प्रमाण प्रस्तुत करने का भी अवसर िदया गया।..." "मा० उच्च न्यायालय के आदेशों के अनुपालन में प्रत्यावेदनों के िनस्तारण के क्रम में सभी याचीगणों को अपनी सदस्यता के संबंध में न्यायिहत में पक्ष रखने का अवसर प्रदान करने के िलये अधोहस्ताक्षरी के स्तर से पत्रांक 1488 िदनांक 09.07.2025, पत्र संख्या 1536 िदनांक 16.07.2025, पत्र संख्या 1717 िदनांक

30.07.2025 तथा पत्र संख्या 1894 िदनांक 20.08.2025 के द्वारा सभी पक्षकारों से अपनी-अपनी साधारण सभा की सदस्यता के संबंध में साक्ष्य प्रमाण व अिभलेख प्रस्तुत करने का अवसर प्रदान िकया गया तथा इस हेतु िदनांक 08.09.2025 की ितिथ अंितम रूप से दी गई। िजसके अनुपालन में िकसी भी पक्षकार के द्वारा अपनी सदस्यता के संबंध में कोई साक्ष्य प्रमाण व अिभलेख प्रस्तुत नहीं िकया गया। कायार्लय में िदनांक 08.09.2025 को याची श्री रामदास यादव, श्री हृदेश िबहारी यादव, श्री समीक यादव, श्रीमती सिरता यादव एवं श्री ब्रेश बाबू द्वारा िदनांक 10.06.2025 के बाद िकसी भी पक्षकार द्वारा प्रस्तुत िकए अिभलेख व साक्ष्य प्रमाणों की मांग की गयी। िकतु अपनी सदस्यता के संबंध में कोई साक्ष्य प्रमाण व अिभलेख प्रस्तुत नहीं िकया। माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में योिजत यािचका में पािरत आदेश के अनुपालन में याचीगण द्वारा साधारण सभा की सदस्यता के संबंध में कोई साक्ष्य प्रमाण व अिभलेख पयिप्त अवसर प्रदान िकए जाने के बावजूद भी कायार्लय में प्रस्तुत नहीं िकए गए तथा िदनांक

05.09.2024 से िदनांक 20.09.2025 तक की अविध में साक्ष्य, प्रमाण व अिभलेख प्रस्तुत िकए जाने हेतु पयार्प्त अवसर प्रदान िकए जाने के बावजूद लगातार समय मांग की जाती रही है। पक्षकारों को पयार्प्त अवसर प्रदान िकए जाने के उपरान्त श्री समीक पत्रावली आदेश हेतु सुरिक्षत की गयी। यादव के अनुरोध पर अंितम रूप से िदनांक

20.09.2025 तक का समय प्रदान करते हुए सुनवाई पूणर् कर पत्रावली आदेश हेतु सुरिक्षत की गयी।"

13. In view of the categorical recital about dates being fixed for production of original documents/evidence before the respondent no. 2, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he has not granted any opportunity, is incorrect. It is also to be noted that the documents which the petitioner had relied to establish his case, filed as 5 WRIC No. 39118 of 2025 Annexure No. 2 to the petition cannot be taken note of for testing the correctness of order impugned as the petitioners failed to demonstrate that he had produced the original documents before the respondent no. 2.

14. It is to be noted that the petitioner engaged Smt. Sarita as lawyer and who appeared before the respondent no. 2 on 16.1.2025 along with the petitioner and thereafter either or both of them appeared on most of the date fixed. Thus, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no opportunity of hearing was provided is also incorrect in view of the aforesaid orders passed by the respondent no. 2.

15. It is further to be noted that the petitioner no. 1 has personally appeared in the proceedings and had engaged an advocate, namely, Smt. Sarita. The relevant extract of order dated 16.5.2025 of the proceedings before respondent no. 2 wherein the presence of the petitioner has been recorded is as follows:- " प्रकरण में सुनवाई हेतु पत्रावली प्रस्तुत हुयी श्री ह्रदेश िबहारी उपिस्थत स्वयं उपिस्थत है। श्री जय प्रकाश उपिस्थत हुये। श्री समीक यादव की ओर से िवद्वान अिधवक्ता श्री मनु श्रीवास्तव उपिस्थत हुये। श्री जय प्रकाश यादव ने अपना प्रितउत्तर। अिभकथन प्रस्तुत िकया िजसकी प्रित अन्य पक्षकारों को उपलब्ध करायी गयी। श्री ह्रदेश िबहारी यादव ने मा0 उच्च न्यायालय में योिजत यािचकाओं में पािरत आदेश िद0 26.09.1990, 03.09.1996 एवं 30.05.18 की सत्यप्रितिलिप प्रस्तुत करने हेतु समय की मांग की। श्री जय प्रकाश यादव द्वारा दो शपथ पत्र प्रस्तुत िकये श्री अिनल प्रकाश यादव एवं श्री जय प्रकाश यादव उक्त की प्रित भी अन्य पक्षकारो को उपलब्ध करायी प्रकरण में अ० तय ितिथ िद० 26.05.25 िनयत की जाती है।"

16. This Court finds that opportunity of hearing and opportunity of production of original documents/evidence have been granted to the petitioner.

17. Since under the orders of this Court dated 26.10.2023 the respondent No. 2 had to determine the electoral college for which it was necessary to determine the question of membership of the petitioner in the general body. In absence of any original document being produced from the side of the petitioners, the respondent no. 2 rightly proceeded to examine on the available document on record.

18. The respondent no. 2 while proceeding with the matter had taken into note the question of reference dated 25.10.1989 purported to be under 6 WRIC No. 39118 of 2025 section 25(1) and found no such record existed and its disposal was made by a forged order dated 18.7.1992. The recital in the order impugned about various facts which were considered some of them are as follows:- "7. इस तथ्य की पुिष्ट हो जाने पर िक कायार्लय से िदनांक 25.10.1989 को संदिभत िववाद के िनस्तारण हेतु संस्था की पत्रावली (संस्था के गठन से लेकर वषर् 1989 तक की पत्रावली कु ल पेज 1 से 321) िविहत प्रािधकारी/उपिजलािधकारी िफरोजाबाद के न्यायालय को प्रेिषत ही नहीं की गयी तथा वषर् 1992 में िविहत प्रािधकारी/उपिजलािधकारी िफरोजाबाद के फजीर् व कू टरिचत हस्ताक्षर से िदनांक 18.07.1992 का पत्र प्रेिषत कर, िववाद का फजीर् िनस्तारण दशार्करर, संस्था का नवीनीकरण एवं संस्था के िवधान में संशोधन की कायर्वाही तथा पश्चातवतीर् कायर्वािहयां नवीन पत्रावली पर तत्कालीन उपिनबन्धकों को श्री बाबूराम यादव एवं श्री हृदेश ितवारी सेवा देकर छल व कपट से करायी हैं तथा संस्था का नाम पिरवतर्न कर श्री बाबूराम िवद्यालय सिमित, अलीनगर कैं जरा िफरोजाबदा िकया गया।" "9. श्री ह्रदेश िबहारी यादव के द्वारा उक्त नोिटसों के अनुपालन में कायार्लय को सदस्यता सूची सम्बन्धी सूचना िनधार्िरत प्रारूप मय साक्ष्य, प्रमाण, मूल अिभलेख प्रस्तुत नहीं की और ना ही सािधकार िनयंत्रक को साधारण सभा की सूची िदनांक 30.01.2019 के पत्र द्वारा मांगे जाने पर उपलब्ध करायी गयी।" "21. पत्रावली के गहन परीक्षण से यह तथ्य स्पष्ट प्रमािणत है िक कायार्लय के पत्र संख्या 3698 िदनांक

25.10.1989 के द्वारा संस्था में प्रबन्धकीय िववाद को िविहत प्रािधकारी को संदिभत करने के बाद संस्था की साधारण सभा में सदस्य बनने का श्री ह्रदेश िबहारी व अन्य याचीगण का दावा स्वीकार िकये जाने योग्य नहीं है। वह संस्था से िनतांत बाहरी व्यिक्त है, जो िबना िकसी साक्ष्य, प्रमाण व आधार के संस्था में िनरन्तर हस्तक्षेप कर रहा है। एक्ट की धारा 4 बी में साधारण सभा के सदस्यों की शुद्धता के िनधार्रण अद्योहस्ताक्षरी के स्तर से संस्था के मूल अिभलेख सदस्यता रिजस्टर, कायर्वाही रिजस्टर, एजेण्डा रिजस्टर, सदस्यता रसीद, बही, कै शबुक, बैंक स्टेटमेन्ट, पासबुक के आधार पर ही िकया जा सकता है, जो िक मा0 उच्च न्यायालय के आदेषों के बाद याचीगण को पयार्प्त अवसर प्रदान करने के बाद भी उनके द्वारा कायार्लय में उपलब्ध नहीं कराये गये। इस कारण पत्रावली पर उपलब्ध प्रपत्रों के आधार पर प्रकरण का िनस्तारण िकया गया।"

19. Thus, the respondent no. 2 while deciding the matter had perused the records available before him including the fact of purported reference is of the year 1989. The respondent no. 2 found that the petitioner No. 1/ Hridesh Bihari Yadav and his associates had produced forged document and has not come up with clean hands inasmuch as on certain occasion had even forged signature of the then SDM, Firozabad which stood proved as per the documents available before him. He further examined the affidavit of Jai Prakash Yadav son of late Sunhari Lal Yadav President of Firozabad wherein a statement on affidavit was given that he was not a member of Society and had not deposited any membership fee and 7 WRIC No. 39118 of 2025 Hridesh Bihari Yadav for last couple of years had got his name included in the list of general body and he has not even attended a single meeting. In absence of original document filed by the petitioners before the respondent no. 2 the categorical finding so recorded are justified.

20. Division Bench of Court in the case of Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti and another vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and another, 1995 (2) UPLBEC 1242 has held in paragraph no. 3 as under :- "3. ...in the present case, the Registrar has applied his mind to the facts of the case to find out whether the second appellant herein or was not a member of the Shiksha Sadan. He found that he was not even a member of a Society. It is a pure question of facts. If any person feels aggrieved by such a decision, the proper course open to him is to approach the Civil Court and seek appropriate relief. The Registrar is bound by the decision of the Civil Court and his decision will be subject to the decree passed by the Civil Court."

21. This Court in the case of Committee of Management, Shiksha Pracharini Sangh, Isari Salempur, Ballia vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh, 2005 1 AWC 99, has held in paragraph no. 10 as under:- "10. It is, however, needless to point out that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority u/s 25 (1) of the Act and that passed by the Assistant Registrar u/s 25 (2) of the Act are summary in nature and always subject to the orders to be passed in a regular civil proceedings."

22. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 24.9.2025 requires no interference. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.

23. No order as to costs. November 18, 2025 Sushma (Vivek Saran,J.)