High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10385 Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19848 of 2025 Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Of Shri Ramleela Committee (Mandap Panchwati) And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Srivastava Iii,Pratik Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J. 1. The present petition has been filed praying for the following reliefs:-
Legal Reasoning
"a) issue a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records and quashing the dated 28.05.2025 (Annexure No.22) passed by the Respondent no.2 namely The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Saharanpur. b) issue a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2 namely The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Saharanpur to permit the petitioner as well as Sri Rajendra Gupta to participate in the fresh election is going to be held with effect from 16.06.2025 and voting is scheduled on 24.06.2025.
Decision
c) issue a writ, order or direction including a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2 to decide the complaint of the petitioner dated 26.03.2025 pending before him (Annexure No.19 to the writ petition) within stipulated period of time as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case." 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the petitioner has already allowed to participate in the scheduled election but he has chosen not to contest the election, therefore, he is not pressing the prayer (b) in the instant writ petition. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that impugned order dated 28.05.2025 passed by the respondent no.2, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, District Saharanpur is perse illegal and non-est in the eyes of law, inasmuch as the impugned order itself is contradictory in nature and based on presumption. It is further submitted that the membership list was never examined by the authority concerned to hold valid election. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently submitted that the Assistant Registrar (respondent no.2) has failed to look into the audit report submitted by the Chartered Accountant, Sri Vaibhav Jain and discarded the same by appointing the new Chartered Accountant one Sri Sachin Jain for audit of the account of the society afresh holding that the earlier audit reports submitted were incomplete. It is submitted that the Assistant Registrar while passing the impugned order has totally ignored the complaint of the petitioners dated 26.03.2025. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the process of election fixed by the Assistant Registrar vide notification dated 05.06.2025 is also illegal, inasmuch as, the Assistant Registrar in a very mala fide manner exceeded his jurisdiction debarring the petitioner no.2 against the provisions of bye laws and now going to hold fresh election in a very short span of time due to mala fide intention. It is submitted that in view of the above facts and circumstances, the impugned order passed by the respondent no.2 is bad in law contrary to the statutory provisions and materials on record and also passed without application of mind arbitrarily and with mala fide intent deserves to be set aside while allowing the instant writ petition. 6. Per contra learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 vehemently opposed the instant writ petition and submitted that it is admitted fact that the petitioner was allowed to participate in the election and he has never taken any objection regarding the membership or the voter list, but he has chosen not to contest in the said election. It is also admitted fact that he has no grievance regarding the election, which has been conducted and result has announced. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.2 submitted that the Assistant Registrar has all the power to look into the financial irregularities, if any, complaint received by him and, therefore, there are no mala fide or arbitrariness, as argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner for appointing another Chartered Accountant and calling for audit report. It is further submitted that there is no illegality or error for appointing independent Chartered Accountant by the Assistant Registrar for looking the financial aspects or complaints regarding the financial irregularities. It is further submitted that another argument, which has been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that since on earlier occasion the agenda was fixed and, therefore, the meeting was held thereafter no requirement of fixing the agenda, has also no force. It is submitted that no ground is made out for exercising the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside the impugned order. The order, which has been passed by the Assistant Registrar only for reasons in two folds, firstly to conduct the election in fair manner and secondly that whatever complaint has received by the Assistant Registrar had to be properly adjudicated. Since the complaint regarding the financial irregularities has already been received by the Assistant Registrar, therefore, he was on the view that the same might be adjudicated by an independent Chartered Accountant and directed to the Chartered Accountant to file audit report after looking into the complaint. 8. For proper adjudication the main portion of the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 is being quoted hereinbelow:- "ननषकररर- सससथक कक दकरक समपन चननकव ककररवकहह नदनकसक 25.03.2023 उपररककननसकर सपष हह नक, सदसरय कर पसजहकक त ननरमकवलह कक अननसकर एजकणडक नहह जकरह नकरक गरक हह, नदनकसक 25.02.2023 सदसरय एवस ककररवकहह नदनकसक 25.12.2022 सक बनकरक गरक 02 सदसरतक कक पननष हरनक कक ककरण सवहककर नकरक जकनक मम करई नवजधक बकधक नहह हह। सवहककर ररगर नहह हह। सससथक कक दकरक ककररवकहह नदनकसक 07.04.2012 कक मकधरम सक बनकरक गरक 11 हकतन सभह जजस ककरण ककररवकहह कक मकधरम सदसरय कक छकडछकड हरनक, पकस नकरक वरर करनक, सदसरतक शनलक ननरमकवलह कक नवपरहत समर पर चननकव करकनक, सदसरतक पसतकव नवजधवत पकस न करकनक, सससथक कक ममल अनभलकखय मम कनटसग, नवजधवत एजकणडक न जकरह करनक, करनक, रपरक नबनक पसतकव अनहनतक रप सक टटसट बनककर एककजधककर सथकनपत करनक कक ननरत रखनक आनद ककरर स कक रकमकन मकर जससघल ( एवस शह रकजकनद आचकरर ( ककरण सससथक कक ननवकरचत मम पनतभकग करनक सक ररक लगकई जकनह उनचत पतहत हरतह हह चम पसजहकक त ननरमकवलह कक अननसकर एवस सरसकइटहज रजज० एकट 1860 कक समपमणर आर- पतहत हरतक हह। ककररवकहह रजजसटर मम असनकत ककररवकनहरय कक अपमणर कह श बनक पसतनत सससथक कक खकतक सक लकखय दकन पकरदशर न हरनक सससथक कक समपजत कर जलए शह कक ककररशहलह ससनदगध हरनक कक चनक सससथक कक कक अनतगरत सससथक जकसच नकसह ररगर सह०ए० कर नकनमत कर करकरक उनचत वरर कक नवसतकत अनवकषण / पमवर कररकधरक) पमवर पबनधक) कक धकरक 24 नवतहर लकन- ननणररर- एवस 2022 अतर सससथक कक दकरक पसतनत चननकव ककररवकहह नदनकसक 25.03.2023 कर असवहककर नकरक जकतक करतक हहए सससथक कक पबनध सनमनत कर ककलकतहत घरनरत नकरक जकतक हह तथक सससथकपक सदसरय एवस वरर 2012 सदसरय मम सक शह रकमकन मकर जससघल व शह रकजकनद गनपक कर छरडकर शकर सभह जहनवत सदसरय पर सससथक कक पबनध सनमनत कक चननकव सरसकइटहज रजज० एकट 1860 कक तहत सवरस करकरक जकनक कक ननणरर जलरक जकतक हह। ननवकरचन ककररकम अलग सक जकरह नकरक जकएगक तथक चननकव खचर सससथक कर सवरस वहन करनक हयगक। मम बनकरक गरक कन ल 13 कक धकरक 25(2) कक धकरक 24 कक अनतगरत सससथक कक ककम-ककज, आर- सससथक कक नवतहर अननरनमततक सक ससबसजधत पररलनकत नबनदनओस कक आलरक मम सरसकइटहज रजज० एकट 1860 वरर कक अनवकरण कक ककररवकहह अजधररनपत करतक हहए सह०ए० शह सनचन जहन कर नकनमत नकरक जकतक हह। नकनमत सह०ए० कक दकनरतव हयगक नक, नदनय कक भहतर अपनह जकसच ररपरट अधरहसतककरह कक ककरकरलर कर उपलबध करकएसगक। आनडट ररपरट पकप हरनक पर रनद नवतहर अननरनमततक कक पननष हरतह हह तर सरसकइटहज रजज० एकट 1860 नवरद असनतम ननणरर जलरक जकएगक। मम नदरक गरक पकनवधकनय कक अनतगरत दररह सदसरय कक आदकश पकनप कक 40 इसकक अनतररक सससथक कर रह ननदरश नदरक जकतक हह नक, पकस कह श मम हर तर उसक ततककल सससथक कक खकतक मम जमक करक दम, गनठत हरनक तक सससथक कक समसत नकरक- सससथक कक धन रनद नकसह भह पदकजधककरह कक ननवकरचन हरनक एवस नई ककररककररणह कलकपय पर ततककल पभकव सक ररक लगकरह जकतह हह।" 9. Before I close this matter I would like to observe something important in the aforesaid contest. 10. There are two cardinal principles of law governing exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution more particularly when it comes to issue of writ of certiorari. 11. The first cardinal principle of law that governs the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, more particularly when it comes to the issue of a writ of certiorari is that in granting such a writ, the High Court does not exercise the powers of statutory body or Appellate Tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal/ quasi-judicial. The writ of certiorari can be issued if an error of law is apparent on the face of the record. 12. The second cardinal principle of exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is that in a given case, even if some action or order challenged in the writ petition is found to be illegal and invalid, the High Court while exercising its extraordinary jurisdiction thereunder can refuse to upset it with a view to doing substantial justice between the parties. 13. In case of T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa and Another, AIR 1954 SC 440, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:- "7. … In granting a writ of 'certiorari', the superior court does not exercise the powers of an appellate tribunal. It does not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior tribunal purports to be based. It demolishes the order which it considers to be without jurisdiction or palpably erroneous, but does not substitute its own views for those of the inferior tribunal ….." 14. Relying on T.C. Basappa (supra), the Constitution Bench of this Court in the case of Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque and Others, AIR 1955 SC 233, laid down the following propositions as well established: "(1) Certiorari will be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction, as when an inferior court or tribunal acts without jurisdiction or in excess of it, or fails to exercise it. (2) Certiorari will also be issued when the court or tribunal acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an opportunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the principles of natural justice. (3) The court issuing a writ of certiorari acts in exercise of a supervisory and not appellate jurisdiction. One consequence of this is that the court will not review findings of fact reached by the inferior court or tribunal, even if they be erroneous." 15. In Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan and Others, AIR 1964 SC 477, it is held as follows:- "7. The question about the limits of the jurisdiction of High Courts in issuing a writ of certiorari under Art. 226 has been frequently considered by this Court and the true legal position in that behalf is no longer in doubt. A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior courts or tribunals: these are cases where orders are passed by inferior courts or tribunals without jurisdiction, or is in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdiction. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal, a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged in proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Art. 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised….." 16. In Surya Dev Rai v. Ram Chandra Rai and Others, reported in 2003 (6) SCC 675, a Bench of two Judges held that the certiorari jurisdiction though available, should not be exercised as a matter of course. The High Court would be justified in refusing the writ of certiorari if no failure of justice had been occasioned. In exercising the certiorari jurisdiction, the procedure ordinarily followed by the High Court is to command the inferior court or tribunal to certify its record or proceedings to the High Court for its inspection so as to enable the High Court to determine, whether on the face of the record the inferior court has committed any of the errors as explained by this Court in Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque and Others, AIR 1955 SC 233 occasioning failure of justice. 17. The purpose of certiorari, as I understand, is only to confine the inferior tribunals within their jurisdiction, so as to avoid the irregular exercise, or the non- exercise or the illegal assumption of it and not to correct errors of finding of fact or interpretation of law committed by them in the exercise of powers vested in them under the statute. The accepted rule is that where a Court has jurisdiction it has a right to decide every question which crops up in the case and whether its decision is correct or otherwise, it is bound to stand until reversed by a competent Court. 18. In the case in hand while passing the impugned order as quoted above, the Assistant Registrar has taken all relevant aspects, law and materials on the record, therefore, taking into consideration of aforesaid discussions on the law and the reasons assigned while passing the impugned order by the respondent no.2, I do not find any gross illegality or error in the impugned order for inviting to exercise the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of certorari for quashing the impugned order. I have also taken into consideration the fact that the petitioner no.2 has already given an opportunity to participate in the scheduled election but he has not chosen to contest the election. 19. In the result, I do not find any cogent reason to allow the prayers (a) and (c) as made in the writ petition. 20. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Order Date :- 3.7.2025 Radhika (Chandra Dhari Singh, J.) Digitally signed by :- RADHIKA VISHWAKARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad