High Court · 2025

5. At the very outset, Mr. M. B. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners on the basis of instructions submits that he is not pressing prayer no.d) since the present dispute pertains only to elections allegedly held on 13.02.2022 pertaining to Society and not the College.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that opposite party no.5, Mr. Pawan Kumar Jain filed a list of alleged members of the General Body of the society concerned which was received in the office of Registrar on 05.08.2024. It is submitted that upon coming to know of the same, petitioner no.2, Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain filed his objections on 19.11.2024. A separate set of objections were also filed by petitioner no. 1 Mr. Shiv Kumar Garg.

7. It is submitted that objections filed by petitioner no.2 have thereafter been rejected on twin grounds that such objections are highly time-barred, having been filed two and a half years after the elections held on 13.02.2022; and secondly, in case petitioner feels aggrieved by aforesaid elections, he has an option to get a Reference made under Section 25(1) of the Act. It is submitted that the objections filed by petitioner no.1 has not been specifically adverted to and in fact a finding has been recorded pertaining to validity of elections held on 13.02.2022.

8. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that since no limitation period has been provided for filing of objections against an election of the Society, the Deputy Registrar has erred in rejecting the objections as time-barred. It is also submitted that the Deputy Registrar in view of objections was also required to make a Reference under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860 to Prescribed Authority instead of deciding on the validity of alleged elections held on 13.02.2022 on his own. He has also adverted to earlier order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the same authority in which he has specifically recorded that there appears to be a dispute relating to elections of the governing body of the society and has therefore restrained from issuing any fresh renewal certificate to the society till such dispute is sorted out. It is therefore submitted that the Deputy Registrar has violated his own finding recorded earlier. He has therefore submitted that the impugned order has not been passed in accordance with provisions of either Section 4-C or even of Section 25 of the Act of 1860.

9. Learned counsel for petitioners has also submitted that in terms of amendment incorporated in Section 4-B of the Act of 1860 as notified on 18.07.2022, any change in the list of General Body cannot be valid unless it is approved by the Managing Body and since in the present case, change in the list of General Body members by incorporating 47 new members have not been approved by the Managing Body, the same was invalid and is an aspect which has not been considered by the Deputy Registrar.

10. Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for answering opposite parties have refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submissions that even if there is no limitation provided under the Act for filing of objections against an election, the same is required to be done within a reasonable time and therefore Deputy Registrar has not erred in rejecting the same since objections have clearly been filed two and a half years after the elections held on 13.02.2022. It is also submitted that even otherwise Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860 clearly prescribes twin modes whereunder Prescribed Authority can advert to a dispute pertaining to elections and in terms of second part of Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860, liberty has been granted to petitioners to make a Reference to Prescribed Authority, which the petitioners can very well avail themselves of.

11. Learned counsel for the answering opposite parties has also adverted to the Minutes of Meeting held on 13.02.2022 to submit that both the petitioners in fact duly participated in the election process with petitioner no.1 being elected as Vice President of the Society and therefore clearly the objections were not only time-barred but were also hit by the principle of estoppel.

12. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident from record that details of elections held on 13.02.2022 have been furnished in office of Deputy Registrar apparently for the first time on 05.08.2024 whereafter objections have been filed on 19.11.2024. The said objections have been rejected primarily on ground of it being time-barred with delay of two and a half years from the date such elections were held.

13. It is noticeable that impugned order does not make any reference as to when details pertaining to such elections were intimated in office of Deputy Registrar for the first time. In case such intimation with regard to such elections was made for the first time in August, 2024 there does not appear to be any laches or delay in challenging the same. Even otherwise, since there is no limitation period prescribed in the Act of 1860 for challenging elections, the authority concerned should have adverted to the statute or any law whereunder such objections could have been rejected on the ground of limitation. With no such finding having been recorded in impugned order, the same clearly exceeds the statutory stipulation.

14. The aforesaid objections preferred by petitioners have also been rejected on ground that in case they are aggrieved by the elections held on 13.02.2022, it is open for the petitioners to approach the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860 in accordance with resolution by at least one-fourth of the members of a Society registered.

15. However, the Deputy Registrar has completely ignored the preceding line of aforesaid sentence in Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860 whereunder a Reference to Prescribed Authority may be made by the Registrar himself in case of any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of such Society.

16. In the considered opinion of this Court, once a duty has been cast upon statutory authority to act in a particular manner and even if a discretion has been cast upon him, it is the bounden duty of such statutory authority to at least record a finding as to why it is not acting in accordance with statutory stipulations. In the present case, there is no observation recorded in the impugned order as to why the Deputy Registrar has declined to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860.

17. In view of aforesaid discussion, the order impugned has been passed clearly in violation of statutory provisions.

18. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 30.12.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to Deputy Registrar to pass fresh orders but only after deciding the objections which have been raised by petitioners pertaining to elections allegedly held on 13.02.2022 and in case the authority finds that a Reference is required under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860, he may pass appropriate orders for the same instead of leaving it upon petitioners to approach authority concerned. The parties are at liberty to produce whatever material they may rely upon for such a decision, which shall be made expeditiously.

19. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 kvg/- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

5. At the very outset, Mr. M. B. Singh, learned counsel for petitioners on the basis of instructions submits that he is not pressing prayer no.d) since the present dispute pertains only to elections allegedly held on 13.02.2022 pertaining to Society and not the College.

6. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that opposite party no.5, Mr. Pawan Kumar Jain filed a list of alleged members of the General Body of the society concerned which was received in the office of Registrar on 05.08.2024. It is submitted that upon coming to know of the same, petitioner no.2, Mr. Ashok Kumar Jain filed his objections on 19.11.2024. A separate set of objections were also filed by petitioner no. 1 Mr. Shiv Kumar Garg.

7. It is submitted that objections filed by petitioner no.2 have thereafter been rejected on twin grounds that such objections are highly time-barred, having been filed two and a half years after the elections held on 13.02.2022; and secondly, in case petitioner feels aggrieved by aforesaid elections, he has an option to get a Reference made under Section 25(1) of the Act. It is submitted that the objections filed by petitioner no.1 has not been specifically adverted to and in fact a finding has been recorded pertaining to validity of elections held on 13.02.2022.

8. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that since no limitation period has been provided for filing of objections against an election of the Society, the Deputy Registrar has erred in rejecting the objections as time-barred. It is also submitted that the Deputy Registrar in view of objections was also required to make a Reference under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860 to Prescribed Authority instead of deciding on the validity of alleged elections held on 13.02.2022 on his own. He has also adverted to earlier order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the same authority in which he has specifically recorded that there appears to be a dispute relating to elections of the governing body of the society and has therefore restrained from issuing any fresh renewal certificate to the society till such dispute is sorted out. It is therefore submitted that the Deputy Registrar has violated his own finding recorded earlier. He has therefore submitted that the impugned order has not been passed in accordance with provisions of either Section 4-C or even of Section 25 of the Act of 1860.

9. Learned counsel for petitioners has also submitted that in terms of amendment incorporated in Section 4-B of the Act of 1860 as notified on 18.07.2022, any change in the list of General Body cannot be valid unless it is approved by the Managing Body and since in the present case, change in the list of General Body members by incorporating 47 new members have not been approved by the Managing Body, the same was invalid and is an aspect which has not been considered by the Deputy Registrar.

10. Learned State Counsel as well as learned counsel for answering opposite parties have refuted the submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submissions that even if there is no limitation provided under the Act for filing of objections against an election, the same is required to be done within a reasonable time and therefore Deputy Registrar has not erred in rejecting the same since objections have clearly been filed two and a half years after the elections held on 13.02.2022. It is also submitted that even otherwise Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860 clearly prescribes twin modes whereunder Prescribed Authority can advert to a dispute pertaining to elections and in terms of second part of Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860, liberty has been granted to petitioners to make a Reference to Prescribed Authority, which the petitioners can very well avail themselves of.

11. Learned counsel for the answering opposite parties has also adverted to the Minutes of Meeting held on 13.02.2022 to submit that both the petitioners in fact duly participated in the election process with petitioner no.1 being elected as Vice President of the Society and therefore clearly the objections were not only time-barred but were also hit by the principle of estoppel.

12. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident from record that details of elections held on 13.02.2022 have been furnished in office of Deputy Registrar apparently for the first time on 05.08.2024 whereafter objections have been filed on 19.11.2024. The said objections have been rejected primarily on ground of it being time-barred with delay of two and a half years from the date such elections were held.

13. It is noticeable that impugned order does not make any reference as to when details pertaining to such elections were intimated in office of Deputy Registrar for the first time. In case such intimation with regard to such elections was made for the first time in August, 2024 there does not appear to be any laches or delay in challenging the same. Even otherwise, since there is no limitation period prescribed in the Act of 1860 for challenging elections, the authority concerned should have adverted to the statute or any law whereunder such objections could have been rejected on the ground of limitation. With no such finding having been recorded in impugned order, the same clearly exceeds the statutory stipulation.

14. The aforesaid objections preferred by petitioners have also been rejected on ground that in case they are aggrieved by the elections held on 13.02.2022, it is open for the petitioners to approach the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860 in accordance with resolution by at least one-fourth of the members of a Society registered.

15. However, the Deputy Registrar has completely ignored the preceding line of aforesaid sentence in Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860 whereunder a Reference to Prescribed Authority may be made by the Registrar himself in case of any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office bearer of such Society.

16. In the considered opinion of this Court, once a duty has been cast upon statutory authority to act in a particular manner and even if a discretion has been cast upon him, it is the bounden duty of such statutory authority to at least record a finding as to why it is not acting in accordance with statutory stipulations. In the present case, there is no observation recorded in the impugned order as to why the Deputy Registrar has declined to exercise a jurisdiction vested in him under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860.

17. In view of aforesaid discussion, the order impugned has been passed clearly in violation of statutory provisions.

18. In view thereof, the impugned order dated 30.12.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari granting liberty to Deputy Registrar to pass fresh orders but only after deciding the objections which have been raised by petitioners pertaining to elections allegedly held on 13.02.2022 and in case the authority finds that a Reference is required under Section 25(1) of the Act of 1860, he may pass appropriate orders for the same instead of leaving it upon petitioners to approach authority concerned. The parties are at liberty to produce whatever material they may rely upon for such a decision, which shall be made expeditiously.

19. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. Order Date :- 21.1.2025 kvg/- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench