High Court · 2025
Case Details
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner claimed the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, societies & Chits, Lucknow Division, Lucknow by means of which he has declared the Executive-Committee of the society as time barred U/s 25 (2) of Societies Registration Act 1860 prior from 29.09.2023 nominating Sanjay Kumar Rai, Assistant Account Officer, office Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to conduct the election of the Executive-Committee of the society through the irregular list of 344 members of the society who have paid CAM (Common Area Maintenance) till December 2024 whereas not from the last updated list of members who have cleared their CAM dues till 31 March 2025 already submitted in the office of Respondent no. 3 and commercial plot owners denied of their voting rights which is against the point 5(a) of registered amended by-laws of the society, in the interest of justice, is being annexed herewith as Annexure no.1 of this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed by Sanjay Kumar Rai, Assistant Account Officer, Firms, Societies & Chits, Lucknw Division, Lucknow/Election Officer upto the extent by means of which Election programme/schedule for the election of only six posts of Executive- Committee of one page has been issued, whereas election should be conducted for 7 posts according to point no. 16 (a) of registered amended bylaws dated 14.10.2025, in the interest of justice, is being annexed herewith as Annexure no.2 of this writ petition. (iii) To issue a writ, order in nature of Mandamus commanding /directing the opposite party no. 3 to consider the objections/representations submitted by petitioners as fresh sent on 01.05.2025 and thereafter convene a general body meeting in accordance with Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and hold a election of the Society-Garden City Residents Welfare Association, Lucknow' a fresh according to the registered amended By-laws dated 14.10.2015 of the Society, in the interest of justice, is being annexed herewith as Annexure no.14 of this writ petition." The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Registrar by means of its order dated 21st April, 2025 has issued an election programme for Garden City Residence Welfare Association and the said elections are to take place on 17th May, 2025 whereas the process as per the programme was initiated upon receiving the nominations on 05.05.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the bye-laws of the Society, the governing body as mentioned in Clause 16 of the bye-laws indicates that it would consists of 7 members, President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and 3 other members which shall form the Executive Committee. It is urged that from the election programme issued on 21st April, 2025, the elections have been notified only for the post of President, Vice President, Secretary and the Treasurer along with two members. This would make the composition of the Committee of Management of 6 whereas as per the bye-laws, the Governing Body should consist of 7 members, therefore, the said election programme is arbitrary and against the bye-laws. At the outset, a query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the petition is maintainable, inasmuch as, the petitioner only claims his right as a member of the Residence Welfare Association and he has no authorization on behalf of the Society to initiate such proceedings. It was also put to the him whether the petition in the present context would be maintainable especially without impleading the Society as a party. It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no reason why the Society should be impleaded as his grievance is only against the election programme which has been issued by the Deputy Registrar. In so far as the issue regarding the authorization is concerned, he submits that he is a member and he has the right to raise the issue as any election which is held contrary to the bye-laws would affect his rights and therefore the petition is maintainable at his behest. Sri S.K. Khare, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 08.05.2025 under the signatures of the Deputy Registrar and it has been pointed out that in Clause 16 of the bye-laws, it is clearly mentioned that the Executive Committee would consist of 7 members, however, if the bye-laws are further perused, it indicates that in Clause 25 of the bye-laws, certain additional rights have been conferred on the builder i.e. DLF Limited inter alia to nominate one member out of the 7 members of the Executive Committee. It is thus urged that for the said reasons, the election programme relates to only 6 members who are to be elected whereas the 7th member is a nominee member of the DLF. For the aforesaid reason, it is urged that the petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that as far as the bye-laws which have been brought on record is concerned, they stand the way it is and they have not been amended. In so far as the issue whether the DLF has a right to nominate that in itself is conferred in terms of the bye-laws. In case if it is the case of the petitioner that after the builder had handed over the entire project to the RWA, it looses its right to nominate is an issue which cannot be determined by this Court since that is a factual aspect especially when prima facie, bye-laws which have been brought on record contains a stipulation in Clause 25 (a) (i). The fact also remains that the said bye-laws have not been amended and there is no pleading to the effect that this clause was never given effect to since the formation of the RWA. Additionally, this Court finds that the petition at the behest of the sole petitioner who is merely a member without raising the grievance at the appropriate level, without having an authorization on behalf of the Society as well as without impleading the Society as one of the parties either as a co- petitioner or as a respondent in the petition, this petition for the aforesaid reasons is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to raise his grievances, if any, before the appropriate Court. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Asheesh/- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of the learned Chief Standing Counsel. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner claimed the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, societies & Chits, Lucknow Division, Lucknow by means of which he has declared the Executive-Committee of the society as time barred U/s 25 (2) of Societies Registration Act 1860 prior from 29.09.2023 nominating Sanjay Kumar Rai, Assistant Account Officer, office Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow to conduct the election of the Executive-Committee of the society through the irregular list of 344 members of the society who have paid CAM (Common Area Maintenance) till December 2024 whereas not from the last updated list of members who have cleared their CAM dues till 31 March 2025 already submitted in the office of Respondent no. 3 and commercial plot owners denied of their voting rights which is against the point 5(a) of registered amended by-laws of the society, in the interest of justice, is being annexed herewith as Annexure no.1 of this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ, order, direction in the nature of certiorari to quash/set aside the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 passed by Sanjay Kumar Rai, Assistant Account Officer, Firms, Societies & Chits, Lucknw Division, Lucknow/Election Officer upto the extent by means of which Election programme/schedule for the election of only six posts of Executive- Committee of one page has been issued, whereas election should be conducted for 7 posts according to point no. 16 (a) of registered amended bylaws dated 14.10.2025, in the interest of justice, is being annexed herewith as Annexure no.2 of this writ petition. (iii) To issue a writ, order in nature of Mandamus commanding /directing the opposite party no. 3 to consider the objections/representations submitted by petitioners as fresh sent on 01.05.2025 and thereafter convene a general body meeting in accordance with Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and hold a election of the Society-Garden City Residents Welfare Association, Lucknow' a fresh according to the registered amended By-laws dated 14.10.2015 of the Society, in the interest of justice, is being annexed herewith as Annexure no.14 of this writ petition." The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Deputy Registrar by means of its order dated 21st April, 2025 has issued an election programme for Garden City Residence Welfare Association and the said elections are to take place on 17th May, 2025 whereas the process as per the programme was initiated upon receiving the nominations on 05.05.2025. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the bye-laws of the Society, the governing body as mentioned in Clause 16 of the bye-laws indicates that it would consists of 7 members, President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and 3 other members which shall form the Executive Committee. It is urged that from the election programme issued on 21st April, 2025, the elections have been notified only for the post of President, Vice President, Secretary and the Treasurer along with two members. This would make the composition of the Committee of Management of 6 whereas as per the bye-laws, the Governing Body should consist of 7 members, therefore, the said election programme is arbitrary and against the bye-laws. At the outset, a query was put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to how the petition is maintainable, inasmuch as, the petitioner only claims his right as a member of the Residence Welfare Association and he has no authorization on behalf of the Society to initiate such proceedings. It was also put to the him whether the petition in the present context would be maintainable especially without impleading the Society as a party. It has been urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no reason why the Society should be impleaded as his grievance is only against the election programme which has been issued by the Deputy Registrar. In so far as the issue regarding the authorization is concerned, he submits that he is a member and he has the right to raise the issue as any election which is held contrary to the bye-laws would affect his rights and therefore the petition is maintainable at his behest. Sri S.K. Khare, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has provided a copy of the written instructions dated 08.05.2025 under the signatures of the Deputy Registrar and it has been pointed out that in Clause 16 of the bye-laws, it is clearly mentioned that the Executive Committee would consist of 7 members, however, if the bye-laws are further perused, it indicates that in Clause 25 of the bye-laws, certain additional rights have been conferred on the builder i.e. DLF Limited inter alia to nominate one member out of the 7 members of the Executive Committee. It is thus urged that for the said reasons, the election programme relates to only 6 members who are to be elected whereas the 7th member is a nominee member of the DLF. For the aforesaid reason, it is urged that the petition is not maintainable and deserves to be dismissed. The Court has considered the rival submissions and also perused the material on record. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute that as far as the bye-laws which have been brought on record is concerned, they stand the way it is and they have not been amended. In so far as the issue whether the DLF has a right to nominate that in itself is conferred in terms of the bye-laws. In case if it is the case of the petitioner that after the builder had handed over the entire project to the RWA, it looses its right to nominate is an issue which cannot be determined by this Court since that is a factual aspect especially when prima facie, bye-laws which have been brought on record contains a stipulation in Clause 25 (a) (i). The fact also remains that the said bye-laws have not been amended and there is no pleading to the effect that this clause was never given effect to since the formation of the RWA. Additionally, this Court finds that the petition at the behest of the sole petitioner who is merely a member without raising the grievance at the appropriate level, without having an authorization on behalf of the Society as well as without impleading the Society as one of the parties either as a co- petitioner or as a respondent in the petition, this petition for the aforesaid reasons is not maintainable and is accordingly dismissed leaving it open for the petitioner to raise his grievances, if any, before the appropriate Court. Order Date :- 9.5.2025 Asheesh/- ASHEESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench