Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Lko And

2. Heard Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Shri Avinash Singh Vishen, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 and Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel, who has filed his 'vakalatnama' today on behalf of respondent no.3, which is taken on record as well as learned counsel for the State-respondent(s) and perused the material available on record.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are 19 in numbers, challenging the orders dated 28.07.2025 and 26.02.2024 and consequential order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the opposite party no.2, whereby, the date of election has been notified (contained as Annexure Nos.1, 2 and 2-A, respectively).

4. The facts in brief are that, the Baba Gopal Das Sankat Mochan Chitragupta Sewa Sansthan, is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and term of the said elected society is five years. It is stated that the persons who are desirous of becoming a member can become a member in accordance with the bye-laws on deposit of Rs.1000/- or contribution of immovable property, as disclosed in the bye-laws. The last election of the society was held on 11.11.2016 in which, the opposite party no.5 was elected as a Manager. It is stated that subsequently in the meeting held on 14.05.2019, petitioner no.7 was elected as Member of the committee 2 WRIC No. 8556 of 2025 and one Shri Pawan Kumar Srivastava was made Manager. It is further stated that all the petitioners in the present petition has deposited their contribution of Rs. 1000/- in the account of the society maintained with Vijaya Bank, Sultanpur, which is evident from the copy of the statement of account. It is also claimed that the said petitioners had putting their signatures on the membership roll of the society. Reliance is placed upon Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, details of the petitioners becoming members have been disclosed in paragraph no.12 of the writ petition. It is also stated that the opposite party no.5 has resigned on 09.02.2019, other allegations have been made also against the opposite party no.5. It is, however, stated that despite, the petitioners becoming the valid member of the society, their membership was not disclosed and concealed in communication addressed to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. It is also claimed that the petitioners started participating in the general body meeting of the society, objections were also raised by the opposite party no.5 with regard to the membership of the petitioners. It is also claimed that even on 24.10.2021, the petitioners had participated in the general body meeting, however, when a renewal application was moved, the names of the petitioners were not mentioned. Subsequently, on 11.05.2022 a notice was served to the petitioners to which, a reply was given on 23.06.2022. On the said, an order dated

26.02.2024 came to be passed and membership of the petitioners were decided against them. It was also decided that inclusion of 24 new members was not acceptable and was rejected and further directions were issued for holding the elections in exercise of powers under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act on the list of members which included only 40 members. It was also stated that in the said tentative list, the parties can raise objection. In terms of the said liberty, objections were raised which led to, passing of the order dated 28.07.2025, in the said order, the claim of the petitioners that they were made valid members and their contributions were also deposited and they have participated in the general body, were considered but not believed mainly on the ground that with regard to the inclusion of 24 life members, their membership was rejected vide order dated 26.02.2024. It was also recorded that, the originals of the receipts had been filed, however, the same it was not clarified that why the same were not produced earlier and, thus, a view was found that as the same was not 3 WRIC No. 8556 of 2025 produced in the order dated 26.02.2024 was passed, the same cannot be accepted. The same was held to be an afterthought and, thus, not acceptable. It was also recorded that a proposal, was not filed based upon which, the membership is claimed by the petitioners. It was also held that vide order dated 26.02.2024, an interim list has been finalized and, the decision has to be taken only in respect of said 40 members whose names were mentioned in the list.

5. Assailing the said order, Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that all the materials, to demonstrate that the petitioners were validly elected including the deposit of receipts and their contribution were made available to the authority, however, the same were affirmed solely on the ground that the documents were not produced when the order was passed on 26.02.2024, he argues that the said cannot be reason for not accepting the valid documents that were submitted by the petitioners. He further argues that even the resolution, which was said to have not been filed in the impugned order, has now surfaced in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, which take still on the second foundation based upon which, the order dated 28.07.2025 has been passed.

6. He further argues that apart from, the deposit of the money with regard to membership, the petitioners had also participated in various meetings as is evident from the minutes of the meeting filed by the respondents along with the counter affidavit. It is, thus, argued that despite, the petitioners being members of the society in terms of, the prescriptions contained under Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, they have been ousted from the General Body and the elections is directed to be held, cannot be said to be valid elections and, thus, needs to be interfered.

7. Shri Avinash Singh Vishen, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argues that, in terms of the objections raised by the respondent, it is clear that the respondent had resigned sometimes in the year 2019, he has placed on record the elections along with the counter affidavit and has also handed over, photocopy of the membership register w.e.f. 07.07.2017 upto 2018, where the name of the petitioners were not included, he argues that all the members who were there, the names were mentioned in the said register and the last member was included on 29.06.2017. He further states that a wrong document was filed along with the counter affidavit, instead of the membership register. The same was taken on record has been handed over 4 WRIC No. 8556 of 2025 across the bar to be read as a document filed along with the counter affidavit.

8. In the counter affidavit, the agenda register has been produced with regard to, the meeting held on 16.11.2018 in which, some of the petitioners were also present and signatory as the invited guests, agenda register on

29.07.2018 has also been filed along with the counter affidavit, wherein, a decision was taken at serial no.6 of the said agenda holding that new members can be included after getting their subscriptions deposited. It was also recorded that all the members present should take steps for inclusion of the new members with all expedition.

9. On the basis of, the material along with the counter affidavit, it transpires that, membership of the petitioners was induced, based upon the decision taken vide agenda no.6 in the meeting held on 29.07.2018, the receipts of the subscription money, is also evident from the bank accounts.

10. Irrespective of the said contention, the fact remains that the two orders have been passed, without considering these aspects mainly on the ground that the agenda item was not produced, both the orders cannot be sustained, for the sole reason that the agenda item now exits and, a valid piece of evidence to be considered while finalizing the list of the members by the Deputy Registrar.

11. Counsel for the respondent has raised objection that the petition is not maintainable as, an alternative remedy of assailing the two orders is available. The said objection merits rejection for the sole reason that, the two orders passed are perverse without considering the relevant material, which ought to have been considered while passing the impugned orders.

12. The second objection of the respondent is that, the receipts produced were not in accordance with the bye-laws and were not signed by the authority, who was empowered to sign the same, irrespective of the said objection, the fact remains that this was not within the domain of the Deputy Registrar to decide with regard to the validity of the receipts and, the decision had to be taken based upon, the agenda as well as the deposit, there is no dispute between the parties.

13. In view thereof, both the orders are quashed.

14. The matter is reminded to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya to pass fresh orders, the parties would be 5 WRIC No. 8556 of 2025 at liberty to place whatever documents they feel necessary including the agenda before the Deputy Registrar, the Deputy Registrar shall consider the said documents along with the other documents that may be filed by the parties and pass fresh orders.

15. Needless to add that after the membership is finalized, directions can be issued for holding the elections. The consequent elections scheduled based upon, the foundation of the two orders also cannot be sustained and are quashed.

16. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. September 18, 2025 Praveen (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

2. Heard Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Shri Avinash Singh Vishen, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.5 and Shri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel, who has filed his 'vakalatnama' today on behalf of respondent no.3, which is taken on record as well as learned counsel for the State-respondent(s) and perused the material available on record.

3. The present petition has been filed by the petitioners, who are 19 in numbers, challenging the orders dated 28.07.2025 and 26.02.2024 and consequential order dated 01.09.2025 passed by the opposite party no.2, whereby, the date of election has been notified (contained as Annexure Nos.1, 2 and 2-A, respectively).

4. The facts in brief are that, the Baba Gopal Das Sankat Mochan Chitragupta Sewa Sansthan, is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act and term of the said elected society is five years. It is stated that the persons who are desirous of becoming a member can become a member in accordance with the bye-laws on deposit of Rs.1000/- or contribution of immovable property, as disclosed in the bye-laws. The last election of the society was held on 11.11.2016 in which, the opposite party no.5 was elected as a Manager. It is stated that subsequently in the meeting held on 14.05.2019, petitioner no.7 was elected as Member of the committee 2 WRIC No. 8556 of 2025 and one Shri Pawan Kumar Srivastava was made Manager. It is further stated that all the petitioners in the present petition has deposited their contribution of Rs. 1000/- in the account of the society maintained with Vijaya Bank, Sultanpur, which is evident from the copy of the statement of account. It is also claimed that the said petitioners had putting their signatures on the membership roll of the society. Reliance is placed upon Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, details of the petitioners becoming members have been disclosed in paragraph no.12 of the writ petition. It is also stated that the opposite party no.5 has resigned on 09.02.2019, other allegations have been made also against the opposite party no.5. It is, however, stated that despite, the petitioners becoming the valid member of the society, their membership was not disclosed and concealed in communication addressed to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. It is also claimed that the petitioners started participating in the general body meeting of the society, objections were also raised by the opposite party no.5 with regard to the membership of the petitioners. It is also claimed that even on 24.10.2021, the petitioners had participated in the general body meeting, however, when a renewal application was moved, the names of the petitioners were not mentioned. Subsequently, on 11.05.2022 a notice was served to the petitioners to which, a reply was given on 23.06.2022. On the said, an order dated

26.02.2024 came to be passed and membership of the petitioners were decided against them. It was also decided that inclusion of 24 new members was not acceptable and was rejected and further directions were issued for holding the elections in exercise of powers under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act on the list of members which included only 40 members. It was also stated that in the said tentative list, the parties can raise objection. In terms of the said liberty, objections were raised which led to, passing of the order dated 28.07.2025, in the said order, the claim of the petitioners that they were made valid members and their contributions were also deposited and they have participated in the general body, were considered but not believed mainly on the ground that with regard to the inclusion of 24 life members, their membership was rejected vide order dated 26.02.2024. It was also recorded that, the originals of the receipts had been filed, however, the same it was not clarified that why the same were not produced earlier and, thus, a view was found that as the same was not 3 WRIC No. 8556 of 2025 produced in the order dated 26.02.2024 was passed, the same cannot be accepted. The same was held to be an afterthought and, thus, not acceptable. It was also recorded that a proposal, was not filed based upon which, the membership is claimed by the petitioners. It was also held that vide order dated 26.02.2024, an interim list has been finalized and, the decision has to be taken only in respect of said 40 members whose names were mentioned in the list.

5. Assailing the said order, Shri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that all the materials, to demonstrate that the petitioners were validly elected including the deposit of receipts and their contribution were made available to the authority, however, the same were affirmed solely on the ground that the documents were not produced when the order was passed on 26.02.2024, he argues that the said cannot be reason for not accepting the valid documents that were submitted by the petitioners. He further argues that even the resolution, which was said to have not been filed in the impugned order, has now surfaced in the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, which take still on the second foundation based upon which, the order dated 28.07.2025 has been passed.

6. He further argues that apart from, the deposit of the money with regard to membership, the petitioners had also participated in various meetings as is evident from the minutes of the meeting filed by the respondents along with the counter affidavit. It is, thus, argued that despite, the petitioners being members of the society in terms of, the prescriptions contained under Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, they have been ousted from the General Body and the elections is directed to be held, cannot be said to be valid elections and, thus, needs to be interfered.

7. Shri Avinash Singh Vishen, learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argues that, in terms of the objections raised by the respondent, it is clear that the respondent had resigned sometimes in the year 2019, he has placed on record the elections along with the counter affidavit and has also handed over, photocopy of the membership register w.e.f. 07.07.2017 upto 2018, where the name of the petitioners were not included, he argues that all the members who were there, the names were mentioned in the said register and the last member was included on 29.06.2017. He further states that a wrong document was filed along with the counter affidavit, instead of the membership register. The same was taken on record has been handed over 4 WRIC No. 8556 of 2025 across the bar to be read as a document filed along with the counter affidavit.

8. In the counter affidavit, the agenda register has been produced with regard to, the meeting held on 16.11.2018 in which, some of the petitioners were also present and signatory as the invited guests, agenda register on

29.07.2018 has also been filed along with the counter affidavit, wherein, a decision was taken at serial no.6 of the said agenda holding that new members can be included after getting their subscriptions deposited. It was also recorded that all the members present should take steps for inclusion of the new members with all expedition.

9. On the basis of, the material along with the counter affidavit, it transpires that, membership of the petitioners was induced, based upon the decision taken vide agenda no.6 in the meeting held on 29.07.2018, the receipts of the subscription money, is also evident from the bank accounts.

10. Irrespective of the said contention, the fact remains that the two orders have been passed, without considering these aspects mainly on the ground that the agenda item was not produced, both the orders cannot be sustained, for the sole reason that the agenda item now exits and, a valid piece of evidence to be considered while finalizing the list of the members by the Deputy Registrar.

11. Counsel for the respondent has raised objection that the petition is not maintainable as, an alternative remedy of assailing the two orders is available. The said objection merits rejection for the sole reason that, the two orders passed are perverse without considering the relevant material, which ought to have been considered while passing the impugned orders.

12. The second objection of the respondent is that, the receipts produced were not in accordance with the bye-laws and were not signed by the authority, who was empowered to sign the same, irrespective of the said objection, the fact remains that this was not within the domain of the Deputy Registrar to decide with regard to the validity of the receipts and, the decision had to be taken based upon, the agenda as well as the deposit, there is no dispute between the parties.

13. In view thereof, both the orders are quashed.

14. The matter is reminded to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya to pass fresh orders, the parties would be 5 WRIC No. 8556 of 2025 at liberty to place whatever documents they feel necessary including the agenda before the Deputy Registrar, the Deputy Registrar shall consider the said documents along with the other documents that may be filed by the parties and pass fresh orders.

15. Needless to add that after the membership is finalized, directions can be issued for holding the elections. The consequent elections scheduled based upon, the foundation of the two orders also cannot be sustained and are quashed.

16. The petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid observations. September 18, 2025 Praveen (Pankaj Bhatia,J.) PRAVEEN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench