Others v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Deptt. U.P. Lko. And

1. Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ali Moid, Sri Aviral Raj Singh, Sri Mohd Yasir, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.4,5 and 6 and learned Standing counsel appearing for the State.

2. By means of this appeal, the appellants, who are members of opposite party no.4-Society Janta Vidyalaya, Jaisingh Mau, District Ayodhya, have challenged the judgment and order dated 14.08.2025 passed in Writ-C No.7862 of 2025, challenging the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, in purported exercise of powers under Section 4-B of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1860)', which has been dismissed.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that initially there were 47 members of the general body of the opposite party no.4-Society. The claim of the appellants was that 53 new members including the 42 appellants were inducted by the general body of the society in terms of the by-laws after an application having been filed before the President. The list was submitted by the office bearers i.e. 2 SPLA No. 302 of 2025 the President and the Secretary of the Society before the Deputy Registrar under Section 4-B (2) of the Act, 1860, as there was a change in the list of members of the general body. The Deputy Registrar not only registered the list, but also issued a certified copy. Therefore, there was no occasion thereafter to entertain any objections to the same. Nevertheless, the President and the Secretary of the Society filed objections subsequently alleging that no such meeting of the general body had taken place for inducting new members, and that the proceedings submitted before the Deputy Registrar were forged and fabricated. The Deputy Manager of the Society was unable to produce the original records before the Deputy Registrar. Consequently, the Deputy Registrar cancelled the said list which had been registered by him earlier, and arrived at the conclusion that the factum of induction of new members of the general body as per the by-laws of the society was not true.

4. Being aggrieved, the appellants herein filed the aforesaid writ petition, which has been dismissed. Learned Single Judge was persuaded to dismiss the writ petition on the reasoning that the claim to become a member of the Society is not sanctioned by the statutory provisions contained in the Act, 1860. The act of including any member of the Society or non-inclusion can at best give right to the petitioners to sue the Society. No right to be included in the list of members can be claimed specifically in absence of their being material before the Deputy Registrar to endorse the list in terms of mandate of Section 4-B of the Act, 1860. Hence, no right flows in favour of the petitioners under the Act,

1860. For the common law rights, the petitioners would be entitled to take such steps as available under law.

5. With respect, we cannot accept the reasoning given by learned Single Judge for the reason that the appellants herein claimed that they had been inducted 3 SPLA No. 302 of 2025 validly as members of the society and a list of such members was submitted before the Registrar which had been initially accepted and certified copy of the list of the general body had been issued by the Deputy Registrar under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860, but subsequently on an objection by the President and Secretary, the said list has been cancelled and an order was passed to that effect on 31.07.2025 which was impugned before the writ court. The order was passed by a statutory authority, therefore its validity had to be seen in the light of statutory provisions i.e. Section 4-B of the Act, 1860.

6. The contention of appellants' counsel is that no notice was given by the Deputy Registrar to any of the newly inducted members of the Society whose membership stands cancelled by the order which was impugned before the writ court. The minimal requirement of principles of natural justice was to issue a notice to the newly inducted members and thereafter take a decision after hearing them. It was also his submission that whether a meeting of the general body had taken place or not was a question which was verifiable as, inclusive of the newly inducted members, there were only about 101 members and excluding them, the members would be 47 but the Deputy Registrar did not undertake any such exercise to ascertain as to whether the records produced by the President and the Secretary were genuine or not and whether the proceedings submitted earlier, copies of which are on record, which bore the signature of the President and the Secretary, were genuine or fabricated. He has simply believed the version of the President and the Secretary and was persuaded by non production of record by the Deputy Manager. It was also his submission that it is the Secretary, who is the custodian of the record but merely because he produced it does not necessarily mean that the records are genuine. After hearing the newly inducted members and conducting an inquiry in this regard as to whether any such meeting of the general body was ever 4 SPLA No. 302 of 2025 conducted or not, resulting in the resolution dated 14.12.2024, a finding should have been recorded as to whether any proceedings were drawn in accordance with the by-laws of the society and the Act, 1860 for inducting new members and whether such members were actually inducted or not, but without doing so, the impugned order had been passed.

7. Although it is the case of Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4-Society, that the original records in the possession of the President and the Secretary were produced before the Deputy Registrar, based on which the order dated 31.07.2025 was passed, and that all the newly inducted members did file an affidavit before the Deputy Registrar claiming that they had been validly inducted, but on being specifically asked as to whether the notice was issued to them before taking the impugned decision, he fairly submitted that it was not. However, he did reiterate that the documents submitted by the appellants and the Deputy Manager earlier including the list of members of the general body and the resolution allegedly passed were all fabricated. However, we do not find any such finding by the Deputy Registrar that these documents were fabricated.

8. In our opinion, learned Single Judge has misdirected himself by dismissing the writ petition for the reasons given therein. The minimal requirement of Section 4-B of the Act, 1860 was to give a notice to the affected persons which has not been done. We also do not find any such inquiry within the scope of Section 4-B of the Act, 1860 to ascertain as to whether any meeting of the general body was summoned, whether it was actually held, how many participated and what was the resolution, if any passed, whether the documents submitted initially were forged and fabricated. In our opinion, the judgment of the writ court for the reasons aforesaid is liable to be set aside, so is the 5 SPLA No. 302 of 2025 decision taken by the Deputy Registrar.

9. The contention of Sri Bhasin is that the appellants will have to show prejudice. Firstly by the impugned order, their membership has been veritable cancelled while cancelling the list of the general body members submitted earlier and this has been done without giving notice to them in exercise of statutory powers under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860. Therefore, they are certainly prejudiced.

10. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the writ court and the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 31.07.2025 with a further direction to the Deputy Registrar to resume the proceedings afresh. All the appellants now have notice of those proceedings, therefore, they can submit their stand before the Deputy Registrar within next fifteen days. The remaining new inductees as claimed may also do the same and for this purpose, the Deputy Registrar shall issue notice to the remaining newly inducted members i.e. other than the appellants herein within fifteen days. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar shall take a fresh decision in the matter keeping in mind the observations made herein above. We must make it clear that we have not at all entered into the merits of allegation and counter allegations and all that can be seen by the Deputy Registrar within the scope of Section 4-B of the Act, 1860. We expect the Deputy Registrar to take a decision in the matter within next three months. Based on the fresh decision to be taken by the Deputy Registrar, consequences pertaining to the society will follow as per law.

11. We allow the appeal accordingly. September 9, 2025 Renu/- (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Sharad Pathak, learned counsel for appellants, Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ali Moid, Sri Aviral Raj Singh, Sri Mohd Yasir, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos.4,5 and 6 and learned Standing counsel appearing for the State.

2. By means of this appeal, the appellants, who are members of opposite party no.4-Society Janta Vidyalaya, Jaisingh Mau, District Ayodhya, have challenged the judgment and order dated 14.08.2025 passed in Writ-C No.7862 of 2025, challenging the order dated 31.07.2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, in purported exercise of powers under Section 4-B of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1860)', which has been dismissed.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that initially there were 47 members of the general body of the opposite party no.4-Society. The claim of the appellants was that 53 new members including the 42 appellants were inducted by the general body of the society in terms of the by-laws after an application having been filed before the President. The list was submitted by the office bearers i.e. 2 SPLA No. 302 of 2025 the President and the Secretary of the Society before the Deputy Registrar under Section 4-B (2) of the Act, 1860, as there was a change in the list of members of the general body. The Deputy Registrar not only registered the list, but also issued a certified copy. Therefore, there was no occasion thereafter to entertain any objections to the same. Nevertheless, the President and the Secretary of the Society filed objections subsequently alleging that no such meeting of the general body had taken place for inducting new members, and that the proceedings submitted before the Deputy Registrar were forged and fabricated. The Deputy Manager of the Society was unable to produce the original records before the Deputy Registrar. Consequently, the Deputy Registrar cancelled the said list which had been registered by him earlier, and arrived at the conclusion that the factum of induction of new members of the general body as per the by-laws of the society was not true.

4. Being aggrieved, the appellants herein filed the aforesaid writ petition, which has been dismissed. Learned Single Judge was persuaded to dismiss the writ petition on the reasoning that the claim to become a member of the Society is not sanctioned by the statutory provisions contained in the Act, 1860. The act of including any member of the Society or non-inclusion can at best give right to the petitioners to sue the Society. No right to be included in the list of members can be claimed specifically in absence of their being material before the Deputy Registrar to endorse the list in terms of mandate of Section 4-B of the Act, 1860. Hence, no right flows in favour of the petitioners under the Act,

1860. For the common law rights, the petitioners would be entitled to take such steps as available under law.

5. With respect, we cannot accept the reasoning given by learned Single Judge for the reason that the appellants herein claimed that they had been inducted 3 SPLA No. 302 of 2025 validly as members of the society and a list of such members was submitted before the Registrar which had been initially accepted and certified copy of the list of the general body had been issued by the Deputy Registrar under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860, but subsequently on an objection by the President and Secretary, the said list has been cancelled and an order was passed to that effect on 31.07.2025 which was impugned before the writ court. The order was passed by a statutory authority, therefore its validity had to be seen in the light of statutory provisions i.e. Section 4-B of the Act, 1860.

6. The contention of appellants' counsel is that no notice was given by the Deputy Registrar to any of the newly inducted members of the Society whose membership stands cancelled by the order which was impugned before the writ court. The minimal requirement of principles of natural justice was to issue a notice to the newly inducted members and thereafter take a decision after hearing them. It was also his submission that whether a meeting of the general body had taken place or not was a question which was verifiable as, inclusive of the newly inducted members, there were only about 101 members and excluding them, the members would be 47 but the Deputy Registrar did not undertake any such exercise to ascertain as to whether the records produced by the President and the Secretary were genuine or not and whether the proceedings submitted earlier, copies of which are on record, which bore the signature of the President and the Secretary, were genuine or fabricated. He has simply believed the version of the President and the Secretary and was persuaded by non production of record by the Deputy Manager. It was also his submission that it is the Secretary, who is the custodian of the record but merely because he produced it does not necessarily mean that the records are genuine. After hearing the newly inducted members and conducting an inquiry in this regard as to whether any such meeting of the general body was ever 4 SPLA No. 302 of 2025 conducted or not, resulting in the resolution dated 14.12.2024, a finding should have been recorded as to whether any proceedings were drawn in accordance with the by-laws of the society and the Act, 1860 for inducting new members and whether such members were actually inducted or not, but without doing so, the impugned order had been passed.

7. Although it is the case of Sri Sanjay Bhasin, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.4-Society, that the original records in the possession of the President and the Secretary were produced before the Deputy Registrar, based on which the order dated 31.07.2025 was passed, and that all the newly inducted members did file an affidavit before the Deputy Registrar claiming that they had been validly inducted, but on being specifically asked as to whether the notice was issued to them before taking the impugned decision, he fairly submitted that it was not. However, he did reiterate that the documents submitted by the appellants and the Deputy Manager earlier including the list of members of the general body and the resolution allegedly passed were all fabricated. However, we do not find any such finding by the Deputy Registrar that these documents were fabricated.

8. In our opinion, learned Single Judge has misdirected himself by dismissing the writ petition for the reasons given therein. The minimal requirement of Section 4-B of the Act, 1860 was to give a notice to the affected persons which has not been done. We also do not find any such inquiry within the scope of Section 4-B of the Act, 1860 to ascertain as to whether any meeting of the general body was summoned, whether it was actually held, how many participated and what was the resolution, if any passed, whether the documents submitted initially were forged and fabricated. In our opinion, the judgment of the writ court for the reasons aforesaid is liable to be set aside, so is the 5 SPLA No. 302 of 2025 decision taken by the Deputy Registrar.

9. The contention of Sri Bhasin is that the appellants will have to show prejudice. Firstly by the impugned order, their membership has been veritable cancelled while cancelling the list of the general body members submitted earlier and this has been done without giving notice to them in exercise of statutory powers under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860. Therefore, they are certainly prejudiced.

10. We accordingly set aside the judgment of the writ court and the order passed by the Deputy Registrar on 31.07.2025 with a further direction to the Deputy Registrar to resume the proceedings afresh. All the appellants now have notice of those proceedings, therefore, they can submit their stand before the Deputy Registrar within next fifteen days. The remaining new inductees as claimed may also do the same and for this purpose, the Deputy Registrar shall issue notice to the remaining newly inducted members i.e. other than the appellants herein within fifteen days. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar shall take a fresh decision in the matter keeping in mind the observations made herein above. We must make it clear that we have not at all entered into the merits of allegation and counter allegations and all that can be seen by the Deputy Registrar within the scope of Section 4-B of the Act, 1860. We expect the Deputy Registrar to take a decision in the matter within next three months. Based on the fresh decision to be taken by the Deputy Registrar, consequences pertaining to the society will follow as per law.

11. We allow the appeal accordingly. September 9, 2025 Renu/- (Manjive Shukla,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench