HIRDESH BIHARI YADAV AND 9 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                  SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1305 of 2025

Hirdesh Bihari Yadav and 9 others
                                                          …..Appellant(s)

                                Versus

State of U.P. and 4 others
                                                        …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Appellant(s)          : Anil Bhushan (Sr. Adv.) with Nikhil
                                    Anand, Himanshu Singh, Abhishek
                                    Bhushan, Vineet Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.) with
                                    Vashishtha Dhar Shukla, Rajiv
                                    Singh, S.C.


Chief Justice's Court

            HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1.    Heard Shri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri
Nikhil Anand and Shri Himanshu Singh for the appellants, learned
Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri Ashok Khare,
learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Vashishtha Dhar Shukla for
respondents no. 3, 4 and 5.

2.    The present appeal is directed against order dated 18.11.2025
whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ-C No. 39118 of
2025 filed by the appellants.

3.    The writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 24.09.2025,
whereby the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra Region,
Agra, had approved a list of 22 members of Janta Vidyalaya Samiti,
Alinagar, Kenjra, Firozabad ('the Society') with a further indication that
                                     2
                                                     SPLA No. - 1305 of 2025

election programme would be separately issued. The Deputy Registrar
has further declared the appellants as rank outsiders to the Society.

4.    Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has made submissions
that the appellants were enrolled as members in the year 1997 and since
thereafter, their rights and status as such have been successively
recognized over a period of time and when, in 2018, at the instance of
private respondents, a dispute was raised and notices were issued on
04.08.2018 and 29.11.2018 by the Deputy Registrar calling upon the
appellants to attend proceedings, this Court, in Writ-C No. 42507 of
2018, stayed proceedings in pursuance of the said notices. Submission is
that the said writ petition being still pending, the Deputy Registrar was
not competent to entertain identical complaints moved by the
respondents and, therefore, for this reason alone, the order dated
24.09.2025, impugned in the writ petition, was liable to be set aside.

5.    It is further submitted that the Deputy Registrar, without any
cogent basis, declared the appellants as the rank outsiders and the reason
for arriving at such conclusion is some proceedings under Section 25(1)
of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 ('the Act') allegedly instituted in
the year 1989 and allegedly decided in 1992 and since the very
enrollment of the appellants is subsequent in point of time and, even
otherwise, at this stage, the impugned decision could not be based upon
more than 30 years old proceedings, the order of the Deputy Registrar
could not be sustained and, therefore, the learned Single Judge has erred
in dismissing the writ petition.

6.    Further submission has been made that the basis for declaring the
list of 22 members as valid is an order dated 18.09.2020 which was
passed by Basic Education Officer, who had no jurisdiction to determine
membership of the Society and since the Deputy Registrar has not
independently adjudicated upon the dispute qua membership, the order
passed by him is bad. Further submission has been made that by an order
dated 16.03.2020, a list of 30 members presented by Babu Ram Yadav
had been declared valid by the Assistant Registrar and though the said
                                     3
                                                    SPLA No. - 1305 of 2025

order was set aside by order dated 27.03.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 1753
of 2023, fresh determination, if any, was to be made in accordance with
law and, hence, adjudication could not be made based upon proceedings
of 1989 but based upon the status of the appellants as of today.

7.    Per contra, Shri Khare has made submissions that no relief can be
granted to the appellants at this stage when, in furtherance of order dated
24.09.2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, elections of the society have
already been held for the year 2025-26; list of office bearers has been
registered on 22.01.2026 and the office bearers so elected are in control
of the affairs of the society.

8.    On merits, it is submitted by Shri Khare that the Deputy Registrar,
by referring to a reference sought to be made to the Prescribed Authority
under Section 25(1) of the Act, in the year 1989, arrived at a conclusion
that one Babu Ram Yadav had surreptitiously got renewal of the society
and the exercise of carrying out amendment in the Bye-laws, by placing
before the Assistant Registrar a forged order dated 21.07.1992 allegedly
passed by the Prescribed Authority/SDM, Firozabad as if the reference
under Section 25(1) had been decided. Further submission has been
made that Babu Ram Yadav was none other than the father of the
appellant no. 1 and once the enrollment of the appellants was done by
Babu Ram Yadav, who grabbed the society based upon forged and
fabricated proceedings, the Deputy Registrar has rightly discarded the
membership of the appellants.

9.    It is further submitted that as far as the order dated 18.09.2020
passed by the Basic Education Officer is concerned, he was exercising
powers as an Authorized Controller over the Institution run by the
Society and in the said order, indications were made that a tentative list
of 71 members of the general body had been provided to him by the
Deputy Registrar and, in furtherance of certain orders passed in writ
petition and contempt petition, and after providing opportunity of
hearing to the parties, a final list of 33 members after excluding the dead
members, was notified.
                                         4
                                                           SPLA No. - 1305 of 2025

10.   Further submission has been made that the order dated 18.09.2020
having attained finality, if the Deputy Registrar has taken aid of the said
decision in the light of other material available on record before him, no
error can be found in such determination and, therefore, neither the
Deputy Registrar nor the learned Single Judge has erred in discarding the
claim set up by the appellants.

11.   In so far as the pendency of Writ-C No. 42507 of 2018 is
concerned, submission has been made that after the said writ petition,
various writ petitions were filed by the appellants themselves such as
Writ-C Nos. 249 of 2021, 13859 of 2022, 18674 of 2023, 1753 of 2023
and 14090 of 2020, and various directions were issued by this Court for
determination of dispute of membership and, therefore the appellants
cannot place reliance on the order passed in the year 2018 in a previous
writ petition.

12.   We have considered the submissions made and perused the
material available on record.

13.   When the matter was heard on 09.03.2026, this Court, having
noticed the findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar regarding a forged
letter dated 18.07.1992, passed following order:-

            "1. The entire basis of the finding recorded by the Deputy
            Registrar in his order dated 24.09.2025 pertains to the fact that
            though a reference was made on 25.10.1989 under Section 25(1)
            of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the same never got
            decided, however, based on a forged letter dated 18.07.1992
            pertaining to the disposal of the said reference, further actions
            have been taken which have been held to be void. However,
            apparently, the letter dated 18.07.1992 is not on the record of the
            writ petition.
            2. Learned Standing Counsel is directed to produce the letter
            dated 18.07.1992, which has formed the basis for finding that the
            said order was forged and as a consequence, the order impugned
            has been passed.
            3. Needful may be done before the next date.
            4. List on 24.03.2026, as fresh."
14.   In furtherance of the said order, learned Standing Counsel has
produced before us a copy of the proceedings/order/endorsement dated
18.07.1992 qua attestation of signatures of Babu Ram Yadav as Manager
                                    5
                                                  SPLA No. - 1305 of 2025

of the Inter College run by the Society. For a ready reference, the said
document is reproduced as under:-




15.   A perusal of the above document makes it clear that on
18.07.1992, Collection Amin, Firozabad had identified Babu Ram Yadav
and his signatures and stated that he knows him and so far as the
Prescribed Authority/SDM, Firozabad is concerned, endorsement reads
as 'Sing. Attested of Sri Babu Ram Yadav Manager'.
                                     6
                                                    SPLA No. - 1305 of 2025

16.     Apart from the afore-depicted endorsements, no order of the
Prescribed Authority allegedly passed on 18.07.1992 has been produced
before us. In light of the same, if we peruse the findings recorded by the
Deputy Registrar as also noted by the learned Single Judge in the order
impugned, we find that non-sending of file containing 321 pages since
1989 pursuant to a communication dated 25.10.1989 sands reflected and,
therefore, finding was recorded by Deputy Registrar that as to when the
file was not sent to the Prescribed Authority, production of a fabricated
order    dated   18.07.1992    allegedly   signed   by   the   Prescribed
Authority/SDM, Firozabad was a fraudulent act of Babu Ram Yadav for
coming in power and the very induction/enrollment of the appellants as
members in the society by Babu Ram Yadav is tainted.

17.     The Deputy Registrar has further observed that though sanctity of
membership documents could be ascertained after perusing the
membership register, proceedings register, agenda register, cash book,
bank statements, passbook etc., however, the same, despite orders passed
by the High Court, had not been made available by the appellants and,
therefore, their claim could not be sustained.

18.     Once there is nothing on record to establish that SDM, Firozabad
in the capacity of the Prescribed Authority had ever passed any order
dated 18.07.1992 or on any other date allegedly deciding a reference
which even appears has not reached him, attestation of signatures of
Babu Ram Yadav by the SDM clearly appears to be manufactured.

19.     Even otherwise, we fail to understand as to in what capacity and
under what statutory powers, the SDM, Firozabad had attested the
signatures of Babu Ram Yadav as Manager of educational Institution run
by the Society. As per law, the power to attest the signatures of a
Manager lies with District Inspector of Schools and not with the
Prescribed Authority, who has no jurisdiction in relation to affairs of a
Committee of Management of an Institution. For this reason also, the
endorsement allegedly made by SDM, Firozabad on 18.07.1992 does not
have any sanctity.
                                     7
                                                    SPLA No. - 1305 of 2025

20.   As far as the order dated 18.09.2020 passed by the Basic
Education Officer, we find that in relation to the elections of the
Committee of Management of Inter College run by the Society, the
Deputy Registrar published a tentative list of 71 members and, in
furtherance of the directions issued by this Court and based upon the
tentative list published by the Deputy Registrar, decision was taken by
the Basic Education Officer as the elections of the Committee of
Management were directed to be held based upon the list of members of
general body of the Society. Consequently, based upon the tentative list
of 71 members, and excluding 38 members who had died, the Basic
Education Officer declared a list of 33 members and directed for holding
of elections in furtherance of the directions of the writ court and the
order passed in contempt proceedings.

21.   In view of the above, if the Deputy Registrar, in the order dated
24.09.2025 took aid of the determination made by the Basic Education
Officer in the order dated 18.09.2020, which order was never challenged,
we do not find any error in such determination as the Deputy Registrar is
under obligation to go into the record position and once, after providing
due opportunity of hearing to the parties and dealing with objections etc.
filed by them, he has arrived at a reasonable conclusion, the order passed
by him cannot be set aside on technicalities.

22.   As far as the order impugned in the present special appeal is
concerned, we find that the learned Single Judge, having considered the
submissions made and the findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar,
particularly the production of forged document by the appellants and
their associates, arrived at a conclusion that the writ petitioners had not
come with clean hands and, consequently, declined to interfere with the
order passed by the Deputy Registrar.

23.   In the totality of facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that
determination made by the Deputy Registrar under the order dated
24.09.2025 was based upon a thoughtful consideration of material
available on record and if the learned Single Judge has declined to
                                                                    8
                                                                                   SPLA No. - 1305 of 2025

                            interfere with the same for the reasons assigned in the order, we do not
                            find any good ground to take a different view of the matter.

                            24.         The Special Appeal has no substance and the same is, accordingly,
                            dismissed.




                                                            (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

                            March 24, 2026
                            AKShukla/-




Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad