THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 155 of 2026

The Committee of Management and another
                                                            .....Appellant(s)
                                     Versus

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

Counsel for Appellant(s)          : R.K. Ojha, (Sr. Ojha) with Rajesh
                                    Kumar Singh, Shivendu Ojha
Counsel for Respondent(s)         : C.S.C., Ashok Khare (Sr. Advocate),
                                    Parashar Pandey, Himanshu Singh

Chief Justice's Court
            HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Shri Rajesh
Kumar Singh, for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents no. 1, 2 and 4 and Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel,
assisted by Shri Parashar Pandey for the respondent no. 5

2. This appeal is directed against order dated 16.01.2026, whereby learned
Single Judge has dismissed Writ-C No. 1107 of 2026 filed by the
appellants.

3. The writ petition was filed challenging the orders dated 06.12.2025 and
28.12.2025, both passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Agra Region, Agra. By the order dated 06.12.2025, a list of 45
members of the society for the year 2017-18 was registered under Section
4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 ('the Act') for holding elections
of a defunct/time barred Committee/Society with a further direction that
election programme would be issued separately. By the order dated
28.12.2025, the Committee of the private respondent was declared as
elected 'unopposed'.

4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has made
submissions that though two orders were challenged in the writ petition,
learned Single Judge has dealt with only one order, i.e. the order dated
06.12.2025 and after recording that the Deputy Registrar has not
                                                        SPLA No. 155 of 2026
                               2


committed any procedural irregularity in declaring the electoral college,
the writ petition has been dismissed without making any observation
regarding the second order impugned.

5. It is further submitted that in the order dated 06.12.2025, the Deputy
Registrar had not recorded any cogent reasoning as to why members
enrolled over a period of time were contrary to the stipulations contained
in the registered Bye-laws and, therefore, the very basis of the elections
set up by the respondents was invalid. It is further submitted that merely
because membership fees, as per the Bye-laws, is indicated as Rs. 101/-,
the very fact that in the lists produced before the Deputy Registrar,
indications were made regarding deposit of Rs. 11,000/- and Rs. 501/- by
the members, the sums over and above the minimum membership
amount, could not be taken as a ground for discarding the lists of validly
enrolled members.

6. It is further submitted that though the Deputy Registrar has observed
that a procedure has been prescribed in the Bye-laws regarding enrollment
of members, after observing that as to when and on which date, members
were enrolled and by which office bearer being not clear, a list of 45
members which was issued 7-8 years ago in 2017-18, has been held to be
valid, which determination being in ignorance of validly enrolled
members and their status, the order dated 06.12.2025 impugned in the
writ petition was liable to be set aside.

7. It is further submitted that in the statements of income and expenditure
pertaining to different years, due deposit of membership fees and other
sums stands reflected and since the financial statements are duly audited
by Chartered Accountant, raising doubts on enrollment of members or
deposit of fees is without any basis.

8. Per contra, Shri Khare has made submissions that once the appellants
had failed to establish before the Deputy Registrar sanctity qua enrollment
of members from year 2016 to 2019, the Deputy Registrar was perfectly
justified in accepting the list of 45 members based upon which the last
elections of 2017-18 had been conducted. It is further submitted that
reliance placed on the lists pertaining to years 2021-22, 2022-23, 2023-24
                                                         SPLA No. 155 of 2026
                               3


and 2024-25 is wholly misplaced, inasmuch as the dispute is regarding the
enrollment of members during the period between 2017 and 2019 and,
therefore, the appellants cannot get any advantage of the lists of
subsequent years, particularly when the genesis thereof is itself doubtful.

9. Further submission has been made that financial statements relied upon
by the appellants pertain to years 2022-23 and 2024-25 which have no
relevance and the submission of the appellants that membership fees was
deposited in ICICI Bank, Kakadev Branch, Kanpur in the Bank Account
No. 413305000609, as pleaded in para-24 of the writ petition, does not
stand substantiated from the statement of account of the said bank, which
was produced by Shri Khare during the course of arguments.

10. It is also submitted that a categorical finding has been recorded by the
Deputy Registrar in the order dated 06.12.2025 that the new members
were enrolled during subsistence of managerial dispute and, for this
reason also, no sanctity can be attached to the membership relied on by
the appellants. Shri Khare, with reference to the Bye-laws, has made
further submissions that three different categories of members have been
indicated therein, namely, founder members, ordinary members and
special members and the indications made in the Bye-laws qua the said
different categories has significance in the matter and the contentions of
the appellants when tested based upon the said categorization, serious
discrepancies come in light.

11. In rejoinder, Shri Ojha submits that on account of tendering
resignation by one Dharmpal Singh on 13.03.2019 from the post of
Manager/Secretary, appellant no. 2, namely, Dharmveer Singh became
Manager/Secretary and, therefore, there was no managerial dispute worth
the name which could be treated as an impediment in enrollment of new
members.

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

13. When the matter was heard on a previous date, the Court, after
perusing various lists of members, raised prima facie doubts regarding the
seriatim in which receipt numbers qua deposit of membership fees was
                                                         SPLA No. 155 of 2026
                               4


indicated. The matter was simply adjourned to enable the appellants to
verify the same.

14. Based upon the oral observations made by the Court, the learned
Senior Counsel for the appellants, today, produced the original
counterfoils of various receipts whereby membership fees either
pertaining to office bearers or members was sought to be established over
a period of time. During the course of examination of the said counterfoils
comprised in various booklets, it was noticed by the Court that though
membership fees was Rs. 101/-, sums to the tune of Rs. 501/-, Rs.
11,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and, on one occasion, Rs. 20,00,000/- were
deposited.

15. When asked, learned Senior Counsel submitted that though
membership fees was indicated as Rs. 101/-, sums deposited by the
members and office bearers as per their choice, over and above the same,
may not be treated as defect in enrollment and, apart from membership
fees, receipts were used to be issued qua other donations etc., and all such
sums have been duly indicated in the audit financial statements.

16. The Deputy Registrar, in the order dated 06.12.2025 has mentioned
that the membership fees was Rs. 101/-, however, deposits in relation to
members indicated at Sl. No. 1 to 7 to the tune of Rs. 11,000/- and from
Sl. Nos. 8 to 31, to the tune of Rs. 501/- were made and certain members
have not deposited the membership fees. The Deputy Registrar, after
observing that the procedure for enrollment of members is prescribed in
the registered Bye-laws, did not record any finding as to how and in what
manner the procedure prescribed has been violated by the appellants
while enrolling the members.

17. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition, though
took note of the findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar, no discussion
was made in the order as to what procedure had been violated by the
appellants and the learned Single Judge directly came to the conclusion
that perusal of Annnexures-15 and 16 can, in no way, demonstrates that
the Deputy Registrar has committed any procedural irregularity.
Thereafter, the learned Single Judge, based upon two decisions of this
                                                                                            SPLA No. 155 of 2026
                                                                   5


                                    Court, dismissed the writ petition by observing that while proceeding
                                    under Section 25(2) of the Act, the Deputy Registrar has to determine
                                    electoral college incidentally in a summary manner; he is not required to
                                    enter into depth or record evidence regarding membership etc., and is not
                                    supposed to go into the merits of the claim of the membership(s) of the
                                    society.

                                    18. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge has not appropriately dealt
                                    with the record of proceedings and has made observations regarding
                                    power of the Deputy Registrar qua verifying the membership aspect. The
                                    power being available under the provisions of Section 4(1) and 4-B of the
                                    Act, contrary conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge, cannot be
                                    sustained.

                                    19. In any case, based upon the record of proceedings and submissions
                                    made, we find that dismissal of writ petition in limine without inviting
                                    response from the respondents, was not proper as the same required a
                                    response from the respondents and, then, the matter could have been
                                    decided. Further, no finding has been recorded regarding consequential
                                    elections resulting into the second order impugned, i.e. 28.12.2025 which
                                    indicates declaration of an 'unopposed election' in favour of the
                                    respondents. For this reason also, the order of the learned Single Judge
                                    cannot be sustained.

                                    20. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

                                    21. The order dated 16.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge is
                                    hereby set aside.

                                    22. Writ-C No.1107 of 2026 is restored on the file of the writ court and
                                    the same shall be listed as a fresh case before the appropriate Bench on
                                    09.04.2026.

                                    23. The writ court shall proceed to consider the matter afresh in the light
                                    of observations made hereinabove.



                                                                (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
                                    March 24, 2026
                                    AKShukla/-




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