Allahabad High Court
RAHUL AND 4 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P., THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The appellate court held that the Single Judge’s discretionary dismissal of the writ petition was proper and that the appeal lacks merit, therefore it must be dismissed.
Summary
The appellants challenged the registration of office-bearer lists of a society for the years 2024-25 and 2025-26, alleging that no elections had been held since 2005 and that the inductions were illegal. The Single Judge dismissed their writ petition, stating that the factual issues regarding elections could be determined on evidence and that the petition was premature, but allowed them to seek appropriate relief in another forum. The appellants filed a special appeal, also seeking condonation of a 130‑day delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which the court granted. The appellate court examined the records and found that lists of office‑bearers had indeed been registered for several years (2019‑20, 2022‑23, 2025‑26) and that the appellants had never previously challenged those registrations. Since the appellants raised the election‑non‑holding argument for the first time in this appeal, the court held that the Single Judge’s discretion to deny relief and direct the parties to approach the appropriate forum should not be interfered with. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed for lack of merit.
Issues considered
- Whether the delay in filing the special appeal can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- Whether the registration of office‑bearer lists of the society is valid in the absence of elections since 2005.
- Whether the Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition without examining the election records.
Legislation cited
- Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 5
- Societies Registration Act, 1860 — s. 4, 4-B
Subjects
- Societies Registration Act
- Limitation Act
- election of society office‑bearers
- registration of societies
- special appeal
- writ petition
- judicial discretion
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 756 of 2025
Rahul and 4 others
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P., through Principal Secretary and 5 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Prabhakar Awasthi (Sr. Adv.) with
Saurabh Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rajiv Singh (S.C.), Grijesh Tiwari
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by
Shri Saurabh Tripathi appearing for the appellants, learned Standing
Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 and Shri Grijesh Tiwari, learned
counsel appearing for the private respondents.
2. The present appeal is reported to be beyond time by 130 days. An
application seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 has been filed and in the affidavit supporting the
application, it is stated that delay has occurred on account of the fact that
copy of the election proceedings, as set up by the respondents, was
sought from the office of the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Prayagraj, which could become available to the appellants on
22.08.2025 and, therefore, delay may be condoned.
3. For the reasons stated in the affidavit, the application is allowed.
Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.
2
SPLAD No. - 756 of 2025
4. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 08.04.2025
whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ C No.9686 of 2025
filed by the appellants with an observation that if the petitioner-
appellants are so advised, they may challenge the order impugned in
appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum.
5. The writ petition was filed by the appellants assailing the orders
dated 31.05.2024 and 18.09.2024, both passed by the Assistant Registrar.
By the order dated 31.05.2024, list of office bearers of the Society in
question for the year 2024-25 was registered under Section 4-B of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 ('the Act') and, by order dated
18.09.2024, objections filed by the appellants against the order dated
31.05.2024 were rejected.
6. Before the learned Single Judge, arguments were advanced on
behalf of the appellants that no elections of the Society in question were
held after 2005 nor was any list of office bearers registered and,
therefore, there being no valid Committee of Management of the
Society, induction of two members namely, Deependra Dev and
Abhishek Yadav, was illegal and without jurisdiction.
7. The said submissions were opposed on behalf of the respondents
not only on the ground of substantial delay in filing the writ petition but
also taking aid of certain proceedings and lists of office bearers having
been registered from time to time since after 2005.
8. Learned Single Judge, based upon the submissions made, arrived
at a conclusion that whether the elections were or were not held since
2005, the same being a question of fact, can be determined on the basis
of documentary and oral evidence. It was further observed that question
of induction of two members by a valid or invalid Committee of
Management, also being a question of fact, the writ petition, at that
stage, was misconceived. While dismissing the writ petition, learned
Single Judge left it open to the petitioners to challenge the orders in
appropriate proceedings before appropriate forum.
3
SPLAD No. - 756 of 2025
9. A supplementary affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
appellants in the present appeal bringing on record an order dated
09.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar, whereby list of office
bearers of the Society for the year 2025-26 has been registered under
Sections 4(1) and 4-B of the Act. A certificate of renewal of registration
of Society for period of five years w.e.f. 10.10.2025 has also been
appended.
10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has made
vehement submissions that no elections pertaining to Society were ever
held since 2005 and whatever lists were produced on behalf of the
respondents before the learned Single Judge, the same pertain to
elections of office bearers of Committee of Management of the
educational institution run by the Society. It is further contended that
though certain lists of office bearers of Society are shown to have been
registered for different years by the Assistant Registrar, the same not
being based upon any elections of the Society, the very registration of
lists is invalid and, therefore, the learned Single Judge should have at
least summoned the record from the office of Assistant Registrar so as to
verify as to whether any elections pertaining to the Society were ever
held or not.
11. It is further submitted that there was no delay on the part of the
petitioners in approaching the writ court, inasmuch as the entire
proceedings were held by the respondents in a clandestine manner and
behind the back of the petitioners and, therefore, contrary submissions
advanced before the writ court were thoroughly misconceived.
12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has made
submissions that the challenge laid in the writ petition to the order dated
31.05.2024 was wholly baseless, inasmuch as, by the said order, the list
of office-bearers of the Society for the year 2024-25 was registered by
the Assistant Registrar and since, pursuant to the elections held from
time to time, lists of office bearers were continuously registered which
4
SPLAD No. - 756 of 2025
were never challenged by the appellants, there was no substance in the
challenge laid to the order dated 31.05.2024.
13. As regards the second order dated 18.09.2024 impugned in the
writ petition, submission has been made that by the said order, few-lined
objections dated 05.06.2024 preferred by the appellants were rejected by
the Assistant Registrar and no such plea was raised in the said objections
which is now being sought to be raised in the appeal, as it was never the
case of the appellants even before the Assistant Registrar that no
elections of the office bearers of the Society were held since after 2005.
14. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.
15. From perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge, we find that
writ petition has not been dismissed on the ground of delay/latches,
rather the learned Single Judge, after observing that the Court could
grant further opportunity to the petitioners to file a supplementary
affidavit to explain the delay, thought it appropriate to decide the writ
petition finally and dismissed the same for the reasons other than delay.
Therefore, we are not going into the question of belated challenge made
to the orders impugned in the writ petition.
16. As far as submissions advanced qua election of office-bearers of
the Society, we find that at page No. 247 of the paper book of the appeal,
list of office bearers of the Society registered for the year 2019-20 is
appended and at page No. 250 of the appeal, list registered for the year
2022-23 is annexed. The term of the office bearers of the Society being
three years, three lists pertaining to years 2019-20, 2022-23 and 2025-26
(as reflected from the order dated 09.12.2025 annexed to the
supplementary affidavit), infer that lists were registered from time to
time. As to whether the same are based upon any elections or not, it
cannot be decided at this stage as nothing was brought either before the
writ court or before us as to whether at any point of time, the appellants
challenged the registration of lists for the year 2019-20 or 2022-23 on
any ground whatsoever. Therefore, raising a challenge to the latest
5
SPLAD No. - 756 of 2025
registration of list, prima facie, appears to be an afterthought and once
the learned Single Judge has already left it open for the appellants to
avail appropriate remedy before appropriate forum, we do not find any
good reason to take a different view of the matter.
17. As regards challenge to the order dated 18.09.2024 in the writ
petition, we find sufficient force in the submissions made on behalf of
the respondents that the said order dealt with objections dated
05.06.2024 which were only to the effect that allegedly forged affidavits
of certain persons were produced before the Assistant Registrar. For a
ready reference, objections dated 05.06.2024 filed on behalf of the
appellant No.2 are reproduced as under:-
"सेवा में, दि नांक- 05/06/2024
सहायक दिनबन्धक
फर्म्सस सोसाइटीज एण्ड चि ट्स
ए-201, मेह ौरी कालोनी, तेलिलयरगंज, प्रयागराज
महो य जी,
दिनवे न है दिक संस्था शि+क्षा सदिमचित सेर , भूपतपुर, हण्डिण्डया, प्रयागराज
पत्रावली संख्या आई-17271 की साधारण सभा की सू ी वर्ष 2024-25 प्रबन्धक
द्वारा मनमाने तरीके से स्वयं मेरा, श्रीमती लीलावती, श्री +ास्वत, श्री मयंक या व, श्री
पन्नालाल या व, श्री राम सिंसह, श्री अतुल कुमार और श्री हरिरश्चन्द्र या व का फजB
हस्ताक्षर दिकया हुआ +पथ पत्र लगाकर अनुमोदि त करा ली गई है।
अतः आप महो य से दिनवे न है दिक उक्त मामले को संज्ञान में लेकर उचि त
कायवाही करते हुए साधारण सभा की सू ी वर्ष 2024-25 दिनरस्त करने की कृपा
करें।
आई-17271
भव ीय
ह०अ०
संगीता
(उपप्रबन्धक)
शि+क्षा सदिमचित सेर, भूपतपुर,
हण्डिण्डया, प्रयागराज"
18. The Assistant Registrar, while rejecting the objections by order
dated 18.09.2024, took note of the stand taken before him by the rival
parties and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the said
order, particularly in view of the liberty granted by the learned Single
6
SPLAD No. - 756 of 2025
Judge to assail the same before appropriate forum, we are of the
considered opinion that once the appellants did not raise any such plea in
their objections dated 05.06.2024 regarding non-holding of elections
since after 2005, submissions advanced on that line for the first time,
either in the writ petition or in the present special appeal, cannot be
appreciated.
19. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, if the learned
Single Judge, in his discretion, has declined to grant any relief to the
petitioners and has granted them liberty, as aforesaid, we find the
discretion so exercised requiring no interference in special appellate
jurisdiction.
20. The appeal has no merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
March 11, 2026
Jyotsana
Digitally signed by :-
JYOTSANA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…