Allahabad High Court

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, VIDYA MANDIR SAMITI SURAHI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided: 17 March 2026
Bench: KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA

Holding

The writ petition is not maintainable for merits and must be decided by the appellate commissioner, but the limitation for filing the appeal is condoned and the petition is disposed with directions to file the appeal.

Summary

The Committee of Management of Vidya Mandir Samiti challenged the Assistant Registrar's order rejecting its application for renewal of society registration. An earlier similar order had been set aside by the appellate commissioner and remanded for reconsideration of documents, but the Registrar again rejected the claim. The petitioners argued that the Registrar had improperly ignored relevant documents and that a private respondent was a stranger to the society. The State argued that the writ petition was inadmissible because a statutory appeal under Section 3‑A(2‑A) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, was the proper remedy and had already been pursued. The High Court held that the merits of the dispute should be decided by the appellate commissioner and, despite the lapse of the one‑month appeal period, directed that the petitioners be allowed to file the appeal without limitation, and the writ petition was disposed with these directions.

Issues considered

Whether the writ petition is maintainable in view of the availability of a statutory appeal under Section 3‑A(2‑A) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
Whether the limitation period for filing the appeal can be condoned.
Whether the Assistant Registrar erred in rejecting the renewal application by not properly considering the documents.

Legislation cited

Societies Registration Act, 1860 — s. 3-A(2-A)

Subjects

society registration
renewal of registration
writ petition
statutory appeal
limitation period
appellate commissioner
document examination
High Court

Judgment

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 10175 of 2026

Committee of Management, Vidya Mandir Samiti
Surahi and another .....Petitioner(s)
Versus

State of U.P. and 3 others
.....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ankur Rai, Vikalp Kumar Rai, Vinod
Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.

Court No. - 37
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 30.12.2025 whereby
the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi has rejected
their claim for renewal of registration of the Society.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that at an earlier point of
time also on 01.05.2024, identical claim was rejected by the Assistant
Registrar, however, the said order was set aside by the appellate
Commissioner by order dated 17.02.2025 and the matter was remanded
for reconsideration with specific directions to look into the documents
produced by the parties.

3. The contention is that the Assistant Registrar has cursorily rejected the
petitioners' claim and, therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set
aside. Reference to various documents on record has been made during
the course of submissions to contend that the private respondent No.4 is a
stranger to the Society.

4. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that the present writ
petition is not maintainable in view of availability of alternative remedy
of statutory appeal under Section 3-A(2-A) of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860 ('the Act'). She further submits that on earlier occasion also,
identical order passed by the Assistant Registrar was challenged in appeal
under the same provision and, therefore, the petition should not be
entertained.
WRIC No. 10175 of 2026
2

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the nature of
dispute raised by the petitioners assailing the order impugned is based
upon analysis of certain documents which were on record of the Assistant
Registrar and which were directed to be considered by him under the
order of remand. In case the documents have been wrongly perused or
ignored in one way or the other so as to non-suit the petitioners, such
aspects can again be raised before the appellate Commissioner. Therefore,
this Court is not inclined to examine the validity of the order impugned,
however, considering that one month period is prescribed for preferring
appeal and the same has expired in January, 2026, in the interest of
justice, the writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i). If the petitioner prefers an appeal under Section 3-A(2-A)
of the Act, against order dated 30.12.2025 before the appellate
Commissioner within a period of one month from today, the
same shall be registered at appropriate number;

(ii). The Commissioner shall issue notice to the respondent
No.4 and shall summon the record of the proceedings from the
Assistant Registrar;

(iii). Thereafter, the appeal shall be decided on merits after
providing full opportunity of hearing to the rival parties within
a period of next three months by fixing short dates;

(iv). It is made clear that appeal shall not be dismissed on the
ground of limitation.

(Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
March 18, 2026
Jyotsana

Digitally signed by :-
JYOTSANA SINGH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…