SITARAM RASTOGI AND ANOTHERversusState of UP AND 6 OTHERS

                                   1




        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                      WRIT - C No. - 20655 of 2024

Sitaram Rastogi and another
                                                      …..Petitioner(s)
                               Versus

State of UP and 6 others
                                                     …..Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Anjali, J.P. Singh, Pramod Kumar
                                   Singh, Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : C.S.C., Prabhakar Awasthi, Ram
                                   Pravesh Pandey, Vashishtha Dhar
                                   Shukla
                                 WITH


                      WRIT - C No. - 11375 of 2024

Sitaram Rastogi
                                                      …..Petitioner(s)
                               Versus

State of UP and 2 others
                                                     …..Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)        : Arvind Kumar Rai, J.P. Singh,
                                   Santosh Kr. Singh Paliwal, Vimal
                                   Kumar Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s)        : C.S.C.
                                             RESERVED ON :- 21.01.2026
                                            DELIVERED ON :- 20.04.2026


                        HON'BLE MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

1. The aforementioned both the writ petitions are related to a society
namely, Shri Harihar Sanskrit Pathshala, Bazaar Gosain, Azamgarh and
fate of Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 depends on the decision of Writ-C No.
                                               2


20655 of 2024, therefore, both the writ petitions are being decided by a
common judgment.

2. Heard Shri J.P. Singh and Shri Santosh Kumar Singh Paliwal, learned
counsels for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-
respondents, Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Shri R.P. Pandey, learned counsel for Respondent No's. 6 & 7 and
Shri V.K. Ojha, learned Advocate holding brief of Ms. Anjali Singh,
learned counsel for the intervener.

3. The captioned Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 has been filed by the
petitioner inter alia, praying therein for the following relief(s):-
         i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
         the Respondent No.3 to hold the election of the Managing Committee of
         the Sri Harihar Sanskrit Pathshala ‘Bazar Gosai, Azamgarh, within
         stipulated time as fixed by this Hon’ble Court in compliance of the order
         dated 02.12.2023 passed by the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and
         Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh (Respondent No. 2) passed under
         Section-25(2) of Society Registration Act, 1860 from the valid voter list
         as determined by Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits,
         Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh.”

4. The captioned Writ-C No. 20655 of 2024 has been filed by the
petitioners inter alia, praying therein for the following relief(s):-

         “(i) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari
         quashing the order impugned dated 30.05.2024 passed by the
         Respondent No. 2/3 (copy of impugned order is enclosed as Annexure
         No.1 to this petition).

         (ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus
         commanding the Respondent No. 2/3 to hold elections in accordance
         with order dated 02.12.2023 and the undertaking given before this
         Court on 17.05.2024 within the time to be specified by the Hon’ble
         Court;”

5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Shri Harihar Sanskrit Pathshala,
Bazar Gosain, Azamgarh (hereinafter refered to as ‘the Society’) is a
Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and is run
under its approved By-Laws. On November 10, 2010, registration of the
Society was renewed on the application dated November 10, 2010
submitted by the then Manager, Shri Ramakar Dubey. Thereafter, a list
of office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society for
2010-11 and list of members of general body of the Society for 2010-11
                                   3


were filed. As per By-Laws of the Society, term of its Committee of
Management is one year. The elections of the Committee of Managment
of the Society took place on October 01, 2013 wherein, Shri Ramakar
Dubey was elected as Manager and Petitioner No. 1 i.e. Mr. Sitaram
Rastogi was elected as Deputy Manager. List of office bearers of the
Committee of Management of the Society was filed in the office of the
Assistant Registrar and it was duly registered. Shri Ramakar Dubey i.e.
Manager of the Society died on November 17, 2013 and therefore, the
casual vacancy in the office of Manager was filled in by electing
Petitioner No. 1 as Manager and a revised list of office bearers of the
Committee of Management of the Society was filed in the office of the
Assistant Registrar. The term of the Committee of Management of the
Society elected in the elections held on October 01, 2013 came to an end
on October 01, 2014. Thereafter, various election proceedings were filed
in the office of the Assistant Registrar but none of the elections were
recognized and ultimately, in the year 2022, rival sets of elections i.e.
one election submitted by Petitioner No. 1, another election submitted by
Shri Sadanand Tiwari and third election submitted by Shri Ram Naval
Pandey, were placed before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies &
Chits, Azamgarh. The aforesaid three elections were considered by the
Assistant Registrar and ultimately, he passed an order on June 18, 2022
wherein he recorded a finding that after elections dated October 01,
2013, whose term expired on October 01, 2014, no valid election of the
Committee of Management of the Society took place, therefore, the
Committee of Management of the Society had become time barred and
accordingly, he directed for elections of the Committee of Management
of the Society under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act,
1860 and in furtherance thereof, declared a tentative list of 14 members
of the general body of the Society and invited objections from all the
persons concerned.

6. Against the tentative list of members of general body of the Society
declared by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Azamgarh
                                     4


Division, Azamgarh vide his order dated June 18, 2022, Respondent No.
7 i.e. Shri Giresh Kumar Pandey filed an application on July 11, 2022
and Respondent No. 6 i.e. Shri Ved Prakash Pandey along with Shri
Sharad Vrat Pandey, Shri Ram Vilas, Shri Abhay Shukla, Shri Vijay
Narayan, Shri Ravikant and Shri Sudhakar Pandey filed an application
on July 12, 2022. In both the aforesaid applications dated July 11, 2022
& July 12, 2022, a common case was placed before the Assistant
Registrar that forty Special Members (Vishisht Sadasya) were inducted
in the general body of the Society vide a resolution passed by the
Committee of Management of the Society on October 28, 2013 and the
induction of said forty members was duly communicated by the then
Manager of the Society i.e. by Shri Ramakar Dubey, therefore, the
names of said forty persons may also be included in the list of members
of general body of the Society for the purposes of elections to be held
under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Along with
the aforesaid objections, Shri Sadanand Tiwari and Petitioner No. 1 i.e.
Shri Sitaram Rastogi also filed their objections.

7. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Azamgarh Division,
Azamgarh issued notice to Respondent No. 6, Petitioner No. 1 and Shri
Sadanand Tiwari for hearing on the objections. After hearing on the
objections, the Assistant Registrar passed a detailed order on December
02, 2023 whereby, list of eleven members of the general body of the
Society was finalized and election officer was appointed for holding
elections of the Committee of Management of the Society from the said
list.

8. The Respondent No. 7 filed an application on December 07, 2023
before the Assistant Registrar which was received in his office on
December 08, 2023 wherein, he submitted that he had filed objections on
July 11, 2022 against the tentative list of the members of the general
body issued vide order dated June 18, 2022 but he was not issued notice
for hearing and without hearing him, the list of members of the general
body has been finalized vide order dated December 02, 2023 , therefore,
                                           5


the said order is liable to be recalled, as the same is hit by the violation
of the principles of natural justice. The Respondent No. 7 also submitted
an application on December 11, 2023 before the Commissioner,
Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh for a direction to the Assistant Registrar
to hear him and thereafter, finalize the list of members of the general
body of the Society. The Commissioner, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh
on December 11, 2023 directed the Assistant Registrar to conduct an
enquiry in the matter and submit a report.

9. Since, in spite of finalization of the list of members of the general
body of the Society vide order dated December 02, 2023, elections of the
Committee of Management of the Society did not take place, the
Petitioner No. 1 filed a writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024
with a prayer that the authorities may be directed to hold elections of the
Committee of Management of the Society in terms of the order dated
December 02, 2023 within a fixed timeframe. This Court passed an order
on 08.04.2024 in Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 whereby, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the State was directed to take categorical
instructions as to why elections pursuant to order dated December 02,
2023 have not taken place. The Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 came up
before the Court on May 08, 2024 and since the Assistant Registrar in
the instructions provided to learned Standing Counsel did not specify the
time within which elections shall be completed, this Court directed
learned Standing Counsel to take instructions as to within what time
elections would be completed. On May 17, 2024, Shri Abhishek
Tripathi, Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Azamgarh
Division, Azamgarh appeared before the Court and submitted that, in all
probability, he will complete the elections pursuant to order dated
December 02, 2023, by July 15, 2024. Accordingly, the Court, on May
17, 2024, passed the order which is delineated as under:-
            “1. In compliance of this Court’s order dated May 08, 2024, Sri
            Abhishek Tripathi, Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
            Azamgarh has appeared before this Court and has stated that in all
            probability, he will complete the elections pursuant to order dated
            December 02, 2023 by 15.07.2024.
                                              6


            2. Accordingly, list this matter on 18.07.2024.

            3. It is made open for the Assistant Registrar that if due to some
            unavoidable circumstances, he is unable to complete process of election
            by 15.07.2024, he may move application for further extension of time.”

10. Thereafter, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies, and Chits,
Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh has passed an order on May 30, 2024,
whereby, on the application given by Respondent No. 7, he has reviewed
his earlier order dated December 2, 2023, and has passed a fresh detailed
order whereby he has declared a final list of 51 members of the society
for the purposes of elections to be held under Section 25(2) of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. The aforesaid order dated May 30,
2024, has been challenged by the petitioners in Writ-C No. 20655 of
2024, and this Court, on June 21, 2024, passed an interim order whereby
the effect and operation of the order dated May 30, 2024, has been kept
in abeyance. It has also been informed that, pursuant to the order dated
May 30, 2024, elections of the Committee of Management of the society
have taken place, but those elections have not been given effect to in
view of the aforesaid interim order dated June 21, 2024. The aforesaid
interim order dated June 21, 2024 was challenged by Respondent No's. 6
and 7, i.e. Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey and Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey, by
filing Special Appeal No. 634 of 2024 and in the said Special Appeal,
the Division Bench of this Court has passed the following order:-

        “1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the appellants, Sri
        J.P. Singh, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Sri Ankit Gaur,
        learned counsel for State-Respondents.

        2. This appeal is directed against the order dated June 21, 2024 passed by
        learned Single Judge in Writ C No. 20655 of 2024. The writ petition was
        filed aggrieved of the action of the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
        Chits, Azamgarh, whereby a list of members of the Society in question was
        finalized on 30.05.2024 and elections were held.

        3. The primary submission made is that in the Writ C No. 11375 of 2024 on
        17.08.2024, the Assistant Registrar appeared before the Court and made
        certain submissions and his action dated 30.05.2024 was in teeth of his
        undertakings/submissions made before the Court on May 17, 2024.

        4. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties found that the order
        dated 30.05.2024 was in teeth of the order dated May 17, 2024 passed in
        Writ C No. 11375 of 2024 and consequently, stayed the action pursuant to
        the order dated 30.05.2024.
                                              7


        5. In the present appeal, submissions have been made seeking to interpret
        the order dated May 17, 2024 and/or what transpired before the Court on
        May 17, 2024 in Writ C No. 11375 of 2024.

        6. In the firm opinion of this Court, as the parties are seeking to interpret the
        order dated May 17, 2024 passed in Writ C No. 11375 of 2024 and as to
        what led to passing of the said order, it would be appropriate that the Writ C
        No. 20655 of 2024 and Writ C No. 11375 of 2024 are heard by the learned
        Singe Judge, who had passed the order dated May 17, 2024.

        7. Both the learned counsel for the parties have no objection to the said
        aspect of the matter.

        8. Consequently, the present appeal is disposed of.

        9. List Writ C No. 20655 of 2024 and Writ C No. 11375 of 2024 on
        09.08.2024 before the Bench, which has passed the order dated May 17,
        2024 in Writ C No. 11375 of 2024, after seeking appropriate nomination.”


11. In the aforesaid circumstances, both the writ petitions, i.e. Writ-C
No. 11375 of 2024 and Writ-C No. 20655 of 2024 have come up before
this Court and arguments of parties' counsels have been heard.

12. Shri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, has invited
attention of this Court towards the array of the parties in Special Appeal
No. 634 of 2024 and submits that the interim order dated 21 June 2024,
passed in Writ-C No. 20655 of 2024, had been challenged in the Special
Appeal by Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey and Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey, and
therefore, it is apparent that both are connected with each other and are
agitating the claim of alleged forty members of the general body of the
Society. He further submits that against the tentative list of the members
of the general body declared vide order dated June 18, 2022, Mr. Ved
Prakash Pandey and Shri Giresh Kumar Pandey, though filed separate
applications on July 12, 2022 and July 11, 2022 respectively but their
claim was one and the same and the said claim of membership of the
forty persons had been considered in it’s threadbare by the Assistant
Registrar in its order dated December 02, 2023, therefore, even if Mr.
Giresh Kumar Pandey was not issued notice for personal hearing, that
does not make any difference on the merits of the case, as Mr. Ved
Prakash Pandey was heard in detail and each and every aspect of his
claim had been considered and decided by the Assistant Registrar.
                                    8


13. Shri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, has vehemently
argued that it is well-settled, through a catena of judgments of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and of this Hon'ble Court, that any authority
exercising its power under a statute does not have the power to review its
decision unless the statute expressly so provides. He further submits that
once the Assistant Registrar passed an order on December 02, 2023 after
considering each and every aspect of the matter on merits and finalized
the list of 11 members of the Society, there was no occasion for him to
review his order dated December 02, 2023 and to pass a fresh order
dated May 30, 2024 as no provision under the Societies Registration Act,
1860 gives power to the Assistant Registrar to review his decision. It has
been vehemently argued that the order dated May 30, 2024 is an order
without jurisdiction and therefore, is nullity in the eyes of law and any
consequential action taken pursuant to order dated May 30, 2024 cannot
be allowed to sustain.

14. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioners that from a bare
perusal of the order dated December 02, 2023, it clearly comes out that
the claim of forty persons for membership of the general body of the
Society (which was a common claim raised by Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey
and Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey before the Assistant Registrar) had been
considered by the Assistant Registrar and has been rejected vide a
detailed order dated December 02, 2023. The Assistant Registrar in its
order dated December 02, 2023 had recorded a categorical finding that
the said forty persons are claiming membership under the alleged
resolution of the Committee of Management of the Society dated
October 28, 2013 but neither they were invited to attend any meeting of
the Society, nor they ever attended any meeting since year 2013 till the
year 2022, and further, the said 40 members, at no point of time, did ever
raise their voice and did not submit any application to any authority in
respect of their rights to attend the meetings and straight away, through
applications dated July 11, 2023 and July 12, 2023, they for the first time
raised their claim before the Assistant Registrar, which in fact,
                                    9


categorically demonstrates that they are claiming membership on the
basis of certain forged papers. It has further been argued that once the
claim of forty persons regarding their membership in the general body of
the Society had been considered and decided on merits, then the said
decision cannot be reviewed merely for the reason that one person, i.e.
Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey was not afforded opportunity of hearing by
the Assistant Registrar.

15. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has vehemently argued
that the order dated May 30, 2024 apparently is without jurisdiction as
the Assistant Registrar, Firm, Society and Chits, Azamgarh Division,
Azamgarh, has reviewed his order dated December 02, 2023, though,
under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, he does not
have the power to do so. It has further been argued that though
procedural review of an order passed by a statutory authority is
permissible but that power can only be exercised if a party to the
proceedings has not been heard at all and his case has not been
considered and decided on merits, whereas, from the facts of the present
case, it is apparent that Respondent No. 6 i.e. Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey
and Respondent No. 7 i.e. Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey raised identical
claims based on identical documents before the Assistant Registrar and
Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey was issued notice and heard in detail, and
thereafter, a detailed and well-reasoned order dated December 02, 2023
had been passed wherein the claim of membership of forty persons
allegedly inducted vide resolution of the Committee of Management of
the Society dated October 28, 2013 had been considered in its threadbare
and by recording findings on merits, the Assistant Registrar rejected their
claim of membership, therefore, the present case does not fall within the
ambit of procedural review, and in fact, in the garb of procedural review,
the Assistant Registrar has overturned the findings recorded on the
merits in the order dated December 02, 2023 and has passed order for
including the names of forty persons in the final list of the general body
of the Society.
                                   10


16. It has also been vehemently argued that there cannot be any better
example of misuse of the concept of procedural review than the present
case where two parties raised identical claim before the Assistant
Registrar and one was called for personal hearing but another was not,
and the order was passed on their claim on merits, but later on, only for
the reason that one person was not called for hearing, in the garb of
procedural review, the order dated December 02, 2023 has been
reviewed and again an order on merits has been passed on May 30, 2024.

17. Shri J.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has
submitted that in the garb of review or procedural review of an order, the
decision taken on merits cannot be reviewed unless it is shown that had
the opportunity of hearing been given to a party before passing of the
order, he would have placed such materials on the basis of which the
findings recorded in the order would not have been arrived at but in the
present case, only on a small infirmity in passing the order dated
December 02, 2023 that Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey was not provided
opportunity of personal hearing, the findings recorded on the merits of
the claim of membership of 40 members have been overturned, which is
not permissible in the garb of either review or procedural review. It has
also been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
that on filing the application by Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey, the Petitioner
No. 1 filed objections on December 29, 2023, categorically mentioning
therein that the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, does not have power to review his
decision dated December 02, 2023 but the said objections have not been
considered at all by the authority concerned while passing the order
dated May 30, 2024.

18. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgments
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Dr. (Smt.)
Kuntesh Gupta Vs. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya,
Sitapur (U.P.) & Others, (1987) 4 SCC 525; Kalabharati Advertising
                                     11


Vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Others, (2010) 9 SCC 437; The
State of West Bengal & Others Vs. Kamal Sengupta & Another, JT
2008 (8) SC 317; the judgment dated 21.01.2020 in the case of
Kalapatru Power Transmission Ltd., Gandhinagar Vs. Maharashtra
State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. Mumbai, 2020 LawSuit (Bom.)
92; and the judgment of this Court dated 28.02.2011 rendered in Civil
Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 10052 of 2011, Khachchan Singh Vs.
State of U.P. & others; to buttress his arguments that the impugned
order dated May 30, 2024 is without jurisdiction, as the Assistant
Registrar does not have power under the Societies Registration Act, 1860
to review his decision, and further, the case in hand does not fall within
the ambit of procedural review of an order passed by a statutory
authority.

19. Learned counsel for the petitioners has thus concluded his arguments
and has submitted that the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are liable
to be allowed and the impugned order dated May 30, 2024 along with
the consequential elections, if any, are liable to be quashed and set aside.

20. Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Advocate appearing for
Respondent No's. 6 & 7, has argued that the Assistant Registrar, Firm,
Societies & Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, passed an order on
June 18, 2022, whereby elections of the Committee of Management of
the Society had been declared time-barred and in exercise of power
under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, a decision
was taken to conduct elections of the Committee of Management of the
Society and in furtherance thereof, a tentative list of 14 members of the
general body of the Society was declared. The Respondent No. 7, Shri
Giresh Kumar Pandey, submitted his objections in the form of an
application dated July 11, 2022 before the Assistant Registrar but
without providing him an opportunity of hearing, the Assistant Registrar
passed an order on December 02, 2023 whereby the list of 11 members
of the general body of the Society was finalized. It has further been
argued that it is apparent from the face of the order dated December 02,
                                   12


2023 that it can not sustain in the eyes of law as it has been passed in
gross violation of the principles of natural justice for the reason that
before passing the said order, Respondent No. 7 was not afforded
opportunity of hearing.

21. It has been argued on behalf of Respondent No's. 6 & 7 that once it is
clear from a bare perusal of the order dated December 02, 2023 that
Respondent No. 7 had filed objections to the tentative list of members
issued vide order dated June 18, 2022 and raised a claim that 40 persons,
including him and Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey, were inducted as members
of the general body of the Society vide resolution of the Committee of
Management of the Society dated October 28, 2013, then it was
obligatory on the Assistant Registrar to provide an opportunity of
hearing to Respondent No. 7, before finalizing the list of members of the
general body of the Society whereas, it is apparent from the face of order
dated June 18, 2022 that no such opportunity of hearing was afforded to
Respondent No. 7 before passing the said order.

22. Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent
No's. 6 & 7, has argued that Respondent No's. 6 & 7 and thirty-eight
other persons i.e. a total of 40 persons, were inducted as special members
(विशिष्ट सदस्य) of the Society vide resolution dated October 28, 2013
passed by the Committee of Management of the Society and the then
Manager of the Society, Late Ramakar Dubey, informed the said
induction of members to the Assistant Registrar vide application dated
November 07, 2023, then there could not have been any occasion for the
Assistant Registrar to reject the claim of 40 persons in respect of their
members, as such the order dated June 18, 2022 on its face is
unsustainable. It has been argued that, no doubt, the Assistant Registrar
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 does not have any power to
review his decision but if there is any procedural infirmity in the order,
then it can be reviewed under the concept of procedural review. It has
further been argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court, vide its various
                                      13


decisions, had categorically propounded the law that in the cases where a
quasi-judicial authority comes to the conclusion that the order passed by
him suffers from procedural defect and would have been different had
that defect not existed, it can review its order.

23. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No's. 6 & 7
has vehemently argued that it is apparent on the face of order dated
December 02, 2023 that Respondent No. 7 had filed objections in the
form of an application dated July 11, 2022 against the tentative list of
members declared vide order dated June 18, 2022 but he was not
afforded opportunity of hearing before passing the order dated December
02, 2023, therefore, the Assistant Registrar, on an application moved by
Respondent No. 7, has reviewed his order dated December 02, 2023 by
passing a fresh order dated 30 May 2024 based on the principle of
procedural review, as such the impugned order dated May 30, 2024 does
not suffer from either any infirmity or illegality.

24. It has been submitted on behalf of Respondent No's. 6 & 7 that after
passing of the order dated December 02, 2023, Respondent No. 7 filed
an application before the Assistant Registrar praying for a review of the
order and also filed an application before the Commissioner, Azamgarh
Division, Azamgarh for a direction to the Assistant Registrar to look into
the entire matter again after providing opportunity of hearing to
Respondent No. 7 and while the matter of review was pending before the
Assistant Registrar, Petitioner No. 1 filed Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024,
wherein this Court directed the learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the state to take instructions as to why elections have not been completed
in terms of the order dated December 02, 2023 and the Assistant
Registrar provided instructions to learned Standing Counsel that after
completion of the review proceedings, he would complete the elections
and thereafter the order dated May 30, 2024 has been passed, and the
elections of the Committee of Management of the Society have been
conducted. It has further been submitted that once the order dated
December 02, 2023 has been reviewed by passing an order dated May
                                     14


30, 2024 and the elections of the Committee of Management of the
Society have been conducted, there is no occasion for this Court to
interfere in the matter.

25. It has been pointed out by learned Senior Advocate appearing for
Respondent No's. 6 & 7 that Respondent No's. 6 & 7 along with 38 other
persons i.e. a total of 40 persons were inducted as members by the
Committee of Management of the Society vide resolution dated October
28, 2013 and it is admitted by Petitioner No. 1 in the orders passed by
the Assistant Registrar that the original registers of the proceedings of
the Committee of Management of the Society have been taken away by
the then Principal of the college, therefore, there was no occasion for the
Assistant Registrar to discard the claim of the 40 persons in respect of
their membership, which was granted to them vide resolution dated
October 28, 2013.

26. Shri Prabhakar Awasti, learned Senior Advocate, has thus concluded
his arguments by submitting that the order dated 30 May 2024 has been
passed by the Assistant Registrar applying the principle of procedural
review, therefore, there is neither any illegality nor infirmity in the said
order, accordingly, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are liable to
be dismissed by this Court.

27. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent No's. 6 & 7, to
buttress his arguments, has relied upon the judgments of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of M/S Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd.
Vs. Phool Chand, 2018 (16) SCC 567; and the judgment and order dated
08.01.2019 passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 375 of 2019, Nagar
Palika Parishad, Disrict – Ghazipur Vs. Union of India & 3 others.

28. Sri V. K. Ojha, learned Advocate holding brief of Ms. Anjali Singh,
learned counsel for the intervener, has argued that Mr. Sadanand Tiwari
had already challenged the order dated June 18, 2023 by filing Writ-C
No. 22464 of 2022, which is pending before this Court, therefore, unless
                                     15


the said writ petition is decided, this court may not permit any election of
the Committee of Management of the Society.

29. I have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties including
learned counsel for the intervener and have perused the documents
available in the record of the writ petitions placed before this Court.

30. It is apparent that Respondent No's. 6 & 7 in Writ-C No. 20655 of
2024 have not challenged the order dated June 18, 2022 whereby the
elections of the Committee of Management of the society had been
declared time-barred and tentative list of 14 members of the general
body of the society was published and objections were invited except
that the order dated June 18, 2022 has been challenged by the intervener,
Mr. Sadanand Tiwari, by filing a separate Writ-C No. 22464 of 2022,
wherein, as of now, no interim order has been passed by this Court.
Thus, it is manifest that this Court, while deciding the Writ-C No.11375
of 2024 and Writ-C No. 20655 of 2024, is to adjudicate the validity of
the proceedings carried out by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies
and Chits, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, after June 18, 2022.

31. The Assistant Registrar after considering the entire facts and
circumstances of the case and after affording opportunity of hearing to
the concerned parties, had passed an order on June 18, 2022, whereby
elections of the Committee of Management of the Society had been
declared as time-barred and further, the Assistant Registrar, in exercise
of his power under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860,
proceeded to hold elections of the Committee of Management of the
Society, and in that process, a tentative list of 14 members of the general
body of the Society was declared and objections against the said
tentative list were invited.

32. The objections against the aforesaid tentative list of members of the
Society, declared vide order dated June 18, 2022, were filed by
Petitioner No. 1 i.e. Mr. Sitaram Rastogi, Mr. Sadanand Tiwari,
Respondent No. 6 i.e. Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey and Respondent No. 7
                                    16


i.e. Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey, and also by other persons. The
Respondent No. 7 i.e. Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey filed his objections
through an application dated July 11, 2022 and Respondent No. 6 i.e.
Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey along with Mr. Sharad Vrat Pandey, Mr. Ram
Vilas, Mr. Abhay Shukla, Mr. Vijay Narayan Pandey, Mr. Ravikant, and
Mr. Sudhakar Pandey filed their objections vide application dated July
12, 2022. It is of utmost importance to take note of the fact that
objections raised by Mr. Giresh Kumar Pandey through his application
dated July 11, 2022 and the objections raised by Mr. Ved Prakash
Pandey through his application dated July 12, 2022 were one and the
same, and their claim was that 40 persons, including them, have been
inducted as special members (Vishishta Sadasya) of the general body of
the Society vide resolution dated October 28, 2013 passed by the
Committee of Management of the Society, therefore, the names of said
40 persons must be included in the list of members of the general body
of the Society to be used in the elections to be held under the order dated
June 18, 2022. It is also noteworthy that Respondent No's. 6 & 7 in their
objections claimed that they along with 38 other persons were inducted
as members of the general body of the Society vide resolution dated
October 28, 2013 passed by the Committee of Management of the
Society whose manager was Mr. Ramakar Dubey and he duly informed
the said induction of the members to the office of the Assistant Registrar
vide his letter dated November 07, 2013.

33. It is also of the utmost importance for this Court to consider that Mr.
Giresh Kumar Pandey i.e. Respondent No. 7 and Mr. Ved Prakash
Pandey i.e. Respondent No. 6, from the very beginning, have raised one
and the same claim in respect of membership of the 40 persons, and that
fact also gets fortified through subsequent actions, as they have
collectively challenged the order dated June 21, 2024, passed by this
Court in Writ-C No. 20655 of 2024, by filing Special Appeal No. 634 of
2024. Thus, from the conduct of Respondent No's. 6 and 7, by filing
common objections against the tentative list before the Assistant
                                                17


Registrar and thereafter, collectively contesting the case before this
Court in Special Appeal No. 634 of 2024, it is crystal clear that both
have raised an absolutely common issue of the validity of the
membership of 40 persons allegedly inducted vide resolution dated
October 28, 2013. The Court finds that pursuant to the order dated June
18, 2022, the Respondent No's. 6 & 7 filed two separate applications
dated July 12, 2022 and July 11, 2022 respectively, whereby they raised
common objections and issues in respect of the claim of 40 persons
regarding their membership of the general body of the Society. The
Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, while hearing the
objections, did not issue notice for personal hearing to Respondent No. 7
but notice to Respondent No. 6 for personal hearing was issued and he
was heard. The Assistant Registrar, in its order dated December 2, 2023,
had considered the entire objections raised in respect of the alleged
membership of 40 persons, including the membership of Respondent
No's. 6 & 7, granted by the alleged resolution dated October 28, 2013,
and thereafter, after considering the matter in its entirety, recorded a
categorical finding that the claim of membership of 40 persons is not
tenable in the eyes of law. For ready reference, the relevant extracts of
the order passed by the Assistant Registrar on December 2, 2023, are
reproduced as under:-

      “श्री गिरेश कुमार पाण्डेय द्वारा समिति के व्यवस्थापक/प्रबन्धक के रूप में प्रार्थना पत्र
      दिनांक 11.07.2022 एवं उक्त के साथ संलग्न कर कार्यालय को प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक
      07.07.2022 समस्त संलग्नकों सहित छायाप्रति में प्रस्तुत करते हुए निम्नलिखित सूची के
      अनुसार समिति के साधारण सभा का विधिमान्य सदस्य होने, पूर्व अध्यक्ष, उपाध्यक्ष व
      प्रबन्धक आदि द्वारा निहित हित में अपने अधिकार का दरू  ू पयोग करते हुए समिति विरोधी
      गतिविधियों में संलिप्त होने के कारण साधारण सभा के हम सदस्यगण को समिति के
      बैठकों की सूचना न दिये जाने, इसलिए पूर्व में आहूत बैठकों में सम्मिलित होने से हम
      सदस्यगण के वंचित होते रहने, हमारे अधिकारों का जानबूझकर हनन किये जाने का
      कथन करते हुए एवं साधारण सभा के सदस्य की सूची के रूप में 40 व्यक्तियों की सूची
      प्रार्थना पत्र पर टंकित करते हुए समितिहित में आवश्यक कार्यवाही किये जाने हेतु अनुरोध
      किया गया। श्री वेद प्रकाश, श्री शरदव्रत पाण्डेय, श्री रामविलाश, श्री अभय शुक्ल, श्री
      विजय नारायण, श्री रविकान्त, श्री सुधाकर पाण्डेय के संयक्त ु हस्ताक्षरों से समिति के
      साधारण सभा के सदस्य के रूप में आपत्ति दिनांक 12.07.2022 प्रस्तुत करते हुए
      कार्यालय आदेश दिनांक 18.06.2022 द्वारा सलग्न सूची के 14 सदस्य एवं हम सभी
      साधारण सभा के 40 सदस्यों के विधिमान्य सदस्य होने, समिति के पूर्व अध्यक्ष,
      उपाध्यक्ष, प्रबन्धक आदि द्वारा निहित हित में अपने अधिकारों का दरु   ू पयोग करते हुए
                                                18


     समिति विरोधी गतिविधियों में सम्मिलित होने के कारण साधारण सभा के हम सभी
     सदस्यों को बैठक के सन्दर्भ में सूचना न दिये जाने, साधारण सभा की सूची में हम 40
     सदस्यों का नाम भी प्रस्तुत न किये जाने, इसलिए पूर्व में आहूत बैठकों में साधारण सभा
     के हम सदस्यगण के वंचित होते रहने, जानबूझकर हमारे अधिकारों का हनन किये जाने
     का कथन करते हुए एवं साधारण सभा सूची के रूप में 40 व्यक्तियों का नाम व विवरण
     प्रार्थना पत्र पर टंकित करते हुए हम सभी 40 सदस्यीय साधारण सभा की सूची के साथ
     ही आदेश दिनांक 18.06.2022 द्वारा निर्गत 14 सदस्यीय साधारण सभा के सदस्य
     अर्थात् कुल 54 सदस्यीय साधारण सभा के सदस्यों के आधार पर अग्रिम कार्यवाही किये
     जाने हेतु अनुरोध किया गया है। आपत्ति दिनांक 12.07.2022 के साथ संलग्न कर आदेश
     दिनाक 18. 06.2022 छायाप्रति, नोटरी शपथ पत्र श्री अभय शुक्ल, श्री विजय नरायन, श्री
     रविकान्त, श्री शरदव्रत पाण्डेय, श्री रामविलास, श्री सुधाकर पाण्डेय, श्री वेदप्रकाश
     प्रस्तुत है। संलग्न शपथ पत्रों के शपथकर्ताओं द्वारा समिति का विधिमान्य सदस्य होने,
     समिति में कोई प्रबन्धकीय विवाद न होने, कोई प्रबन्धकीय विवाद किसी मा० न्यायालय
     में लम्बित न होने, केन्द्र सरकार / राज्य सरकार / सांसद/विधायक निधि से कोई वित्तीय
     सहायता / अनुदान प्राप्त न होने, कोई तथ्य गोपन न किये जाने, समिति को काली सूची में
     न रखे जाने, समिति के अपने उद्देश्यों के अनुरूप कार्य किये जाने, समिति के
     परिसम्पत्तियों से प्रत्यक्ष या अप्रत्यक्ष लाभ न लिये जाने, कार्यालय आदेश
     दिनांक 18.062022 के साथ संलग्न समिति के साधारण सभा की 14 सदस्यीय सूची पर
     आमन्त्रित आपत्ति के क्रम में निम्नलिखित समिति के 40 साधारण सभा के सदस्यों के
     तरफ से आज दिनांक 12.07.2022 को निम्नवत् सूची प्रस्तुत किये जाने, यदि उपरोक्त
     बिन्द ु व कथन गलत पाये जाये तो सोसाइटी पंजीकरण अधिनियम 1860 के अधीन
     कार्यवाही किये जाने, मुझे कोई आपत्ति नहीं होगी का कथन किया गया है।"



********************************************************

     “कार्यालय को प्रस्तुत उक्त आपत्ति / प्रपत्रों के निस्तारण के क्रम में कार्यालय पत्राक 816,
     दिनांक 25.08.2022 श्री सदानन्द तिवारी, श्री सीताराम रस्तोगी व श्री रामनवल को
     प्रेषित करते हुए एवं सुनवाई हेतु तिथि नियत करते हुए नियत तिथि को उपस्थित होकर
     अपना-अपना पक्ष प्रस्तुत किये जाने हेतु निर्देशित किया गया। कार्यालय नोटिस दिनांक
     25.08.2022 के क्रम में सुनवाई की कार्यवाही करते हुए नियत तिथि दिनाक 28.09.2022
     को उपस्थित पक्षकारों की सहमति से पत्रावली आदेशार्थ संरक्षित करते हुए पक्षकारों की
     सहमति से पत्रावली आदेशार्थ संरक्षित करते हुए पक्षकारों को समिति का मूल अभिलेख
     जमा किये जाने हेतु दिनांक 10.10.2022 तक का समय प्रदान किया गया। उक्त के
     उपरान्त श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय के प्रार्थना पत्र एवं पूर्व प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र दिनाक
     11/12.07. 2022 के निस्तारण के क्रम में उक्त को सुनवाई का अवसर दिया जाना
     समुचित प्रतीत होने की स्थिति में सुनवाई की कार्यवाही पुनः प्रारम्भ करते हुए कार्यालय
     पत्रांक 1128. दिनांक 31 10.2022 श्री सदानन्त तिवारी, श्री सीताराम रस्तोगी, श्री
     रामनवल व श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय को प्रेषित करते हुए तथा सुनवाई हेतु तिथि नियत करते
     हुए नियत सुनवाई में प्रतिभाग कर अपना-अपना पक्ष प्रस्तुत किये जाने हेतु निर्देशित
     किया गया। सुनवाई गतिमान रहने की अवधि में ही तत्कालीन सहायक निबन्धक के
     स्थानान्तरण के फलस्वरूप कार्यवाही स्थगित रहने तथा उक्त का संज्ञान होने पर
     कार्यालय पत्रांक 1577 दिनांक 10.01.2023 श्री सदानन्द तिवारी, श्री सीताराम रस्तोगी,
     श्री रामनवल, श्री वेदप्रकाश को प्रेषित करते हुए एवं सुनवाई हेतु तिथि नियत करते हुए
     नियत तिथि को अपने-अपने ससाक्ष्य लिखित अभिकथन एवं समिति के मूल अभिलेखों
     सहित उपस्थित होकर अपना-अपना पक्ष प्रस्तुत किये जाने हेतु निर्देशित किया गया।
     कार्यालय नोटिस के क्रम में प्रकरण में सुनवाई हेतु तिथियां नियत करते हुए नियत सुनवाई
                                          19


दिनांक 26.07.2023 को श्री सीताराम रस्तोगी, श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय, श्री रामनवल
पाण्डेय के प्रतिनिधि अधिवक्ता के माध्यम से उपस्थित रहने, श्री सदानन्द तिवारी के
उपस्थित न रहने, उपस्थित पक्षकारों की सहमति से पत्रावली आदेशार्थ संरक्षित करते हुए
पक्षकारों को अपना-अपना लिखित बहस व मूल अभिलेख जमा किये जाने हेतु 10 दिनों
का समय प्रदान किया गया।"

****************************************************

“श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र / आपत्ति दिनांक 12.07.2022 दिनांक
10.10.2022, दिनांक 23.03.2022 व दिनांक 27.06.2023 के सम्मिलित अवलोकन से
श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व अन्य के प्रार्थना पत्र / आपत्ति दिनांक 12.07.2022 द्वारा 40
सदस्यों के विधिमान्य सदस्य होने, 40 सदस्यों की विधिमान्य सूची अंकित कर प्रस्तुत
किये जाने के साथ मात्र पूर्व अध्यक्ष, उपाध्यक्ष, प्रबन्धक द्वारा निहित हित में अपने
अधिकारों का दरू     ु पयोग कर साधारण सभा के सदस्य (वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व अन्य) को
कभी भी बैठक की सूचना न दिये जाने, साधारण सभा की सूची में उक्त 40 का नाम
प्रस्तुत न किये जाने, समिति की बैठकों में प्रतिभाग किये जाने से वंचित हो जाने व
आपत्तिकर्ता के अधिकारों का जानबूझकर हनन किये जाने का कथन मात्र किया गया है
जबकि पत्र दिनांक 10.10.2022 द्वारा तत्कालीन प्रबन्धक श्री रमाकर दबू े द्वारा मौखिक
रूप से अवगत कराये जाने का तथा उक्त मौखिक सूचना के आधार पर दिनांक
02.07.2013 से दिनांक 14.07.2013 तक सदस्यता शुल्क व सहायतार्थ धनराशि जमा
किये जाने, बैठक दिनांक 28.10.2013 द्वारा सदस्यता प्रदान किये जाने, तत्कालीन
प्रबन्धक द्वारा सदस्यता प्रमाण पत्र व रसीद निर्गत किये जाने का कथन किया गया है। श्री
वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय के आपत्ति दिनांक 23.03.2022 द्वारा सर्वप्रथम सदस्यता हेतु
तत्कालीन प्रबन्धक को आवेदन पत्र प्रस्तुत किये जाने का कथन किया गया है। इसी तरह
श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय के आपत्ति दिनांक 27.06.2023 द्वारा सर्वप्रथम सदस्यता रजिस्टर
पर हस्ताक्षर करवाये जाने/ किये जाने का कथन किया गया है। श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय
द्वारा प्रस्तुत उक्त प्रार्थना पत्रों/ आपत्ति/अभिकथन के अवलोकन से श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय
के पत्र दिनांक 12.07.2022 व दिनांक 10.10.2022 द्वारा सदस्यता हेतु आवेदन पत्र दिये
जाने एवं सदस्यता रजिस्टर पर हस्ताक्षर किये जाने का कोई कथन नहीं किया गया है
तथा श्री रागनवल पाण्डेय व श्री 'सीताराम रस्तोगी के आपत्ति के खण्डन में पत्र दिनांक
23.03.2023 द्वारा सर्वप्रथम सदस्यता हेतु आवेदन पत्र प्रस्तुत किये जाने एवं आपत्ति
दिनांक 27.06.2023 द्वारा सर्वप्रथम सदस्यता रजिस्टर पर हस्ताक्षर किये जाने का
कथन किया गया है। श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय द्वारा कार्यालय को प्रस्तुत उक्त प्रार्थना
पत्रों/आपत्ति/अभिकथन के सम्मिलित अवलोकन से श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व अन्य द्वारा
पश्चवर्ती सोच की उपज प्रपत्र एवं कथन कर सदस्यता का दावा किये जाने की स्थिति
स्पष्ट परिलक्षित होती है। उक्त के अतिरिक्त श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व अन्य द्वारा वर्ष 2013
में तत्कालीन प्रबन्धक श्री रमाकर दबू े द्वारा उपलब्ध करायी गयी सूचना के आधार पर
सदस्यता शुल्क / सहायतार्थ राशि जमा किये जाने, तत्कालीन प्रबन्धक द्वारा रसीद एवं
प्रमाण पत्र निर्गत किये जाने, तत्कालीन प्रबन्धक द्वारा साधारण सभा की बैठक दिनांक
28.10.2013 द्वारा सदस्यता प्रदान किये जाने से अवगत कराये जाने का एवं सदस्यता
रजिस्टर पर हस्ताक्षर कराये जाने का कथन किया गया है। यहाँ यह उल्लेखनीय है कि
तत्कालीन प्रबन्धक श्री रमाकर दबू े का निधन दिनांक 17.11.2013 को हो गया है। इस
तरह तत्कालीन प्रबन्धक के निधन के लगभग 9 वर्ष उपरान्त तत्कालीन प्रबन्धक के
मौखिक सूचना पर सदस्य बने/बनाये जाने का कथन करते हुए एवं तत्कालीन प्रबन्धक
मृतक दिनांक 17.11.2013 के निधन के 09 वर्ष उपरान्त मृतक प्रबन्धक के हस्ताक्षरों से
सदस्यता शुल्क रसीद व सदस्यता प्रमाण पत्र प्रस्तुत करते हुए समिति के साधारण सभा
का सदस्य बनने / बनाये जाने का कथन पूर्ण तः प्रश्नवाचक है। यहाँ यह उल्लेखनीय है कि
                                           20


वर्ष 2013 में श्री रमाकर दबू े के प्रबन्धक रहने की अवधि में श्री रामनवल पाण्डेय समिति
के अध्यक्ष एवं श्री सीताराम रस्तोगी समिति के उपप्रबन्धक रहें तथा तत्कालीन प्रबन्धक
श्री रमाकर दबू े के निधन के उपरान्त उपप्रबन्धक श्री सीताराम रस्तोगी समिति के
प्रबन्धक चयनित हुए तथा रहें। तत्समय श्री रामनवल पाण्डेय के अध्यक्ष होने, श्री
सीताराम रस्तोगी के उपप्रबन्धक होने तथा श्री रमाकर दबू े के निधन से श्री सीताराम
रस्तोगी के प्रबन्धक चयनित होने का तथ्य कार्यालय अभिलेखों / पत्रावली से पुष्टित है।
कार्यालय अभिलेखों व पत्रावली से पुष्टित तत्कालीन अध्यक्ष श्री रामनवल पाण्डेय,
तत्कालीन उपप्रबन्धक श्री सीताराम रस्तोगी व श्री रमाकर दबू े के निधन से रिक्त स्थान
पर चयनित प्रबन्धक श्री सीताराम रस्तोगी द्वारा शपथ पत्र समर्थित आपत्ति प्रस्तुत करते
हुए श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व अन्य के समिति का सदस्य बने/बनाये जाने, दिनांक
28.10.2013 को साधारण सभा की कोई बैठक होने एवं उक्त के द्वारा सदस्यता स्वीकृत
किये जाने, तत्कालीन प्रबन्धक श्री रमाकर दबू े द्वारा सदस्यता शुल्क की रसीद व
सदस्यता प्रमाण पत्र निर्गत किये जाने व श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय सहित 40 के समिति का
सदस्य होने के कथनों व सम्बन्धित प्रपत्रों का खण्डन करते हुए उक्त 40 को समिति का
सदस्य बना/बनाया गया न होने तथा उक्त की दर्शायी गयी सदस्यता फर्जी होने का कथन
किया गया है। श्री रामनवल पाण्डेय व श्री सीताराम रस्तोगी के खण्डन के प्रतिउत्तर में
श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय द्वारा श्री रामनवल पाण्डेय व श्री सीताराम रस्तोगी के विरूद्ध
समिति पर कब्जा किये जाने व एकाधिकार स्थापित किये जाने व निहित हित में असत्य
आपत्ति किये जाने का कथन मात्र किया गया है। तत्कालीन अध्यक्ष व उपप्रबन्धक के
शपथ पत्र समर्थित खण्डन के आलोक में श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय द्वारा समिति के साधारण
सभा के बैठक दिनांक 28.10.2013 व उक्त के द्वारा सदस्यता स्वीकृति का किया जा रहा
कथन अपुष्टित होने की स्थिति में स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है।

यहाँ यह उल्लेखनीय है कि सोसाइटी पंजीकरण अधिनियम 1860 के अधीन धारा-4 (बी)
का समावेश करते हुए दिनांक 09.10.2013 से उक्त को लागू एवं प्रभावी किया गया है।
धारा-4(बी) (1.2.3) के व्यवस्था के अनुसार समिति के पंजीकरण / नवीनीकरण के समय
साधारण सभा के सदस्यों की सूची प्रस्तुत किये जाने तथा प्रस्तुत सूची के शुद्धता का
परीक्षण समिति के अभिलेख यथा सदस्यता पंजिका, कार्यवाही पंजिका, कैशबुक,
सदस्यता शुल्क रसीद बुक व बैंक पासबुक के आधार पर किये जाने, साधारण सभा के
सदस्यों की सूची में सदस्यता वृद्धि या किसी प्रकार का परिवर्तन होने की स्थिति में उक्त
परिवर्तन के एक माह के अन्दर साधारण सभा के सदस्यों की उपान्तरित सूची दाखिल
किये जाने, उक्त दाखिल किये जाने वाले साधारण सभा के सदस्यों की सूची पर
सोसाइटी के दो पदाधिकारी व दो कार्यपालक सदस्यों का हस्ताक्षर अंकित होने की
व्यवस्था प्राविधानित है। श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व अन्य द्वारा साधारण सभा की बैठक
दिनांक 28.10.2013 द्वारा श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय सहित 40 को सदस्यता प्रदान किये
जाने के कथन के आलोक में समिति के साधारण सभा में दिनाक 28.10.2013 को 40
सदस्यों की वृद्धि के कथन के आलोक में उक्त सदस्यता वृद्धि/सदस्य बनाये जाने की
कार्यवाही पर सोसाइटी पंजीकरण अधिनियम 1860 की धारा-4 (बी) के व्यवस्था लागू
एवं प्रभावी होने की स्थिति पूर्ण तया स्पष्ट है। श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व अन्य द्वारा दिनांक
28.10.2013 को कथित सदस्यता स्वीकृति एवं सदस्यता वृद्धि सर्वप्रथम श्री वेदप्रकाश
पाण्डेय व अन्य के प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 12.07.2022 एवं श्री गिरेश यथासूचित प्रबन्धक
के प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 11.07.2022 द्वारा कार्यालय को प्रस्तुत है। उक्त प्रार्थना पत्र
दिनांक 11.07.2022 व दिनांक 12.07.2022 द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रपत्रों पर कार्यालय आदेश
दिनांक 18.06.2022 द्वारा प्रसारित समिति के साधारण सभा के 14 सदस्यीय सूची में
अंकित किसी सदस्य द्वारा या कार्यालय पत्रावली में उपलब्ध समिति के प्रबन्धसमिति की
तत्कालीन वार्षिक सूची में अंकित किसी सदस्य का हस्ताक्षर अंकित नहीं है। यहाँ यह
उल्लेखनीय है कि कार्यालय आदेश पत्रांक 2700, दिनांक 20.11.2014 द्वारा समिति के
                                            21


प्रबन्धसमिति की सूची वर्ष 2014-15 पंजीकृत है। उक्त के विपरीत तत्कालीन
पदाधिकारियों द्वारा श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय सहित 40 की दर्शायी गयी सदस्यता व
सदस्यता स्वीकृति सम्बन्धी कार्यवाही दिनाक 28.10.2013 का खण्डन किया जा रहा
है। श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व अन्य द्वारा सोसाइटी पजीकरण अधिनियम 1860 की धारा-4
(बी) के अधीन समिति के अभिलेख प्रस्तुत न करते हुए समिति के अभिलेखों का संरक्षक
समिति के पंजीकृत नियमावली के अनुसार समिति के व्यवस्थापक / प्रबन्धक के होने,
उक्त के द्वारा ही प्रस्तुत किये जा सकने का कथन किया गया है। तत्कालीन उपप्रबन्धक
एवं तत्कालीन प्रबन्धक श्री रमाकर दबू े के निधन से रिक्त प्रबन्धक पद पर चयनित
प्रबन्धक श्री सीताराम रस्तोगी द्वारा समिति के अभिलेखों के समिति द्वारा संचालित
विद्यालय के प्रधानाचार्य श्री हरिहर शुक्ल के लेकर चले जाने, आज तक वापस न किये
जाने, तत्सम्बन्ध में उच्चाधिकारियों के यहां शिकायत किये जाने का लिखित कथन किया
गया है। श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय के आपत्ति द्वारा श्री रामनवल पाण्डेय एवं श्री सीताराम
रस्तोगी द्वारा उक्त 40 बने/बनाये गये सदस्यों को सदस्यता से वंचित किये जाने के नियत
से निजी स्वार्थ में समिति पर एकाधिकार स्थापित किये जाने हेतु समिति के अभिलेखों
को गायब कर दिये जाने तथा विद्यालय प्रधानाचार्य पर असत्य आरोप लगाये जाने का
कथन किया गया है। कार्यालय पत्रावली के अनुसार कार्यालय आदेश दिनांक
18.06.2022 के निर्गमन के क्रम में सम्पादित सुनवाई के क्रम में श्री सीताराम रस्तोगी
द्वारा प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 19.01.2022 प्रस्तुत करते हुए उक्त कथन किया गया है तथा
उक्त के साथ विद्यालय प्रधानाचार्य को प्रेषित पत्र दिनांक 10.06.2022, जिला विद्यालय
निरीक्षक, आजमगढ़ को प्रेषित पत्र दिनांक 09.09.2020 की छायाप्रति संलग्न कर प्रस्तुत
किया गया है। यहाँ यह उल्लेखनीय है कि दिनांक 19.01 2022 को कार्यालय पत्रावली में
श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व अन्य 39 का कोई अस्तित्व नहीं था। उक्त स्थिति में ऐसे सदस्य
या सदस्यता जिसका कि कार्यालय पत्रावली में दिनांक 19.01 2022 तक कोई अस्तित्व
ही नहीं था को सदस्यता से वंचित किये जाने के दर्भा          ु वना से प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक
29.01.2022 प्रस्तुत कर उक्त के द्वारा असत्य कथन किये जाने का न तो कोई औचित्य
है और न, ही तत्समय श्री सीताराम रस्तोगी द्वारा दर्भा  ु वनावश उक्त कथन किये जाने की
की जा रही आपत्ति का ही कोई औचित्य है। किसी भी स्थिति में सोसाइटी पंजीकरण
अधिनियम 1860 की धारा-4 (बी) के व्यवस्था के अधीन सम्बन्धित अभिलेखों के
उपलब्ध न होने की स्थिति में श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व अन्य 39 की सदस्यता व बैठक
दिनांक 28.10.2013 द्वारा सदस्यता प्रदान किये जाने का किया जा रहा कथन पुष्टि के
अभाव में एवं धारा-4 (बी) के व्यवस्था के अनुरूप स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है। उक्त
के अतिरिक्त श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय सहित दर्शाये गये 40 सदस्यों का सदस्यता शुल्क
समिति के बैंक खाते में जमा होने के पुष्टि के अभाव में सोसाइटी पंजीकरण अधिनियम
1860 की धारा-15 के प्रतिकूल श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय सहित 40 की सदस्यता स्वीकार
किये जाने योग्य नहीं है। श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय द्वारा स्वयं सहित 40 की सदस्यता शुल्क
रसीद एवं सदस्यता प्रमाण पत्र छायाप्रति में पत्रावली में प्रस्तुत है एवं प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक
05.08.2023 के साथ सलग्न कर मूल रूप में प्रस्तुत है। उक्त सदस्यता शुल्क रसीद
दिनांक 02.07.2013 से दिनांक 14.07.2013 तक की तिथियों में श्री रमाकर दबू े
प्रबन्धक के हस्ताक्षरों से निर्गत दर्शायी गयी है तथा सदस्यता शुल्क धनराशि रूपया 100
व सहायतार्थ धनराशि अलग-अलग प्राप्त करते हुए रसीद निर्गत किया जाना दर्शाया गया
है। प्रस्तुत सदस्यता प्रमाण पत्र दिनांक 31.10.2013 की तिथि में श्री रमाकर दबू े
प्रबन्धक के हस्ताक्षर से निर्गत है तथा उक्त प्रमाण पत्र में ही रसीद क्रमांक एवं उक्त की
तिथि, भुगतान की धनराशि, सदस्यता श्रेणी का विवरण अंकित है। श्री सीताराम रस्तोगी
व श्री रामनवल पाण्डेय द्वारा उक्त के प्रति आपत्ति करते हुए उक्त को पूर्ण तया फर्जी होने
एवं श्री रमाकर दबू े के फर्जी हस्ताक्षर से तैयार कर प्रस्तुत किये जाने का कथन किया
गया है। समिति वर्ष 1970 की पंजीकृत है तथा पंजीकरण के समय स्मृति पत्र पर अंकित
                                           22


हस्ताक्षर एवं पंजीकरण के 43 वर्ष पश्चात् सदस्यता प्रमाण पत्र पर अंकित हस्ताक्षर पर
कुछ भिन्नता कि सम्भावना समय के प्रवाह से सम्भावित है। कार्यालय पत्रावली में
उपलब्ध श्री रमाकर दबू े के नवीनीकरण प्रार्थना पत्र 09.11.2010 एवं उक्त के साथ संलग्न
श्री रमाकर दबू े का फोटोयुक्त मूल नोटरी शपथ पत्र व अन्य प्रपत्रों पर अंकित दर्शाया गया
है। यद्यपि कि श्री रमाकर दबू े के हस्ताक्षर से प्रस्तुत उक्त नवीनीकरण प्रार्थना पत्र व उक्त
के साथ संलग्न शपथ पत्र दिनांक 25.10.2010 व अन्य प्रपत्रों पर अंकित श्री रमाकर दबू े
के हस्ताक्षर एवं श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व अन्य द्वारा प्रस्तुत सदस्यता शुल्क रसीद
(दिनांक 02.07.2013 से दिनाक 14.07.2013) व सदस्यता प्रमाण पत्र दिनांक
31.10.2013 पर अंकित दर्शाया गया श्री रमाकर दबू े का हस्ताक्षर एवं कार्यालय पत्रावली
में उपलब्ध श्री रमाकर दबू े के नवीनीकरण प्रार्थना पत्र एवं उक्त के साथ संलग्न शपथ पत्र
व अन्य प्रपत्रों पर अंकित दर्शाया गया श्री रमाकर दबू े के हस्ताक्षर में नगी आं खो से देखे
जाने पर एकरूपता परीलक्षित नहीं होती है। तथापि अधोहस्ताक्षरी के स्तर से उक्त बिन्द ु
पर मत स्थिर किया जाना सम्भव नहीं हो पा रहा है। श्री वेदप्रकाश व अन्य के प्रार्थना पत्र
दिनांक 12.07.2022 द्वारा निम्नवत् कथन किया गया हैः-

"श्री हरिहर संस्कृत पाठशाला, बाजार गोसाई, आजमगढ़ के पूर्व श्रीमान् अध्यक्ष एवं
श्रीमान् उपाध्यक्ष व श्रीमान् प्रबन्धक महोदय आदि लोभ एवं स्वार्थ से ग्रसित होकर एवं
अधिकार का दरू  ु पयोग करते हुए एवं समिति विरोधी गतिविधियों में संलिप्त होने के कारण
हम सभी साधारण सभा के सदस्यगणों के कभी भी बैठक के सन्दर्भ में सूचना नहीं देते थे
तथा साधारण सभा की सूची में हम सभी 40 सदस्यों का नाम भी प्रस्तुत नहीं करते रहे
है। इसलिए पूर्व में आहूत बैठकों में सम्मिलित होने से हम सभी साधारण सभा के
सदस्यगण वंचित होते रहे है। इस प्रकार हमारे अधिकारों का हनन जानबूझकर किया
जाता रहा है।"

श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय के आपत्ति दिनांक 10.10.2022 के बिन्द ु संख्या 02 के अनुसार
विद्यालय के प्रधानाचार्य द्वारा विद्यालय के सूचना पट्ट पर कार्यालय आदेश दिनांक
18.06.2022 की प्रति चस्पा किये जाने पर आदेश की जानकारी हुई, उक्त के पूर्व
सुनवाई के सम्बन्ध में कोई जानकारी न होने का कथन किया गया है परन्तु श्री वेदप्रकाश
व अन्य द्वारा उक्त प्रार्थना पत्र दिनांक 12.07.2022 या सुनवाई के क्रम में प्रस्तुत
अभिकथन /आपत्ति/लिखित बहस द्वारा कहीं भी यह स्पष्ट नहीं किया गया है कि समिति
के पदाधिकारियों द्वारा उक्त 40 को बैठक की सूचना न दिये जाने, साधारण सभा की
सूची मे उक्त 40 का नाम प्रस्तुत न किये जाने, समिति के बैठकों में प्रतिभाग करने से
वंचित रहने का संज्ञान श्री वेदप्रकाश सहित उक्त 40 को कब और कैसे हुआ है। यहाँ यह
उल्लेखनीय है कि श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व अन्य द्वारा दिनाक 28.10.2013 को समिति के
सदस्यता प्रदान किये जाने एवं सदस्यता रजिस्टर पर हस्ताक्षर अंकित किये जाने का
कथन किया गया है। श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय के उक्त कथन एवं श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व
अन्य के प्रार्थना पत्र दिनाक 12.07.2022 द्वारा किये गये कथन के आलोक में श्री
वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व अन्य के वर्ष 2013 से ही समिति के बैठकों की सूचना समिति के
पदाधिकारियों द्वारा न दिये जाने, बैठकों में प्रतिभाग किये जाने से वंचित कर दिये जाने व
साधारण सभा के सदस्यों की सूची में नाम सम्मिलित न किये जाने की स्थिति में भी श्री
वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय सहित 40 के द्वारा वर्ष 2013 से लेकर वर्ष 2022 तक विगत 09 वर्षों
में समिति का सदस्य होने व समिति के पदाधिकारियों द्वारा बैठकों की सूचना न देकर
समिति की बैठकों में प्रतिभाग किये जाने से बाधित / वंचित कर दिये जाने की स्थिति में
श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय सहित 40 के द्वारा विगत 09 वर्षों में क्या कार्यवाही की गयी। यहाँ
यह उल्लेखनीय है कि दिनांक 07.07.2022 व दिनाक 11/12.07.2022 के पूर्व श्री
वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय सहित 40 के द्वारा कभी कोई पत्र/प्रार्थना पत्र/आपत्ति कार्यालय को
प्रस्तुत नहीं है और न ही श्री वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व अन्य द्वारा वर्ष 2013 में समिति की
सदस्यता प्रदान किये जाने कथन किये जाने के उपरान्त भी विगत 09 वर्षों में अपने
                                                 23


          सदस्यता या समिति के पदाधिकारियों द्वारा बैठकों की सूचना न दिये जाने व समिति के
          बैठकों में प्रतिभाग किये जाने से बाधित / वंचित किये जाने के सम्बन्ध में कोई
          पत्र/प्रपत्र/आपत्ति कार्यालय को प्रस्तुत किये जाने का कोई कथन ही किया गया है। वर्ष
          2013 से सदस्यता का दावा करने वाले साथ ही समिति के पदाधिकारियों द्वारा समिति
          के बैठकों की सूचना न देकर समिति के बैठकों में प्रतिभाग किये जाने से वंचित कर दिये
          जाने व स्वयं के अधिकारों का हनन किये जाने का कथन करने वाले श्री वेदप्रकाश
          पाण्डेय सहित 40 के द्वारा विगत 09 वर्षों में समिति के सदस्यता के सम्बन्ध में या बैठक
          की सूचना प्राप्त न होने के सम्बन्ध में या बैठक में प्रतिभाग किये जाने से बाधित किये
          जाने या समिति के साधारण सभा की सूची में नाम सम्मिलित न किये जाने के सम्बन्ध में
          किसी भी स्तर पर कभी किसी स्तर पर आपत्ति प्रस्तुत न किये जाने के आलोक में श्री
          वेदप्रकाश पाण्डेय व अन्य द्वारा वर्ष 2013 में सदस्य बनाये जाने का किया जा कथन व
          दर्शायी जा रही सदस्यता पूर्ण तः पश्चवर्ती सोच व कागजी कार्यवाही की उपज होने के
          आधार पर स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य नहीं है।"

34. The extracts of the order dated December 2, 2023, which have been
reproduced in this order, categorically reveal that the issue of
membership of 40 persons, which was raised by Respondent No’s. 6 and
7, was considered in its thread-bare and the Assistant Registrar had
recorded a categorical finding that the version put forward by Mr. Giresh
Kumar Pandey i.e. Respondent No. 7 and Mr. Ved Prakash Pandey i.e.
Respondent No. 6 does not appear to be trustworthy, as it is not only
improbable but impossible that the 40 persons, who were inducted as
members of the general body of the Society vide resolution dated
October 28, 2013, were never informed about any meeting of the general
body of the Society and they did not participate in any meeting of the
Society and further, they did not raise any voice regarding their claim of
membership from October 28, 2013 till July 11/12, 2022, therefore, their
claim of membership is not tenable and thus had rejected their claim.

35. This Court is of the view that by now, it is a well-settled proposition
of law that quasi-judicial authorities do not have power to review their
orders unless there is any statutory provision in that regard. However,
there is an exception that if there is any procedural informality
connecting to the roots of the issues involved, then the quasi-judicial
authorities can review their orders based on the principle of procedural
review.
                                            24


36. Now, this Court proceeds to take into consideration the judgments
cited by both the parties. The Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in
the case of Dr. (Smt.) Kuntesh Gupta (Supra) had categorically held
that the quasi-judicial authorities cannot review their decision unless the
power of review is expressly conferred on them by the statute under
which they derive their original jurisdiction. For ready reference,
Paragraph No. 11 of the judgment is extracted as under:-
      “11. It is now well established that a quasi-judicial authority cannot review
      its own order, unless the power of review is expressly conferred on it by
      the statute under which it derives its jurisdiction. The Vice-Chancellor in
      considering the question of approval of an order of dismissal of the
      Principal, acts as a quasi-judicial authority. It is not disputed that the
      provisions of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 of the Statutes of the
      University do not confer any power of review on the Vice-Chancellor. In
      the circumstances, it must be held that the Vice-Chancellor acted wholly
      without jurisdiction in reviewing her order dated January 24, 1987 by her
      order dated March 7, 1987. The said order of the Vice-Chancellor dated
      March 7, 1987 was a nullity.”

37. In another judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Kalabharati Advertising (Supra), it had been categorically held
that the quasi-judicial authority cannot review its decision unless the
same is expressly provided in the statute. For ready reference, Paragraph
No’s. 12, 13 & 14 of the judgment are extracted as under:-
      “12. It is settled legal proposition that unless that statute/rules so permit,
      the review application is not maintainable in case of judicial/quasi-judicial
      orders. In the absence of any provision in the Act granting an express
      power of review, it is manifest that a review couldn ot be made and the
      order in review, if passed, is ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction.
      (Vide Patel Chunibhai Dajibha Vs. Narayanrao Khanderao Jambekar and
      Harbhajan Singh Vs. Karam Singh.)

      13. In Patel Narshi Thakershi Vs. Pradyuman Singhji Arunsinghji, Majro
      Chandra Bhan Singh Vs. latafat Ullah Khan, Kuntesh Gupta (Dr.) Vs.
      Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya, State of Orissa Vs. Commr. O Land
      Records and Settlement and Sunita Jain Vs. Pawan Kumar Jain this
      Court held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be
      conferred by a law either expressly/specifically or by necessary
      implication and in the absence of any provision in the Act/Rules, review of
      an earlier order is impermissible as review is a creation of statute.
      Jurisdiction of review can be derived only from the statute and thus, any
                                             25


      order of review in the absence of any statutory provision for the same is a
      nullity, being without jurisdiction.

      14. Therefore, in view of the above, the law on the point can be
      summarised to the effect that in the absence of any statutory provision
      providing for review, entertaining an application for review or under the
      garb of clarification/modification/correction is not permissible.”

38. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of The State of West Bengal
(Supra) and this Court in its judgment rendered in the case of
Khachchan Singh (Supra) had also categorically held that the power of
review of its decision cannot be exercised by a quasi-judicial authority
unless the said power had been expressly conferred on it by the statutory
provision.

39. The High Court of Bombay in its judgment rendered in the case of
Kalpataru Power Transmission Ltd. (Supra) had categorically held that
if the order passed by the quasi-judicial authority suffers from procedural
infirmities then it can review the said decision on the principal of
procedural review provided the parties seeking procedural review is able
to demonstrate that the procedural illegality/irregularity went to the root
of the matter and had invalidated the proceedings itself. For ready
reference, Paragraph No’s. 26, 27, 33, 35 & 42 of the judgment are
extracted as under:-
      “[26] This Court negatived the contention that the High Court under Article
      215 would not have plenary jurisdiction including procedural review
      relating to the errors apparent on the face of the record. It is held by this
      Court in the said judgment that the provisions of the Arbitration Act do not
      exclude the powers of High Court to exercise its plenary powers and to
      exercise procedural review in case of errors apparent on the face of the
      record causing miscarriage of justice or shows grave and palpable errors
      committed by it. This Court distinguished the earlier judgment in case of
      M/s. Madhav Structural Engineering Ltd. (supra) and also in case of Rosy
      Blue (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), in the facts of that case, this Court found
      that the State Government had raised issue of limitation only in respect of
      the claim nos.3 to 5 and not in respect of claims nos.1 and 2. This Court
      however had set aside the award also in support of claim nos. 1 and 2 on
      the ground of limitation on its own.

      [27] This Court accordingly held that procedural review can be exercised
      by Court under plenary jurisdiction. The provisions of Code of Civil
                                     26


Procedure, 1908 can be applied to the proceedings in Court to the extent
of the provisions thereof not inconsistent with the provisions of the
Arbitration Act. None of the provisions of the Arbitration Act bars High
Court for procedural review by exercising plenary jurisdiction. This Court
accordingly recalled the judgment and order passed by this Court in so
far as the claim nos. 1 and 2, in that matter which were held as time
barred by the said judgment by exercising plenary jurisdiction.

…….[33] In so far as the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Kapra
Mazdoor Ekta Union (supra) relied upon by Mr. Sakhare, learned senior
counsel for the respondent is concerned, a perusal of the said judgment
indicates that the Supreme Court had considered the issue whether
Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court has power to exercise procedural review
under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 or not and decided
the difference between review on merits and procedural review. The
Supreme Court in the said judgment held that power of review is not an
inherent power and must be conferred by law either expressly or by
necessary implication where a Court or quasi-judicial authority having
jurisdiction to adjudicate on merit proceeds to do so, its judgment or order
can be reviewed on merit only if the Court or quasi-judicial authority is
vested with power of review by express provision or by necessary
implication. Procedural review however belongs to a different category. In
such a review, the Court or quasi-judicial authority having jurisdiction to
adjudicate, proceeds to do so, but in doing so ascertains whether it has
committed a procedural illegality that went to the root of the matter and
invalidates the proceedings itself, and consequently the order passed
therein.

…….[35] The question now arises for consideration of this Court is
whether the review petitioners have applied for procedural review or
seeks review of the judgment and order passed by this Court on merit. A
perusal of the judgment referred to aforesaid clearly indicates that the
Court has inherent or implied powers to set aside a palpably wrong order
passed under a misapprehension by it and if found erroneous and vitiated
by an error of procedure or mistake which went to the root of the matter
and invalidate the entire proceedings. I shall now proceed to decide
whether review petitioner has demonstrated any such error of procedure
or mistake which went to the root of the matter and whether in the facts of
this case, Court shall exercise powers of procedural review under plenary
jurisdiction or not.

……..[42] Mr. Doctor, learned senior counsel for the review petitioner
tried to find fault with the observations made and the conclusion drawn by
this Court even in paragraphs 74 and 75 of the said judgment on merits.
In my view the observations/findings recorded therein do not disclose
procedural error and thus cannot be corrected by exercising procedural
review under plenary jurisdiction. There is difference between power of
                                           27


      Court to exercise procedural review by exercising plenary jurisdiction and
      power of review by exercising powers under Order XLVII Order 1 of the
      Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the grounds set out therein. This Court
      thus cannot recall the observations/findings recorded therein and the
      conclusion drawn in paragraphs 74 and 75 based on the judgments of
      Supreme Court referred to aforesaid and based on facts.”

40. Learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No’s. 6 & 7 has relied
upon judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. (Supra) wherein it has been held that
if the order passed by the quasi-judicial authority suffers from procedural
infirmity / illegality, then the same can be reviewed under the principal
of procedural review. For ready reference, Paragraph No. 29 of the
judgment is extracted as under:-
      “29. Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Birla Cotton Spinning and
      Weaving Mills Ltd. and Another, (2005) 13 SCC 777 is a decision by a
      Bench of 3 Judges which has also referred to Grindlays (supra). It is a
      case where the award was made on 12.06.1987 and published on
      10.08.1987 The recall application was made on 07.09.1987, before the
      expiry of the 30 days period provided under Section 17A. It is also to be
      noted that the application for recall of the award was with a prayer for
      raising an additional issue. To quote from paragraph-20 of the judgment.
      "...The recall of the award of the Tribunal was sought not on the ground
      that in passing the award the Tribunal had committed any procedural
      illegality or mistake of the nature which vitiated the proceeding itself and
      consequently the award, but on the ground that some matters which
      ought to have been considered by the Tribunal were not duly considered.
      Apparently the recall or review sought was not a procedural review, but a
      review on merits. Such a review was not permissible in the absence of a
      provision in the Act conferring the power of review on the Tribunal either
      expressly or by necessary implication." Therefore, Kapra (supra) is
      distinguishable on facts and on the question of law dealt with therein: it
      was a case of substantive review whereas, setting aside an ex parte
      award is a matter of procedural review. In the case of procedural review,
      as held in Kapra (supra), the party has to establish that the procedure
      followed by the court or the quasi-judicial authority suffered from such
      illegality that it vitiated the proceeding and invalidated the order made
      therein, inasmuch as the opposite party concerned was not heard for no
      fault of his, or that the matter was heard and decided on a date other than
      the one fixed for hearing of the matter which he could not attend for no
      fault of his. In such cases, therefore, the matter has to be reheard in
      accordance with law without going into the merit of the order passed. The
      order passed is liable to be recalled and reviewed not because it is found
                                            28


      to be erroneous, but because it was passed in a proceeding which was
      itself vitiated by an error of procedure or mistake which went to the root of
      the matter and invalidated the entire proceeding. In Grindlays Bank Ltd.
      v. Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal it was held that once it is
      established that the respondents were prevented from appearing at the
      hearing due to sufficient cause, it followed that the matter must be
      reheard and decided again.”

41. From the judgments referred herein above, it can be called out that,
in normal circumstances, quasi-judicial authorities do not have any
power to review their decisions unless there is a categorical provision in
the statute to do so but procedural review of the orders passed by the
quasi-judicial authorities is permissible.

42. This Court is of the view that for invoking procedural review of an
order passed by the quasi-judicial authority, the person seeking review is
under obligation to satisfy the authority that, had there not been a
procedural error, the decision of the authority would have been
otherwise. Now, coming to the facts of the present case, it is apparent
that the issues raised by Respondent No. 6 & 7, in their objections raised
before the Assistant Registrar vide their letters dated July 12, 2022 and
July 11, 2022, were one and the same: i.e. they raised the claim of 40
persons as members of the general body of the Society, inducted through
alleged resolution of the Committee of Management of the Society dated
October 28, 2013. The said claim had been decided by the Assistant
Registrar in his order dated December 02, 2023 in its thread-bare, though
the Respondent No. 7 was not provided opportunity of hearing.

43. Once, the claim raised by Respondent No. 7 was considered by the
Assistant Registrar in the order dated December 2, 2023 in its threadbare
and findings had been recorded on the merits of the said claim, there
cannot be any occasion for Respondent No. 7 to claim for procedural
review of the order dated December 2, 2023, only on the ground that he
was not afforded opportunity of hearing prior to passing of the order
dated December 02, 2023 . This Court also takes note of the fact that
Respondent No. 7, while filing the application for procedural review
                                    29


either before the Assistant Registrar or before the Commissioner,
Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh did not demonstrate as to if the
opportunity of hearing would have been given to him, how that could
have made any difference to the decision taken by the Assistant Registrar
on December 2, 2023.

44. It is settled proposition of law that mere saying that a party has not
been afforded opportunity of hearing cannot be a ground for procedural
review unless it is demonstrated that, had the opportunity of hearing
been afforded, the result of the proceedings would have been altogether
different. In the case at hand, the Assistant Registrar, on the ground that
Respondent No. 7 was not afforded opportunity of hearing while passing
the order dated December 2, 2023, has in fact, considered the entire
matter again on merits and has overturned his findings recorded on
merits in respect of the membership of 40 persons in the order dated
December 2, 2023 and has passed a fresh order dated May 30, 2024,
which is not permissible under the garb of procedural review. It is a
well-settled proposition of law that while exercising the power of review,
only error apparent on the face of the record can be corrected but in the
garb of review, entire matter cannot be reheard and fresh findings on
merits of the case cannot be recorded.

45. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the case of
Respondent No. 7 does not fall in the scope of the procedural review, as
his entire case was already considered by the Assistant Registrar in his
order dated December 2, 2023 and therefore, the Assistant Registrar,
Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, lacked the authority to hear the entire
matter afresh in the garb of procedural review and pass the impugned
order dated May 30, 2024 thereby upholding the claim of membership of
40 members, which stood rejected vide earlier order dated December 2,
2023. Accordingly, the impugned order dated May 30, 2024, cannot be
allowed to sustain, as the same is without jurisdiction.
                                   30


46. So far as the argument raised by learned counsel for Respondent
No's. 6 & 7 that the Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh,
while providing instructions to learned Standing Counsel appearing for
the State in Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 stating that he is in the process of
procedural review of the order dated December 2, 2023 and after
concluding the review proceedings he will proceed to complete the
elections, is concerned, this Court finds that the Assistant Registrar,
pursuant to the order passed by this Court, appeared before the Court on
May 17, 2024 and categorically stated that, in all probability, he will
complete the elections pursuant to the order dated December 2, 2023, by
July 15, 2024. This Court further finds that neither the Assistant
Registrar filed any application for recall of the order dated May 17, 2024
passed in Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 nor any such steps were taken by
the Respondent No's. 6 & 7 of Writ C No. 20655 of 2024, therefore,
there was no occasion for the Assistant Registrar to travel beyond order
dated December 02, 2023. Once the Assistant Registrar made a
statement before this court on May 17, 2024 that he shall complete the
elections pursuant to the order dated December 02, 2023, then he should
have adhered to his statement and if there was any ambiguity in the said
statement, he could have approached the Court for recall of that order but
no such effort was ever made.

47. The instructions provided by the Assistant Registrar to learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the State is internal communication
between them and this Court is not concerned as to what was written in
the said instructions that too when it is apparent from the order dated
May 17, 2024 that the Assistant Registrar was present before the Court
in the proceedings of Writ-C No. 11375 of 2024 and he made a
categorical statement that in all probability, he shall complete the
elections pursuant to the order dated December 02, 2023 by July 15,
2024.

48. Now, this Court proceeds to deal with the argument raised on behalf
of Respondent No's. 6 and 7 that pursuant to the order dated 30 May 24,
                                             31


elections of the Committee of Management of the Society have already
been conducted but could not be given effect to due to an interim order
passed in Writ-C No. 20655 of 2024, this Court finds it worth
consideration that once the order dated 30/05/24 itself has been declared
to be an illegal order, having been passed by the Assistant Registrar
without jurisdiction, any consequential election is a nullity in the eyes of
the law. In regard to the aforesaid, this Court finds it necessary to refer
to the Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 24.08.2022 rendered
in Special Appeal No. 306 of 2022, Society-Gramin Siksha Prasar
Samiti, Pratapgarh & Another Vs. State of U.P. & Others, whose
relevant paragraph is extracted as under:-
     “26. One of the contentions raised by learned counsel for the
     respondent no.4 is that since after passing of the impugned orders by
     the Assistant Registrar the fresh elections have been held therefore
     without challenging the same the present appeal is not maintainable.
     Suffice would it be to say that once the basic order goes the
     superstructure would automatically fall. Applying this well recognized
     legal principle on the present case, we find that the judgment and order
     in the instant case was passed by the learned Single Judge on
     09.06.2022 and the elections have been held, on the basis of impugned
     orders challenged in writ petition, subsequent thereto, therefore if the
     impugned orders are quashed, the subsequent action will automatically
     fall. Our this view is fortified by the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court
     passed in the case of State of Punjab Vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
     and Others (Supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case has
     held that it is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in
     consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings
     would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the
     order. The relevant paragraphs 107 to 110 are extracted below:-

     "107. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in
     consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings
     would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the
     order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento
     cadit   opus"   meaning    thereby   that    foundation   being   removed,
     structure/work falls, comes into play and applies on all scores in the
     present case.

     108. In Badrinath v. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243; and
     State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10
     SCC 191, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is
     gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground
                                                                                 32


                                         automatically and this principle is applicable to judicial, quasi-judicial
                                         and administrative proceedings equally.

                                         109. Similarly in Mangal Prasad Tamoli (dead) by Lrs. v. Narvadeshwar
                                         Mishra (dead) by Lrs. & Ors., (2005) 3 SCC 422, this Court held that if
                                         an order at the initial stage is bad in law, then all further proceedings,
                                         consequent thereto, will be non est and have to be necessarily set
                                         aside.

                                         110. In C. Albert Morris v. K. Chandrasekaran & Ors., (2006) I SCC 228,
                                         this Court held that a right in law exists only and only when it has a
                                         lawful origin. (See also: Upen Chandra Gogoi v. State of Assam & Ors.,
                                         (1998) 3 SCC 381 Satchidananda Misra v. State of Orissa & Ors.,
                                         (2004) 8 SCC 599; Regional Manager, SBI v. Rakesh Kumar Tewari,
                                         (2006) 1 SCC 530; and Ritesh Tewari & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR
                                         2010 SC 3823).

                                         111. Thus, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that
                                         the orders impugned being a nullity, cannot be sustained. As a
                                         consequence, subsequent proceedings/orders/FIR/ investigation stand
                                         automatically vitiated and are liable to be declared non est."

                                    49. In view of the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the
                                    order dated May 30, 2024 has been passed by the Assistant Registrar,
                                    Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, without having any jurisdiction to do so,
                                    as such, the said order, being illegal and without jurisdiction, is
                                    unsustainable in the eyes of the law, thus is quashed. The elections, if
                                    any, in terms of the order dated May 30, 2024, being consequential in
                                    nature, are also quashed and set aside.

                                    50. The writ petitions are allowed with a direction to the Assistant
                                    Registrar, Azamgarh Division, Azamgarh, to complete the elections of
                                    the Committee of Management of the Society strictly in terms of the
                                    order dated December 02, 2023 within a period of two months from the
                                    date of presentation of certified copy of this order.



                                                                                                          (Manjive Shukla,J.)

                                    April 20, 2026
                                    Lokesh Kumar




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