COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, TULSI SMARAK SAMITI AND ANOTHERversusTHE STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

                                                                Reserved

           HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                      WRIT - C No. - 32493 of 2025

Committee of Management, Tulsi Smarak Samiti and another
                                                    …..Petitioner(s)

                                 Versus

The State of U.P. and another
                                                       …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Petitioner(s)          : Kamla Singh, Prabhakar Awasthi
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : Abhinava    Krishna     Srivastava,
                                     C.S.C.


Court No. - 51

             HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.


1.      Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
     Smt. Kamla Singh for the petitioners, Sri Sanjiv Singh, learned
     Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Deepak Chauhan for the State
     respondents and Sri Abhinava Krishna Srivastava for the caveator
     respondent.

2.      The present writ petition has been filed questioning the order
     dated 05.08.2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies
     and Chits, Lucknow Division, Lucknow, whereby the registration of
     the petitioner-Society bearing Registration No. 660 of 1985-86, File
     No. I-81998, has been cancelled in exercise of powers under Section
                                       2
                                                     WRIC No. - 32493 of 2025

     12-D(1)(c) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as applicable in
     the State of Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

3.      Since the controversy has factual overlap with Writ-C No. 45284
     of 2025 and Writ-C No. 7157 of 2026, all the three writ petitions
     were heard together. However, each writ petition is being decided by
     a separate order, having regard to the distinct impugned orders and
     reliefs involved therein.

4.      The petitioner-Society, namely Tulsi Smarak Samiti, Bhagwati
     Niwas, Pan Dariba, Lucknow, was originally registered on
     19.04.1955 under Registration No. 23/1955-56, File No. I-6691. In
     the same year, the State Government acquired approximately 15.30
     acres of land at Rajapur, District Chitrakoot, for development of the
     birthplace of Goswami Tulsidas Ji and handed over the land to the
     petitioner-Society for its management and development. The land
     was thereafter recorded in the revenue records in the name of the
     petitioner-Society from 1955 onwards. The said recording has not
     been shown to have been successfully displaced in any proceedings
     brought to the notice of this Court.

5.      Following the amendment relating to renewal of registration, the
     Society's registration was renewed for two-year periods commencing
     10.10.1977 and 10.10.1979. No renewal was sought in 1981. An
     application was subsequently made on 01.01.1984, but by order dated
     01.03.1985, the Deputy Registrar informed the Society that its
     registration had lapsed and that it had consequently become
     unregistered, requiring fresh registration. On a fresh application
     submitted by the then Secretary, Sri Manikchand Sharma, the Society
     was again registered on 12.06.1985 under Registration No. 660 of
     1985-86, File No. I-81998, in the same name. The earlier Registration
     No. 23/1955-56, File No. I-6691, was cancelled with reference to the
     new registration (Annexure-2 to Writ-C No. 7157 of 2026).

6.      The petitioner-Society thereafter continued to function and its lists
     of office-bearers were recognized from time to time. On 10.07.2000,
                                      3
                                                     WRIC No. - 32493 of 2025

     Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra, claiming to be its Manager, sought
     renewal of the registration. The application was opposed by the then
     Secretary, Sri Manikchand Sharma, and the Deputy Registrar, by
     order dated 15.11.2000, rejected Dr. Mishra's application and
     renewed the Society's registration on the application of Sri
     Manikchand Sharma.

7.      Thereafter, on 23.07.2001, Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra caused
     another Society to be registered before the Assistant Registrar, Firms,
     Societies and Chits, Jhansi, in the name Tulsi Smarak Samiti,
     Rajapur, District Chitrakoot, bearing Registration No. 226/2001-
     2002/J-14320. Dr. Mishra was shown as Vice-President, while the
     District Magistrate, Chitrakoot, and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
     Mau, District Chitrakoot, were designated respectively as Ex-Officio
     Chairman and Ex-Officio Secretary. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
     Rajapur, acting as Ex-Officio Secretary, thereafter passed orders
     dated 22.11.2001 and 04.02.2002, which were challenged by the
     petitioner-Society in Writ-C No. 11200 of 2002. The writ petition was
     allowed on 30.05.2016, and the orders passed by the Deputy District
     Magistrate were set aside, this Court holding that the constitution of
     the Society with Government officers as its office-bearers was
     contrary to the U.P. Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1956 and
     the All India Services (Conduct) Rules, 1968.

8.      In the meantime, the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot, acting as Ex-
     Officio Chairman of the newly constituted Society, submitted a report
     seeking cancellation of the registration of the petitioner-Society.
     Acting thereon, the Deputy Registrar, by order dated 11.12.2014,
     cancelled the petitioner's registration dated 12.06.1985 under Section
     12-D(1)(c) of the Act and also cancelled the list of members and
     office-bearers for 2014-15. The petitioner-Society challenged the said
     action in Writ-C No. 68801 of 2014. By judgment dated 30.01.2015,
     this Court directed that the impugned order be treated as a show-
     cause notice and permitted the petitioners to submit their objections,
                                        4
                                                      WRIC No. - 32493 of 2025

      thereafter the Deputy Registrar was directed to pass a fresh order in
      accordance with law.

9.       Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Registrar, by order dated 09.07.2015,
      set aside the earlier cancellation and recognized the list of members
      and office-bearers of the petitioner-Society for 2014-15, thereby
      restoring its registration. Dr. Santosh Kumar Mishra challenged the
      said order before the Commissioner, Chitrakoot Division, Banda,
      who by interim order dated 13.08.2015 admitted the appeal and
      stayed operation of the order dated 09.07.2015. The petitioner-
      Society challenged that interim order in Writ-C No. 49393 of 2015,
      and this Court, by interim order dated 03.09.2015, stayed the
      Commissioner's      order   and   restrained   interference   with   the
      functioning of the petitioner-Society. Thereafter, its certificate of
      registration continued to be renewed and its lists of members and
      office-bearers continued to be recognized.

10.      The petitioner-Society subsequently applied before the Assistant
      Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi, for cancellation of the
      registration of the other Society bearing Registration No. 226/2001-
      2002, File No. J-14320. By order dated 21.07.2016, the Assistant
      Registrar cancelled the said registration under Section 12-D(1)(b) and
      (c), holding it to be in contravention of Section 3(2)(a) of the Act.
      The said order was challenged in appeal before the Commissioner,
      Chitrakoot Dham Division, Banda, who, by order dated 13.11.2025,
      allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 21.07.2016 and directed
      the District Magistrate to take over management of the property of
      the petitioner-Society. The said order is under challenge in Writ-C
      No. 7157 of 2026.

11.      Meanwhile, by order dated 10.08.2017, the Deputy Registrar
      changed the registered address of the petitioner-Society from
      Bhagwati Niwas, Pan Dariba, Lucknow to 755, Abhishek Eldeco
      Udhyan-I, Jail Road, Bungalow Bazar, Lucknow. Its registration was
      last renewed on 12.06.2020 for five years up to 11.06.2025, while its
                                      5
                                                    WRIC No. - 32493 of 2025

      list of members and office-bearers continued to be recognized, the
      last such recognition being for 2023-24 on 07.03.2024.

12.      Elections to the Committee of Management were held on
      31.03.2024, and the election papers were forwarded to the Deputy
      Registrar on 10.05.2024. As the newly elected committee was not
      registered, the petitioners instituted Writ-C No. 39350 of 2024, in
      which this Court, by interim order dated 09.01.2025, called for a
      counter-affidavit from the State respondents and the matter remained
      pending.

13.      As the renewal of registration became due on 11.06.2025, the
      petitioner-Society submitted its renewal application, along with the
      requisite fee, on 22.05.2025. During the pendency of the renewal
      proceedings, the Deputy Registrar, by letter dated 15.07.2025, called
      for a report from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rajapur, who
      submitted his report on 26.07.2025. Relying upon the said report, the
      Deputy Registrar, by order dated 05.08.2025, cancelled the
      petitioner's registration under Section 12-D(1)(c) of the Societies
      Registration Act, 1860. The said order is under challenge in the
      present petition being Writ-C No. 32493 of 2025.

14.      During the pendency of the controversy concerning the
      registration of the Society, the District Magistrate, Chitrakoot, by
      order dated 25.07.2025, directed that the property relating to the
      petitioner-Society be vested in another governmental body. The said
      order has been challenged in Writ-C No. 45284 of 2025.

15.      The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits
      that the impugned order is contrary to the statutory scheme as well as
      the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the Deputy
      Registrar, while passing the impugned order, relied upon the adverse
      report dated 26.07.2025 submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
      Rajapur, District Chitrakoot, but the said report was never furnished
      to the petitioners. Consequently, the petitioners were denied an
                                        6
                                                      WRIC No. - 32493 of 2025

      effective and meaningful opportunity to controvert or rebut the
      allegations and findings contained therein.

16.      It is further submitted that the impugned order proceeds on certain
      alleged irregularities in the historical records of the Society and on
      the differences between the office-bearers of the original Society and
      those who subsequently became its members and office-bearers,
      treating such discrepancies as constituting fraud or misrepresentation
      within the meaning of Section 12-D(1)(c) of the Act. According to the
      learned Senior Counsel, however, the impugned order does not
      identify any specific act of fraud or misrepresentation committed by
      any of the office bearers of the petitioner Society. The alleged non-
      compliance with Section 3-B of the Act at the time of its fresh
      registration on 12.06.1985, cannot constitute a valid basis for
      invoking the drastic power of cancellation under Section 12-D(1)(c)
      of the Act. It is, therefore, contended that the impugned order is
      legally unsustainable and has been passed in violation of the statutory
      scheme and the principles of natural justice.

17.      It is also submitted that the observation of the Deputy Registrar
      that Sri Manikchand Sharma, who was allegedly neither a member
      nor an office-bearer of the Society as originally constituted in 1955,
      subsequently got the Society renewed in 1977 by representing
      himself as its Secretary, does not, by itself, establish any fraud or
      misrepresentation. It is argued that, during the intervening period of
      approximately twenty-two years, a person could have been admitted
      as a member of the Society and could thereafter have been elected or
      appointed as its office-bearer.

18.      Per contra, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
      respondents opposes the writ petition, primarily contending that the
      petitioners have an alternative statutory remedy available under the
      Act against the impugned order. It is submitted that the Deputy
      Registrar had jurisdiction to examine the entire record relating to the
                                       7
                                                     WRIC No. - 32493 of 2025

      Society and to take appropriate action on the basis of the material
      available before him.

19.      It is further contended that substantial discrepancies were found in
      relation to the original registration of the Society in 1985, coupled
      with the existence of another Society at Chitrakoot which was
      managing the same property. According to the respondents, these
      circumstances constituted sufficient grounds for the Deputy Registrar
      to initiate proceedings and pass the impugned order under Section 12-
      D(1)(c) of the Act.

20.      The learned Senior Counsel further submits that the impugned
      order was passed after consideration of the relevant records and after
      affording the concerned parties an opportunity of hearing. It is also
      contended that the report submitted by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate,
      Rajapur, District Chitrakoot, disclosed circumstances indicating fraud
      in relation to the Society. According to the respondents, such
      findings, having been arrived at on the basis of the material available
      on record, ought not to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of
      its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of
      India.

21.      The principal issue which arises for consideration is whether the
      impugned order dated 05.08.2025 constitutes a lawful exercise of the
      power under Section 12-D(1)(c) of the Act, particularly having regard
      to the earlier order dated 09.07.2015, the subsequent renewals of
      registration, the material relied upon by the Deputy Registrar and the
      alleged fraud or misrepresentation on the basis of which cancellation
      has been ordered.

22.      It is settled that a statutory authority exercising quasi-judicial
      functions possesses no inherent power of review. In Dr. (Smt.)
      Kuntesh Gupta v. Management of Hindu Kanya Mahavidyalaya,
      Sitapur, (1987) 4 SCC 525, the Supreme Court held that a quasi-
      judicial authority cannot review its own order unless such power is
      expressly conferred by the statute. The same principle was earlier
                                         8
                                                       WRIC No. - 32493 of 2025

      stated in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji,
      (1971) 3 SCC 844. The principle is that the power to review is a
      creature of statute and cannot be assumed merely because an
      authority considers that its earlier decision requires reconsideration.

23.        The aforesaid principle, however, does not by itself determine the
      controversy before this Court. Section 12-D of the Act confers an
      independent statutory power upon the competent authority to cancel
      the registration of a Society in the circumstances specified therein.
      Therefore, the existence of an earlier order concerning the same
      Society does not, by itself, extinguish the statutory power under
      Section 12-D.

24.        At the same time, the statutory power of cancellation cannot be
      converted into an unrestricted power of review. If an authority seeks
      to unsettle a position which has existed for several years, it must
      demonstrate that the case falls squarely within the statutory grounds
      of cancellation. In other words, the earlier order dated 09.07.2015
      does not create an absolute jurisdictional bar against every
      subsequent proceeding under Section 12-D; but a subsequent exercise
      of    Section   12-D    must    independently    satisfy   the   statutory
      requirements of that provision.

25.        The order dated 09.07.2015 was passed pursuant to the judgment
      of this Court dated 30.01.2015 in Writ-C No. 68801 of 2014. By the
      said judgment, the earlier cancellation order dated 11.12.2014 was
      directed to be treated as a show-cause notice and the Deputy
      Registrar was required to consider the objections of the Society and
      pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Deputy
      Registrar passed the order dated 09.07.2015, setting aside the earlier
      cancellation and recognizing the list of members and office-bearers
      for 2014-15.

26.        It is also material that the order dated 09.07.2015 was subjected to
      further proceedings before the Commissioner, but the interim order
      dated 13.08.2015 passed by the Commissioner was stayed by this
                                         9
                                                       WRIC No. - 32493 of 2025

      Court on 03.09.2015. The material placed before this Court does not
      show that the order dated 09.07.2015 was subsequently set aside by
      any final adjudication. Thereafter, the registration of the petitioner-
      Society continued to be renewed, including renewal on 12.06.2020
      for five years. This history is undoubtedly relevant while examining
      the legality of the subsequent cancellation, though it does not,
      standing alone, prohibit exercise of an otherwise valid statutory
      power under Section 12-D.

27.      The respondents rely substantially upon the circumstances
      surrounding the registration of the petitioner-Society in the year 1985.
      The record, however, shows that the earlier registration of the Society
      had lapsed and that the Deputy Registrar, by communication dated
      01.03.1985, informed the Secretary of the Society that the registration
      had lapsed and directed the Society to obtain fresh registration.
      Pursuant thereto, a fresh application was submitted and the Society
      was registered on 12.06.1985 under Registration No. 660 of 1985-86,
      File No. I-81998, in the same name. The earlier registration bearing
      Registration No. 23/1955-56, File No. I-6691, was cancelled with
      reference to the fresh registration.

28.      The fact that the registration granted on 12.06.1985 was a fresh
      registration, rather than a renewal of the earlier registration, therefore
      cannot, by itself, be treated as an irregularity. The fresh registration
      was preceded by a specific communication of the Deputy Registrar
      requiring the Society to obtain fresh registration on the ground that its
      earlier registration had lapsed. The competent registration authority
      thereafter acted upon the fresh application and granted registration in
      the same name and on the basis of the Society's governing
      documents.     The    respondents      have   not    pointed    to    any
      contemporaneous order, objection or proceeding showing that, at the
      stage of such fresh registration, any question had arisen as to whether
      the petitioner-Society was entitled to be registered.
                                        10
                                                       WRIC No. - 32493 of 2025

29.      The distinction assumes significance in the context of Section 3-B
      of the Act. The provision does not contemplate a reference to the
      State Government in every case in which an application for
      registration or renewal is made. It provides that “if any question
      arises” whether a Society is entitled to get itself registered in
      accordance with Section 3 or to get its certificate of registration
      renewed in accordance with Section 3-A, the matter shall be referred
      to the State Government. Thus, the statutory condition precedent for a
      reference under Section 3-B is the arising of a question concerning
      the entitlement of the Society to registration or renewal. Where no
      such question or dispute arises at the relevant stage, the provision
      does not, merely by reason of its existence, require an otherwise
      competent Registrar to make a reference to the State Government.

30.      The authorities have, in appropriate cases, treated Section 3-B as
      mandatory where a question concerning the entitlement of a Society
      to registration or renewal has arisen. Where such a question arises,
      the Registrar cannot himself assume the jurisdiction vested in the
      State Government under Section 3-B. The statutory scheme, however,
      is materially different where no such question arises at the relevant
      stage. Section 3-B cannot be invoked retrospectively to invalidate a
      registration merely because, years thereafter, an authority forms a
      different view regarding the Society's entitlement, unless the statutory
      basis for such subsequent action is otherwise established.

31.      The above interpretation finds support in Muzaffar Hussain and
      Others v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Meerut
      Region, Meerut, 1987 (2) AWC 938, wherein this Court considered
      the scope of Section 3-B in the context of objections to registration.
      The Court held that, where specific objections are raised which
      cannot be discarded at the threshold as meaningless or untenable and
      such objections give rise to a question as to whether the society is
      entitled to registration, the Registrar is required to refer the matter to
      the State Government under Section 3-B and cannot himself assume
      the jurisdiction vested in the State Government. The decision thus
                                        11
                                                      WRIC No. - 32493 of 2025

      makes it clear that the statutory consequence under Section 3-B
      follows when a question concerning entitlement to registration or
      renewal actually arises; it does not dispense with the requirement of
      such a question arising in the first place.

32.      In the present case, the respondents have not placed before this
      Court any material showing that, at the time when the fresh
      application was made in 1985, any question had arisen concerning the
      entitlement of the petitioner-Society to obtain registration so as to
      attract the statutory requirement of reference under Section 3-B. On
      the contrary, the sequence of events placed before the Court is that
      the Deputy Registrar first informed the Society that its earlier
      registration had lapsed and required it to obtain fresh registration; the
      Society thereafter submitted its application; and the competent
      authority granted fresh registration in the same name. No existing
      rival claim, objection or other material raising a question concerning
      the Society's entitlement to registration has been brought to the notice
      of this Court.

33.      The subsequent conduct of the statutory authorities is also
      relevant. The registration granted on 12.06.1985 was not treated as a
      provisional or disputed registration. The Society continued to
      function under that registration, its lists of members and office-
      bearers were considered from time to time, and its registration was
      subsequently renewed. In particular, the registration was renewed on
      12.06.2020 for a period of five years, and the list of members and
      office-bearers was thereafter recognized, the last such recognition
      being for the year 2023-24 on 07.03.2024. This subsequent statutory
      conduct does not by itself preclude action under Section 12-D, but it
      is relevant while examining the contention that the very registration
      granted in 1985 was inherently defective for want of a reference
      under Section 3-B.

34.      It is, therefore, necessary to distinguish between a case in which a
      question concerning entitlement to registration actually arose and was
                                       12
                                                      WRIC No. - 32493 of 2025

      required to be referred under Section 3-B, and a case in which no
      such question arose and registration was granted by the competent
      authority upon a fresh application. In the latter situation, the mere
      absence of a reference under Section 3-B cannot, by itself, establish
      that the registration was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. More
      particularly, where the fresh registration was granted pursuant to the
      direction of the Deputy Registrar himself, it would require specific
      material to demonstrate that the Society had made a false
      representation or had practiced fraud in obtaining that registration.

35.      Section 12-D(1)(c), no doubt, confers an independent power upon
      the Registrar to cancel registration where the registration or
      certificate of renewal has been obtained by misrepresentation or
      fraud. The existence of this power means that a registration validly
      granted at an earlier point of time is not immune from subsequent
      cancellation if the statutory ingredients of clause (c) are subsequently
      established. But the mere fact that, according to a later assessment, a
      reference under Section 3-B might have been desirable or that the
      circumstances attending the 1985 registration could have been
      examined differently cannot, without more, satisfy Section 12-D(1)
      (c). The authority must identify the particular representation which
      was false or fraudulent, establish that such representation was made
      for the purpose of obtaining registration or renewal, and demonstrate
      the requisite nexus between the alleged misrepresentation or fraud
      and the grant of registration or renewal.

36.      There is, however, an even more fundamental difficulty in the
      present case. During the pendency of the renewal proceedings, the
      Deputy Registrar called for a report from the Sub-Divisional
      Magistrate, Rajapur, on 15.07.2025, and the report was submitted on
      26.07.2025. The impugned order dated 05.08.2025 was thereafter
      passed. The petitioners specifically contend that the said report was
      not supplied to them.
                                      13
                                                     WRIC No. - 32493 of 2025

37.      The respondents contend that an opportunity of hearing was
      afforded. But the existence of a hearing by itself does not answer the
      complaint if material adverse to the Society was subsequently
      obtained and relied upon without furnishing it to the Society. Where
      an authority relies upon an adverse report for recording a finding
      which has serious civil consequences, fairness ordinarily requires that
      the affected party be given access to that material and a reasonable
      opportunity to meet it.

38.      The requirement assumes particular importance in the present case
      because the cancellation of registration is founded upon allegations
      relating to events several decades old, including the 1955
      constitution, the 1977 renewal, the 1985 registration and the
      subsequent functioning of the Society. The report of the Deputy
      District Magistrate was thus not merely a formal or peripheral
      document; it formed part of the material relied upon for the adverse
      decision.

39.      The decision of this Court in Rakesh Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.
      through Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Lucknow and
      Others, Neutral Citation No. 2025:AHC-LKO:44701, is relevant in
      this context. There too, cancellation under Section 12-D was
      interfered with where the statutory opportunity contemplated by the
      provision had not been effectively afforded and the finding of fraud
      was not adequately supported by the material disclosed in the order.

40.      The earlier decision of this Court concerning the present Society,
      namely Writ-C No. 68801 of 2014, decided on 30.01.2015, is also
      significant. In that case, the cancellation under Section 12-D(1)(c)
      was interfered with on account of the failure to afford an effective
      opportunity of hearing, and the matter was remitted for fresh
      consideration after treating the cancellation order as a show-cause
      notice. That decision does not confer perpetual immunity upon the
      petitioner-Society from statutory action. It does, however, underline
                                        14
                                                        WRIC No. - 32493 of 2025

      the importance of strict compliance with the procedural safeguards
      when cancellation under Section 12-D is contemplated.

41.      On the material presently before this Court, it has not been
      satisfactorily demonstrated that the adverse report dated 26.07.2025
      was furnished to the petitioner-Society before the impugned order
      was passed or that the petitioners were afforded an effective
      opportunity to controvert the material contained therein. This
      constitutes a material violation of the principles of natural justice.

42.      There is also a substantive deficiency in the impugned order. The
      authority   has    proceeded      substantially    upon    circumstances
      surrounding the fresh registration of the Society in 1985 and upon the
      alleged absence of compliance with Section 3-B. But the material
      placed before this Court does not establish that, at the time when the
      fresh registration was sought in 1985, any question had actually
      arisen concerning the entitlement of the petitioner-Society to
      registration so as to attract the statutory requirement of reference
      under Section 3-B. On the contrary, the record, as noticed above,
      shows that the Deputy Registrar had himself informed the Society
      that its earlier registration had lapsed and had directed it to obtain
      fresh registration, pursuant to which the Society was registered
      afresh.

43.      The absence of a Section 3-B reference in these circumstances
      cannot, by itself, establish fraud or misrepresentation. For
      cancellation under Section 12-D(1)(c), the authority was required to
      identify a specific false or fraudulent representation made by the
      Society and to establish that the registration of 12.06.1985 was
      obtained on the basis of such representation. Historical discrepancies,
      disputed membership or an administrative view formed decades later
      that the registration ought to have been dealt with differently cannot,
      without establishing that statutory nexus, constitute the fraud or
      misrepresentation contemplated by Section 12-D(1)(c).
                                       15
                                                     WRIC No. - 32493 of 2025

44.      The Court is conscious that it is not sitting in appeal over every
      factual conclusion of the Deputy Registrar. Nor is this Court required
      to undertake an independent reconstruction of the Society's history in
      exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226. But where the very
      statutory foundation of the cancellation is questioned, the Court is
      required to examine whether the essential jurisdictional and
      procedural requirements for exercise of the statutory power were
      satisfied. On that test, the impugned order cannot be sustained.

45.      The availability of an alternative statutory remedy does not
      operate as an absolute bar where the impugned action suffers from
      violation of natural justice or a material statutory error. The present
      case involves both. The adverse material relied upon by the authority
      was not shown to have been furnished to the petitioner-Society, and
      the statutory basis for treating the historical circumstances as
      establishing fraud or misrepresentation has not been satisfactorily
      demonstrated.

46.      For the reasons recorded above, this Court is of the considered
      view that the impugned order dated 05.08.2025 cannot be sustained.
      Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 05.08.2025
      passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow
      Division, Lucknow, cancelling the registration of the petitioner-
      Society under Section 12-D(1)(c) of the Societies Registration Act,
      1860, is hereby quashed.

47.      The petitioner-Society shall consequently stand restored to the
      position in law obtaining upon setting aside of the impugned order
      dated 05.08.2025. The quashing of the impugned order shall,
      however, not be construed as an automatic renewal or extension of
      the Certificate of Registration beyond 11.06.2025. The renewal
      application dated 22.05.2025, which was pending consideration when
      the impugned order was passed, shall be considered and decided by
      the competent authority in accordance with law.
                                                                         16
                                                                                  WRIC No. - 32493 of 2025

                            48.            It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated upon any
                                  independent question of title, ownership or proprietary rights in
                                  respect of the property associated with the Society, nor upon any
                                  question which may fall for determination before a competent civil
                                  court. Likewise, nothing contained in this judgment shall prevent the
                                  competent statutory authority from taking such action as may
                                  otherwise be permissible under the Act, provided the statutory
                                  requirements are independently satisfied and the procedure prescribed
                                  by law, including the requirement of a fair opportunity to the affected
                                  party, is duly followed.

                            49.            There shall be no order as to costs.



                                                                                         (Arun Kumar,J.)

                            September 30, 2026
                            Ranjeet Sahu




Digitally signed by :-
RANJEET SAHU
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad