Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SARVODAI VIDYALAI ANGLO MEDDILE SCHOOL THRU' MANAGER & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. EDUCATION DEPTT. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sarvodai Vidyalai Anglo Meddile School Thru' Manager & Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Education Deptt. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 37786 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 6085 (20 March 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

                                                                                                           Court No. 52

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.37786 of 2005

Sarvodai Vidyalai Anglo Meddle School,

Village and Post Asothar,

District Fatehpur  and another

Versus

State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Present writ petition has been filed by petitioners questioning the validity of order dated 20.12.2004 passed by Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad in Appeal No. 5 of 2002-03, Virendra Singh Gautam vs. State to the extent it directs remanding of membership dispute.

Brief background of the case is that order dated 26.05.2003 was passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Allahabad. Against the said order appeal was preferred by Virendra Singh Gautam before the Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad  under Section 12-D (2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Commissioner on 20.12.2004 dismissed the appeal. However, in the interest of  justice, he directed the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to decide the membership dispute in respect of serial Nos. 22 to 28 in the list concerned. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that once appeal was being dismissed, then Commissioner had no authority in exercise of power vested under Section 12-D (2) of the  Societies Registration Act, 1860, to direct further action in the interest of justice, as such further direction after dismissal of appeal is unwarranted, unjustifiable, without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be set aside.

Sri R. K.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended with vehemence that petitioners have no locus standii to question the validity of the order passed by the Commissioner, as such present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed position is that in order passed on 25.06.2003, petitioner No. 2  has been shown as one of the members of the general body of the society. Claim of  Petitioner No. 2 is that he has been elected in the election held on 15.06.2003 and further in the proceeding which took place before the Appellate Authority, petitioner has been heard. In this background, it is incorrect to suggest that petitioners have no locus standii to question the validity of order impugned.

Once the question of locus is decided, then merit of impugned order has to be seen. The Commissioner, Allahabad Division, Allahabad has dismissed the appeal and till date except for the petitioners order dismissing the appeal has not been questioned by any of the parties concerned. Consequently, order of dismissal of appeal stands confirmed. Once appeal was being dismissed, then Commissioner had no authority to proceed further by directing the  Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to decide the membership dispute. The Commissioner was to confine himself to the validity of order which was subject matter of challenge before him while deciding appeal and once the appeal was being dismissed then Commissioner had no authority or jurisdiction to give any direction in the name of end of justice, as has been sought to be done in the present case.

Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 20.12.2004, in so far as it directs the  Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits to decide the membership dispute, is quashed.

20.03.2006

SRY.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.