High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C/M Pushparanjan Balika Shiksha Niketan Thru' Manager v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Basic Edu. U.P. Govt. & Ors. - SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. 328 of 2006  RD-AH 9779 (18 May 2006)
Special Appeal No.328 of 2006
Committee of Management, Pushparanjan Balika Shiksha Niketan, Pandeypur, Varanasi
State of U.P. & others
Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, CJ.
Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.
We are in respectful agreement with the reasoning given and the order passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Tiwari on the 3rd of April, 2006, but certain clarifications have to be made.
Two orders passed by the Assistant Registrar of Societies are in issue. The first order is dated the 27th of April, 1991 when certain tendered amendments of Bye-laws of the Society were not accepted by the Assistant Registrar and an order was passed on that date dismissing the application for incorporation of the amendments.
One of the two writ petitions, which have been disposed of on the same date, i.e., the 3rd of April, 2005 was filed in respect of the said order and an interim order of stay was obtained in aid thereof.
The subsequent order of the Assistant Registrar came 13 years later on the 4th of March, 2004, when the renewal certificate was granted at the instance and in favour of the respondent-Chaubey.
The second writ application was filed, which was disposed of on the said mentioned earlier date in respect thereof.
Both writ petitions have been dismissed. The respondents have submitted that in the order of 4.3.2004, the Assistant Registrar proceeded not merely on Chaubey being entitled to continue on the basis of interim orders passed by the writ Court, but also on the basis that Chaubey had produced necessary documents and the appellant had failed to produce any documents, on the basis of which he claimed to be a member of the Society.
We are not minded to enter into these facts and we respectfully adopt the same procedure in this regard as was adopted by the Hon'ble Single Judge.
However, since both the writ petitions were dismissed and both the orders of the Assistant Registrar are therefore revived in law, the matter has to be looked at afresh in the Registry itself, and it has to be adjudged whether the refusal of alteration of Bye-laws will have any effect at present or not. The factual position is that Chaubey has continued as Manager for about 13 years; at present, it is submitted that an authorised controller has been appointed, but we are not concerned with those submissions made by the appellant in this matter.
The liberty of the parties to go back to the Registry for obtaining a fresh, current and binding decision is therefore preserved. The Civil Suit bearing No.761 of 1996 filed in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Varanasi will be continued in the normal course, and will not be affected by any order or observations made either by us, or in the Court below.
Whether the Suit has been dismissed, as submitted by the appellant or not, also does not fall for any consideration by us here.
The only clarification made by us therefore, is, that the liberty of the parties to go before the Registry and/or before any Civil Court is preserved. Excepting for this, the appeal is dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.