Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ABBAS KHAN versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. MINORITY WELFARE & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Abbas Khan v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Minority Welfare & Ors. - WRIT - C No. - 41897 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 15178 (10 September 2007)

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 AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41897 of 2007

Abbas Khan

Vs.

State of U.P & others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J

This fact has not been disputed that elections were held on 9.3.2001 wherein Abbas Khan petitioner was elected as Sadar and Asif Akhtar was shown as Manager. Thereafter proceedings have been set up showing therein that on 13.9.2006 resolution was passed, removing Asif Akhtar and further proceedings have been shown that one Ibrar Hussain was given charge of Manager. Petitioners submit that list of the office bearers and members was submitted to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 wherein notices were issued on 15.5.2007. Objection had been filed by Sri Asif Akhtar on 1.6.2007 therein categorically mentioning that there is no provision of no confidence motion and as such proceedings, which has been set up by the petitioner is fictitious on the face of it. On 27.6.2007 Shri Ibrar Hussain claims to have been was elected as Manager in place of Sri Asif Akhtar. Ibrar Hussain died on 27.6.2007. Thereafter, Sri Asif Akhtar filed an application on 6.7.2007, supported by joint affidavit of Abbas Khan and Khaililurrahman mentioning therein that all the dispute inter se parties have come to an end and as such list submitted by Sri Asif Akhatar for the year 2007-2008 may be registered under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act. Next date fixed in the matter was 23.7.2007. Thereafter on 11.7.2007 application was filed by the respondent no.4 for preponing of the date in question. On 13.7.2007 Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi stood transferred as Accounts Officer in the office of District Inspector of schools, Varanasi. Thereafter, Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits , Varanasi joined at the transferred place on 21.7.2007. In between Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi on 17.7.2007 passed order impugned.

Counter affidavit and supplementary affidavit have been filed disputing the entire claim, which has been set up by the petitioner being contrary to the provisions of by laws of society and coupled with this it has also been mentioned that on 2.8.2007 petitioner has set up separate election and Assistant Registrar has taken cognizance of the matter and next date fixed in the matter is tomorrow.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed to the said counter affidavit, disputing the averments mentioned in the counter affidavit and reiterating averments that of writ petition.

Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present procedure, which has been adopted by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits , Varanasi is clearly misuser of authority vested under Section 4 of Societies Registration Act, 1860 and as apparent fraud was there as such order impugned is liable to be quashed.

Chaudhari N.A. Khan, Advocate on the other hand contended that claim of petitioner is forged and fictitious and dispute had been settled inter se parties and as such while registering the list of office bearer, no further details were required to be furnished.

After respective arguments have been advanced, the undisputed fact is that on 6.7.2007 application alongwith the joint affidavit of Abbas Khan, petitioner and Khalilurrahman, who was Nayab Sadar has been filed by Asif Akhtar, wherein it has been categorically mentioned that all the dispute inter se parties have come to an end. Petitioner is complaining that his signature are forged and fictitious. The way and manner in which proceedings have been concluded, clearly discredits the action of Assistant Registrar. Once date in question was being preponed, then it ought to have been ensured that each party had the notice of proceeding.

Consequently, order dated 17.7.2007 passed by the respondent no.3 being exparte, is quashed. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Varanasi is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner as well as respondents afresh in accordance with law, preferably within period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, keeping in view the provision, as contained under the bye-laws of the society.

With these observations, writ petition is allowed and disposed of.

Dt. 10.9.2007

T.S.


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.