High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C/M Gandhi Smarak Inter College Shiksha Samiti & Another v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary (Funds Of Chits) & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1191 of 2007  RD-AH 15208 (10 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 1191 OF 2007
1. Committee of Management Gandhi Smarak
Inter College Shiksha Samiti Jaingara, Agra
through its Manager Ganesh Singh
2. Ganesh Singh Son of Vasudev Singh
R/o village and post Baseri Chahar
1. State of U.P. through its Secretary (Funds of Chits),
U.P. at Lucknow.
2. Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits,
3. Bharat Singh S/o Unknown
4. Kishore Lal Son of Unkown soth R/o
Village and post Jaingara, District Agra
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. Nitinjai Pandey
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. Ramesh Upadhyay
Mr. R.K. Srivastava
Hon'ble H.L. Gokhale, C.J.
Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.
Date : September 10, 2007
Oral Judgement (Per : H.L. Gokhale, C.J.)
1. Heard Mr. Nitinjai Pandey in support of this appeal, Mr. Ramesh Upadhyaya appearing for contesting respondent no.3 and Mr. R.K. Srivastava, Standing Counsel, for respondents no.1 and 2.
2. The appellant seeks to challenge the order passed by learned Single Judge whereby the appellants' petition came to be dismissed.
3. The appellants had filed a petition to challenge the decision dated 26th April 2007 rendered by Deputy Registrar Chit, Firms and Societies, Agra. Respondent no.3, who claims to be in the management of the Society which is running an Intermediate College at Agra, had filed an application to register the names of office bearers furnished by him. The petitioners herein objected thereto. The Deputy Registrar had considered the objection and thereafter registered the names of office bearers which were furnished by respondent no.3. The petitioners felt aggrieved by that and writ petition was filed to challenge that decision dated 26th April 2007. The writ petition came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge by observing that if the petitioners are aggrieved they may collect 25% of members and move an appropriate application under Section 25 (1) of Societies Registration Act.
4. Mr. Pandey, learned counsel for the appellants, mentioned many irregularities in the application moved by respondent no.3 and submitted that the committee was not properly elected.
5. It is not possible to go into all these aspects in the writ jurisdiction. If the petitioners are aggrieved, as observed by learned Single Judge, they may move an application under Section 25 (1) of Societies Registration Act or they may file a suit for that matter for declaration that the entire procedure was wrong.
6. We do not find any reason to interfere in the order passed by learned Single Judge. We may add that in the event the applicants take appropriate proceeding, the authorities will decide the application or suit on its own merit without being influenced by any of the observations made by the Deputy Registrar or learned Single Judge.
7. The appeal is dismissed.
Date : 10.09.2007.
(Anjani Kumar, J.)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.