Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


The C/M Narain Trust And Narain Educational Society & Anr. v. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate And Others - WRIT - C No. 1079 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 1660 (1 February 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).


                                                                               Court No.33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  1079 of 2007

The Committee of Management, Narain Trust and Narain Educational Society & another


The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Khajani, Gorakhpur

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

A dispute with regard to registration of the society and recognition of the Committee of Management in question had been referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, which was registered as Case No. 1 of 1995. Initially the case was registered as Committee of Management, Narain Trust and Narain Educational Society and 4 others Vs. Assistant Registrar and 4 others.  All the four private parties as plaintiffs have expired. The Committee of Management was represented through Bhagwat Shukla who also died in the year 1999 and in his place one Kripa Shanker Shukla  claimed to have been elected as Manager of the Committee of Management and filed an application for being impleaded  as plaintiff in the said case before the Prescribed Authority. The said application for impleadment remained pending and in the meantime, it is alleged that fresh elections took place on 17.7.2005 in which the petitioner no. 2 herein Divya Mishra claims to have been elected as Manager. She thus filed a fresh application for impleadment to represent the Committee of Management. The said application of the petitioner no. 2 Divya Mishra has been rejected by the Prescribed Authority vide impugned order dated 14.12.2006 on merits as well as on the ground of delay. Aggrieved by the said order, this writ petition has been filed.

I have heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 and 2. Sri P.K. Kashyap has put in appearance on behalf of respondents no. 3 and 4 who has filed a counter affidavit, to which a rejoinder affidavit has also been filed.  However,  Sri Kashyap did not appear at the time of hearing and Sri Rama Shanker Shukla, respondent no. 4 (who is also the husband of respondent no. 3) has appeared in person and has been heard. Pleadings between the contesting parties have been exchanged and with consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

The matter before the Prescribed Authority has been pending for over a decade. The Committee of Management, which is the plaintiff before the Prescribed Authority has to be represented through some office bearer. The Prescribed Authority, while deciding the impleadment application, has gone into the question with regard to the validity of the election of the Committee of Management, which was not required to be done. Without commenting as to whether the election of the Committee of Management held on 17.7.2005 was valid or not, in the interest of justice so that the Committee of Management, which is the plaintiff in the case before the Prescribed Authority, may be represented, the same may be done through the petitioner no. 2 as alleged Manager. The view taken by the Prescribed Authority whereby the impleadment application has been rejected, would amount to the Committee of Management going unrepresented before the Prescribed Authority.  As such, in the interest of justice, it would be appropriate that the petitioner no. 2 be heard by the Prescribed Authority before passing any orders on the reference made to it under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act. It is made clear that by allowing the petitioner no. 2 to be impleaded as a party, it would not mean that her election as Manager has been approved by this Court.

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the order dated 14.12.2006 is quashed. The application dated 9.3.2006 filed by the petitioner no. 2 is allowed. It is, however, expected that the Prescribed Authority shall decide the case, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible.

This writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated as above. No order as to costs.  





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


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 |

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