Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SHOBHA NATH SINGH RAJPOOT versus THE C/M ANTAPURI VIDALAYA SHIKSHA SAMITI THRU' A.MGR.& ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Shobha Nath Singh Rajpoot v. The C/M Antapuri Vidalaya Shiksha Samiti Thru' A.Mgr.& Ors. - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 307 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 5528 (28 March 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 OF ALLAHABAD

Chief Justice's Court

Special Appeal No. 307 of 2007

Sobha Nath Singh Rajpoot

vs.

The Committee of Management, Antahpuri Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti and others

*****

Counsel for the appellant: Mr. S.C. Dwivedi

Counsel for the respondents: Mr. R.K. Ojha & Standing Counsel

*****

Hon'ble H.L.Gokhale,CJ

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J

1. Heard Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents no. 1 and 2 and learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 3 and 4.

2. The appeal seeks to challenge the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 13.2.2007. This order is an interim order whereby the learned Single Judge has stayed the operation of the order dated 3.2.2007 passed by the Deputy Registrar of the Societies functioning under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

3. What is happened is that the appellant herein lodged a complaint against the functioning of one Antahpuri Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti by contending that it got registration by fraud and it was wrongly renewed.

4. What the Deputy Registrar has done is to cancel the subsequent registration of the society and revive its earlier registration. It is this order which has been challenged by the respondents no. 1 and 2. The learned Single Judge has stayed that order. It is against this interim order that the original complainant has filed this appeal.

5. Mr. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar is one under sub-section (1) of section 12-D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. An appeal is available against this order under sub-section (2) of section 12-D. The same is to be preferred within one month. In his submission, learned Single Judge ought not to have entertained this writ petition inasmuch as alternative remedy was available.

6. Mr. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents no. 1 and 2 submits that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar is not one which can be retained on the record of the Registrar. It is a perverse order, totally unjustified and discloses non application of mind. It is for this reason that in his submission, the writ petition was maintainable and the interim order was justified. However, having been pointed out that normally the remedy under the statute ought to be followed, he is agreeable to file an appeal under sub-section (2) of section 12-D of the Act provided the respondents no. 1 and 2 are protected until the appeal is filed.

7. Mr. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant has very fairly stated that the appellant will have no objection if the stay granted by the learned Single Judge is continued for a limited duration.

8. Having noted these submissions of both the counsels, in our view, ends of justice will be made if the stay granted by the learned Single Judge is continued for a period of four weeks within which respondents no. 1 and 2  ought to file the appeal to the Commissioner.

9. Under section 12-D (2) of the aforesaid Act, it will be open for respondents no. 1 and 2 to apply for stay before the Commissioner during this period and it will be open for the Commissioner to decide whether stay ought to be granted, if he so persuaded on facts of the matter. He will of course decide the stay application within the aforesaid time.

10. Accordingly, we dispose of this appeal and modify the order passed by the learned Single Judge in view of the understanding arrived at between the counsels representing the contesting parties. The stay granted by the learned Single Judge to the impugned order will, however, continue for a period of four weeks hereafter.  The appeal will be filed within one week. Copy will be furnished to the appellant herein. We expect the learned Commissioner to decide the stay application when moved by the respondents no. 1 and 2 within the period of three weeks thereafter. The appeal stands disposed of. In view of this order, nothing further remains to be decided in the writ petition. The same is taken on board and will also stand disposed of.

11. We make it clear that we have not expressed on the merits of the submission of the rival parties and the Commissioner will decide the appeal and the application for stay without being influenced by any observation even made by the learned Single Judge.  

Date:28.3.2007

RK/      (Chief Justice)

  (Ashok Bhushan,J)


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.