Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NAIPAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Naipal Singh v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 34813 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 7982 (28 April 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

Court No. 21.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34813 of 2006.

Naipal Singh                                                  ...     Petitioner

Versus

State of U.P. and others                                  ...    Respondents.

Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Heard Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ashish Chitranshi for the petitioner.  Sri Anupam Kulshrestha and Sri Manish Nigam appears for respondents 3 and 4.  Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondents 1 and 2.

The petitioner claiming to be Secretary of Balaji Sewa Sansthan Mudesi, Mathura, has challenged the order dated 24.6.2006 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Agra in which he  found that the petitioner has forged the resolution by which he alleges to be appointed as Secretary on 3.2.1997 by the committee of management and in pursuance of which he had sold the land of the society by sale deed dated 8.9.1999.  The Deputy Registrar, after hearing the parties and perusing the records further found that the receipt by which the petitioner claims to be a member of the Society as well as the Letter No. 1889 dated 4.4.2000, which is alleged to be the permission for sale of the land are also forged documents.  

It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was validly appointed as Secretary in the temporary vacancy of the office caused on the resignation of respondent no. 5, Sri Kaushal Kishore Sharma, and that after seeking permission he had sold the land.  He, however, states that the Deputy Registrar has no authority under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 to direct the Secretary of the Society to lodge an FIR and to get the sale deed cancelled in accordance with law.  

2

Sri Anupam Kulshrestha and Sri Manish Nigam, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner has played a fraud with the Society as well as with the office of the Registrar. He is alleged to have elected as member on 26.1.1997 after Sri Kaushal Kishore Sharma resigned on 16.1.1997, and appointed as Secretary by the Committee of Management and sold the entire property of the Society without seeking permission of the District Judge.

It is not denied that there is no provision in the by-laws of the Society authorising the Committee of Management to appoint a Secretary. This power under the registered bye-law is only with the general body of the Society.  There was no resolution by the general body to appoint petityioner as Secretary and to sell the property nor any permission was taken from the District Judge.  In fact the sale deed was not found valid by this Court in writ petition arising out of the mutation and the name of the purchaser has been directed to be expunged in writ petition No. 29420 of 1996 on 8.11.2006.  

It is further contended by the respondents that after 1997 the elections of the Committee of Management were held in 2000, 2003 and then in 2006 and in all these elections respondent no. 5, Sri Kaushal Kishore Sharma was elected as Secretary.  The petitioner made an application on 16.1.2006 for treating him to be the Secretary and continuing as such and for acceptance of the sale. The application was rejected with the finding that a fraud has been played by him both on the  Society, by claiming himself to be appointed as secretary and in sale of the land  which the only property of the society.

Whenever a fraud is detected and is established on record by documents, evidence and summoning and examination of the record, the authority exercising statutory powers under any

3

legislation has a duty to cancel all the benefits which have been drawn from such fraud and also direct an enquiry in such cases either by the authority or by the person authorized.  In the present case the Deputy Registrar is the competent authority to direct that the report be made to the police.  

The findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar with regard to fraud played on the society are confirmed.  Sri Naipal Singh was appointed as Member of the Society on 26.1.1999 by Sri Kaushal Kishore Sharma. He then claims to be appointed as secretary by the committee of management, which had no authority to appoint him under bye-law.  He then sold the entire land of the Society without getting approval of he general body or seeking permission of the District Judge.  The petitioner has neither disclosed  nor annexed the proceedings of the general body of the election held in the years 2000, 2003 and 2006 and has not filed any document to show that he continued as Secretary of the Society.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find that the Registrar has committed any error of law or jurisdiction in his order dated 24.4.2006.  The writ petition is dismissed.

Dt. 24.4.2007.

BM/-.


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.