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


Shree Katra Ramlila Committee Thru' Secy. & Ors. v. State Of U.P. Thru' D.M. & Others - WRIT - C No. 12471 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 3405 (22 September 2005)


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. 50


Shree Katra Ramlila Committee & others


State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble D.P. Singh,J.

This writ petition was released by a learned Single Judge on 6.5.2005 and vide a nomination order dated 10.5.2005, passed by Hon'ble The Chief Justice, this petition has been nominated to this Bench.

Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the rules of the court.

Heard Shri Ajay Bhanot for the petitioner, Shri K. Ajit for the respondent no. 5 and Shri Daya Shankar Misra for respondent no. 6 and the learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4.

This writ petition is directed against orders dated 22.12.2004 and 14.12.2004 passed by respondent nos. 3 and 4 respectively restraining the petitioner from utilizing ''Ram Vatika', a property of Shree Katra Ramlila Committee Prayag, a registered society, for the purpose of any business or commercial activity. A preliminary objection has been raised on behalf of respondent nos. 5 and 6 that Shree Katra Ramlila Committee, Prayag(hereinafter referred to as the society) had never authorized Shri Piyush Jaiswal, also arrayed as petitioner no. 2 to file the present writ petition as there was no such resolution to that effect and in fact the impugned orders were passed on the initiation of the society. It is also contended that the petitioner no. 3 was neither a lessee nor a member of the Society and therefore, it is contended, that the petitioners have no locus to maintain this petition.

Counsel for the petitioner has not denied that respondent nos. 5 and 6 are the General Secretary and President of the Society. It is also not denied that suit or any legal proceedings could only be initiated on behalf of society either through the General Secretary or the President or by a due authorization through a resolution by the society. There is no resolution of the society on record to show that Shri Piyush Jaiswal was authorized by the society to file the present writ petition. However, counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a certificate dated 20.3.2005. This alleged certificate signed by about six persons is titled as "to whom it may concern" and goes on to say that in their personal knowledge Shri Piyush Jaiswal was authorized by the society to take legal proceedings and it further goes on to say that no such meeting dated 1.3.2005 took place where action was taken against Piyush Jaiswal.  This is not a resolution of the society. No specific date of the meeting has been indicated, no name has been mentioned as to who fixed the meeting and when was the agenda issued, therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. Nevertheless, it is not denied that Shri Piyush Jaiswal is a member of the society and therefore, in my opinion, he had a locus to file a present petition. This petition can be dismissed on the ground of misjoinder of parties, but as the petition has been heard on merits, it appears appropriate to decide it on merits.

The writ petition has been filed with the allegation that Shri Piyush Jaiswal is a secretary of the society whose objects are charitable and humanitarian apart from holding Ramlila Festival and accomplishing Religious and Social Works. A prime property of the society, "Ram Vatika" needed maintenance and development and for the up keep of which the society had to take a loan of Rs. 25,00000/-. In furtherance of the object of the society the petitioner no. 3 was granted a lease for holding of wedding events over the property and also to maintain it. It is further contended that due to jealousy some political and bureaucrats conspired to hinder the functioning of the society and thus, the Additional City Magistrate, without any authority under law, passed an order dated 14.12.2004 restraining Mahavir Yadav, Vice President, Rajesh Jaiswal, member of the committee of the society and petitioner no. 3 from holding any marriage ceremony and other functions at ''Ram Vatika'. It is further alleged that the Assistant Registrar at the behest of the Additional City Magistrate passed another order dated 22.12.2004 purportedly under exercise of powers under Sections 22, 23 and 24 of the Society Registration Act restraining respondent nos. 5 and 6 from using ''Ram Vatika' for commercial purposes, which was against the aims and objects of the society and in case they proceed further by using it for commercial purposes, proceedings for cancellation of registration of the society would be initiated. Both these orders are under challenge.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that the Additional City Magistrate had no power under any law to pass the impugned order dated 14.12.2004. Learned counsel for the respondent has laid great stress that as an administrative officer, the City Magistrate has ample power to ensure that no nuisance is created or any law and order situation arises and with that end in view he passed the aforesaid which was within his jurisdiction. In my opinion, the order dated 14.12.2004 cannot be justified on any provisions of law and the City Magistrate cannot prohibit the usage of the property of the society merely on the grounds that there is some illegality or dispute. Thus, the order dated 14.12.2004 cannot be sustained.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has then urged that the order dated 22.12.2004 is a colourable exercise of power and the finding that the property is being used against the aims and objects of the society is palpably incorrect and thus no such order of restraint can be passed.

The case as set up by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 is that no lease was ever execute in favour of the respondent no. 3 who was allowed to use ''Ram Vatika' for his own selfish ends by Piyush Jaiswal and some other members against the very object and aims of the society. It is further contended that another member of the society Shri Yogeshwar Asthana had field a suit no. 850 of 2002 for permanent injunction restraining the society and the petitioner no. 3, including the respondent nos. 5 and 6 from commercial usage of ''Ram Vatika' either for marriage purposes or any other commercial activity. An injunction order was passed on 12.3.2003 restraining the society and also the petitioner no. 3 from utilizing the aforesaid property for the aforesaid purposes. The petitioner no. 3 filed Misc. Appeal no. 36 of 2003 but no interim order was passed, so he withdrew the appeal and did not press it on 15.2.2003. On the same date the suit was decreed on the basis of a compromise duly signed by respondent nos. 5 and 6 and also petitioner no. 3, thus, it is contended, no grievance can be made by petitioner no. 3 or Piyush Jaiswal against the impugned order passed by the Assistant Registrar.

The entire case of the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 is based on a lease. Neither the date of the execution of the lease, its terms have either been disclosed in the writ petition nor a copy thereof has been annexed. As already seen hereinabove, the respondent nos. 5 and 6 have taken a clear stand that no lease was ever executed in favour of the petitioner no. 3. Assuming that there is some oral agreement, such agreement could not restrain the society from terminating it and it would not cloathe the petitioner nos. 2 and 3 to challenge the impugned order, which has been passed at the behest of the society. A perusal of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar shows that first he investigated the facts and issued show cause notice under Sections 22 and 23 and when no reply was filed, he exercised his powers under Section 23(5) and has passed the order. Thus, even otherwise, the order passed by the Assistant Registrar was well within his jurisdiction.

For the reasons given above, this petition partly succeeds and is allowed to extent that the order dated 14.12.2004 passed by the Additional City Magistrate, Annexure-2 to the petition, is hereby quashed but the writ petition is dismissed for all other reliefs. No order as to costs.

D/- 22.9.2005



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.