Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M. VIDHYA PRACHAR SAMITI THRU' ITS MANAGER versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRETARY SECONDARY EDUCATION & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M. Vidhya Prachar Samiti Thru' Its Manager v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Secondary Education & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 27311 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 10052 (23 May 2006)

 

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

Hon'ble Bharati Sapru, J.

The petitioner has filed the present writ petition against an order dated 21.4.06 passed by the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

It is the contention of the petitioner that the impugned order has been passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act aforesaid, even though the term of the Society itself had come to an end on 26.3.04.  It is one of the contention of the petitioner that since the term had come to an end, it was not open to the Prescribed Authority to decide this matter and in fact, he has argued that the Prescribed Authority has virtually decided an infractuous matter.

Such being the case, no cause of action arises to the petitioner.  The writ petition is misconceived.  When there was no cause of action, shortly, the petitioner could not have taken recourse to an extra ordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  As writ proceedings rests solely on the theory of cause of action, when no cause of action according to the petitioner's own saying has arisen, then the present writ petition is misconceived.  

Learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the impugned order is an order under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act and the proper remedy for the petitioner  if at all he is aggrieved, is  by filing a civil suit and not by invoking proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  Learned counsel for the respondent has relied on the decision of Uttam Nishad Vs. State of U.P. raising decision of this Court which has taken into account all decision and has come to an inescapable conclusion that in matters arising out of Section 25(1) of the Societies Act, the appropriate remedy is not by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, rather the appropriate forum is before the Civil Court in suit proceedings.  

Such being the case, the present writ petition is wholly misconceived and it is, therefore, dismissed in limine

Dated : 23.5.06

L.F./27311/12


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.