Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

GAJA NAND DHIRAJ MAHADEO JI MANDIR & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECY. DEPTT. OF REVENUE & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Gaja Nand Dhiraj Mahadeo Ji Mandir & Others v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 41060 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 14946 (31 August 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

                                                                               Court No.23

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 41060 of 2004

Sri Gaja Nand Dhiraj Mahadeo Ji Mandir and others

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard Sri Sanjai Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as learned Standing counsel appearing for Respondents no. 1 to 5 and Sri R.B.Singh for the contesting Respondent no.6. Counter and rejoinder affidavits between the contesting parties have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

The dispute in this writ petition is limited to the quashing of the directions given in Paragraph 4 of the order dated 24.8.2004 passed by  the Commissioner, Varanasi Region, Varanasi.

The brief facts are that on 16.12.2002 Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, Respondent no.6, got a society registered which, according to the petitioner, was on the basis of certain forged and fabricated documents and as such the petitioners filed an application/objections on 30.1.2003 praying for cancellation of the registration certificate dated 16.12.2002 issued  in favour of Respondent no.6. The Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi thereafter issued show cause notices to the Respondent no.6 on half a dozen dates and still when the Respondent no.6 did not appear, the Assistant Registrar called for a report from the District Magistrate, Mirzapur under section 3-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with regard to the status of the property in question. On the submission of the report of the District Magistrate, the Assistant Registrar, Varanasi Region, Varanasi vide his order dated 13.11.2003 cancelled the registration certificate dated 16.12.2002 granted in favour of Respondent no.6. The said order was challenged by the Respondent no.6 in an appeal filed before the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, Respondent no.2  which appeal has also been dismissed vide order dated 24.8.2004. However, while dismissing the appeal of the Respondent no.6,  in paragraph 4 of the order the Commissioner issued certain directions that the S.D.O. of the area may enquire regarding the property in question (Mandir) and that security of the Mandir be handed over to the Lekhpal and that the S.D.O. may put a seal on the donation box of the Manir and various other directions with regard to the management of the Mandir. It is this portion of the order of the Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi by which the petitioners are aggrieved.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Commissioner, while exercising the appellate power under the Societies Registration Act, had no jurisdiction to issue such directions. Even otherwise, it has been contended that a civil suit between the parties is pending in the civil court in which an injunction order has been granted in favour of the petitioners and as such also no direction as given in the order dated 24.8.2004 could have been issued by the Commissioner.

Learned Standing counsel as well as Sri R.B.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, also concede that the Commissioner has over-stepped his jurisdiction while passing the impugned order.

In such view of the matter the directions issued in Paragraph 4 of the order dated 24.8.2004 deserve to be quashed.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. The directions issued in Paragraph 4 of the order dated 24.8.2004 passed by the Commissioner, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, Respondent no.2 in Appeal no. 146 of 2004, are quashed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.

Dt/- August 31, 2006

dps

               


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.