SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana High Court

Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute

23 September 2024 7:40 PM

By: Deepak Kumar


Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), in the case of Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow Thru. Pradhan Devendra Pal Verma & Anr. vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Institutional Finance, Lko. & Ors., quashed the Deputy Registrar's April 23, 2022, order referring multiple election disputes of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha to the Prescribed Authority. The court held that the Deputy Registrar failed to apply judicial mind and issue a reasoned decision before referring the matter, violating legal standards for referral under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

The dispute arose from competing claims by four factions within the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, each asserting the validity of separate elections held in 2021. The Deputy Registrar had referred the election disputes to the Prescribed Authority without offering substantive reasons or verifying the legitimacy of the competing claims. The factions involved included groups led by Devendra Pal Verma, Bhuwan Tiwari, Vivek Singh, and Ram Ratan Chaturvedi, all claiming to have conducted valid elections for the management of the Sabha.

The primary legal issue was whether the Deputy Registrar lawfully referred the disputes to the Prescribed Authority without first applying judicial scrutiny to the competing election claims. The court noted that under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the Deputy Registrar is not merely a "rubber stamp" but is required to ascertain whether there is a bona fide dispute before referring the matter. The court emphasized:

"The Deputy Registrar must apply his mind and form a subjective satisfaction as to whether there is a genuine and bona fide election dispute, and not act mechanically."

The court quashed the Deputy Registrar's order, stating that his failure to provide a reasoned decision amounted to a violation of procedural fairness. Justice Jaspreet Singh remarked that without examining the legitimacy of the rival factions' claims, the referral to the Prescribed Authority was premature and lacked legal justification.

The court also highlighted contradictions in the election claims, noting that some individuals appeared in multiple factions’ election lists, raising doubts about the integrity of these elections.

The Allahabad High Court ordered the matter to be remitted to the Deputy Registrar for fresh consideration, with instructions to issue a reasoned and speaking order. The court stressed the need for prompt resolution and directed the Deputy Registrar to complete the reconsideration within four months.

Date of Decision: September 18, 2024

Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Lucknow Thru. Pradhan Devendra Pal Verma & Anr. vs. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Institutional Finance, Lko. & Ors.

Latest Legal News