Safety Shoes Used as Weapon Meets Mens Rea Requirement for Murder: Rajasthan HC on Bail Denial    |     Right to Be Considered for Promotion, Not a Right to Promotion: Supreme Court Clarifies Eligibility for Retrospective Promotion    |     Inherent Power of Courts Can Recall Admission of Insufficiently Stamped Documents: Supreme Court    |     Courts Cannot Substitute Their Opinion for Security Agencies in Threat Perception Assessments: J&K High Court Directs Reassessment of Political Leader's Threat Perception    |     Service Law | Violation of Natural Justice: Discharge Without Notice or Reason: Gauhati High Court Orders Reinstatement and Regularization of Circle Organizers    |     Jharkhand High Court Quashes Family Court Order, Reaffirms Jurisdiction Based on Minor’s Ordinary Residence in Delhi    |     Ex-Serviceman Status Ceases After First Employment in Government Job: Calcutta High Court Upholds SBI’s Cancellation of Ex-Serviceman's Appointment Over False Declaration of Employment    |     Maxim Res Ipsa Loquitur Applies When State Instrumentalities Are Directly Responsible: Delhi High Court Orders MCD to Pay ₹10 Lakhs Compensation for Death    |     Wilful Avoidance of Service Must Be Established Before Passing Ex Parte Order Under Section 126(2) CrPC: Patna High Court Sets Aside Ex Parte Maintenance Order    |     MP High Court Imposes Rs. 10,000 Costs for Prolonging Litigation, Upholds Eviction of Petitioners from Father's Property    |     When Detention Unnecessary Despite Serious Allegations of Fraud Bail Should be Granted: Kerala HC    |     Magistrate's Direction for Police Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Is Valid; Petitioner Must Await Investigation Outcome: Bombay High Court Dismisses Advocate's Petition as Premature    |     Relocation Alone Cannot Justify Transfer: Supreme Court Rejects Plea to Move Case from Nellore to Delhi, Orders Fresh Probe    |     Punjab & Haryana HC Double Bench Upholds Protection for Married Partners in Live-In Relationships, Denies Same for Minors    |     Tribunal’s Compensation Exceeding Claimed Amount Found Just and Fair Under Motor Vehicles Act: No Deduction Errors Warrant Reduction: Gujrat High Court    |     Smell of Alcohol in Post-Mortem Insufficient to Establish Intoxication: Rajasthan High Court Upholds Liability of Insurance Company in Motor Accident Case    |     No Grounds for Transfer: Free Bus Fare for Women in Telangana Reduces Travel Burden: Telangana High Court Rejects Wife's Petition to Transfer Divorce Case    |     Mechanical Referrals Invalid: "Deputy Registrar Must Apply Judicial Mind: Allahabad HC Quashes Deputy Registrar's Order in Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Election Dispute    |    

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.

Similar News