MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

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