NAVYUG RADIANCE SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SOCIETY Vs. REGISTRAR FIRMS SOCIETIES AND CHITS
LAWS(ALL)-2002-9-228
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (AT: LUCKNOW)
Decided on September 07,2002

NAVYUG RADIANCE SENIOR SECONDARY SCHOOL SOCIETY Appellant
VERSUS
REGISTRAR, FIRMS, SOCIETIES AND CHITS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Jagdish Bhalla and P. K. Chatterji, JJ. - (1.) By an interim order dated 9.7.2002, learned single Judge while recording certain findings directed the Registrar to hold the fresh election of Committee of Management within two months from that date in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Societies Registration Act and Rules framed thereunder.
(2.) Aggrieved by the above order, the appellants have preferred this special appeal inter alia on the ground that the Registrar has no power under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 [hereinafter, referred to as the Act] but the learned single Judge has passed the impugned order upholding the order of the Registrar for the reason that the case appeared to be of strange type, who without recording any finding declared the order of the Registrar to be perfectly legal and justified. Learned single Judge, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, has committed an error in not adverting to the submission that the order of the Registrar is void ab initio for the reason that respondent No. 3 was not at all competent to approach the Registrar on account of the fact that respondent No. 3 himself was not only the member but President of the Committee who has taken the decision, which respondent No. 3 had sought to challenge and thus the action of the Registrar taking cognizance on the representations of respondent No. 3 was not proper and legally justified.
(3.) Sri N.K. Seth, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 raised objection to the maintainability of the special appeal and placing reliance on the decisions in Fakirelal v. State of V. P. and Ors., 1999 (2) AWC 926 : 1999 (17) LCD 606, Pratapur Sugar and Industries Ltd. v. Deputy Labour Commissioner, 2001 (19) LCD 247, Smt. Rama Devi v. Smt. Madhuri Verma and Ors., 1998 (16) LCD 115 and Sita Ram Lal v. District Inspector of Schools, 1994 (1) VPLBEC 24, learned counsel for the respondent contended that in view of the principles laid down in the above cases, this special appeal is not maintainable.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.