Versus: Efore Udhir Garwal

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Thursday, December 02, 2021

Printed For: Aastha Singh, SCC Online MyLOFT Remote Access
SCC Online Web Edition: http://www.scconline.com
© 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt.Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 SCC OnLine All 9577 : (2016) 4 All LJ 502
In the High Court of Allahabad

(BEFORE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.)
Ram Chandra Mission and others

Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and others.
Writ C. No. 8950 of 2001
Decided on July 10, 2015
Page: 504
ORDER
1. This bunch of eleven writ petitions relate to a common matrix i.e. the dispute
relating to authority for management and administration of Shri. Ram Chandra
Mission/Society (hereinafter referred to as “Mission/Society”) registered under
Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1860”).
2. Broadly, these writ petitions are in four sets. There are three writ petitions in
which dispute relating to renewal of registration of Mission/Society under Section 3/3-
A of Act, 1860 is involved.
3. Writ Petition No. 8950 of 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “first writ petition”),
has been filed on behalf of Mission/Society through its Treasurar Sri. Surendra Kumar
Dixit, seeking writ of mandamus commanding respondent No. 3 i.e. Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly [hereinafter referred to as “A.R.(F.S.C.)”]
to hand over renewed certificate of registration to Working Committee of petitioner No.
1 i.e. Mission/Society, in terms of letter No. SRCM/HQ/2000-01/174, dated 26.9.2000.
It has further sought a writ of prohibition, prohibiting A.R.(F.S.C) from issuing
renewed certificate of registration in respect of petitioner No. 1- Mission/Society to any
other person. Further it prays that such recognition if issued to P. Rajgopalachari,
nominating President, the same be cancelled by issuing a writ of certiorari. In this writ
petition, the three respondents impleaded are State of U.P.; Registrar, Firms, Societies
and Chits [hereinafter referred to as “Registrar, (F.S.C.)”]; and, A.R. (F.S.C). This
renewal certificate pertains to the period of 2000-05.
4. Writ Petition No. 69081 of 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “second writ petition”)
has been filed on behalf of Mission/Society through its President Navneet Kumar
Saxena and others impleading seven respondents, which include State of U.P.;
Registrar (F.S.C); A.R. (F.S.C); Shri. P. Rajagopalachari and three others. There are, in
all, ten prayers in the writ petition. The first one is to quash the order dated
10.10.2005 passed by A.R. (F.S.C.) renewing registration of petitioner Mission/Society
in favour of respondent No. 5 i.e. Uma Shankar Bajpai, copy whereof has not been
supplied to the petitioner despite having applied therefor. The next prayer is for writ of
mandamus commanding A.R. (F.S.C.) to deliver certified copy of order dated
10.10.2005 to the petitioners. The third prayer is for quashing order dated 10.10.2005
passed by Registrar (F.S.C.) directing A.R. (F.S.C) to renew registration certificate in
favour of respondent No. 5. A writ of mandamus has also been sought for directing
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
respondents not to give effect to the order dated 10.10.2005 with regard to renewal of
registration of society and the said order be not acted upon and/or used by respondent
Nos. 4 and 5 and instead A.R. (F.S.C.) should allow application dated 10.9.2005 filed
by petitioners for renewal of Society and renew registration in favour of elected
Managing Body represented by petitioner No. 2 as per requirement of Section 3-A of
Act, 1860 and not to interfere in peaceful possession of Mission/Society managed by
petitioners elected managing body, having its Headquarters at Shahjahanpur. For
being more precise, this Court reproduce reliefs (a) to (h) as under:
“a) writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of the
File No. I - 2410 with regard to the Renewal of the Registration Certificate of the
Petitioner
Page: 505
Society and quash the order dated 10.10.2005 passed by the Respondent No. 3
renewing the registration certificate of the Petitioner society in favour of Respondent
No. 5 the copy of the which has not been supplied to the Petitioners inspite of being
applied for.
b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the

Respondent No. 3 to deliver the certified copy of the order dated 10.10.2005
passed by him with regard to the Renewal of the Registration Certificate of the
society to the petitioners. The requisite fee of which has been deposited in his
office on 24.10.2005.
c) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated 10.10.2005 passed by the Respondent No. 2 through letter No. 1517/1-
2410 dated 10.10.2005 directing the Respondent No. 3 to renew the registration
certificate in favour of Respondent No. 5;
d) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
Respondents not to give effect to the order dated 10.10.2005 with regard to
renewal of registration certificate of the society and the aforesaid order may not
be acted upon and/or used by the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5;
e) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
Respondent No. 3 to allow the application dated 10.09.2005 filed by the
Petitioners for Renewal of Registration Certificate and renew the registration
certificate in favour of the elected Managing Body represented by Petitioners No.
2 as per the requirements of Section 3 A of the Act; accepting requisite fee
originally sent to respondent No. 3.
f) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to produe the entire record of File No. 1-2410 with
respect to the Renewal of Registration Certificate of the society;
g) to stay the operation and implementation of the order passed by the Respondent
No. 3 with regard to the Renewal of the Registration Certificate of the society and
the aforesaid order may be directed not to be acted upon or used by the
Respondent Nos. 4 and 5;
h) to restrain the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 from interfering in the peaceful
possession, control and working of the Petitioners Elected Managing Body over
the Registered Society Shri. Ram Chandra Mission with the headquarters at
Shahjahanpur in pursuance of the impugned order passed by the Respondent
No. 3;”
5. This second writ petition pertains to renewal of Mission/Society for the period of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 to 2010.
6. Then next comes Writ Petition No. 24212of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “third
writ petition”), which has also been filed on behalf of Mission/Society through elected
President Navneet Kumar Saxena and two others. Here there are four respondents i.e.
State of U.P.; A.R. (F.S.C.); Sri. P. Rajgopalachari; and Sri. U.S. Bajpai. The
petitioners have sought writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.10.2010
(Annex-ure 1 to the writ petition), which has been issued by A.R. (F.S.C.) informing
U.S. Bajpai addressing him as Secretary, Mission/Society, stating that renewal of
Mission/Society w.e.f. 10.10.2010 for a period of five years has been approved, which
would be subject to the writ petition No. 5034 of 2010 pending at Allahabad and 3091
(M/S) of 2008 pending at Lucknow. This writ petition pertains to renewal of
Mission/Society for the period of 2010-15. Substantial relief sought therein are as
under:
“i. writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the record of
matter/case and quash the impugned order dated 27.10.2010 (Annexure No. 1)
passed by the Respondent No. 2;
ii. writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent
No. 2 to renew the certificate of registration of the society in accordance with the
amended provisions under Section 3A(4) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
iii. writ, order or direction directing the Respondent No. 2 to hand over the renewed
certificate of registration dated 20.10.2010 from the Respondent Nos. 3 and 4
and hand over the same to the Petitioners elected Managing Body;
Page: 506
iv. writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondent
Nos. 3 and 4 not to claim any right on the basis of the order dated 27.10.2010
passed by the Respondent No. 2;
v. any other suitable directions.”
7. For the purpose of brevity, all the aforesaid three writ petitions, since they
involve common issue of renewal of Mission/Society, would be collectively referred as
“Writ Petitions Set A”.
8. Then there are six writ petitions in this bunch, which involve yearly recognition of
Committee of Management under Presidentship of P. Rajgopalachari and Secretary
U.S. Bajpai. All these writ petitions would be referred as “Writ Petitions Set B”. Herein
litigation commenced with Writ Petition No. 5034 of 2010 (hereinafter referred to as
“fourth writ petition”). Here petitioner has challenged order dated 19.12.2009 (Annex-
ure 39 to the writ petition) whereby A.R. (F.S.C.) has accepted list and documents of
elected office bearers of Society submitted by Sri. Uma Shankar Bajpai for the year
2009 and has declined to accept rival claim submitted by Sri. Amresh Kumar, Ashram
In-charge Working Committee/Managing Body of the Society.
9. Writ Petition No. 24214 of 2011 (hereinafter referred to as “fifth writ petition”)
has assailed order dated 16.3.2011 (Annexure 1 to the writ petition) passed by A.R.
(F.S.C.) whereby it has de-recognized rival claim of Amresh Kumar and has recognized
claim submitted by Sri. P. Rajgopalachari, President and U.S. Bajpai, Secretary of
Managing Committee of Society for the year 2010-11 under Section 4(1) of Act, 1860.
10. Writ Petition No. 41630 of 2012 (here inafter referred to as “sixth writ petition”)
is directed against order dated 05.05.2011 passed by A.R. (F.S.C.) in the matter of
reg istration of the list of Managing Body of So ciety for the year 2011-12. It has also
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sought a writ of certiorari to cancel all registrations made by A.R. (F.S.C.) on the list
submitted by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 i.e. Sri. P. Rajgopalachari and Sri. Uma Shankar
Bajpai. It has also sought a mandamus commanding A.R. (F.S.C.) to register list of
Managing Body submitted by petitioner for the year 2011-12 in accordance with
provisions of Act, 1860.
11. Writ Petition No. 41631 of 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “seventh writ
petition”) has assailed the order dated 18.01.2012passed by A.R. (F.S.C.) registering
the list of Managing Body of Mission/Society, for the year 2012-13. In fact, prayer
made in this writ petition is similar to sixth writ petition.
12. Writ petition No. 48669 of 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “eighth writ
petition”) is directed against orders dated 24.4.2013 (Annexure 19 to the writ
petition) and 10.7.2013 (Annexure 22 to the writ petition). Vide order dated
24.4.2013, list of Managing Body of Mission/Society submitted by Sri. Uma Shankar
Bajpai as Secretary for the year 2013-14 has been accepted and vide order dated
10.7.2013 in respect of document submitted by Sri. Dinesh Kumar, it has been
informed by A.R. (F.S.C.) that claim submitted by Sri. Navneet Kumar Saxena and
Amresh Kumar is subject to dispute in writ petition No. 5034 of 2010 which is
pending, hence further action would be taken in the light of decision in that writ
petition.
13. Writ Petition No. 30767 of 2014 (hereinafter referred to as “ninth writ petition”)
is directed against order dated 19.4.2014 (Annexure 17 to the writ petition) and
26.4.2014 (Annexure 20 to the writ petition). Here, A.R. (F.S.C), vide letter dated
19.4.2014 has registered list of Managing Body of Mission/Society for the year 2014-
15 submitted through Sri. Uma Shankar Bajpai, Secretary and vide letter dated
26.4.2014 has informed to Sri. Amresh Kumar that claim submitted by him would be
examined after decision in Writ Petition No. 5034 of 2010.
14. In third set comes writ petition No. 40035 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as
“tenth writ petition”), filed by Mission/Society through Navneet Kumar Saxena, which
will also be referred to as “Writ Petition-Set C” whereby petitioners have sought writ of
certiorari for quashing order dated 19.6.2004 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) passed
by
Page: 507
Registrar (F.S.C.) rejecting amendment sought in bye-laws of Society through

application filed by Sri. Puneet Kumar Saxena and order dated 9.8.2004 passed by
Registrar (F.S.C.) rejecting application of Sri. Puneet Kumar Saxena for recall of order
dated 19.6.2004.
15. Then there is last writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No. 66631 of 2005 (hereinafter
referred to as “eleventh writ petition”), filed on behalf of Mission/Society through
Amresh Kumar, Elected Working Committee Member and Ashram Incharge, which may
also be referred to as “Writ Petition Set D”. Herein the petitioner seeks a writ of
mandamus commanding A.R. (F.S.C.) to accept list of elected Working
Committee/Managing Body submitted by petitioners, Original Certificate sought to be
renewed and other documents relating to renewal of Society's registration. It has also
sought a writ of mandamus commanding A.R. (F.S.C.) to act in accordance with
Section 3-A of Act, 1860 as well as rules framed thereunder in the matter of renewal
of registration of Society and to issue certified copy of documents demanded by
petitioner No. 2 vide application dated 10.9.2005.
16. This Court finds that dispute involved in respect of Mission/Society is
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
multifarious, having a chequered history. There are several matters relating to

registration of Mission/Society not only before this Court but various authorities
including Civil Court. Some of the matters are finally decided and some are pending.
In order to have a birds eye view of facts, dispute and issues raised, it would be
necessary to have a retrospect in the said chain of events, which would help the Court
to adjudicate the issues raised in these writ petitions with due clarity and
effectiveness.
17. Historical Background
18. There was a spiritual human soul Shree Ram Chandra Ji, Fatehgarh engaged in
carrying out his spiritual mission. In this process, he had several disciples. One of his
disciples was another Shree Ram Chandra Ji of Shahjahanpur who also opted to carry
out spiritual mission of his Guru which he treated a divine obligation, after departure
of his Guru from this world.
19. In order to carry out his function in an organized manner, Shree Ram Chandra
Ji of Shahjahanpur got a society registered under the name and title, “Shri Ram
Chandra Mission of Shahjahanpur” i.e. the “Mission/Society” vide registration
certificate dated 21.7.1945 issued by Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, U.P., Lucknow
(now Registrar, F.S.C). In the bye-laws of Mission/Society, which is called
“Memorandum of Association” submitted to Registrar alongwith registration on 2nd
July, 1945, it was mentioned that the name and cadre of society is “Guru Shree Ram
Chandra Ji, Fatehgarh, U.P.” who was founder of Sahaj Marg system of attaining
spiritual perfection but the society is being founded by Mahatma Ram Chandra Ji of
Shahjahanpur.
20. Preamble of bye-laws shows that Mis sion/Society would be headed by founder
“Mahatma Ram Chandra Ji of Shahjahanpur” to fulfil wishes of his Guru. The founder
was desirous of imparting his knowledge and ac quirements, to every individual,
coming for ward to attain it, with clear heart and devo tion. The aims and objects of
Mission/Soci ety were stated in para 2 of bye-laws as un der:
“(a) to encourage the down-hearted and promulgate amongst them the easier
methods practicable to them, for the attainment of social and moral aims of life,
based on the principles of spirituality, translated as ‘Sahaj Marg’.
(b) to promote the feelings of mutual love and universal brotherhood, irrespective
of caste, colour or creed.
(c) That the mission shall work with aims and objects solely based on spirituality
and will have nothing to do with politics or any other activity, subversive of law &
order.”
21. Clause 3(a) provides that Mission shall have its Headquarters at Shahjahanpur.
Clause 3(b) says that it shall work under guidance and control of the founder or his
spiritual rep resentative, in the direct line of succession. Clause 3(b) also provided that
he shall be “President of Mission”. Clause 3(c) says that the ‘President’ may at his
discretion, estab lish Branch of the Society and Training Cen tres, affiliated to Head
Quarters of Mission, in all matters of organization and control at other
Page: 508
places as well, to promote the cause of Mission. The President possessed power to
appoint a working committee from amongst the members of Mission to assist him in
all matters pertaining to the control and organization of the mission. The President
also possessed power to appoint Office Bearers from amongst the members of working
committee, viz. Secretary, Joint Secretary and Treasurer and Auditor. He was also
authorized to make necessary changes in the frame work of Committee and the duties
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
of Office Bearers and members, at his own discretion, at any time. The President shall
preside over the meeting of working committee and of Mission. In case of emergency,
the President was authorized to appoint any other member to act for him, for time
being, but the orders, decisions and actions of such a nominee shall be subject to the
final decision of President. General body meeting of Mission also could be convened by
President at any time and any place. He was also authorized to invite public in general
or in particular in any such meeting which deals with the constitution and working.
Clauses (g) and (h) further provided as under:
“(g) He shall have a free choice in matters of appointment and removal of

members including the office-bearers. His decision in all matters shall be final; and
he shall have the power of veto in all matters of the mission.
(h) He shall nominate among his spiritual successors, any person as his
representative, who as such will enjoy all the power and authority vested in the
President.”
22. Membership of mission was open to all persons desiring spiritual development,
irrespective of caste, colour or creed, subject to the certain conditions as provided in
para 6 of bye-laws which reads as under:
“(a) That he should apply on the prescribed form, duly filled in, through a bona fide
member of the mission.
(b) That enrolment as a member shall be subject to the approval of the President.
The membership does not force the person concerned to pay any subscription
but it will be open to persons of generous mind and sincere devotion to the cause of
the mission, to donate whatever they like or can afford easily, for the maintenance
and smooth running of the mission. It will however in no case be obligatory or
compulsory for any subscription to be paid to the mission.”
23. Duties of office bearers are also dealt in para 7 as under:
“(a) President: The duties of the President shall be as mentioned in paras 3, 4 and
5 supra.
(b) Secretary:
I. He shall keep a record of the proceedings of all the meetings and will be
responsible for the proper upkeep of all the ministerial records of the mission.
ii. He shall convene all the meetings in consultation with the President.
iii. He shall adopt adequate and proper means to increase the funds of the
mission, in consultation with the President.
iv. He will have a small amount as imprest money, duly sanctioned by the
President, at his disposal, to meet petty expenses in anticipation of the
sanction of the President. He will be responsible for regularisation of such
transactions by having covering sanction of the President and for reimbursing
the imprest money.”
24. Initially, constitution and bye laws were signed by Sri. Ram Chandra in the
capacity of President, Sri. Madan Mohan Lal as Secretary and Sri. Harihar Sahai as
Joint Secretary.
25. It is said that Mission/Society works in spiritual field having no commercial
activity. It runs with its own funds. People on their own free will, desirous of spiritual
training, having faith in Mission/Society, come to have spiritual training. The
membership does not contemplate any fee. Thus one joins the society for spiritual
training for betterment or upliftment or purification of its own soul, spiritual activity
and knowledge of its own accord and remains there for whatever period(s) and leave
on its own volition. No membership fee is payable. They are called “Abhyasis” (who
have been explained as the persons, who practice for themselves for their own
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
spiritual path). These persons are treated as members. These members as such,
unless made part of working committee, on their own, play no role in
Page: 509
either establishment or running or administration of Mission/Society. In other words,

in the affairs of society, they have no active role in any manner.
26. The basic dispute in these cases is between two sets of group. Therefore, what I
would like to refer for brevity, the petitioner and his supporter group as rival group-1
(RG-1) and those contesting private respondents and supporting them, as rival group-
2 i.e. (RG-2).
27. R.G.-1 includes Sri. Navneet Kumar Saxena, Puneet Kumar Saxena while R.G-2
inclues P. Rajagopalachari and U.S. Bajpai.
28. RG-2 claims that the founder President of society, Shree Ram Chandra Ji of
Shahjahanpur, nominated “Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari” as the future President of
society, after death of founder President. He was in direct line and spiritual successor
of Shree Ram Chandra Ji of Shahjahanpur.
29. Sri. Ram Chandra Ji of Shahjahanpur had three sons and his family pedigree is
as under:
(See Table below)
30. The founder President died on 19.04.1983. Sri. Prakash Chandra Saxena, one of
the sons of founder President claims that he was nominated as President by founder
Presi dent and not Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari. The matter was placed before working
committee of Mission/Society in its meeting dated 10.07.1983 when claim of Sri.
Prakash Chandra Saxena was doubted in view of nomination document dated
23.03.1974. The matter was posted to be taken on 23rd October, 1983 so as to enable
Sri. Prakash Chandra Saxena to substantiate his claim. Ultimately, in the meeting
dated 23.10.1983 working committee did not accept the claim of Sri. Saxena. It is
said that claim of all three sons of founder President was abandoned. Then they
started saying that no body was nominated.
31. In the next meeting dated 27.12.1983, it was resolved that no claim was made
against nomination dated 23.03.1974 which was in favour of Parthasarthi
Rajagopalachari and that nomination is held, genuine and valid.
32. Original Suit No. 200 of 1983 vide plaint dated 27.12.1983, was instituted in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Court of Civil Judge, Shahjahanpur by three persons Basu Deo Singh, Uma
Shankar Arya and Bhagwan Dayal. They also filed application under Order 1, Rule 8
C.P.C. for trial of suit in representative capacity.
33. The above three plaintiffs impleaded Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari, Sri. Kashi
Ram Agarwal showing his designation as Joint Secretary of Mission and S.A. Saarnad
showing his designation as Secretary, as defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3 respectively.
34. The relief sought therein is an injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from
interfering with the function of Mission/Society
Page: 510
by declaring himself as President and involving defendant Nos. 2 and 3 with him and
also to restrain him (defendant No. 1) from functioning as President. It was pleaded
therein that the founder President has not nominated defendant No. 1 and the
document, if any, of nomination, exists, the same must be a manufactured document
and cannot be treated to be Will of the founder President.
35. The suit was contested by defendants and written statement was filed jointly in
which, besides others, they pleaded that document dated 23.03.1974 is not the ‘Will’
in legal sense but authorisation and nomination by founder President whom they
called ‘Master’ also.
36. Plaintiff also sought an ad interim injunction by filing an application under
Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. The said application was opposed by defendants.
37. The Trial Court passed an ex parte ad interim injunction order on 04.01.1984,
restraining defendants from interfering in the working of Mission and defendant No. 1
from acting or declaring itself as President of the, mission. The order of interim
injunction was confirmed by Trial Court vide order dated 09.05.1984.
38. Defendant Nos. 1 and 3 i.e. Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari took me matter to this
Court in First Appeal From Order No. 439 of 1984. The First Appeal From Order was
allowed vide judgment dated 25.02.1985. The relevant extract of judgment is as
under:
“My conclusion, therefore, is that, prima facie, the defendant No. 1 was duly
appointed as the spiritual representative of the founder and was validly authorized
by him to perform the duties and functions of the President of the Mission. My
further conclusion is that, prima facie, defendant No. 1 has also been recognized as
the President of the Mission by the working committee at its meeting held on
December 27, 1983 and, prima facie, the said meeting appears to have been validly
convened and conducted. In the face of the authoriza-: tion/nomination made in
favour of the defen-dant No. 1 both by the founder as well as by the working
committee it is apparent that the plaintiffs have no prima facie case to merit the
grant of ad interim injunction.
In this connection I may add that the learned counsel for the plaintiff-
respondents invited my attention to the proceedings of certain meetings of the
working committee stated to have been held subsequent to the grant of ad interim
injunction whereby the defendant No. 1 as the President as well as the defendant
Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, the Joint Secretary and Secretary of the Mission were all
restrained from interfering with the affairs of the Mission. Apart from the fact that
learned counsel was unable to establish any irregularity which could prima facie
affect the validity of the meeting held on December 27, 1983, it is apparent that
such proceedings held after the grant of injunction against the defendants cannot
be of much assistance in the present proceedings. Moreover, those proceedings
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
were not made part of the record of the case giving rise to this appeal.
This ex parte injunction has been confirmed by the impugned order. It will be
seen that by the impugned injunction not only has the defendant No. 1 been
restrained from performing his duties as the President of the Mission but also
defendant Nos. 2 and 3 who are admittedly the Joint Secretary and Secretary,
respectively, from interfering with the affairs and management of the Mission. Thus,
all the principal office bearers of the Mission have been restrained. It is not difficult
to see that it will lead to an anomalous situation where all the key officer bearers
stand restrained from performing their duties. That the Mission and its affairs would
be seriously prejudiced by such injunction is not difficult to visualize. The plaintiffs
do not allege that anyone else was named as the spiritual successor or has been
appointed by the working committee. Under the circumstances, the mission the
interest of which ought to be the principal consideration in a litigation of this
description, is bound to suffer much more than the prejudice alleged by the
plaintiffs.
The matter can be looked at from another point of view. If the conclusion that
prima facie the defendant No. 1 was validly named as the spiritual successor of the
founder and he was also the choice of the working committee, the defendants as
well as the Mission will suffer irreparable loss if an injunction is granted
Page: 511
contrary to the declaration made by the founder himself. In my opinion, therefore, in

balancing the convenience, the defendants would suffer much greater harm than the
plaintiffs.
In the view that I am taking on the issues of existence of prima facie case and
balance of convenience, it is not necessary to consider the legal submissions of the
learned counsel for the appellants to the effect that the grant of ad interim
injunction is completely prohibited in view of the local amendments made under
Order 39, Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure in mat the injunction sought
would have the effect of interfering with the internal management of a registered
society. For the same reason, it is not necessary to go into the controversy whether
the suit is not barred by section 41 of the Specific Relief Act and whether the suit is
maintainable having regard to the nature of the rights claimed by the plaintiffs.
Before concluding, I may add that the observations which I have made in this
judgment are tentative and have been made entirely in the context of the matter of
injunction. It is apparent that my comments on the various issues of fact or
evidence led by parties so far are wholly tentative with a view to finding out
whether the plaintiffs have any prima facie case and whether the balance of
convenience lies in their favour. The elaborate reasons which I have been
constrained to give in this judgment were necessitated by the fact that learned
counsel for both sides took me through the entire evidence led by them before the
court below with a view to supporting their contentions in appeal thereby inviting
any comments thereon. The court below shall, however, be free to arrive at its own
conclusions, while disposing of the main suit, wholly uninfluenced by the
observations made by me in this appeal.
In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order
passed by the court below are set aside. The injunction application filed by the
plaintiff-respondents in the court below is dismissed. The appellants shall be
entitled to their costs from the plaintiff-respondents.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Emphasis added)
39. The Plaintiffs thereafter carried the matter in S.L.P. (Civil) No. 7773 of 1985
which was dismissed vide order dated 27.09.1985, reads as under:
“Special Leave Petition is dismissed but the respondents will give an undertaking
to this court that they will not alienate or dispose of any part of the property
belonging to the Mission nor shift, the Headquarters of the Mission from
Shahjahanpur to any other place. Civil Judge, Shahjahanpur is directed to take up
the suit at an early date and as far as possible dispose it of within six months from
today.”
40. During pendency of appeal before this Court, Act 1860 was amended by U.P.
Act No. 11 of 1984 w.e.f. 30.04.1984.
41. Plaintiffs' of Original Suit No. 200 of 1983, and two sons of founder President
i.e. Sri. Prakash Chandra Saxena and Sri. Umesh Chandra Saxena claimed that a
meeting was called by members of Mission/Society on 20.03.1984 in which it was
resolved that nobody was appointed/nominated as President of Mission/Society, hence
one Sri. S.P. Srivastava be permitted to function as President. This resolution does not
appear to have been brought to the notice of this Court in the pending appeal nor
could be given effect to in any manner. Sri. Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari continued to
function as President of Society during pendency of appeal in view of interim order
passed therein and thereafter also in view of final judgment dated 25.02.1985 which
too was affirmed by Apex Court by dismissal of S.L.P.
42. Then comes another suit. Original Suit No. 142 of 1986 was filed in the name of
Mission impleading Basdeo Singh and others. Written statement dated 21.8.1987 was
filed therein by Sri. U.C. Saxena, (defendant No. 5) wherein he said in para 29 that
management of Mission is being run by working committee which was founded and
appointed by Founder President Ram Chandra. He also said in para 31 that he has
never been devoted to the Mission.
43. Dr. S.P. Srivastava and Sri. B.D. Mahajan approached Registrar (F.S.C.) and
A.R. (F.S.C.), requesting that they should be
Page: 512
recognized as President and Secretary respectively of Mission/Society. Having failed in

their attempt, they filed Writ Petition No. 22657 of 1991 in the name of Ram Chandra
Mission through Sri. B.D. Mahajan as Secretary. They also sought a writ of mandamus,
directing Registrar (F.S.C.) and A.R. (F.S.C.) to recognize working committee of
Mission as per order passed under Section 25 of Act 1860 and grant a fresh certificate
of renewal of registration to it. While the aforesaid writ petition was pending, Sri. U.C.
Saxena alleged that he has been nominated as President of Mission/Society and
approached A.R. (F.S.C.) requesting him to recognize him as such but the A.R.
(F.S.C.) rejected the same vide order dated 29.9.1994. The reagainst writ petition No.
37023 of 1994 was filed with cause title “Ram Chandra Mission through its President
Sri. Umesh Chandra Saxena”. Sri. B.D. Mahajan was also one of petitioners. A writ of
certiorari was prayed for quashing order dated 29.9.1994 and a writ of mandamus was
prayed for declaring Sri. Umesh Chandra Saxena as successor President of the
Mission/Society. It was also prayed that nomination deed dated 16.4.1982 be held
valid and nomination dated 23.3.1974 relied on by Sri. P. Raj Gopalachari be declared
as forged and invalid.
44. A testamentary suit No. 8 of 1993 was filed by Sri. U.C. Saxena and Sri.
Sarvesh Chandra Saxena, Sri. K.V. Reddy etc. in the name of Society, which after
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
contest was converted into Testamentary Suit No. 1 of 1994. The reliefs sought therein
read as under:
“(i) Letters of Administration be granted to the petitioner No. 1 in respect of the
properties in question having effect throughout India and abroad.
(ii) to declare the Petitioner No. 1 President of Shree Ram Chandra Mission,
Shahjahanpur and the petitioner No. 2 as Secretary thereof.
(iii) pending final adjudication interim grant may be made in favour of petitioner
No. 1 in respect of the properties in question including that of Shree Ram
Chandra Mission, Shahjahanpur Mission and branches thereof in India and
abroad, or
(iv) in the alternative, to appoint a Receiver in respect of the entire estate of the
deceased
45. Shri. Ram Chandra and that of Shree Ram Chandra Mission, Shahjahanpur
including the centres and branches thereof.
(v) to grant any other relief which the petitioners may be found entitled to in law.”
46. O.S. No. 200 of 1983 ultimately stood dismissed as withdrawn on 10.7.1997.
47. An objection was raised in testamentary suit that no cause of action has been
disclosed and plaint should be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC. The matter was
heard at length by Hon'ble A.K. Banerji, J. and vide judgment dated 16.10.1995
(Annexure CA-16 to counter affidavit in writ petition No. 30767 of 2014), objection of
defendant respondents Nos. 8 to 12 was upheld and the plaint was rejected under
Order 7, Rule 11(a), CPC.
48. One of the plaintiffs, Umesh Chandra Saxena filed Special Appeal No. 829 of
1995 against the judgment dated 16.10.1995. Therein Sri. Sarvesh Chandra Saxena,
real brother of Sri. Umesh Chandra Saxena filed an affidavit that nomination dated
23.03.1974 is valid and claim of Sri. U.C. Saxena is bogus and based on forged
document. This appeal however, was dismissed on 24.11.1998 (Annexure CA-27 to
counter affidavit in writ petition No. 30767 of 2014).
49. Writ Petition Nos. 22657 of 1991 and 37023 of 1994 were heard together.
Former one was dismissed as withdrawn and latter one was dismissed with cost vide
judgment dated 10.7.1997. This Court upheld the action of A.R. (F.S.C.) in allowing
Sri. P. Raj Gopalachari to function as President of Mission/Society in view of interim
order dated 31.07.1984 passed in FAFO No. 439 of 1984 which ultimately merged and
became final in view of judgment dated 25.02.1985. This Court observed that Sri.
Umesh Chandra Saxena himself was not coming forward and instead, his case was
canvassed by Sri. Sushil Kumar and two brothers though Sri. Saxena had full
knowledge of all these proceedings hence claim on his behalf lacks bona fide. Against
this judgment also Special Appeal Nos. 594 of 1997 and 580 of 1987 was filed by Sri.
Umesh Chandra Saxena. All these three appeals along with one more were decided
vide judgment dated 24.11.1998 and were dismissed.
Page: 513
50. Sri. U.C. Saxena filed Original Suit No. 697 of 1995, seeking a declaration that
he was nominated by Founder President on 16.04.1982. The suit was dismissed on
31.05.1999 (Annexure CA-18 to counter-affidavit in writ petition No. 30767 of 2014).
Civil Appeal No. 219 of 1999, filed by Sri. U.C. Saxena against the order dated
31.05.1999, was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Allahabad, vide judgment
dated 11.01.2001 (Annexure CA-19 to counter affidavit in writ petition No. 30767 of
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2014). Thereafter the matter was taken in Second Appeal No. 884 of 2001 which was
dismissed on 26.11.2001 (Annexure CA-20 to counter affidavit in writ petition No.
30767 of 2014), holding that the suit is time barred and not maintainable.
51. Another Original Suit No. 4 of 1999 was filed by Sri. U.C. Saxena against
Parthsarthi Rajgopalachari in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.) Shahjahanpur. The plaint
thereof itself was dismissed on 15.05.1999. Thereagainst Sri. Saxena came in Civil
Appeal No. 90 of 1999, which was also dismissed on 05.01.2004.
52. Original Suit No. 587 of 1999 was filed by Sri. U.C. Saxena which he got
dismissed as withdrawn unconditionally on 26.11.2001.
53. Against the judgment dated 24.11.1998 dismissing four intra Court appeals,
the matter was taken in SLP No. 12163 of 1999 (Civil Appeal No. 6619 of 2000). This
appeal was disposed of by the Apex Court vide judgment dated 29.04.2008 (Annexure
CA-29 to counter-affidavit in writ petition No. 30767 of 2014) reported in 2008 (5)
ADJ 95 (SC) Sri. Ram Chandra Mission v. R. Rajgopalachari. The Court directed that
pending suit be decided within six months.
54. In Testamentary Suit No. 8 of 1993, which on transfer to this Court was
registered as Testamentary Case No. 1 of 1994, an amendment application was filed in
1996, seek ing a relief in favour of Sri. U.C. Saxena. This application was rejected on
24.5.1996 (An nexure CA-13 to counter-affidavit in writ pe tition No. 30767 of 2014).
The Court observed that Sri. U.C. Saxena's claim is coming for the first time after 13
years of alleged nomination in his favour. Some other discrepancy in the stand taken
in the suit and amendment application was also noticed by the Court. Thereagainst
Special Appeal No. 561 of 1996 was filed which was also dismissed on 24.11.1998.
55. After withdrawal of suit No. 200 of 1983 on 10.7.1997, Sri. D. Krishna Bhagwan
Dayal filed O.S. No. 4 of 1999 (plaint Annexure CA-14 to counter-affidavit in writ
petition No. 30767 of 2014). In this suit, ‘Will’ of Founder President was stated to be
dated 29.12.1976, relating to his personal property and reference was also made to
alleged nomination dated 16.04.1982 in favour of Sri. U.C. Saxena. Relief in the suit
was a declaration in favour of defendant No. 1, i.e., Sri. U.C. Saxena on the basis of
alleged nomination dated 16.04.1982. This plaint was rejected on 15.5.1999
whereagainst Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1999 was dismissed by District Judge,
Shahjahanpur on 05.01.2004.
56. Original Suit No. 403 of 2003 was filed by Sri. Navneet Kumar, Puneet Kumar
and K.V. Reddy pleading theory of election and asserting that Navneet Kumar is
elected President of Mission/Society. The suit has been dismissed by Trial Court vide
judgment and decree dated 10.02.2010.
57. Original Suit No. 360 of 2000 was filed by five plaintiffs, namely, Sri. Mohani
Bajpai, Dr. Nalin Misra, Narendra Bajpai, Alok Srivastava and Smt. Radha Saxena,
Abhyasis of Society, claiming to be members of Society, seeking permission to pursue
the suit in representative capacity under Order 1, Rule 8 CPC. 11 defendants
impleaded therein are: Umesh Chandra Saxena, Navneet Kumar Saxena, Smt. Amita
Kumari Saxena wife of Sri. U.C. Saxena, Puneet Kumar Saxena, Suneet Kumar Saxena,
K.V. Reddy and Dr. A.N. Narsimha Rao, Ms. D. Uma, D. Krishna, S.R. Murti, Sri. M.S.N.
Reddy and Sri. Dr. V. Parth Sarthi. A permanent injunction was prayed, restraining all
defendants representing themselves as President of Mission/Society and neither collect
any money nor have any relation with Mission's centres at Allahabad, Shahjahanpur,
Bangalore, Kolkata, Madras or any other Centre and should not create any disturbance
etc. The trial court granted ad interim injunction on 09.08.2000
Page: 514
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Annexure CA-56 to counter-affidavit in writ petition No. 30767 of 2014) by passing

following order:
“Under the circumstances, defendant is hereby restrained from destroying the

mission's properties in dispute, from posing himself as the President of the mission
and thereby interfering in the working and management of the affairs of mission,
from collecting the money on the name of mission and converting the aim of
mission from philanthropic and spiritual to commercial one, till date fixed.”
58. Trial Court also passed order on appli cation under Order 1, Rule 8, CPC to the
fol lowing effect:
“Application 8C has been moved by plaintiffs seeking permission to file this suit
in representative capacity.
It is alleged by the plaintiffs that Shri. Ram Chandra Mission (hereinafter referred
as Mission) is public property and public at large is interested in protecting the
interest and properties of the mission, including the plaintiffs. In view of the fact
that application is bona fide and public at large is interest in protecting the interest,
spiritual character and properties of the mission including the present plaintiffs,
they are permitted to file the suit in representative capacity. Plaintiffs are directed
to take entire steps as contemplated u/O 1, Rule 8, C.P.C. accordingly forthwith
fixing 13.09.2000 for objection and disposal.”
59. An application under Order 7, Rule 11, CPC was filed by defendant Umesh
Chandra Saxena which came to be considered before Trial Court on 27.11.2000 and
dismissed by First Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Allahabad vide order dated
27.11.2000. Learned Trial Court, after condoning delay, allowed appli cation under
Order 1, Rule 8, CPC. The ad interim injunction order was confirmed vide order dated
27.11.2000. Relevant operative part of the order reads as under:
(Vernacular matter omitted…Ed.)
‘Till the instant civil suit is decided, the defendant through interim injunction is
hereby prohibited that he shall not show himself as the president of the Mission;
nor shall he collect any contribution or money in the name of the Mission; nor shall
he show any sort of association with the offices of the Mission located at Allahabad,
Delhi, Shahjahanpur, Bangalore, Calcutta and Madras or any other centers; nor shall
he destroy the properties of the Mission located at the aforesaid centers; nor shall
he go for any new construction thereat; nor shall he alienate or modify their shape;
and simultaneously, he shall also not convert the religious objectives of the Mission
into commercial ones.”
(English Translation by Court)
60. Against order dated 27.11.2000, rejecting Sri. U.C. Saxena's application under
Order 7, Rule 11, CPC, writ petition No. 53330 of 2000 was filed by U.C. Saxena,
which was dismissed on 19.11.2002. A Review Application was also filed by Sri. U.C.
Saxena and when the said application was pending, he preferred S.L.P. No. 6585 of
2003 before Supreme Court but the same was dismissed summarily on 25.7.2003.
However, before the Review Application could be decided, Sri. U.C. Saxena died on
03.11.2003. Thereafter his legal heirs and some others who were interested to pursue
the cause of U.C. Saxena, were sought to be impleaded and that is how defendant
Nos. 1 to 11, as already named above, were brought on record.
61. However, against order dated 27.11.2000, affirming ad interim injunction and
rejection of objection under Order 39, Rule 4, CPC, he (Umesh Chandra Saxena)
preferred FAFO No. 15 of 2001 wherein no interim order has been passed but FAFO is
still pending.
62. As already said, the order bringing on record defendant 1 to 11 was passed on
17.12.2003 under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. and it is alleged that the said order was ex
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
parte. Some of newly impleaded persons (defendants) namely Navneet Kumar Saxena
and others challenged order dated 17.12.2003 in Civil Revision No. 15 of 2004. This
revision was allowed vide order dated 20.01.2004 and the matter was remanded to
the Court below for deciding the application after affording opportunity of hearing to
all concerned parties. The order dated 17.12.2003 whereby injunction order was
allowed to operate against newly impleaded defendants was also challenged in
F.A.F.O. No. 218 of 2004. This appeal was allowed vide judgment dated 23.01.2004
and
Page: 515
the matter was remanded to the Trial Court to decide it afresh.
63. Before Trial Court, Legal Representatives, sought to be impleaded after the
death of Sri. U.C. Saxena raised a plea that Sri. U.C. Saxena was sued in his personal
capacity and after his death, cause of action has rendered infructuous and does not
survive any more. The Trial Court, however, vide order dated 30.01.2004 allowed
prayer for implea-dment of defendants 1 to 11 whereagainst again Civil Revision No.
66 of 2004 was filed but the said revision was dismissed vide judgment dated
19.7.2005. A Review Application No. 202645 of 2005 was also filed but it was also
rejected vide order dated 08.4.2010. In the meantime newly impleaded defendants
filed two applications, one under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. praying for rejection of
plaint and another for deletion of unauthorized amendments made in the plaint. The
said applications were rejected by Trial Court vide order dated 24.2.2007. Again, Civil
Revision No. 122 of 2007 and 123 of 2007 were brought to this Court against order
dated 24.02.2007. The revision No. 122 of 2007 was decided vide judgment dated
24.02.2012. By setting aside the order passed on the application under Order VII,
Rule 11, C.P.C., the matter was remanded. Civil Revision No. 123 of 2007, it is said, is
pending.
64. After remand, the Trial Court vide order dated 30.09.2014 held that certain
amendments were made in the plaint which have caused insertion of new cause of
action and rejected the application under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. whereagainst,
Revision No. 14 of 2014 has been filed, which is pending.
65. Original Suit No. 403 of 2003 was instituted on behalf of Mission/Society
through Sri. K.V. Reddy claiming himself to be elected Secretary claiming injunction
against P. Rajgopalachari. However, Trial Court vide order dated 10.02.2010 rejected
the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) C.P.C., whereagainst plaintiff has filed
First Appeal No. 194 of 2010, which is pending.
66. Writ Petition No. 3091 of 2010 was filed by Mission/Society through Navneet
Kumar Saxena before Lucknow Bench seeking a mandamus prohibiting Registrar
(F.S.C) from interfering in the working of Society, and a mandamus to A.R. (F.S.C.) to
decide dispute of Management of Mission/Society. Therein an order was passed by
Court issuing an interim mandamus but on an application submitted by Sri. U.S.
Bajpai seeking recall of said order, it was recalled and the Court imposed cost also,
whereagainst petitioners Mission/Society represented through Navneet Kumar Saxena
filed Special Appeal No. 580 of 2012, which is pending.
67. Original Suit No. 61 of 2011 has been filed in the name of Mission/Society
through its Secretary U.S. Bajpai seeking an injunction against Sri. Navneet Kumar
Saxena etc.. The Trial Court granted ex parte injunction order whereagainst application
under Order IX, Rule 13, C.P.C. has been filed, which is still pending.
68. There are some other matters involving some criminal cases also, reference
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
whereof have been made by parties in the bulky documents of writ petitions including
date charts, written submissions etc. but having gone through the same, I do not find
that they have much relevance for the issues involved in these eleven writ petitions,
which are up for consideration and, therefore, I am leaving the same at the moment
but, if necessary, reference and discussion may be made at the later stage.
69. As has already been discussed with reference to relief sought in the various writ
petitions, none basically relate to issuance of society registration renewal certificate of
Mission/Society, recognising P. Rajagopal-achari as President and U.S. Bajpai as
Secretary and annual renewal granted by A.R. (F.S.C). Only writ petition No. 40035 of
2004 of writ petition Set ‘C involves different question i.e. amendment sought to be
brought in bye-laws of Mission/Society and order passed by Registrar (F.S.C.)
rejecting such application and writ petition No. 66631 of 2005 of ‘Writ Petition set D’
prays for a mandamus to A.R. (F.S.C.) to accept list of elected working
committee/managing body submitted by Mission/Society through Amresh Kumar,
claims to be elected member and Ashram In-charge.
Page: 516
70. The basic ground of challenge in all these writ petitions is common, founded on
amendment of Act, 1860 vide U.P. Amendment Act No. 11 of 1984 and, therefore, it
would be necessary to examine this issue first as it will broadly cover the fundamental
issues and merits in all the writ petitions.
71. The broad submissions advanced by Sri. Vipin Kumar Saxena, learned counsel
appearing for petitioners are that vide amendment in Act, 1860, the State Legislature
vide U.P. Amendment Act, 11 of 1984 has substituted sub-section (4) of Section 3-A
and added a Proviso in Section 4(1), which read as under:
“Section 3-A(4) Every application for renewal of the certificate shall be
accompanied by a list of members of the managing body elected after the
registration of the society or after the renewal of certificate of registration and also
the certificate sought to be renewed unless dispensed with by the Registrar on the
ground of its loss or destruction or other sufficient cause.”
Proviso to Section 4(1)
“Provided that if the managing body is elected after the last submission of the
list, the counter signature of the old members, shall as far as possible, be obtained
on the list. If the old office bearers do not counter sign the list, the Registrar may
be in his discretion, issue a pubic notice to such persons as he thinks fit inviting
objections within a specified period and shall decide all objections received within
the said period.”
(Emphasis added)
72. It is urged that The aforesaid amendment has resulted in a situation where
election of Managing Body is now mandatory. Since claim set up by other side is on
the basis of nomination only, and not election by casting of votes, therefore, Managing
Body set up by respondents-rival side is patently illegal. A.R. (F.S.C.) having failed to
appreciate this aspect of the matter, has committed manifest error.
73. Sri. Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that substitution of
provisions, as noticed above, implies that old rule ceased to exist when new rule is
brought into existence in its place. The earlier law has been repealed and no more in
existence since amended provision has brought into existence a different situation,
which has to be recognized for all purposes. The purpose of amendment was to make
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Society working in consideration and in the line of Preamble of the Constitution.
The statute has been amended so as to make it in consonance with democratic set up
and to avoid any scope of dictatorship. Any other view would make the statute
unconstitutional and ultra vires of the Constitution. The amendment in Section 3-A(4)
and Section 4 is mandatory. It talks of the list of Managing Body to be comprised by
democratic means i.e. by means of ‘election’ only. A restricted meaning has to be
given to the word ‘election’ so as not to identify it by ‘nomination’ as otherwise that
would render the provision nugatory. The object of holding of election or appointment
of office bearers by democratic means would be defeated if the word ‘nomination’ is
read in place of ‘election’. He contended that ‘nomination’ is different than ‘election’
and for that purpose relied on A. Mohambaram v. M.A. Jayavelu, AIR 1970 Madras 63;
V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis, AIR 1999 SC 2044 and Assessing Authority Cum
Excise and Taxation Officer, Gurgaon v. East India Cotton MFC Company Limited
Faridabad, (1981) 3 SCC 531 : (AIR 1981 SC 1610).
74. The aforesaid submission basically suggests that after amendment of a statute,
earlier provisions would cease to have any effect and matter would be governed by
amended provisions. This Court does not find any difficulty in accepting this
proposition since this is an ordinary and natural consequence of an amendment. As
soon as an amendment is made and becomes effective and operative, the older
provision would stand substituted by amended one and then, it is the amended
provision only, which shall hold me field. There cannot be any quarrel with the
aforesaid proposition. No one can successfully canvass otherwise.
75. However, this by itself would not help petitioners unless they succeed in further
endeavour whereby they are trying to argue that word ‘Elected’ came to be used in
amended provisions i.e. Sections 3-A(4) and 4(1)
Page: 517
proviso to mean election only by casting vote and not nomination etc. This argument
of Sri. Saxena, I would like to elaborate in his own terms which he has advanced in
detail. Sri. Saxena has submitted:
(a) Section 3A(4) and Section 4 of Act, 1860 have to be read cojointly with Section
25 of Act, 1860 to ascertain the purpose of amendment in the Act;
(b) when Section 4, main provision, is read with the Proviso, then it is proviso
which clarifies intention of the main provision. The Proviso cannot be read in
isolation;
(c) Section 3-A(4) and Section 4, duly amended vide U.P. Amendment Act 11 of
1984, when read together, clearly lay down that substitution of provision to
submit the list of Managing Body, elected, promotes the democratic set up of
country and is an aid to conform the provisions, considering Preamble of the
Constitution, which lays down about democracy of the country; and
(d) the aforesaid legal precedents clarify the position that the word ‘election’ has
been con strued in its entirety and not in isolation and continuance of office
bearers of society would be only by way of election.
76. He then said that the main purpose and object is the relevant feature, which
has to be predominantly seen while intention of legislature is being ascertained. In the
present case, Section 3-A(4) and Section 4(1) was not complied with. The list of
managing body elected was not filed but the list of managing body ‘nominated’ was
filed. Hence following are the consequences:
i. The provisions of the Constitution and Memorandum of Association, which state
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
about the aspect of nominated list of managing body would override the
provisions of the Act.
ii. Section 3-A(4) provides for renewal of registration certificate when the conditions
of filing of application along with list of managing body ‘elected’ accompanied by
the certificate sought to be renewed and payment of renewal fee, are being
fulfilled. In case the application for renewal is not accompanied with the list of
managing body ‘elected’ then the conditions are not fulfilled and the renewal is
not done as required under the statute. Therefore, the purpose and object of
amendment is also defeated and frustrated.
iii. Under Section 4(1) the act has to be done as the provision provides for and on
failure of fulfillment of the condition/requirements again the objective is
defeated.
77. He sought to fortify above submissions by placing reliance on the authority of
Sunil Sardar v. State, AIR 2001 Calcutta 72; Mahant Sri. Bhakti Charan Das v. Stayen
Kumar Rai Choudhury, AIR 1969 Orissa 241; S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman,
AIR 1985 SC 582; and British Airways Plc v. Union of India, AIR 2002 SC 391.
78. He then further submitted that all the orders impugned in the writ petitions
passed by Registrar (F.S.C.) and A.R. (F.S.C.) are nullity in the eyes of law being
wholly without jurisdiction. They have failed to discharge their duties in accordance
with Sections 3-A(4) and 4 of Act, 1860. The authorities have proceeded to pass
impugned orders on the basis of orders passed by this Court in FAFO No. 439 of 1984
arising out of O.S. No. 200 of 1983 ignoring amended provisions i.e. Section 3-A(4)
and Section 4 of Act, 1860. They have also failed to consider the effect of withdrawal
of suit and consequential effect upon the orders passed by this Court in FAFO No. 439
of 1984. They have also failed to consider the effect of merger of this Court's judgment
in Apex Court's judgment dated 29.4.2008 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6619 of 2000.
The renewal orders of Society have been passed mechanically relying on earlier orders
and therefore, are patendy illegal. A.R. (F.S.C.) has also acted under dictates of
Registrar (F.S.C.) rendering orders illegal since he has not applied his independent
mind. The Registrar (F.S.C.) has no power to interfere with functioning of A.R. (F.S.C),
who also exercises power of Registrar (F.S.C.) under the Act. In this regard, Sri.
Saxena placed reliance on Fahim Ahmad v. State of U.P., 2006 (24) LCD 1078; Special
Appeal No. 462 of 2006 (Fahim Ahamd v. State of U.P.) decided on 05.3.2008 : (2008
(3) ALJ 218); Ramadhar Mishra v. State of U.P., 2010 (3) ADJ 258 (LB); Ramesh
Kumar v. State of U.P., 2010 (3) ADJ 94 (LB) : (2010 (5) ALJ 707); and Shri.
Sarveshwari Samooh v. State of U.P., 2005 (3) ESC (All) 2006 : (2005 All LJ 2231).
79. It is next contended that in case of conflict between provisions and the rules
framed thereunder, and bye-laws of Society, the Act shall prevail and provisions of bye
-laws, which are inconsistent to the Act, would be inoperative. For this purpose,
reliance is placed on Radha Swami Satsang Sabha v. Tara Chand, AIR 1939 Allahabad
557; Shanti Sarup v. Radhaswami Satang Sabha, Dayalbagh Agra, AIR 1969
Allahabad 248 and U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad v. Rajeev Kumar Bansal,
2004 (3) ESC (All) 1915.
80. Per contra, the arguments have been seriously contested by Sri. Ajit Kumar,
learned counsel appearing for the rival claimants representing Sri. P. Rajgopalachari. It
is urged that in all these writ petitions, firstly; there is concealment of facts and for
this reason alone, these writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. If petitioner has not
approached with clean hands and is guilty of concealment of material facts, equitable
discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 will not be exercised by this Court to help
such a petitioner and this Court would decline to interfere in such matters, hence, the
writ petitions are liable to be dismissed. Sri. Ajit Kumar detailed alleged concealment
of facts in the writ petitions, as under:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) passing of judgment dated 25.2.1985 in FAFO No. 439 of 1984, holding that Mr.
P. Rajagopalachari is President;
(ii) filing of writ petition No. 22657 of 1991 unauthorizedly in the name of Society
and Mr. S.P. Srivastava and Mr. B.D. Mahajan and its dismissal on 10.7.1997;
(iii) filing of writ petition No. 37023 of 1994 unauthorizedly in the name of Society
and by Mr. U.C. Saxena and its dismissal dated 10.7.1997.
(iv) filing of Testamentary Case No. 1 of 1993 converted into Testamentary Suit No.
1 of 1994, its dismissal on 16.10.1995;
(v) filing of Special Appeal No. 829 of 1995, its dismissal on 24.11.1999;
(vi) filing of O.S. No. 697 of 1995 falsely in the name of society and Mr. U.C.
Saxena in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad, its rejection on
31.5.1999;
(vii) passing of consolidated judgment dated 24.11.1998 in Special Appeals;
(viii) filing of Civil Appeal No. 219 of 1999, its dismissal on 11.1.2001;
(ix) filing of Suit No. 4 of 1999;
(x) filing of Suit No. 587 of 1999;
(xi) filing of Civil Appeal No. 90 of 1999;
(xii) filing of writ petition No. 53330 of 2000 against other part of order dated
27.11.2000 by which prayer of Mr. U.C. Saxena was rejected;
(xiii) passing of order dated 9.8.2000 in O.S. No. 360 of 2000;
(xiv) passing of order dated 27.11.2000 in O.S. No. 360 of 2000;
(xv) filing of Appeal No. 15 of 2001 by Mr. U.C. Saxena;
(xvi) filing of FAFO No. 1119 of 2004; (xvii) filing of writ petition No. 40035 of 2004
and its order dated 05.10.2004;
(xviii) filing of Revision No. 66 of 2004 and its dismissal on 19.7.2005;
(xix) filing of O.S. No. 403 of 2003 and its dismissal on 10.2.2010;
(xx) filing of written statement of Mr. U.C. Saxena in O.S. No. 142 of 1986 in which
he said that he will not claim any office in the society;
(xxi) execution of Will by Mr. U.C. Saxena dated 07.6.1999 wherein he said that he
obtained the office of President of Society by way of and together
with he is nominated him the sons as future President under the constitution and
bye-laws of the society;
(xxii) non-raising plea of election in the last 16 years, despite amendment having
been made on 30.4.1984;
(xxiii) other facts.”
81. He placed reliance on Ramji Lal Sharma v. Civil Judge, Allahabad, 1989 (15)
ALR 140 : (1989 All LJ 61); Sadhu Singh v. State of U.P., 1996 (1) UPLBEC 594; Land
Management Committee v. Board of Revenue U.P., Allahabad, 1993 AWC 159; Major
Jasbinder Singh v. End Addl. Dist. Judge, Ghaziabad, 2006 (1) ALT 446; S.P.
Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1 : (AIR 1994 SC 853);
Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust, (1996) 3 SCC 310 : (AIR 1996 SC
2202) and Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi, (2003) 8 SCC 319
82. Sri. Ajit Kumar further submitted that:
(a) The concealment/omission or misstatement of facts by petitioners is an offence
amounts to criminal contempt. In this regard, he placed reliance on Shri.
Shankatha Prasad Mishra v. Authorised Controller Sri. Moti Lal Nehru Inter
College, Basupur, District Gha-zipur, 1996 All LJ 119; Dhana-njay Sharma v.
State of Haryana, (1995) 3 SCC 757 : (AIR 1995 SC 1795); Gulshan Kumar v.
The Collector, Ghaziabad, AIR 1994 All. 243; and Dr. Khetpal Singh v. State of
U.P., 2009 (76) ALR 320 : (2009 (5) ALJ 711);
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) During pendency of one writ petition, no second or successive writ petition is
maintainable. In this regard he placed reliance on Narbada Prasad Mishra v.
State of U.P., 1999 (36) ALR 24 : (1999 All LJ 1352); Surya Deo Mishra v. State
of U.P. through Chief Secretary, U.P. at Lucknow & Ors., 2006 (62) ALR 769
(FB) : (2006 (2) ALJ 1 (FB); Dr. Khetpal Singh v. State of U.P., (supra);
Agricultural and Processed Food Products v. Oswal Agro Furane, (1996) 4 SCC
297 : (AIR 1996 SC 1947); and, Hari Nandan Singh etc. v. U.P. Higher Education
Services Commission, 1995 (3) UPLBEC 1613.
(c) The petitioners have not come with clean hands before this Court, then the writ
petition is to be dismissed. In this regard, he placed reliance on Raj Kumar Soni
v. State of U.P., 2007 (4) ADJ 539 (SC) : (2007 AIR SCW 2376); Ragho Prasad
v. Special Judge/Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur, 2000 (18) LCD 201 :
(1999 All LJ 2191); and Naveen Chandra Seth v. Commis sioner, Allahabad
Division, Allahabad, 2000 (18) LCD 97.
(d) The clever drafting have been done by petitioners of writ petitions, hence writ
petitions are to be treated frivolous petitions. In this regard he placed reliance on
I.T.C. Limited v. Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, (1998) 2 SCC 70 : (AIR
1998 SC 634); and T. Arivandandam v. T.V. Satyapal, AIR 1977 SC 2421.
83. Coming on merits, Sri. Ajit Kumar contended that the very fundamental
argument advanced by Sri. Saxena that ‘election’ means ‘election by casting of votes’
and not ‘nomination’ is a misconceived notion on the part of petitioners and that is
how entire foundation of these writ petitions is on murky ground. It is contended that
the word “election” used in Section 3-A does not mean ‘election by vote’ only. The
term ‘election’ has various shades and nuances. It may be election by vote, by choice,
by selection, by nomination or by any other manner. He placed reliance on the Apex
Court's decision in Dinesh Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 340 :
(1995 AIR SCW 836) contending that nomination is also a form of election. It is
further contended that if bye-laws do not contain process of election by vote but
provides election by nomination, such bye laws are neither illegal nor inconsistent to
the statute and in support thereof placed reliance on Swami Rameshwar
Prapannacharya v. State of U.P., 2007 (1) ADJ 405 : (2007 (3) ALJ 390); Committee
of Management, Shree Anar Devi Khandelwal Mahila Polytechnic, Mathura v. State of
U.P., 2009 (76) ALR 505 : (2009 (6) ALJ (NOC) 1130 (All); Jai Gurudev Dhaarm
Pracharak Sanstha Jai Gurudev v. State of U.P., 2013 (8) ADJ 28; and, Jai Gurudev
Dhaarm Pracharak Sanstha Jai Gurudev v. State of U.P., 2012 (11) ADJ 58 : (2013 (1)
ALJ (NOC) 5 (All).
84. It is further contended that if Managing Body is not elected in the sense, as
argued by Sri. Vipin Kumar Saxena even such a Body is contemplated by Section 4(1)
proviso, which provides “if the managing body is elected”. The term “if has been
interpreted in Head Master, Lawrence School, Lovedale v. Jayanthi Raghu, (2012) 4
SCC 793 : (AIR 2012 SC 1571). He also placed reliance on Govt. of T.N. v. Park View
Enterprises represented by
Page: 520
SCM Jamuludeen, (2001) 1 SCC 742 : (2000 AIR SCW 4557).
85. He then contended that dispute relating to election by vote or nomination has
been raised for the first time in 2001 in first writ petition i.e. after sixteen or
seventeen years of alleged amendment, but no reason for this extra ordinary laches
has been given. In the earlier litigation, no such plea of validity of election was taken
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and raised, therefore, petitions are also barred by Order 2, Rule 2, C.P.C. in
challenging the election by nomination after such a long time and in later litigation.
86. In Writ Petition No. 37023 of 1994 and Special Appeal No. 580 of 1997,
petitioner themselves have admitted that there is no provision for election in the
Society. The writ petitions have been filed by alleged Treasurar or the alleged Working
Committee Member or the alleged Office Superintendent or the alleged Ashram
Manager and not by Sri. U.C. Saxena, the alleged Secretary, who claimed to have been
elected.
87. There are other arguments advanced by both the parties orally as well as
through their written argument, which I may consider later on, if necessary, or as and
when occasion will arise. Presently, to this Court, it appears that fundamental question
raised and argued by counsel for the parties centred around the issue, “whether
‘election’ would mean election by votes or it may include nomination etc. also”. In
other words, whether Section 3-A(4) and 4 of Act, 1860, as amended in U.P. by U.P.
Amendment Act 11 of 1984, there is a statutory requirement i.e. every Society in its
bye-laws must have a Managing Body coming in existence by election i.e. by casting
of votes or the term ‘election’ used in the statute includes any other modes like
nomination, selection, choice etc.
88. I first propose to consider this very question and then would proceed to
consider other aspect of the matter to the extent they would be relevant for effective
adjudication of this bunch of writ petitions.
89. Section 3-A(4) before amendment in 1984 and thereafter as they stand reads
as under:
(See Table below)
Before Amendment After Amendment
Every application for renewal of the Every application for renewal of the
certificate of registration shall be certificate shall be accompanied by a list
accompanied by the certificate sought to of members of the managing bodv
be renewed unless dispensed with by the elected after the registration of the
Registrar on the ground of its loss or society or after the renewal of certificate
destruction or other sufficient cause. of registration and also the certificate
sought to be renewed unless dispensed
with by the Registrar on the ground of its
loss or destruction or other sufficient
cause.
90. Section 3-A(4) of Act, 1860 earlier contemplated the only requirement at the
time of renewal is accompaniment of certificate of registration sought to be renewed
unless even this requirement is dispensed with by Registrar on any valid ground like
loss, destruction, etc. The amendment has resulted in requiring some more document
to accompany the renewal application. Now under the amended provision, application
for renewal of certificate of registration must accompany: (a) list of members of
managing body elected after registration of society or after renewal of certificate of
registration and (b) certificate sought to be renewed unless dispensed with by
Registrar for valid reasons. In other words, besides certificate sought to be renewed,
application seeking renewal must be accompanied with list of the members of
managing body of the society.
91. The emphasis laid by Sri. Saxena, counsel for the petitioner is on the word
‘elected’ and what he canvasses is that the term ‘elec— tion’
Page: 521
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
has made vital change in the situation. It has not only required the list of the
members of the managing body but has also clarified that such members of managing
body must be those who are elected and not nominated, opted, appointed etc. The
rest of the modes except ‘election’ is excluded in the amended provisions categorically
and pointedly. He has thus argued that the term ‘elected’ means elected by casting of
votes and not by other means, even if, term ‘elected’ may include various other
modes.
92. Thus the real adjudication required in these writ petitions is whether the term
‘elected’ can be confined to the process of election by “casting of votes” or here the
word ‘elected’ is wide enough to cover other modes, manners and ways also. The term
‘elected’ admittedly is not defined under Act 1860 or a General Clauses Act or any
other statute, pari materia with the statute in question so as to throw light in a
particular manner. Counsel for the petitioner except making his oral submissions and
citing a few out of context authorities, could not buttress his submissions so as to
fortify that the term ‘elected’ means only election by “casting of vote” and
nonetheless.
93. His contention that any other view would be against democratic process as
enshrined in the constitution etc., I find wide off the mark and has no concern with the
issue in question. In view of the Court, the issue has been expressed and enlarged by
the counsel for the petitioner unnecessarily to such a limit where it has entered the
realm of absurdity otherwise the provision is very simple, unambiguous and clear and
nowhere suggest any such situation or ambiguity, as has been sought to be argued.
However let us first examine as to what the term ‘elected’ would mean.
The term elected/election—
94. The term ‘elected/election’ is a general word of art having a general meaning. It
is neither a technical nor a scientific term having a particular meaning. First, I would
prefer to go to its dictionary meaning.
95. According to Oxford English-English-Hindi Dictionary published by Oxford
University Press, First published 2008, 26th impression February 2013, the term
‘election’ means:
“election (the time of) choosing a Member of Parliament, President, etc. by
voting.”
96. Webster's Third New International Dic tionary of the English Language
Unabridged defines the term ‘election’ as under:
1 a: the act or process of electing, be the act or process of choosing a person for
office, position or membership by voting, c: an instance of the electorate's
exercising its function, d: divine choice, e: the choice of an as-trologically
favourable time, f: the selection of a site for or method of surgery, 2. the fact or
status of being elected.
97. According to The Random House Dic tionary of the English Language, ‘election’
means:
1. the selection of a person or persons for office by vote, 2. a public vote upon a
proposition submitted, 3. the act of electing, 4. the choice by God of individuals, as
for a particular work, or esp. for salvation or eternal life.
98. According to Legal Glossary 2001 of Government of India, ‘election’ means:
“election : election in law is when a man is left to his own free will to take or do
one thing or another, which he pleases; it is more frequently applied to the
choosing between two rights by a person who derives one of them under an
instrument in which an intention appears that he should not enjoy both; this word
is also commonly applied to the choosing of representatives.”
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
99. According to The Law Lexicon, The Encyclopaedic Law Dictionary, Third Edition
2012 by P. Ramanatha Aiyar's ‘election’ means:
“Election, in law is when a man is left to his own free will to take or do one thing
or another which he pleaseth.” (Termes de la Ley; Jacob's) The act of choosing; The
act of electing power of choosing; a free choice between different things;
preference; selection; a deliberate act of choice; the selection of one man amongst
more, to discharge the duties in a state, corporation or society; the act of choosing
a person to fill an office or employment by any manifestation of preference as by
ballot, uplifted hands or viva voce; a public vote upon a proposition submitted; a
poll for the decision by vote of any public matter or question.”
Page: 522
“Election is the choosing between two rights by a person who derives one of
them under an instrument in which a clear intention appears that he should not
enjoy both.”
100. Election in law is when a man is left to his own free will to take or do one
thing or another, which he pleases; it is more frequently applied to the choosing
between two rights by a person who derives one of them under an instrument in which
an intention appears that he should not enjoy both; this word is also commonly
applied to the choosing of representatives [S. 21(eleventh), IPC (45 of 1860), S. 35,
T.P. Act (4 of 1882) and O. 1, R. 2, C.P.C. (5 of 1908)].
“The right of selecting one of several forms of action for the redress of injury or
enforcement of a right.” (English L. Dict., Bouvier L. Dict.; Rapalje and L.L. Diet.)
The term “election” carries with it the idea of a choice in an appointment and is
generally made by one person, or by a limited number, acting with delegated
powers.
In the narrow sense it is used to mean the final selection of a candidate which
may embrace the result of the poll when there is polling, or a particular candidate
being returned unopposed when there is no poll. In the wide, sense the word
‘Election’ connotes the entire “process culminating in a candidate being declared
elected”. Election Commission of India v. Shivaji, AIR 1988 SC 61, 64.
[Representation of the People Act (43 of 1951), S. 2(b)]
The issue of notifications under Ss. 151 and 39(2) of the Representation of the
People Act (43 of 1951), is a part of the process of ‘election’ within the meaning of
Art. 329(b) of the Constitution of India. Amin Ahmad v. Nand Lal Sinha, AIR 1953
Pat 293, 295.
In the narrow sense the word “election” is used to mean the final selection of a
candidate. In the wide sense, the word is used to connote the entire process
culminating in a candidate being declared elected. N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning
Officer, Nammakkal, AIR 1952 SC 64, 67; Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad
Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233. See also Suoargope v. State of Bihar, 1 Doabia's
Election Report 49. [Constitution of India, Art. 329(b)]
The term ‘election’ in Art. 329(b), Constitution of India has been used in its
comprehenbsive sense, embracing the whole procedure whereby an elected
member is returned. Rajeswar Prasad v. State, AIR 1953 Pat 46, 50. Dr. Narayan
Bhaskar Khare v. Election Commission of India, AIR 1957 SC 694, 697.
The word ‘Election’ in Art. 329(b), Constitution of India has reference to the
entire procedure including the stage of Nomination of candidates. Nrisinha Kumar
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sinha v. The Returning Officer, AIR 1953 Cal 98, 100.

The whole process of ‘election’ as that expression is used in Art. 329(b)
terminates at the results and it does not embrace anything that occurs after the
results are declared. Hamirkha Alrkha Hasan v. Returning Officer, AIR 1954
Saurashtra 13 [Constitution of India Art. 329(b)]
The expression “election” generally includes registration, nomination voting and
the manner in which votes are to be counted and the result made known. Raghuni
Nayak v. District Magistrate, AIR 1959 Pat 7, 8. [Bihar Municipal Elections and
Election Petition Rules R. 7(8)].”
101. According to Jowitt's Dictionary of English Law by The Late The Right
Honourable the Earl Jowitt and Clifford Walsh, Second Edition by John Burke, Barrister,
Sometime Editor of Current Law, Volume I, published by London Sweet and Maxwell
Limited, 1977 the term ‘Election’ means:
Election, the right, and also the duty, and the act, of choosing: the term is
applied both to rights and liabilities. “If I give unto you one of my horses in my
stable, there you shall have the election; for you shall be the first agent by taking
or seizure of one of them” (Co. Lift. 145A; Terms de la Ley; Dyer 18a).
Election is the exercise of his choice by a man left to his own free will to take or
to do one thing or another. It is the obligation imposed upon a person to choose
between two inconsistent or alternative rights or claims. In Scarf v. Jardine, (1882)
7 App Cas 345, a customer could not sue a new firm after having elected to sue a
retiring partner. To amount to an election an act must be truly unequivocal and
made with full knowledge of the circumstances (Clarkson Booker v. Andel, (1964) 2
Q.B. 775).”
102. According to Black's Law Dictionary, Ninth Edition, ‘Election’ means:
“1. The exercise of a choice; esp., the act of choosing from several possible rights
or remedies in a way that precludes the use of other rights or remedies [the
taxpayer's election to file jointly instead of separately]. See Election of Remedies.
2. doctrine by which a person is compelled to choose between accepting a
benefit under a legal instrument and retaining some property right to which the
person is already entitled; an obligation imposed on a party to choose between
alternative rights or claims, so that the party is entitled to enjoy only one [the
prevailing plaintiff was put to an election between out-of-pocket damages and lost
profit]. - Also termed equitable election. See Right of Election. [Cases: Election of
Remedies. 3. The process of selecting a person to occupy an office (usu. A public
office), membership, award, or other title or status [the 2004 congressional
election]. Cf. Two-round voting under vot-ing.
103. The term ‘election’ therefore, is contextual. It has to be seen in the light of
scheme where it has been uses. It may have different connotations in different
schemes. However, there is no authority, which may show that ‘election’ would mean
exercise of choice by casting of votes only. The entire edifice of argument developed
by petitioner's counsel in support of all these writ petitions, solely on this ground, has
no legs to stand at all. I have no manner of doubt that this impression on the part of
petitioners has no basis whatsoever and the argument has to be rejected outright.
104. In the entire scheme of Act, 1860, there is no requirement that election of
office bearers of Mission/Society must be held only by casting of votes and bye-laws
must contain such provisions. It talks of office bearers. The term ‘election’ means the
person(s) in respect of whom choice is exercised by the body in accordance with
scheme of bye-laws and they have been addressed as elected ones. The meaning of
term ‘election’ in various dictionaries of language and law everywhere stressed upon
act of exercise of choice. In what manner such option/choice will be exercised is not
mentioned and it can be provided in different ways. Even nomination would be
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
included within the term ‘election’. No authority relied by Sri. Saxena, learned counsel
for the petitioners, supports his contention as has been urged by him.
105. There is no provision under Act, 1860 which says that the bye-laws existing
on the date of amendment, if included the election of Managing Body by nomination or
by any other way, such bye-laws would be inoperative or must be amended so as to
provide a process of election only by casting of votes. In fact, what is argued, if
accepted, would require to read a large number of words or some provisions in Act,
1860 which is/are not there. Such an exercise is not permissible in law. An
interpretation which requires addition of some words in the statute has to be rejected
unless the Court finds that the provision otherwise may become otiose or absurd or
impractical or may result in serious unwanted consequences. Nothing of that sort
exists here. In my view, here the word ‘elected’ in both the provisions used by
Legislature is in contemplation of all the ways, means and modes whereby someone is
elected in a body and election by casting of votes is one of such methods. Nomination
is another mode of election.
106. Sri. Saxena cited an authority which contemplated the word ‘nomination’ and
argued that nomination would not amount to an election. This authority is A.
Mohambaram v. M.A. Jayavelu (AIR 1970 Mad 63) (supra) wherein in the context of
appointment of Law Officers in the subordinate Courts, a Division Bench of Madras
High Court had an occasion to examine the meaning of term “nomination”. It was
considered in the context of word “appointment”. Rule 45 of Madras High Court
Criminal Rules of Practice and Circular Orders, 1958, provided appointment of Law
Officers in Subordinate Courts on the nomination of Collector. The Court held that
nomination does not mean appointment but it is only a proposal and recommendation
and in this context it referred to the meaning
Page: 524
of word “nomination” in various dictionary and in para 15 said as under:
“It was faintly argued on behalf of the respondents that the Collector only
suggested the appointment of the appellant as Public Prosecutor and not nominated
him. To nominate, as may be seen from any dictionary, means, to name or
designate by name for office or place. Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary gives
the word “nomination” among other meanings, “the naming or appointing a person
to an office; the naming of a person as a candidate for election or appointment to
an office”. A meaning of the word “nominate” is ‘to propose for office’, In the
counter-affidavit of the Secretary to the Government, Home Department, it is stated
that the word “nomination” can only mean, naming, that is, recommending. Clearly,
whether it is naming, proposing or recommending, the Collector does name,
propose or recommend only the appellant for the office, and he does not name,
propose or recommend the present appointee for the post.”
107. I do not find that aforesaid judgment may help petitioners in any manner to
argue that ‘nomination’ would not be included within the term ‘election’. The context
in which term ‘nomination’ was considered in A. Moha-mbaram v. M.A. Jayavelu (AIR
1970 Mad 63) (supra) was different. In any case, here also ‘nomination’ has been read
as recommending or proposing a person, which may include recommendation of a
particular person out of several. Meaning thereby, in common parlance, it can be said
that out of several options, one is selected and nominated. In the wider sense word
‘election’ would include word ‘nomination’ also.
108. The next authority relied by Saxena is V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis (AIR
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1999 SC 2044) (supra). The term ‘election’ in the Representation of People Act, 1951
(hereinafter referred to as “Act, 1951”) was considered in the context of whether
‘election’ means a particular stage or only the result or it is something more than that.
It is in this context a three Judges Bench of the Court in paras 18 and 19 of the
judgment said that the word ‘election’ cannot be restricted only to the electoral
process which commences with the issuance of notification and ends with the casting
of votes at the Polls. The word ‘election’ as used in Act, 1951 means every stage from
the time the notification calling for elections is issued till the declaration of the result.
The aforesaid judgment thus in the scheme of Act, 1951 read and held that term
‘election’ is not a particular stage or particular step but for the purpose of Act, 1951 it
is the entire bundle of steps/processes which commenced with notification issued by
Election Commission calling for election and ended with declaration of result. Whether
election would mean only a choice by adult franchisee and not any other mode was
neither a question considered nor decided, therefore, aforesaid judgment also, in my
view, lends no support to the petitioners on the question raised before this Court.
109. On the contrary, I find that the decision cited by Sri. Ajit Kumar in Dinesh
Prasad Yadav v. State of Bihar (1995 AIR SCW 836) (supra) demolishes the case of
petitioners and supports the arguments advanced on behalf of respondents. Therein
the Court considered the meaning of term ‘election’ in the context of Bihar Co-
operative Societies Act, 1935. In Section 14, word ‘election’ was mentioned and it was
repeated in the rules. The Committee of Management was to be chosen by casting of
votes by members and also by nomination and also nomination by State Government.
The Court said that term ‘election’ would mean not only the election by ballot but also
nominations made under the Act since there was no otherwise definition of election
under the Act. For the said purpose, the Court relied on definition of ‘election’ in
various dictionaries. It would be appropriate to quote paras 8, 9 and 10 of the
judgment as under:
“8. The expression ‘election’ has not been defined under the Act. In the absence
of any definition by the legislature we have to follow the ordinary meaning given to
the said expression. Collins English Dictionary defines ‘election’ as under:
“The selection by vote of a person or persons from among candidates for a
position, esp. a political office. The act or an instance
Page: 525
of choosing.”
110. Webester's Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edn., gives the following

meaning to the expression ‘election’:
“The selection of a person or persons for office as by ballot. A choice, as between
alternatives, choice in general.”
9. The expression ‘election’, therefore, means selection of a person by vote or
even otherwise. When a person is nominated by way of selection on the basis of a
given criteria from amongst several persons, then in the broader sense he is elected
to the office. We are of the view that the expression ‘elections’, in the first proviso
to Section 14(10) of the Act, has been used in the broader sense. It includes
election by ballot as well as the choice by nomination. This interpretation would
make Rule 22(2) of the Rules workable. Section 14(2) of the Act vests the
management of a registered society in a Managing Committee constituted in
accordance with the Rules. Section 14(4) further provides that even upto two-third
members of the Managing Committee can be terminated. Sub-section (8) of Section
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14 further imposes bar on the members of the Managing Committee for re-election
after they have held two consecutive terms. Rule 22(2) read with Section 14(2) of
the Act makes it abundantly clear that Constitution of the Managing Committee is
to be treated as complete only when the elections by ballot as well as the
nominations are finalised. Even otherwise, to fulfil the avowed object of the Act and
to encourage and promote the co-operative movement in the State, it is necessary
that the Managing Committee as constituted under Rule 22(2) of the Rules should
be given its full tenure of three co-operative years. Having provided for three years'
term in office to the Managing Committee of a Society, it could not be the intention
of the legislature to leave it to the State Government to reduce the same to as short
a period as three weeks, which would be a mockery. We, therefore, hold that in the
first proviso to Section 14(10) the expression ‘the co-operative year in which
elections are held’ means not only the elections by way of ballot, but also the
nominations under the Act, The net result is that the term of the Managing
Committee under the Act and the Rules is to commence from the beginning of the
co-operative year in which the nominations by the State Government are completed
and the Managing Committee is constituted in terms of Rules 22(2) of the Rules.
10. Although the expression ‘election’ has been defined under the Rules, but the
said definition has been specifically confined to the election in accordance with the
Rules. The election under Rules 21B-21X is only by way of ballot. There is no
provision for nominations under the Rules. Therefore, the definition of ‘election’
under Rule 2(xvi) read with Rules 2IB to 2IX only means the election as provided
under the Rules by way of ballot. The expression “election” as defined under the
Rules has to be interpreted in the context of the Rules and would not, therefore, go
contrary to the interpretation given by us to the said expression in the context of
the provisions of the Act.”
111. The term ‘nomination’ is included within the term ‘election’, has also been ob
served by an Hon'ble single Judge in Committee of Management, Shree Anar Devi
Khandelwal Manila Polytechnic, Mathura v. State of U.P. (2009 (6) ALJ (NOC) 1130
(All) (supra). The Court observed as under:
“8.………It is also true that in the Rules (bye-laws of the society) there is no
provision of election for constitution of the Committee of Management, as there are
only nominated members, who constitute the Committee of Management.”
“12. ………this Court is for the view that the election of the Members would
include choosing of such members by nominations,….”
112. The judgment in Assessing Authority Cum Excise and Taxation Officer,
Gurgaon v. East India Cotton MFC Company Limited Faridabad (AIR 1981 SC 1610)
(supra), in my view, does not help the petitioners in any man ner. In the context of
construction of Section 8(3)(B) of Central Sales Tax Act, 1956 (here inafter referred to
as “Act, 1956”), different High Courts have taken divergent views and that was
considered by the Court. The Court applied the canon of construction of taxation
Page: 526
statute to find out real intention and substance of aforesaid provision. The real
question was the scope and meaning of expression “for use … in the manufacture … of
goods for sale” occurring in Section 8(3)(B) of Act, 1956 and in the declaration in
Form ‘C in Rule 13. The Court referred to a well settled rule of interpretation i.e.
statute must be construed according to its plain language and neither should anything
be added nor subtracted unless there are adequate grounds to justify inference that
the legislature clearly so intended. When language of a statutory provision is plain and
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
unambiguous, there is no need to resort to the object and purpose of the enactment
because in such a case, the language best declares the intention of the law-giver. As a
proposition of law, there cannot be any quarrel but from a reading of the provisions of
Act, 1860 i.e. Section 3-A(4) and Proviso to Section 4(1), I do not find that term
‘elected’ can be read as if exercise of choice only by votes and all other modes and
manner, if any, would stand excluded.
113. Sunil Sardar v. State (AIR 2001 Cal 72) (supra) is a single Judge decision of
Hon'ble Dilip Kumar Seth in Calcutta High Court and question involved therein was the
right of a Pradhan to participate in requisition of a meeting when disqualification
process is going on. The Court said that a Pradhan would be barred from participating
or requisitioning a meeting only when a final order of removal is passed and not earlier
thereto. While interpreting relevant provision of West Bengal Panchayat Act, 1973, the
Court again followed the well settled principle of interpretation of statute that when
language of a statute is plain and simple, admits no ambiguity, the same has to be
read without adding anything or subtracting therefrom. Here also I do not find
anything in the aforesaid judgment, which may help the petitioners in any manner.
The Court said that if meaning of a statute is not obscure, it is not capable of two
meaning, the language is clear and explicit, then the Court cannot add anything to the
statute or subtract therefrom and must read the provision simply as it means.
114. Mahant Sri. Bhakti Charan Das v. Stayen Kumar Rai Choudhury (AIR 1969 Ori
241) (supra), a Division Bench judgment of Orissa High Court, which has been relied
also again to show the general principle of interpretation that the statute, which is
unambiguous, must be read simply as it means. Here the Court considered the
question whether Board of Revenue has jurisdiction to entertain second appeal from an
order of Collector under Section 9 of Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951. There was a
Proviso to Section 9(1) and construing the scope of Proviso, the Court said that normal
function of a proviso is to except something out of an enactment and to qualify
something enacted therein which, but for the proviso, would be within the purview of
the enactment. A proviso is not to be construed as excluding or adding something by
implication. A proviso to a particular provision of a statute only embraces the field that
is covered by the main provision; it carves out an exception to the main provision to
which it has been enacted as a proviso and to no other. Where the main provision is
clear, its effect cannot be cut down by the proviso. But where it is not clear the proviso
which cannot be presumed to be a surplusage can be properly looked into to ascertain
the meaning and scope of the main provision. Here also, I do not find anything which
may help the petitioners for the purpose of question which this Court has to decide
with respect to meaning of the word “elected”.
115. S. Sundaram Pillai v. V.R. Pattabiraman (AIR 1985 SC 582) (supra) is a
judgment of three Judges Bench of Supreme Court in which meaning of word ‘wilful
default’ appearing in proviso to Section 10(2) of Tamil Nadu Building (Lease and Rent
Control) Act, 1960 coupled with explanation, which seeks to explain intend of proviso,
was considered. How and in what manner a proviso to a provision should be read was
considered by Court in the light of rules of construction and in that context, the Court
summed up its conclusion in para 42 stating that proviso may serve four different
purposes: (a) qualifying or excepting certain provisions from the main enactment; (b)
it may entirely change the very concept of the intendment of the enactment
Page: 527
by insisting on certain mandatory conditions to be fulfilled in order to make the

enactment workable; (c) it may be so embedded in the Act itself as to become an
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
integral part of the enactment and thus acquire the tenor and colour of the substantive
enactment itself; and (d) it may be used merely to act as an optional addenda to the
enactment with the sole object of explaining the real intendment of the statutory
provision. In coming to the aforesaid inferences, the Court referred to and relied on its
earlier decisions in Sales Tax Officer, Circle 1, Jabalpur v. Hanuman Prasad, AIR 1967
SC 565; Commissioner of Commercial Taxes v. R.S. Jhaver, AIR 1968 SC 59; Dwarka
Prasad v. Dwarka Das Saraf, (1976) 1 SCC 128 : (AIR 1975 SC 1758); and, Hiralal
Rattanlal v. State of U.P., (1973) 1 SCC 216 : (AIR 1973 SC 1034).
116. Thereafter the Court also considered on the scope of explanation to a provision
in a statute and held that an explanation added to a statutory provision is not a
substantive provision in any sense of the term but as the plain meaning of the word
itself shows and it is merely meant to explain or clarify certain ambiguities which may
have crept in the statutory provision.
117. After referring to Swamp's Legislation and Interpretation, Bindra's
Interpretation of Statute and Sarathi's Interpretation of Statute as also its earlier
decisions in Burmah Shell Oil Storage and Distributing Co. of India v. Commercial Tax
Officer, AIR 1961 SC 315; Bihta Co-operative Development Cane Marketing Union Ltd.
v. Bank of Bihar, AIR 1967 SC 389; Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of
Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 915, the Court crystallized its observations as under:
“53. Thus, from a conspectus of the authorities referred to above, it is manifest
that the object of an Explanation to a statutory provision is—
a) to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself,
b) where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify
the same so as to make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems
to subserve,
c) to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to
make it meaningful and purposeful,
d) an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or
any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose
of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object
of the Act it can help or assist the Court in interpreting the true purport and
intendment of the enactment, and
e) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under a
statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming
an hindrance in the interpretation of the same.”
118. Here again the proposition of law and purpose of interpretation are well
established but that by itself lend no support to the petitioners for the purpose of
question which this Court has to consider in this bunch of writ petitions.
119. In British Airways Plc v. Union of India (AIR 2002 SC 391) (supra), again
interpretation of Sections 2(31), 116 and 42 of Customs Act, 1962 came up for
consideration. Here also the Court reiterated the well known principle of interpretation
that while interpreting a statute the Court should try to sustain its validity and give
such meaning to the provision which advances the object sought to be achieved by the
enactment. The Court cannot approach the enactment with a view to pick holes or to
search for defects of drafting which make its working impossible. Efforts should be
made in construing the different provisions so that each provision will have its play
and in the event of any conflict a harmonious construction should be given. I do not
find as to how this judgment would help the petitioners in any manner since I have
tried to read the entire scheme of statute i.e. Act, 1860 still could not find anything to
support the contention of petitioner that term ‘elected’ in Section 3-A(4) and proviso
to Section 4(1) would mean that bye-laws must contain a provision of election of office
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
bearers by casting of votes else otherwise bye-laws would be bad in law.
Page: 528
120. There are two authorities i.e. Fahim Ahmad v. State of U.P. (supra), judgment
of Hon'ble single Judge, as also Division Bench in Special Appeal No. 462 of 2006
(2008 (3) ALJ 218) (supra) but here also I find nothing to help the petitioners on the
question as above. This judgment is based on one more expression of law that once a
power has been exercised by Assistant Registrar or Deputy Registrar, as the case may
be, the Registrar cannot re-exercise the power since he does not possess appellate or
review power over Deputy Registrar and Assistant Registrar. In fact the term
‘Registrar’ includes ‘Additional Registrar’, ‘Joint Registrar’, ‘Deputy Registrar’ and
‘Assistant Registrar’. Therefore, once power has been exercised by any of the aforesaid
authorities, Registrar would cease to have any jurisdiction to either review such power
or interfere with power already exercised.
121. To the same effect is the judgment of learned single Judge in Ramesh Kumar
v. State of U.P. (2010 (5) ALJ 707) (supra) and Shri. Sarveshwari Samooh v. State of
U.P. (2005 All LJ 2231) (supra).
122. In Radha Swami Satsang Sabha v. Tara Chand (AIR 1939 All 557) (supra), a
Division Bench of this Court observed that after registration of Society, provisions of
Act, 1860 will apply and such bye-laws which are inconsistent with them will become
inoperative. The expression of law cannot be disputed but here I do not find anything
in the bye-laws, which is inconsistent with Act or any provision thereof.
123. In Shanti Sarup v. Radhaswami Satang Sabha, Dayalbagh Agra (AIR 1969 All
248) (supra), another Division Bench said that bye-laws of Society inconsistent with
provisions of Act, 1860 would be deemed to be invalid and inoperative. Again I have
no hesitation but to hold that it has no application in the case in hand since I do not
find any bye-laws, which is inconsistent with any provision of the Act including Section
3-A(4) and proviso to Section 4(1).
124. In U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad v. Rajeev Kumar Bansal (supra),
a Division of this Court in para 10 have noted a hierarchy of legislation as under:
“10. According to the eminent jurist Kelsen, in the legal system of every country
there is a hierarchy in laws. In India this hierarchy is as follows:
(i) The Constitution of India;
(ii) Statutory law, which may either parliamentary or law made by the State
Legislature;
(iii) Delegated legislation which may be in various forms e.g. rules made under
an Act, regulations made under an Act, notification under an Act etc.;
(iv) Administrative instruction or executive orders.”
125. Thereafter, in para 11, the Court said that if there is any conflict between a
higher law in the hierarchy and a lower law then the higher law will prevail. Therein
there was an inconsistency between the advertisement and the rule. The Court held
that the rule shall prevail. Again, I do not find anything in the aforesaid judgment to
help the petitioners in any manner.
126. In Swami Ramshwar Prapannacharya v. State of U.P. (2007 (3) ALJ 390)
(supra), a claim was set up that respondent No. 3 was elected as President in a
meeting held by Sadhus/Saints to run the Society. The Court observed that there was
no provision in the bye-laws of Society authorising Sadhu Samaj to elect the successor
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and President of the Society after the death of the founding President. The bye-laws,
on the other hand, provided that successor of President would be either his disciple or
disciple of Brahmrishi Sri. Devrahababa with the further restriction that he should have
renounced the world. There was no provision under the bye-laws that the successor of
the founder President as elected by Sadhu Samaj shall also be the President of the
Society. Therefore, claim of respondent No. 3 was not accepted that he was elected.
127. Thus, basic contention advanced by Sri. Saxena that ‘election’ means election
by casting of votes or ballots and nomination or otherwise authorisation in respect of
office bearers would not be a part of election cannot be accepted and this contention is
hereby rejected.
Page: 529
128. Then next comes the question whether A.R. (F.S.C.) or Registrar (F.S.C.) have
passed orders in disregard to their duties conferred by Section 3-A(4) and (4) of Act,
1860. In view of above answer given to the meaning of word ‘election’ even this
contention has no legs and has to be rejected. The persons who were continuing to
function as President and Secretary and were on the list, the Assistant Registrar or
Registrar, as the case may be, in regular manner has accepted papers submitted with
regard to renewal etc. and passed orders accordingly. If there is any dispute with
regard to office bearers etc., the remedy lies before Civil Court but here also, this
Court finds that repeatedly proceedings were initiated therein. Thereafter suits were
withdrawn or not pressed. Again new proceedings have been initiated. Since those
matters are not before this Court, therefore it will not be appropriate for this Court to
make observation in this regard and I am confining myself only to the question so
much as necessary for deciding these writ petitions.
129. However, the facts and exposition of law, discussed above, makes a few things
very clear to this Court which may be summarized hereat.
130. The Society was registered by its founder President Sri. Ram Chandra Ji of
Shahjahanpur. Under the bye-laws, he had the authority to nominate amongst his
spiritual successors any person as his representative to enjoy all the powers and
authorities vested in the President. This clearly conferred power of appointment of
President upon founder President by nomination. It has come on record that there was
a document of nomina tion dated 23.03.1974 whereby the founder President claimed
to have nominated Sri. Parthsarthi Rajgopalachari as President of Mis sion/Society. The
founder President died on 19.4.1983. The nomination aforesaid obviously would
become operative after the death of the founder President. It is also admitted that Sri.
Parthsarthi Rajgopalachari took the charge as President of Mission/Society and started
man aging its affairs. His authority was challenged by Sri. Prakash Chandra Saxena,
one of the three sons of founder President, and the mat ter was examined in working
committee of the Mission/Society in its meeting dated 10.07.1983. The claim of Sri.
Prakash Chandra Saxena, it is said, was doubted in the aforesaid meeting. The matter
was posted to 23.10.1983 giving opportunity to Sri. Prakash Chandra Saxena to
substantiate his claim. Whether he could collect any material to substantiate his claim
or not is not very clear but what is on record is that on 23.10.1983, the working
committee did not accept claim of Sri. Prakash Chandra Saxena. The nomination
document of 23.03.1974 was honoured and Sri. Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari
continued to function as President. In fact, the first suit which was instituted in the
matter, i.e., Original Suit No. 200 of 1983 filed vide plaint dated 27.12.1983 was
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
actually instituted by three persons, namely Basu Deo Singh, Uma Shankar Arya and
Bhagwan Dayal praying that they should be allowed to prosecute the suit in
representative capacity. It is also evident that these three persons did not institute
suit to assert any of their own rights but what they actually prayed, is Sri. Parthasarthi
Rajagopalachari be restrained from functioning as President of Mission/Society since
the nomination document dated 23.03.1974 was a manufactured document. Here also
mere was no declaration sought by them either in their favour or in favour of any of
the sons of the deceased founder President or Sri. Prakash Chandra Saxena, who
though tried to claim his own interest before the working committee but later on gave
it up and did not bring action within a reasonable period or limitation in any Court of
law. Before the Trial Court, the three plaintiffs, Basu Deo Singh, Uma Shankar Arya
and Bhagwan Dayal succeeded in obtaining an ad-interim injunction passed on
04.01.1984, confirmed on 09.05.1984 but me aforesaid injunction order could not
continue in view of interim order passed by this Court in F.A.F.O. No. 439 of 1984,
wherein this Court initially stayed the interim injunction order passed by Trial Court
and ultimately set aside the same, while allowing appeal vide judgment dated
25.02.1985 and injunction application filed by three plaintiffs in the aforesaid suit was
dismissed with cost. The order passed by this Court in appeal attained finality after
dismissal of Special Leave Petition (Civil) by Supreme
Page: 530
Court on 27.09.1985. Apex Court, considering seriousness of the matter and the wide
ambit of issue involving huge property of Mission/Society across the country, found it
expedient to direct Trial Court to decide the suit expeditiously and in any case, within
six months, but the suit remained pending and ultimately dismissed as withdrawn at
me instance of plaintiffs vide order dated 10.07.1997. Therefore, nomination
document dated 23.03.1974 continued to remain operative and Mission/Society
continued to be managed by Sri. Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari as President of Society
being nominated by the deceased founder President.
131. The next litigation is Original Suit No. 142 of 1986. Here also it was filed by
some other members of Mission/Society wherein Sri. Umesh Chandra Saxena, one of
the sons of founder President, was impleaded as defendant No. 1, who supported the
case of Sri. Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari in his written statement by stating in para 29
that management is being run by working committee which was founded and
appointed by the founder President and regarding his own claim he clearly said that he
had never been devoted to Mission/Society. Hence in view of bye-laws of Society, Sri.
Umesh Chandra Saxena could not have been treated to be a Member of
Mission/Society. Therefore, even this litigation did not have any otherwise impact on
the rights of Sri. Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari to continue to function as President of
Mission/Society.
132. Then comes further litigation instituted by Dr. S.P. Srivastava and B.D.
Mahajan claiming themselves to be President and Secretary of Mission/Society, who
initially approached the Registrar (F.S.C.) and A.R. (F.S.C.) and having failed therein
came in Writ Petition No. 22657 of 1991, which was ultimately dismissed as
withdrawn on 10.07.1997. Sri. Umesh Chandra Saxena for the first time sought to
claim his own right before A.R. (F.S.C.) to function as President of Mission/Society on
the ground that he was actually nominated by founder President which was rejected
on 29.9.1994. Thereagainst Sri. Umesh Chandra Saxena filed Writ Petition No. 37023
of 1994 which was ultimately dismissed with cost vide judgment dated 10.07.1997.
133. There are subsequent litigations also, some of which I have already referred to
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
in the earlier part of this judgment. All these facts make it very clear that till date, the
field is occupied by the nomination document dated 23.03.1974, said to have been
executed by founder President of Mission/Society, nominating Sri. Parthasarthi
Rajagopalachari as President of Mission/Society and after the death of founder
President in 1983, and since then, Mission/Society is continuously being managed by
Sri. Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari as President and other Office Bearers
nominated/appointed by him, as the case may be. If there may have been a minor
disturbance for a short period, either at some Branch level or otherwise, it would not
have any substantial consequence on the fact that Mission/Society is being managed
by Sri. Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari. Unless and until a Court of competent jurisdiction
determines his rights, in summary proceedings, i.e., matter relating to renewal of
Society or annual recognition etc. the substantial civil rights of management of Sri.
Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari cannot be allowed to adversely suffer. It is not disputed
that till date, there is no such adjudication of rights by any competent Court of law.
134. Now so far as the denial of amended bye-laws by Registrar/Assistant Registrar
at the instance of the petitioners, having failed to show any authority vested in them
to get the bye-laws amended, I do not find any illegality in the order passed by
Assistant Registrar in not accepting the said amendment. Whenever an amendment in
bye-laws is to be made, meeting has to be convened by a competent authorized
person and not by a stranger. The amendment on merits are not to be examined by
Registrar, but obviously, it can examine whether such amendment has been made in a
meeting convened validly by competent persons or not. Here when the Mission/Society
is being managed by Sri. Parthasarthi Rajagopalachari and Sri. U.S. Bajpai as
Secretary, an amendment made in a meeting convened by some other persons cannot
be treated to be a valid exercise of amendment of bye-laws, and, therefore, I find no
illegality in the order passed by Assistant Registrar rejecting the alleged amendment.
Page: 531
135. Since the entire edifice to maintain all these writ petitions is founded on the
issue that Mission/Society can be managed only by an Office Bearer, who has been
elected by casting of votes and not otherwise, which has not found favour with this
Court, I find that no ground stands substantiated to grant any relief, whatsoever, to
petitioners in all these writ petitions.
136. Having failed to find out any illegality in the orders passed by
Registrar/Assistant Registrar, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
137. Sri. Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently
contended that filing of one after the another writ petitions is a gross abuse of process
of law. There is a lot of concealment, omissions as well as mis-statement in the writ
petitions, showing that petitioners have not come with clean hands etc.. Though
various authorities have been cited on these issues, but since I have chosen to decide
the issues on merits, I do not find it necessary to look into those aspects of the
matter.
138. All the writ petitions, in view of above, lack merits.
139. Dismissed.
140. No order as to costs.
141. Petitions dismissed.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

Versus: Efore Udhir Garwal

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Versus: Efore Udhir Garwal

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2021 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Thursday, December 02, 2021

2015 SCC OnLine All 9577 : (2016) 4 All LJ 502

In the High Court of Allahabad

Ram Chandra Mission and others

b) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the

Registrar (F.S.C.) rejecting amendment sought in bye-laws of Society through

multifarious, having a chequered history. There are several matters relating to

“(g) He shall have a free choice in matters of appointment and removal of

either establishment or running or administration of Mission/Society. In other words,

contrary to the declaration made by the founder himself. In my opinion, therefore, in

recognized as President and Secretary respectively of Mission/Society. Having failed in

(Annexure CA-56 to counter-affidavit in writ petition No. 30767 of 2014) by passing

“Under the circumstances, defendant is hereby restrained from destroying the

the matter was remanded to the Trial Court to decide it afresh.

SCM Jamuludeen, (2001) 1 SCC 742 : (2000 AIR SCW 4557).

Sinha v. The Returning Officer, AIR 1953 Cal 98, 100.

of word “nomination” in various dictionary and in para 15 said as under:

110. Webester's Comprehensive Dictionary, International Edn., gives the following

by insisting on certain mandatory conditions to be fulfilled in order to make the

bearers by casting of votes else otherwise bye-laws would be bad in law.

You might also like