Kalyan Sansthan Uttar Pradesh vs State of U.P. and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard Sri B.D. Madhyan, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Udai Chandani, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Sri D.K. Upadhyaya, learned Chief Standing Counsel, for the State and Sri M.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2.

Kalyan Sansthan Uttar Pradesh [hereinafter referred to as Society] is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. Sri Brijendra Singh Yadav claiming himself to be the President and founder of the Society has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 30.4.2011 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Lucknow as contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, whereby the registration of the society has been cancelled.

Sri B.D. Madhyan, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that Petitioner''s society was registered for a period of five years w.e.f. 15.4.1999 till 2014 but without any rhyme or reasons, the Deputy Registrar, in an arbitrary manner, cancelled the registration of the Society.

Sri D.K. Upadhyaya, learned Chief Standing Counsel and Sri M.B. Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2, have raised preliminary objection that the Petitioner has got equally efficacious alternative remedy by preferring an appeal u/s 12(D)(2) of Societies Registration Act, as amended by U.P. Act No. 11 of 1984, before the Commissioner of the division concerned. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Hira Lal v. Registrar, Firms, Chits and Societies, Lucknow and Ors. 1995 A I H C 1692 and Kranti Kumar Chaturvedi and Ors. v. District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur Dehat and Ors. 1995 A I H C 1958.

Sri D.K. Upadhyaya also submits that Sri Brijendra Singh Yadav claiming himself to be the President and founder of the Society applied for the registration of a society in the name and style of "Police Pariwarik Kalyan Sansthan" on 5.6.1993 before Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits Jhansi and the same was rejected on the ground that he has criminal history. Thereafter, one Sri Amar Singh claiming himself to be Treasurer of Police Pariwarik Kalyan Sansthan moved another application for registration of a society, known as "Pariwarik Kalyan Sansthan" on 24.12.1994 before the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi, on the ground that pursuant to the letter dated 28.12.1993 written by Director General of Police to the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., a meeting of General Body of the Society was called for, in which, Sri Brijendra Singh Yadav resigned himself from the post of President of Police Pariwarik Kalyan Sansthan and as such, the objection so raised by the Deputy Registrar earlier has been removed.

Sri D.K. Upadhyaya submits that by concealing the aforesaid facts, one Sri Narendra Singh applied for registration of a society in the name and style of Kalyan Sansthan, Uttar Pradesh, K-1, Park Road, Lucknow on 9.4.1999 before Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow, stating therein that Sri B.S. Yadav is the founder of Kalyan Sansthan, Uttar Pradesh. The Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow, allowed the application of Sri Narendra Singh and directed to register Kalyan Sansthan, Uttar Pradesh as a society, which was also renewed as and when the same was due. Subsequently, the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Lucknow, came to know that the registration of the society at Lucknow has been obtained by misrepresentation of facts and as such, he immediately, in exercise of power u/s 12(D) of the Act, issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner as to why the registration of the society is not being cancelled. In response to the show cause notice, the Petitioner submitted his reply. The Deputy Registrar, Lucknow, after considering the totality of the matter, cancelled the registration of the Petitioner''s society on the ground that the same was obtained by the Petitioner by misrepresentation.

Refuting the said objection, Sri B.D. Madhyan, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that availability of the alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in approaching this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He does not dispute that there is an alternative remedy before the Commissioner under Article 12(d)(2) of the Act against the order impugned dated 30.4.2011 passed by the Deputy Registrar but when the authorities are acting under the influence of high officers of the State Government, the writ petition can be entertained. He further submits that from the perusal of the impugned order, sheer mala fide is being demonstrated on the part of the Respondents authorities.

It is a well settled position of law that the writ petition should not be entertained unless the party exhausted the alternative/statutory efficacious remedy. In other words, writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained when the statutory remedy is available under the Act unless exceptional circumstances are made out. Thus the aggrieved party can file appeal against the decision within the framework provided under the statute and the ultimate decision also could be challenged under judicial review, if permitted in law.

It would not be out of place to mention that earlier when show cause notice dated 14.2.2011 was issued, the Petitioner, instead of tendering reply, approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing writ petition No. 1176 of 2011 (MS). By the order dated 25.2.2011, the said writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable being premature. The Petitioner, being not satisfied with the judgment and order dated 25.2.2011, assailed its validity in Special Appeal No. 145 of 2011. In the special appeal, it was again argued on behalf of the Petitioner that show cause notice has been issued with mala fide intention and against the provisions of Section 24(5) of the Societies Registration Act. A Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment and order dated 8.3.2011, dismissed the special appeal and time was provided to the Petitioner to submit reply to the show cause notice. It appears that Petitioner is in habit of rushing to this Court instead of availing the statutory remedy available under the Act However, I do not intend to deal with any of the ground raised in the instant writ petition as the grounds so raised can very well be raised in appeal before the appellate authority as the impugned order passed by the Deputy Registrar in exercise of the power conferred u/s 12D(1) of the Societies Registration Act, as applicable to the State of U.P., is an appellable order.

In the cases of United Bank of India Vs. Satyawati Tondon and Others, and Kanaiyalal Lalchand Sachdev and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, the Hon''ble Apex Court has held that ordinarily relief under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is not available, if an efficacious alternative remedy is available to any aggrieved person.

It is relevant to mention here that learned Counsel for the Petitioner has concealed the material facts during the course of the arguments, which has been borne out after advancing submission by Sri D.K. Upadhyaya and the same has not been not controverted by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. This shows that the submissions advanced by Sri D.K. Upadhyaya are in consonance with the records. Thus, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argue the matter on concealing the root facts of the controversy just to gain undue advantage. Such type of practice should always be discouraged and is highly deprecated. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in obstruction in the course of justice.

In Prestige Lights Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India, it was held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court''s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty bound to place all the facts before the court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Apex Court Court referred to the judgment of Scrutton, LJ. in R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, and observed:

In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise-guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.

In Welcom Hotel and Others Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, the Apex Court has held that a party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case.

Recently the Apex Court in K.D. Sharma Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others, held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the Petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the Petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayashree and Others Vs. Bhagwandas S. Patel and Others,

In a recent decision of Dalip Singh Vs. State of U.P. and Others, the Apex Court has held that the making of patently false statement on oath by the Appellant tenure-holders is amazing. The Appellants efforts to mislead the authorities and the courts got transmitted through three generations and the conduct of the Appellant and his son to mislead the High Court and the Supreme Court cannot, but treated as reprehensible.

For the reasons aforesaid, I think it appropriate to impose heavy cost so as to deter the Petitioner from indulging in such activities again.

Since the Petitioner has a speedy and efficacious statutory alternative remedy available to him for the redressal of his grievances, it will not be proper to entertain this writ petition at this stage.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with cost of Rs. 25,000/-. However, it will be open to the Petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy. The Petitioner is directed to deposit the cost of Rs. 25,000/- before the Registrar of this Court within a month from today, failing which, the District Magistrate, Ghazipur shall recover the same from the arrears of land revenue. On receipt of the said cost, the District Magistrate, Ghazipur shall transmit the same to the Registrar of this Court, who, in turn, transmit the same in the account of Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow.