Sanjiv Memorial Education Society & Anr. vs State of U.P.& Ors.

Dilip Gupta, J.—Sanjiv Memorial Education Society (hereinafter referred to as the ''''Society�) and its Chairman have filed this petition for quashing of the order dated 25th June, 2009 passed by the Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ''''Registrar�) by which, while exercising revisional powers, he has set aside the order dated 24th December, 2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the Deputy Registrar).

It is said that petitioner No.2, S.P. Jalan was elected as the Chairman of the Society and respondent No.4P.C. Gupta was elected as the Secretary of the Society. Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 Smt. Seema Gupta and Smt. Harshu Gupta were also elected as the Members of the Governing Body of the Society. A dispute arose as some members of the Society filed objections and the matter was decided by the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P. Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as the ''''Assistant Registrar�) by the order dated 18th February, 2008. Respondent No.4, P.C. Gupta subsequently submitted documents before the Deputy Registrar for registration in which new members were inducted on the basis of meetings held on various dates. Notice was issued to the petitioner by the Deputy Registrar and after hearing the parties concerned, the Deputy Registrar by the order dated 24th December, 2008 rejected the documents submitted by respondent No.4P.C. Gupta.

A Revision was then filed on 1st January, 2009 by respondent No.4 before the Registrar against the order dated 24th December, 2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar. The petitioners raised a preliminary objection against the maintainability of the Revision but as the Registrar was proceeding with the matter the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 31219 of 2009 which was disposed of by this Court by the order dated 26th June, 2009 with a direction to the Registrar to first decide the preliminary objection raised by the petitioners regarding the maintainability of the Revision filed before the Registrar. However, the Registrar by the order dated 25th June, 2009 partly allowed the Revision and remanded the matter to the Deputy Registrar.

Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gopal Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the order dated 25th June, 2009 deserves to be set aside on the sole ground that the Revision filed before the Registrar against an order passed by the Deputy Registrar was not maintainable.

Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 contended that the order passed by the Registrar should not be set aside as it will result in reviving an illegal order dated 24th December, 2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar. However, he did not make any submission regarding the maintainability of the Revision filed before the Registrar.

I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

The Revision dated 1st January, 2009 filed by respondent No.4P.C. Gupta before the Registrar does not mention any provision of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the Act�) under which the said Revision was filed.

It is the contention of Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that the Registrar does not possess any revisional power under the Act against an order passed by the Deputy Registrar and even otherwise, once the Deputy Registrar had passed an order, the Registrar in view of the provisions of Section 21 of the Act and the notification issued by the State Government cannot review or revise the order passed by the Deputy Registrar.

Section 21 of the Act, as applicable to the State of U.P., reads as follows:

"21. In this Act, the word "Registrar" means a person appointed as such by the State Government, and includes any Additional Registrar, a Joint Registrar, Deputy Registrar, or Assistant Registrar, on whom all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act are conferred by general or special order of the State Government."

The State Government exercising powers under Section 21 of the Act issued Notification dated 7th January, 1982 which reads as follows:

"In exercise of the powers under Section 21 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (Act No. XXI of 1860), the Governor is pleased to confer on all the Deputy Registrars of Firms and Societies, Uttar Pradesh, all the powers of Registrar under the aforesaid Act to be exercised within the area of their respective jurisdiction."

It is, therefore, clear that the Deputy Registrar had exercised powers of the Registrar while passing the order dated 24th December, 2008. A Revision will, therefore, not lie to the Registrar. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents also did not place any provision of the Act under which a Revision would lie to the Registrar.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 25th June, 2009 passed by the Registrar indicates that the question of maintainability was examined and decided against the petitioners merely on the basis of a decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 61069 of 2008 (Illias Ahmed Khan Vs. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut & Ors.) by drawing an analogy that if the Registrar can review his own order then there is no reason why the Registrar cannot review the order passed by the Deputy Registrar.

The Registrar was not justified in placing reliance upon the decision of this Court in Illias Ahmed Khan (supra) for arriving the conclusion that the Revision was maintainable. In Illias Ahmed Khan (supra), as the judgment shows, the dispute was whether the Assistant Registrar had any power under the Act to review his own order and as this was a mixed question of fact and law, the Court left to the matter to be decided by the Assistant Registrar and did not decide it. The decision rendered in Illias Ahmed Khan (supra), therefore, could not have been relied upon by the Registrar to hold that the Revision was maintainable.

The order passed by the Registrar, therefore, cannot be sustained as Revision itself was not maintainable.

Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel for respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6, however, contended that the order passed by the Registrar should not be set aside as this will result in reviving an illegal order dated 24th December, 2008 passed by the Deputy Registrar.

There can be no quarrel with this proposition, but then it has to be established that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar is absolutely illegal. In this connection learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents could not point out any apparent illegality. The illegality of this order can always be examined in appropriate proceedings initiated by the said respondents.

In view of the aforesaid discussions, the impugned order dated 25th June, 2009 passed by the Registrar is set aside. The writ petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed.