Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Vindhya Vasini Vs. Prescribed Authority and ors.

Vindhya Vasini vs Prescribed Authority and ors.

Disposition Writ petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Apr 15, 2002
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/473754

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C.M.W.P. No. 15358 of 2002
Subject
Trusts and Societies;Election
Disposition
Writ petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Trust and Societies - jurisdiction of prescribed authority - Section 25 (1) of Societies Registration Act, 1860 - validity of election depends upon actual number of members of general body of the society entitled to participate in election - prescribed authority has jurisdiction to adjudicate in the event of doubt ...

Key legal issue
Trusts and Societies;Election
Outcome / disposition
Writ petition dismissed
Acts & sections
Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Sections 25(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Vindhya Vasini

Advocate R.C. Singh, Adv.

Respondent

Prescribed Authority and ors.

Advocate S.C.

Legal References

Acts
Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Sections 25(1)
Reported In
2002(2)AWC1623; (2002)3UPLBEC2449

Excerpt

trust and societies - jurisdiction of prescribed authority - section 25 (1) of societies registration act, 1860 - validity of election depends upon actual number of members of general body of the society entitled to participate in election - prescribed authority has jurisdiction to adjudicate in the event of doubt about election between two rival parties - to be adjudicated only after ascertaining actual number of members of general body entitled to participate in election - decision is incidental for deciding doubts about validity of elections. - .....the writ petition.2. it is settled principle of law that a writ of certiorari is maintainable against final order after exhausting all the statutory remedy. here, in the instant case, l/4th members of the society has initiated proceeding under sub-section (1) of section 25 of the societies registration act, 1860, before the prescribed authority. preliminary objection was raised regarding jurisdiction before the prescribed authority. the prescribed authority by impugned orders rejected the preliminary objection. the orders impugned passed by the prescribed authority are eminently just and proper and do not require interference at this stage.3. it is held that the validity of the election depends upon the actual number of members of the general body of the society registered in uttar pradesh entitled (o participate in such election under bye-laws of the society. in those cases, where there is a doubt about election between two rival parties, then a reference is to be made to the prescribed authority by the assistant registrar. firm, societies, chit fund. in case no reference is made, then l/4th members of society are entitled to initiate proceeding under sub-section (1) of section 25 of the societies registration act and in both situations, the prescribed authority is to adjudicate the validity of election alleged to have been held by rival parties with reference to the actual number of members of the general body entitled to participate in such election. the decision relating to number of members of general body entitled to participate in election is incidental for deciding the doubt about validity of election under subsection (1) of section 25 of the societies registration act and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable.4. it is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the instant case, there are no rival claimants of committee of management however, even if. there is no rival claimants relating to election of committee of management, even if......

Full Judgment

R.R. Yadav, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and perused the orders impugned dated 22.5.2000 (Annexure-14) and 23.3.2002 (Annexure-15) to the writ petition.

2. It is settled principle of law that a writ of certiorari is maintainable against final order after exhausting all the statutory remedy. Here, in the instant case, l/4th members of the society has initiated proceeding under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, before the Prescribed Authority. Preliminary objection was raised regarding jurisdiction before the Prescribed Authority. The Prescribed Authority by Impugned orders rejected the preliminary objection. The orders impugned passed by the Prescribed Authority are eminently Just and proper and do not require interference at this stage.

3. It is held that the validity of the election depends upon the actual number of members of the general body of the society registered in Uttar Pradesh entitled (o participate in such election under bye-laws of the society. In those cases, where there is a doubt about election between two rival parties, then a reference is to be made to the Prescribed Authority by the Assistant Registrar. Firm, Societies, Chit Fund. In case no reference is made, then l/4th members of society are entitled to initiate proceeding under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act and in both situations, the Prescribed Authority is to adjudicate the validity of election alleged to have been held by rival parties with reference to the actual number of members of the general body entitled to participate in such election. The decision relating to number of members of general body entitled to participate in election is incidental for deciding the doubt about validity of election under Subsection (1) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act and an argument contrary to it is not acceptable.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that in the instant case, there are no rival claimants of Committee of Management However, even if. there is no rival claimants relating to election of Committee of Management, even If. l/4th members of the society registered under Societies Registration Act raised an objection under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of Societies Registration Act. even then the doubt relating to validity of such election is to be decided with reference to the actual number of members of the society entitled to participate in such election by the Prescribed Authority. I am of the view that adjudication about doubt relating to validity of an election before Prescribed Authority under Sub-section (1) of Section 25 of Societies Registration Act without ascertaining the actual number of members of general body entitled to participate in such election would be practically impossible.

5. The Prescribed Authority has committed no error in passing orders impugned (Annexures-14 and 15 to the writ petition).

6. Consequently, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed in limine.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial