A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, has held that the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, possesses the jurisdiction to decide membership disputes as an ancillary and incidental issue while adjudicating a dispute regarding the election or continuance of office-bearers of a registered society. Dismissing two special appeals filed by Arya Pratinidhi Sabha through its Pradhan Devendra Pal Verma, the High Court affirmed a Single Judge’s decision quashing an order of the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, and directing the referral of the society’s election dispute to the Prescribed Authority.
Background of the Case
The dispute centers around ‘Arya Pratinidhi Sabha’, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which functions for the State of Uttar Pradesh under a four-tier organizational structure originally founded by Swami Dayanand Saraswati in 1875. The registered bye-laws of the society prescribe a tenure of five years for its Committee of Management (Antrang Sabha).
The last undisputed elections of the society were conducted on March 27, 2016, in which Devendra Pal Verma was elected as ‘Pradhan’ and Late Dheeraj Singh as ‘Up-Pradhan’. Subsequent disputes regarding the functioning of the Pradhan triggered a decade-long sequence of administrative orders and writ litigations:
- On November 9, 2016, the Deputy Registrar restrained Devendra Pal Verma from exercising his powers and appointed Late Dheeraj Singh as officiating Pradhan. On January 16, 2017, the Deputy Registrar transferred the charge to Smt. Gayatri Dixit.
- Resolutions were passed by factions on March 26, 2017, and July 24, 2017, expelling Devendra Pal Verma from membership, leading to cross-petitions before the High Court.
- On July 30, 2019, a Single Judge set aside the Deputy Registrar’s orders dated November 9, 2016, January 16, 2017, and March 30, 2017, remitting the matter back to the Deputy Registrar.
- On November 2, 2019, the Deputy Registrar rejected Verma’s complaint on the ground that he was ousted from Arya Samaj, Muzaffarnagar.
- In February 2020, following an inquiry revealing that Late Dheeraj Singh had obtained primary membership on forged documents, an FIR was registered against him and his membership was terminated on February 1, 2020. A no-confidence motion was passed against him on February 16, 2020.
- On March 21, 2021, fresh elections were conducted wherein Devendra Pal Verma was elected unopposed as Pradhan, and the election papers were registered on March 26, 2021.
- Subsequent litigations resulted in a judgment dated June 7, 2021 (setting aside the registration order and remitting the matter), review dismissal on August 16, 2023, and remand orders dated September 18, 2024 (in Writ-C No. 3418 of 2022) and August 26, 2025 (in a bunch of writ petitions).
- On December 5, 2025, the Deputy Registrar passed an order rejecting the election claims of Devendra Pal Verma (held on March 21, 2021) and Dr. Ram Ratan Chaturvedi (held on March 27, 2021), while declaring the election of Bhuwan Tiwari (held on March 27, 2021) as valid.
This December 5, 2025 order was challenged by Devendra Pal Verma and Dr. Ram Ratan Chaturvedi in separate writ petitions. On December 19, 2025, a Single Judge set aside the Deputy Registrar’s order and directed the Deputy Registrar to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The appellants filed intra-court appeals challenging these directions.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellants’ Submissions: Senior Counsel Sandeep Dixit, appearing alongside Counsel Atul Kumar Dwivedi for the appellants, argued that the Single Judge erred in referring the dispute to the Prescribed Authority without considering previous binding judgments of Coordinate Benches that had repeatedly remitted the matter to the Deputy Registrar for decision on merits. He contended that core disputes regarding membership fall under Sections 4 and 4-B of the Act of 1860, which lie exclusively within the statutory jurisdiction of the Deputy Registrar.
It was further submitted that key rival claimants—including Bhuwan Tiwari, Acharya Swadesh, and Dr. Ram Ratan Chaturvedi—were non-members or had been expelled from primary membership, making them strangers who lacked authority to hold elections for the Managing Committee.
Respondents’ Submissions: Senior Counsel Gaurav Mehrotra (assisted by Advocate Ms. Manjari), Senior Counsel Sameer Kalia (assisted by Advocates Ms. Shameem Rizvi and Shubhi Sharma), and Advocate Prateek Pal Singh, appearing for the respondents along with the Chief Standing Counsel and other counsels, submitted that when rival claims to a Committee of Management arise out of election disputes, the Deputy Registrar lacks jurisdiction and must refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1). Reliance was placed upon the Division Bench decision in C/M Anjuman Kherul Almin, Allahganj and another v. State of U.P. and others (2013 SCC OnLine All 14353).
It was further argued, relying on Kisan National Education Trust Pratapganj v. Prescribed Authority (S.D.M.) (2018 SCC OnLine All 6120) and Committee of Management, Shri Vidur Sewa Ashram v. State of U.P. (2018 SCC OnLine All 8880), that the Prescribed Authority is fully competent to determine membership as an ancillary issue while deciding election disputes.
Additionally, the respondents produced applications dated January 14, 2026, and January 19, 2026, showing that Devendra Pal Verma had sought adjournments before the Prescribed Authority, thereby submitting to its jurisdiction (Kedar Shashikant Deshpande v. Bhor Municipal Council (2011) 2 SCC 654). It was also pointed out that the Prescribed Authority had already rendered its decision, which is currently challenged in Writ-C No. 2626 of 2026, rendering the present appeal academic.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench deprecatively noted that the society had a chequered history of endless litigation, moving in a circular manner between the Deputy Registrar, Single Judges, and Division Benches.
On the scope of intra-court appellate jurisdiction, the Court cited the Supreme Court judgment in Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority & Ors. v. M/s SCOPE Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (2026 INSC 89), quoting:
“In our view, the exercise of intra-court appellate jurisdiction is warranted only where the judgment or order under challenge is demonstrably erroneous or suffers from perversity. Such jurisdiction ought not to be invoked merely because another view is possible on the same set of facts, particularly where the view adopted by the Single Judge is a plausible and reasonable one.”
Examining the intersection between membership issues and election disputes, the High Court rejected the attempt to place membership and election disputes into separate compartments:
“The Prescribed Authority being a senior officer than a Deputy Registrar would be more equipped to resolve this overlapping issue’s together, rather than separate the issues and invite different findings from different authorities and add more to the already existing confusion and battle of supremacy in the society.”
The Bench observed that Section 25(1) empowers the Prescribed Authority to decide “any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer,” emphasizing:
“…the phrase ‘any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an officer-bearers of such society’ mentioned in Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 is of great elasticity as it encompasses within it ‘any doubt or dispute’, which according to this Court also includes a doubt or dispute relating to membership also.”
“Thus, effectively, the Prescribed Authority while deciding the election dispute has in a way to also decide the issue of membership as an incidental and ancillary issue to the larger dispute of election.”
The Court fortified its reasoning by analyzing earlier precedent:
- Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul Almin, Allahganj and Another v. State of U.P. and Others (2014 (1) ADJ 44 (DB)), which harmonized Sections 4 and 25(1) to hold that election and governance disputes must be determined by the designated tribunal under Section 25(1).
- Committee of Management, Shri Vidur Sewa Ashram v. State of U.P. (2018 (5) ADJ 717), along with Sita Ram Rai & others v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Gorakhpur (2003 (5) AWC 4159) and Vindhya Vasini v. Prescribed Authority & others (2002 (2) AWC 1623), establishing that determining the composition of the general body/electoral college is incidental to deciding election doubts under Section 25(1).
- Principles regarding prejudice and jurisdiction established in Sarva Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank v. Manoj Kumar Sinha ((2010) 3 SCC 556) and Surendra Kumar Verma v. State of U.P. (2002 SCC OnLine All 188).
The Bench highlighted that forcing membership disputes to be decided by the Deputy Registrar before an election dispute could go to the Prescribed Authority would create a cumbersome process and give unscrupulous litigants a tool to stall democratic processes indefinitely.
Decision of the Court
The High Court held that the order of the Single Judge suffered from no perversity or error of law. Consequently, the Division Bench dismissed both Special Appeals without any order as to costs.
The Court clarified that since the Prescribed Authority had already passed an order which is currently under challenge before a Single Judge in Writ-C No. 2626 of 2026, all grounds—including those concerning membership—remain open for the parties to agitate in the pending writ proceedings.
Case Details
Case Title: Arya Pratinidhi Sabha, Thru. its Pradhan Devendra Pal Verma and another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Finance Lko. and 6 others
Case No.: Special Appeal No. 74 of 2026
Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
Date: July 27, 2026
Counsel for Appellants: Sandeep Dixit (Senior Advocate), Atul Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C., Gaurav Mehrotra (Senior Advocate), Sameer Kalia (Senior Advocate), Ashwani Kumar, Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra, Maria Fatima, Mohammad Fahad, Mohammad Shameem Rizvi, Prateek Pal Singh, Shubhi Sharma, Ms. Manjari
