The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) has quashed an order passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies, and Chits, ruling that the official lacked the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the validity of society elections. The Court reaffirmed that under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, such disputes must exclusively be referred to the Prescribed Authority.
Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, presiding over Court No. 17, allowed the writ petition filed by Arya Pratinidhi Sabha through its President, holding that the Deputy Registrar’s order determining the validity of rival elections was without jurisdiction.
Background of the Dispute
The writ petition challenged the validity of an order dated December 5, 2025, passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies, and Chits, Lucknow Division. In the impugned order, the Deputy Registrar had exercised powers purported to be under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act.
The Deputy Registrar had held that the election of the Arya Pratinidhi Sabha conducted on March 27, 2021, in which Sri Bhuvan Tiwari was elected as Pradhan, was conducted in accordance with the law. Consequently, the Deputy Registrar declared two other elections unauthorized and void:
- The election held on March 27, 2021, in which petitioner Dr. Ram Ratan Chaturvedi was elected.
- The election held on March 21, 2021, in which Devendra Pal Verma (petitioner in the connected Writ C No. 12346 of 2025) was elected.
Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioners approached the High Court, contending that the Deputy Registrar had exceeded his authority by adjudicating the election dispute himself instead of referring it to the Prescribed Authority.
Arguments and Legal Position
Senior Advocate Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, appearing for the petitioners, submitted that the Deputy Registrar had no jurisdiction to pass any order regarding the validity of elections. He argued that when a dispute arises respecting the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of a society, the Deputy Registrar is legally bound to refer the matter to the Prescribed Authority for adjudication.
The Court noted that despite elaborate submissions from various parties, there was a consensus on the fundamental legal position. The judgment recorded:
“Although the learned counsel for the parties have advanced elaborate submissions, they could not dispute the legal position that an election dispute cannot be decided by the Deputy Registrar and it can only be decided by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act.”
Sri Kapil Deo, Senior Advocate appearing for the opposite party Sri Bhuvan Tiwari, and the counsel for the other parties expressed apprehension regarding the interim management of the society. They urged that until the Prescribed Authority decides the dispute, safeguards should be in place to prevent actions adverse to the society’s interests by those currently in charge.
Court’s Decision and Directions
Accepting the submissions regarding the lack of jurisdiction, the High Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the impugned order dated December 5, 2025.
Justice Vidyarthi directed the Deputy Registrar to refer the election dispute to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. The Court emphasized the need for a speedy resolution, noting that the term of the Managing Committee is set to expire in March 2026.
The Court directed:
“The Prescribed Authority shall decide the dispute expeditiously. As the term of the Managing Committee would expire in the month of March, 2026, it is directed that the Prescribed Authority shall make every endeavour to conclude the proceedings within a period of two months and shall ensure that the proceedings are not rendered infructuous by efflux of time.”
The Prescribed Authority has been instructed to decide the dispute after granting an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties and considering all pleas raised.
Interim Safeguards
Addressing the apprehensions regarding the management of the society during the pendency of the dispute, the Court issued specific interim directions to the Managing Committee currently in control.
The Court ordered:
“It is further directed that in the meanwhile, the Managing Committee of the Society will manage the day to day affairs of the society in a proper manner and shall not create any third party interests in respect of the properties of the Society and shall not take any policy decisions which may cause prejudice to the interests of the other parties during continuance of the litigation before the Prescribed Authority.”
The matter was disposed of with these directions on December 19, 2025.
Case Details
- Case Title: Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Thru. President Pradhan Dr. Ram Ratan Chaturvedi And Another Vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief/Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Finance Lko. And 5 Others
- Case Number: WRIT-C No. 12312 of 2025
- Coram: Justice Subhash Vidyarthi
- Counsel for Petitioners: Sri Gaurav Mehrotra (Senior Advocate), Ms. Manjari, Sri Santosh Kumar Tripathi, Sri Harsh Vardhan Mehrotra, Ms. Maria Fatima
- Counsel for Respondents: C.S.C., Sri S.K. Khare, Sri Kapil Deo (Senior Advocate), Sri Ashwani Kumar, Sri Karunanidhi Yadav
