The Allahabad High Court has dismissed a special appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition filed against an election certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Prayagraj. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra, held that the challenge to the election certificate was untenable given that the underlying order directing the recount is currently under challenge in a statutory appeal and the subsequent registration of office bearers under Section 4(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, remained unchallenged.
The Court observed that the election certificate itself “does not have any legal status” under the Act and that the power of an elected office bearer is derived from the registration of the list of office bearers.
Background of the Case
The dispute pertains to the election of the President of Kayasth Pathshala, Prayagraj, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Elections were held on December 25, 2023, and the appellant, Dr. Sushil Kumar Sinha, was declared elected as President on December 26, 2023.
Respondent No. 4, Chaudhary Raghvendra Nath Singh, challenged the election before the Assistant Registrar, who referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Prayagraj. On March 22, 2025, the Prescribed Authority directed the Assistant Registrar to conduct a recounting of votes and declare the result.
Pursuant to this order, the Assistant Registrar conducted a recount and issued an election certificate dated March 28, 2025, declaring Respondent No. 4 as the elected President and cancelling the earlier certificate issued to the appellant.
The appellant challenged this certificate in a writ petition (Writ-C No. 9752 of 2025), which was dismissed by a Single Judge on November 15, 2025. Concurrently, the appellant also filed a statutory appeal against the Prescribed Authority’s order dated March 22, 2025, under Section 25(1) of the Act, which remains pending before the Commissioner, Prayagraj.
Arguments of the Appellant
Senior Advocate Anil Tiwari, appearing for the appellant, argued that the Single Judge failed to consider the mandate of Section 25(2) of the Act. He contended that after a recount, one candidate cannot simply be substituted by another without holding fresh elections.
The appellant submitted that the Assistant Registrar lacked the jurisdiction to cancel the election or declare the respondent elected. It was argued that only the Prescribed Authority could decide disputes regarding elections and continuance in office. The appellant further contended that if the election was set aside, the Registrar should have called a meeting of the General Body for fresh elections as per Section 25(2).
Mr. Tiwari asserted that the Prescribed Authority and the Assistant Registrar assumed powers akin to the High Court under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which is not applicable to society matters.
Arguments of the Respondents
Senior Advocate R.K. Ojha, appearing for the respondent, submitted that in the initial election, 148 valid votes were not counted, prompting the recount. The recount revealed that the appellant had lost by 77 votes.
The respondents argued that the appellant had not challenged the result of the recounting itself but only the election certificate. Furthermore, it was submitted that the Assistant Registrar had already registered the list of office bearers under Section 4(1) of the Act on April 2, 2025, and attested the signatures of the respondent. Since there was no challenge to this registration, no relief could be granted.
The respondents emphasized that since the appeal against the Prescribed Authority’s basic order dated March 22, 2025, was pending before the Commissioner, a writ petition challenging the consequential act of the Assistant Registrar was not maintainable.
Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Division Bench declined to interfere with the Single Judge’s order. The Court noted that the Prescribed Authority had explicitly directed the Assistant Registrar to conduct the recount and declare the result. Therefore, the Assistant Registrar was “bound to obey the directions issued by the Prescribed Authority.”
The Court observed:
“Admittedly, the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority is not the subject matter of the writ petition and a statutory appeal… against the said order is still pending before the Commissioner concerned. Therefore, neither the writ Court nor this Appellate Court can record a finding which may, directly or indirectly, result in either setting aside or upholding the order passed or directions issued by the Prescribed Authority.”
The Bench emphasized that the list of office bearers had already been registered under Section 4(1) of the Act on April 2, 2025. The Court reiterated its earlier observation from the dismissal of the interim relief appeal:
“Nothing has been pointed out that the Act/Rules requires issuance of any such election certificate and, therefore, in our opinion, the same by itself, does not have any legal status… The issuance of the certificate, whatever value can be attached to the said certificate, does not empower the elected President in any manner, the power is derived based on the registration of the office bearers under Section 4(1) of the Act.”
The Court held that since the appellant chose not to challenge the registration of the list of office bearers—which is appealable under Section 4(1-A)—and the appeal against the main order of the Prescribed Authority was pending, the challenge to the “intervening event” of the issuance of the election certificate had “no substance.”
Regarding the appellant’s reliance on the judgment in All India Council vs. Assistant Registrar, the Court distinguished the facts, noting that the present case did not involve parallel elections but a reference where the Prescribed Authority had already exercised its power under Section 25(1).
The Court concluded:
“We are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has assigned cogent multiple reasons for dismissing the writ petition in light of statutory appeal being pending before the Commissioner against the order passed by the Prescribed Authority and no challenge having been laid to registration of the list under Section 4(1) of the Act, either way.”
The special appeal was dismissed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Dr. Sushil Kumar Sinha vs. The State of U.P. and 3 others
- Case No.: Special Appeal No. 1195 of 2025
- Bench: Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra
- Counsel for Appellant: Anil Tiwari (Sr. Advocate), Adiba Khatoon, Uday Pratap Singh, Anmol Bartaria
- Counsel for Respondents: R.K. Ojha (Sr. Advocate), Prabhakar Awasthi (Sr. Advocate), Ram M. Kaushik, Anuj Srivastava, Varad Nath, A.K. Goyal (A.C.S.C.), Jagdish Pathak (S.C.)
