Allahabad High Court
C/M Veer Eklavya Uchahatar Madhyamik ... vs Sub Divisional Magistrate And 2 Others on 27 August, 2020
Bench: Shashi Kant Gupta, Shamim Ahmed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 32 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 462 of 2020 Appellant :- C/M Veer Eklavya Uchahatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya And Another Respondent :- Sub Divisional Magistrate And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Pawan Kumar Rao,Chandra Bhan Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravindra Nath Yadav Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
This Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 18.2.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 5767 of 2020 (Committee of Management Veer Eklavya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti, Deoria and another Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) whereby the order of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act has been confirmed and it has been been, inter alia, observed by this Court as follows:-
"Having examined the materials placed on record, this Court is of the opinion that question of facts, which are sought to be urged on behalf of the petitioner to impeach the election dated 25.2.2010, require leading of evidence, both oral and documentary. The election dated 25.2.2010 which has been recognised merely reelected the previously elected manager i.e. respondent no. 3. Petitioner himself claims to have been enrolled as a member in the year 2008 and his membership has been seriously doubts. In that circumstances, remedy of petitioner would be to approach the Civil Court for an appropriate declaration with regard to his membership and also for challenging the orders passed by the prescribed authority. No interference in the writ petition is called for. Consequently, writ petition fails and is consigned to records."
At the very outset, learned counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the present appeal. It has been stated by him that the Special Appeal, arising out of order of learned Single Judge in which the order of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of Societies Registration Act was under challenge is not maintainable as the Prescribed Authority deciding the dispute acts as a Tribunal.
Similar controversy has arisen before this Court in Special Appeal No. 461 of 2014 wherein this Court while dismissing the Special Appeal as not maintainable has, inter alia, observed as follows:-
"We uphold the preliminary objection taken by Shri Shiv Nath Singh that the Special Appeal, arising out of order of learned Single Judge in which the order of the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of Societies Registration Act was under challenge, is not maintainable as the Prescribed Authority deciding the dispute acts as a Tribunal.
This Court has, in Jai Prakash Agrawal vs. Prescribed Authority (Sub Divisional Magistrate) Sadar, District Deoria & ors (1999) 1 UPLBEC 697; Mohd. Tabib Khan vs. State of UP & ors 2007 (10) ADJ 578 and in Special Appeal No.938 of 2008 (Sri Arya Mahila Hitkarini Mahaparishad Lahurabir, Varanasi &ors vs. State of UP & ors) decided on 8.8.2008 after quoting with reference to following passage in Jai Prakash Agrawal's case (supra), held that the Special Appeal in such cases will not be maintainable. The cases cited as above squarely cover the objection.
The Special Appeal is accordingly dismissed as not maintainable."
At this stage, it would be relevant to quote paragraph 14 of Jai Prakash Agrawal's case (supra) as follows:-
"14. For the reasons stated above, our conclusion is that the Prescribed authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh, is a tribunal and if the orders passed by the Prescribed authority is challenged in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Special Appeal under Rule 5 of Ch. VIII of the Rules of the Court will not lie against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in such a writ petition."
Learned counsel for the appellants could not able to dispute the contention so raised by the learned counsel for the respondents with regard to maintainability of the present appeal.
In view of the above, we are of the view that the present Special Appeal is not maintainable.
The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as not maintainable.
Order Date :- 27.8.2020 vinay