Allahabad High Court
C/M Chandrawati Shikshan Sansthan And 7 ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 20 May, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Chief Justice
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 1 Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:90156-DB Reserved on : 10.5.2024 Delivered on :20.5.2024 Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 735 of 2023 Appellant :- C/M Chandrawati Shikshan Sansthan And 7 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Satyendra Prakash Srivastava,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Gautam Baghel Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
1. Heard Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.P. Srivastava for the appellants-petitioners, who are eight in number, Sri Rajiv Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent no.3.
2. A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that the appeal be decided at the admission stage itself as they do not propose to file any further affidavits thus, the appeal is being decided at the admission stage.
3. This intra court appeal is against the judgement and the order dated 19.10.2023 passed in Writ-C No.24615 of 2023, Committee of Management, Chandrawati Shikshan Sansthan and 7 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants-petitioners questioning the order order dated 17.6.2023 of the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh, second respondent, (In short "Assistant Registrar") was dismissed.
4. The case of the appellants-petitioners before the learned Single Judge was that there is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (In short 'the Act, 1860') by the name of Chandrawati Shikshan Sansthan. The said Society is governed by approved bye laws. It is further the case of the appellants-petitioners that as per the bye laws of the Society, the affairs of the Society are managed by the Committee of Management whose term is five years. The renewal of the said Society was done on 14.5.2008 for a period from 26.9.2007 till 25.9.2012, on 6.3.2013 for 26.9.2012 to 25.9.2017 and lastly on 27.8.2018 for the period commencing from 26.9.2017 for five years.
5. As per the case set up by the appellants-petitioners the total number of the members of the general body is eleven, comprising of five office bearers and six ordinary members. Records reveal that on 26.7.2018 a list of the office bearers was submitted wherein one Sri Om Prakash (since deceased) was shown to be the Manager of the Society whereas Sri Faurang Ram (Since deceased) as the President. Though the term of the Society was five years, however, in between on 10.1.2021, Sri Faurang Ram, the President of the Society expired followed by Sri Om Prakash Singh, Manager on 14.3.2021.
6. It is claimed that on 4.10.2020 the meeting of the general body was convened for enrolling new members. A news publication to the said effect was made on 18.10.2020 in newspaper 'Devvrat' requiring the desirous members to deposit membership fees by 1.11.2010 fixing 10.11.2020. as the date of meeting of general body.
7. According to the appellants-petitioners, a meeting of the general body was also convened on 6.8.2021 for filling up the casual vacancy which had arisen on account of death of Sri Om Prakash Singh, who was the Manager of the Society, followed by another meeting convened on 8.2.2021 for filling up the casual vacancy on account of the death of the President, Sri Faurang Ram. It is also the case of the appellants-petitioners that in the said meeting, it was resolved after much deliberation that the appellant-petitioner no.2 is elected as the Manager of the Society in question whereas Smt. Lata Singh, fourth respondent as President. The appellants-petitioners claim that on 20.4.2022 papers pertaining to the said proceedings were submitted before Assistant Registrar for registration of the list of the office bearers of the year 2022-23. The said list is stated to have been registered by the Assistant Registrar on 30.4.2022.
8. The appellants-petitioners allege that though the list of the office bearers for the year 2022-23 of the Society was registered under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1860 on 30.4.2022 but the fourth respondent for the reasons other than bona fide, preferred an application dated 30.6.2022 annexing therewith various documents setting up a rival claim alleging that on 10.3.2019 a meeting was convened of the general body wherein Smt. Lata Singh wife of the erstwhile Manager, Sri Om Prakash Singh along with one Sri Ashutosh Singh, son of Sri Mukhtar Singh, fourth respondent the real brother of the appellant-petitioner no.2 were enrolled as the members and on 28.3.2021 another meeting of the general body was convened wherein in order to fill up the casual vacancy for the residue period on account of death of Sri Om Prakash Singh, Manager, Smt. Lata Singh, fourth respondent was elected as Manager whereas Sri Ashutosh Singh as the President.
9. Confronted with two rival claims, the Assistant Registrar issued notices on 19.7.2022 calling upon the rival fractions to submit their version/reply. In the meantime, on 17.1.2023, Sri Mukhtar Singh, third respondent, son of Sri Gorakhnath Singh, real brother of the Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, appellant-petitioner no.2 submitted an application claiming that registration obtained by the appellant-petitioner no.2 of the office bearers of the year 2022-23 was an act of fraud as neither the appellants-petitioners were legally enrolled as member of the general body nor the appellant-petitioner no.2 was elected as the Manager for the residue period against the casual vacancy, less to say about Smt. Lata Singh, fourth respondent to have been elected as President. An affidavit is also stated to have been submitted by the Smt. Lata Singh, third respondent abandoning her managerial claim, coming up with a stand that she was at no point of time elected as President in the meeting which is alleged to have been convened in which Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, appellant-petitioner no.2 was elected as a Manager.
10. In the meantime, since according to the appellants-petitioners the term of the Committee of Management elected in the year 2017 was coming to an end so a periodical election was held on 28.8.2022 in which Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, appellant-petitioner no.2 was elected as Manager.
11. The Assistant Registrar proceeded to decide the inter se claims of the rival parties on 17.6.2023 holding: (a) the enrolment of the eight life members (appellants-petitioners no. 2 to 8) is illegal; (b) the order dated 30.4.2022 registering the list of the office bearers of the appellants-petitioners, Committee of Management is rescinded; (c) the election of the Committee of Management of the appellants-petitioners faction dated 28.08.2022 is not worth consideration as the Committee of Management of the Society in question became time barred since 19.09.2022 thus in view of the provisions under Section 25(2) of the Act, 1860 a final electoral college is to be finalised after seeking objections.
12. Questioning the order dated 17.6.2023 of the Assistant Registrar the appellants-petitioners preferred Writ-Petition No.24615 of 2023 Committee of Management Chandrawati Shikshan Sansthan and 7 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others seeking following reliefs:-
"(i) issue a writ of certiorari or an order, direction or writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 17.06.2023 (contained in Annexure no.1) of the respondent no.2.
(ii) issue an appropriate writ directing the respondent no.2 to register the list of office bearers election in the election dated 28.08.2022.
(iii) issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award costs of this petition to the petitioners."
13. However, during the pendency of the said writ petition in pursuance of the order dated 17.6.2023, Assistant Registrar after inviting objections from the appellants-petitioners faction as well as of the contesting respondent, on 14.9.2023 proceeded to finalise electoral college for holding of the elections consisting of nine members which did not include the appellants-writ petitioners.
14. When the said aspect was brought to the notice of the Single Judge, on the statement of the counsel of the appellants-petitioners on 3.10.2023 the following order was passed:-
"1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Before hearing of this case commenced, Shri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel representing the respondent no.3 has placed before this Court, a copy of the order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh, which is taken on record.
3. Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel was asked as to whether he proposes to challenge the said order or not, he submitted that since the subsequent order is a consequential order, in case the order impugned dated 17.06.2023 is found to be without jurisdiction and is set aside or stayed, the subsequent order would automatically stand nullified and, therefore, he does not propose to challenge the order dated 14.09.2023. With this submission, he proceeded to argue the matter.
4. Heard Shri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri S.P. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for State-respondents and Shri Gautam Baghel for respondent no.3.
5. Order Reserved."
15. The learned Single Judge after hearing the learned counsel for the respective parties dismissed the writ petition by order dated 19.10.2023.
16. Challenging the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition and also the order dated 17.6.2023 of the Assistant Registrar the present appeal has been filed.
17. Sri Gajendra Pratap, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri S.P. Srivastava for the appellants has submitted that the order passed the Assistant Registrar as well as the learned Single Judge dated 19.10.2023 dismissing the writ petition cannot be sustained for a single moment. Elaborating the said submission, it is being sought to be argued that, before the Assistant Registrar there were two rival claims of the election set up one by the appellants-petitioners on 28.8.2022 whereas the other by contesting respondents dated 28.3.2021, then, in view of the provisions contained under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the dispute was liable to be referred to the Prescribed Authority and in failing to do so while adjudicating the dispute itself, Assistant Registrar transgressed its jurisdiction.
18. It is also urged that the issue of the membership could not have been gone into by the Assistant Registrar as the same at best could have been adjudicated by the Prescribed Authority being an incidental issue while determining the valid office bearers.
19. Additionally, it has been argued that once the appellants-petitioners no. 3 to 8 became the members of the general body, consequent to the order dated 30.4.2022 of the Assistant Registrar, then, without putting them to notice the said order could not have been reviewed.
20. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants-petitioners has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgement of this Court in Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj and another vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (1) ADJ 44, Society Gramin Siksha Prasar Samiti, Pratapgarh vs. State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No.306 of 2022 decided on 24.8.2022 and Writ-C No. 39973 of 2023, C/M Arya Kanya Pathshala Samiti and 3 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, so as to contend that once there are rival disputes of election of the office bearers set up by the rival factions then in view of the provisions contained under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860, the Assistant Registrar is under legal obligation to refer a dispute to the Prescribed Authority.
21. Reliance has also been placed upon the judgement in the case of Kamla Kant Agrawal vs. State of U.P. and others, 2008 (7) ADJ 601 so as to further contend that exclusion of a member from the association by an instrumentality of a State or by a person appointed by the Officer of the State would have the effect of depriving a person of his fundamental right to form an association under Article 19 (1) (c).
22. Lastly, it has been argued that once the order dated 17.6.2023 of the Assistant Registrar was faulty and erroneous being void then there was no requirement for the appellants-petitioners to have challenged the order dated 14.9.2023 particularly when once the foundation itself is weak and illegal then any subsequent action taken/order passed would have no legal effect.
23. It is thus, prayed that the order of the learned Single Judge as well as of the Assistant Registrar be set aside.
24. Countering the said submissions, Sri Rajiv Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 have sought to argue that the order passed by the learned Single Judge needs no interference at all. According to them, a categorical finding has been recorded in both the orders of the Assistant Registrar holding that the enrolment of the list of the office bearers on 30.4.2022 for the year 2022-23 was actuated by fraud. They further submit that neither any meeting was convened on 10.11.2020 enrolling the appellants-petitioners as members of the general body nor any such election was held pursuant whereto Sanjay Singh appellant-petitioner no.2, became the Manager and Smt. Lata Singh, fourth respondent, President for the residue period. However, in fact meeting was convened firstly on 10.3.2019 when pursuant to resolution of general body, Smt. Lata Singh, fourth respondent and one Ashutosh Singh become members of general body, and on 28.3.2021 they were elected as Manager & President respectively against casual vacancy.
25. Submission is that the Assistant Registrar under the provisions contained in Section 25 of the Act, 1860 does not act as a post office so as to transmit the papers to the Prescribed Authority on receipt of the rival claims, however it has to apply its mind as to whether the dispute is bona fide or not. They submit that in the present case categorical findings have been returned in the order impugned of the Assistant Registrar that fraud has been practised by the appellants-petitioners' faction and thus it was always open for the Assistant Registrar to review its order dated 30.4.2022.
26. As regards the issue of non affording of opportunity or notice to the appellants-writ petitioners no. 2 to 8 is concerned, it is contended that the same would not in any manner cause any prejudice particularly when the order dated 30.4.2022 was an outcome of fraud and further more adequate opportunity was accorded appellants-petitioners 2 to 8 to put forward the stands post issuance of the notice. It has also been emphasized that despite knowledge of passing of the order dated 14.9.2023 of the Assistant Registrar the appellants-petitioners have deliberately not challenged the said order less to say about assailing the said finding. Submission is that merely making bald allegations that once the parent order suffered from infirmity then the subsequent order is not required to be challenged will not suffice the legal requirement as findings recorded by the Assistant Registrar needs to be specifically challenged by making pleading and also submissions.
27. Reliance has been placed upon the judgement in the case of Shailendra Singh and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others, 2017 (6) ADJ 602 so as to contend that the prescribed authority does not act as a post office and reference of the disputes are required to be made when there is a bona fide dispute. While referring to the judgement in the case of Jokhan Lal Singh vs. Dinesh Singh and another, reported in 2008 (10) ADJ 485 it is contended that once fraud has been practised before the Assistant Registrar then it is always open to review its order. Thus, it is prayed that the intra court appeal be dismissed.
28. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.
29. Before delving into the tenability of the arguments of the rival parties, it would be apposite to just have a quick survey of the facts of the case.
30. It is not in dispute that Chandrawati Shikshan Sansthan is an educational society which was registered on 27.9.2002 under the provisions of Act, 1860. As per the registered bye laws of the Society in question Clause-5 provides that in order to become the member of the society a membership fees of Rs.1000/- is to be deposited.
31. Clause-8 of the bye laws provides for convening of meeting of the general body, according to which a notice in this regard is to be issued 11 days prior to holding of special meeting of the general body and the same is to be attended by 1/3rd of the members.
32. Clause-9 of the bye laws provides that the general body shall comprise of five office bearers and six members, in total eleven.
33. As regards filling up of the casual vacancies for the residue period on account the death of the office bearers the successors are to be elected for the residue period by the majority of the members of the general body.
34. The bone of contention is whether there was a bona fide dispute between the parties in the background of intervening facts relating to the claim of appellants-petitioners that they were validly enrolled as members of general body on 10.11.2020, list whereof got registration on 30.4.2022 by Assistant Registrar, appellant-respondent no.2 got elected as Manager against casual vacancy on 6.4.2021 followed by periodical election of Society dated 28.8.2022 on one hand and staking of claim of contesting respondent that Smt. Lata Singh, respondent no.4 along with Sri Ashutosh Singh, got enrolled as members on 10.3.2019 and elected as office bearers on 28.6.2021 which was liable to be referred by Assistant Registrar to Prescribed Authority.
35. The Assistant Registrar in its order dated 17.6.2023 recorded categorical findings that the appellants-petitioners practiced fraud in getting their names enrolled as new members of the general body. A finding was also recorded that there was no valid meeting of the general body pursuant whereto Sri Sanjay Singh, appellant-petitioner no.2 was elected as Manager and Smt. Lata Singh, the fourth respondent as President against the casual vacancy for the residue period. Though the order dated 17.6.2023 was impugned by the writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge, however, we find that there is no specific challenge being raised to the findings which are admittedly against the appellants-petitioners. More so an electoral college was also finalised by the Assistant Registrar by its second order dated 14.9.2023 after putting the appellants-petitioners to notice and considering their stand it was held that the appellants-petitioners were rank strangers and they were not enrolled as new members as per the bye laws. The order dated 14.9.2023 of the Assistant Registrar, though, was within the knowledge of the appellants-petitioners but they did not choose to challenge the said order creating a situation whereby the findings recorded against them became unassailable.
36. For the sake of convenience the provisions contained under Section 25 of the Act, 1860 are quoted in extenso:-
"Section 25-Uttar Pradesh. - After Section 24, following Section 25 shall be inserted, namely:-
"25. Disputes regarding election of office-bearers. - (1) The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a Society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such Society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit:
Provided that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied :
(a) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office- bearer; or
(b) that the nomination of any candidate has been improperly rejected; or
(c) that the result of the election in so far as it concerns such office- bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of any rules of the Society.
Explanation I.- A person shall be deemed to have committed corrupt practice who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person:
(i) induces, or attempts to induce, by fraud, intentional misrepresentation, coercion or threat of injury, any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw to withdraw from being a candidate at the election;
(ii) with a view to inducing any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or to inducing any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being a candidate at the election, offers or gives any money, or valuable consideration, or any place or employment, or holds out any promise of individual advantage or profit to any person;
(iii) abets (within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code) the doing of any of the act specified in clauses (i) and (ii);
(iv) induces, or attempts to induce, a candidate or elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure;
(v) canvasses on grounds of caste, community, sect or religion;
(vi) commits such other practice as the State Government may by rule prescribe to be a corrupt practice.
Explanation II.-A, promise of individual advantage or profit to a person, includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself, or of any one in which he is interested.
Explanation III. The State Government may prescribe the procedure for hearing any decision of doubts or disputes in respect of such elections and make provision in respect of any other matter relating to such elections for which insufficient provision exists in this Act or in the rules of the Society.
(2) Where by an order made under sub-section (1), an election is set aside or an office-bearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of office bearers of a Society has not been held within the time specified in the rules of that Society, he may call a meeting of the general body of such Society for electing such office-bearer or office-bearers, and such meeting shall be presided over and be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorised by him in this behalf, and the provisions in to the rules of the Society relating to meetings and elections shall apply such meeting and election with necessary modifications.
(3) Where a meeting is called by the Registrar under sub-section (2), no other meeting shall be called for the purpose of election by any other authority or by any person claiming to be an office-bearer of the Society.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, the expression "prescribed authority" means an officer or Court authorised in this behalf by the State Government by notification published in the official Gazette.- Vide U.P. Act 52 of 1975, Section 12 (w.e.f 10.10.1975) and U.P. Act 13 of 1978, Section 4 (w.e.f. 27.2.1978)."
37. As a matter of fact the Assistant Registrar in exercise of power under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 being confronted with two rival claims of election has to refer the disputes once they are bona fide and not frivolous. In order to reach the said conclusion, he has to be prima facie satisfied that the dispute is bond fide and genuine. It is altogether a different issue that the said prima facie findings are subject to challenge in writ proceeding.
38. This Court while following the decision in the case of Committee of Management, Anjuman Kherul Almin Allahganj (Supra), Society Gramin Siksha Prasar Samiti (Supra) and in the case of Shailendra Singh in para 24 it was observed as under:-
"The powers conferred under the aforesaid sections clearly demonstrate that the Registrar is the principal Executive Officer to exercise his power in respect of the affairs of the Society. Thus, his power under Section 4 cannot be divested only on the ground that under Section 25 he has the authority to refer the dispute pertaining to election and continuance of office bearers and, accordingly, even if some frivolous dispute is raised in respect of the election or continuance of the office-bearers, the same should be mandatorily referred. If there is a dispute of two parallel groups of the society, the Registrar can always examine whether the persons of rival group, who have raised the dispute, are member of the society or not. He can record his prima facie satisfaction in this regard as to who has the authority to convene the meeting and hold elections; persons who have participated are valid members of society; elections have been held as per bye-laws of society and if he is satisfied that the dispute is genuine and it is a dispute inter se between the members of the society, then he can refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority."
39. Applying the said principles of law culled out in the above noted decision to the case in hand an irresistible conclusion of adverse inference is to be drawn particularly when the appellants-petitioners did not seriously assail the adverse finding recorded in first order of Assistant Registrar dated 17.6.2023 coupled with the fact that adverse finding in the second order of Assistant Registrar dated 14.9.2023 was not impeached. More so once an adverse finding has been recorded as regards the dispute being not genuine and frivolous and therefore not required to be referred to Prescribed Authority, then in absence of any challenge made to the same, it would not be proper for this court to address the same.
40. Though, the appellants-petitioners might be right in contending that exclusion of membership of appellant-writ petitioners vide order dated 17.06.2023 was without putting them to notice, but at the same time when the electoral college was finalized, the appellants-writ petitioners were put to notice and after being heard order was passed on 14.09.2023 holding them not the valid member. The said order pertinently has not been challenged by appellants-petitioners before Single Judge. Nonetheless, the appellants-petitioners can always challenge the said order either before the Civil Court or approach the Assistant Registrar while getting a resolution passed of 1/3rd Members of General Body for getting the dispute referred to Prescribed Authority.
41. This Court in Shailendra Singh (Supra) had the occasion to consider the said aspect wherein in para 20 it was observed as under:-
"We, at this juncture, approve the view taken in the case of Babu Ram Shiksha Prasar Samiti (Reg. Society), Dist. Etah & another v. Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Regional Office, Agra and others, 2007 (9) ADJ 262, wherein this Court held as follows;
"13. On the basis of statutory provision, which covers the field and the view point of this Court. The inevitable conclusion is, that whenever issue is raised before Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar, that an incumbent is valid member or not within the scope and ambit of Section 15 of Societies Registration Act, 1860, the said question can be very looked into and decided by Registrar/Assistant Registrar/ Deputy Registrar, as the case may be, in view of wide amplitude of authority vested under Section 22,23,24 of Societies Registration Act, 1860. Registration and renewal of registration of society is the exclusive domain of Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar as the case may be, under Section 3 and 3-A of Societies Registration Act, 1860. Authority to accept, annual list of Managing Body, is also exclusive domain of Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar as the case may be. While proceeding to exercise authority vested under Section 3-A or 4 of Societies Registration Act 1860, in case election dispute or dispute in respect of continuance of office bearers is raised, then Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar, may in his /her discretion, refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority, if he/she is satisfied that bona fide, genuine dispute has arisen, in respect of election or continuance of office bearers and in case dispute totally lacks bona fides and is in genuine dispute, then reference is not at all required, and there is no impediment in the exercise of authority vested under Section 3A and 4 of Societies Registration Act 1860. This action of Registrar/Assistant Registrar/Deputy Registrar, can always be tested on the parameters of judicial review. Apart from this, the group of persons on list being accepted under Section are not remediless, as they can always assail the validity of the said list, after mustering support of one fourth members of society, before the Prescribed Authority. Prescribed Authority gets jurisdiction to decide dispute in respect of election or continuance of office bearers, either on reference or on being moved by one fourth members of the General Body. In entertaining dispute, on behalf of one fourth member of the general body of the society, Prescribed Authority, must satisfy himself that dispute has been raised by one fourth members of the General Body of society, who are members in term of Section 15 of Societies Registration Act 1860, and once satisfaction is recorded on this score, then dispute can be adjudicated in summary manner, and in the event of negative finding being there, the Prescribed Authority will have no jurisdiction. The parties are thereafter free to approach Civil Court."
42. Equally, also the submission of learned Senior Counsel for appellants-petitioners that in absence of any provision of review the order dated 30.04.2022 could not have been reviewed or cancelled is neither here nor there particularly when the allegation of fraud is there and the said finding has not been assailed.
43. We also do not find merit in the submission that there is no requirement under law to challenge a subsequent order or action which is based upon an illegal order particularly when the subsequent order was passed after hearing the appellants-petitioners. To put it otherwise, it is a classic example of waiver as the appellant-petitioners on their sweet will participated and contested the matter and after being unsuccessful are taking a ground which is legally not tenable and hollow. Certainly, the writ court was justified in drawing adverse inference against the appellants-petitioners in the wake of adverse finding records against them.
44. Accordingly, we are of the firm opinion that the appellants-petitioners have failed to show any infirmity in the order of the learned Single Judge and of the Assistant Registrar warranting any interference in the present appeal.
45. Resultantly, the intra court appeal is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed.
Order Date :- 20.5.2024
piyush
(Vikas Budhwar, J.) (Arun Bhansali, C.J.)