Court No. - 54
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 41710 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar And Another Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suchita Tripathi,Naresh Chandra Tripahti Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Naresh Chandra Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned standing counsel for the State- respondents. Perused the record.
The present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution, has been filed seeking a direction in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent no. 2-Deputy Registrar,Firms,Societies and Chits, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur from proceeding in the matter against the petitioner on the basis of letter dated 21.10.2019 appended as annexure-11 to the writ petition.
The record reflects that a complaint was moved by Mr. Madan Singh, President and Mr. Surendra Singh, Treasurer, disputing list of membership of the general body, on which the respondent no. 2-Deputy Registrar,Firms,Societies and Chits, Saharanpur has asked the petitioner to submit parawise comments to the said complaint within 15 days vide his letter dated 21.10.2019 (Annexure-11).
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the list of membership of the general body has already been finalized on 2.6.2018 and on the basis of said final list, election was held which was approved by the DIOS vide order dated 27.6.2018. Referring to a decision dated 27.9.2004 in the case of Shiv Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, ( 2005) 2 UPLBEC 1384, contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is the Deputy Registrar,Firms,Societies and Chits, Saharanpur has no jurisdiction to review its own earlier order dated 2.6.2018 while considering the aforesaid complaint made by Mr. Madan Singh, President and Mr. Surendra Singh, Treasurer of committee of management of the society.
There is no dispute with regard to the ratio as laid down in Shiv Kumar Singh's case (supra) that the power of review is a statutory power and except in cases of fraud and misrepresentation, no authority has inherent jurisdiction to reconsider or review its earlier order.
In the present case, from the perusal of the letter dated 21.10.2019 of the Deputy Registrar it is apparent that only parawise reply/comments have been called from the petitioner within 15 days and since nothing has been decided by the said letter against the petitioners, the decision in Shiv Kumar Singh case (supra) is not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case.
The petitioners may raise all grounds and pleas as raised in the present petition in their reply to the said letter before the respondent no. 2-Deputy Registrar.
In view of the above, there appears to be no illegality and infirmity in the letter of the respondent no. 2-Deputy Registrar and no good ground exists for issuing any direction prohibiting the respondent no. 2-Deputy Registrar,Firms,Societies and Chits, Saharanpur Division, Saharanpur from proceeding in the matter.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed at this stage.
Order Date :- 17.12.2019 SNT/