The Allahabad High Court has affirmed that the validity of a society’s election and membership list hinges on strict compliance with procedural requirements under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Where petitioners fail to produce documentary evidence of due process for adding or removing members, the Registrar’s cancellation of such lists is legally sustainable.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
This case arises from a protracted dispute over the composition of the General Body of the Committee of Management of Baba Raghunandan Das Vidyalay, Vaishnav Nagar, Kanpur Nagar. The dispute centers on the legitimacy of two membership lists: one for the year 2020-21 listing 69 members, and another for 2025-26 listing 51 members. The petitioners, represented by different office bearers, sought registration of these lists with the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Region. The respondents, including dissenting members of the society, challenged the lists, alleging unauthorized deletions and inductions.
Key Facts
- The society’s last valid membership list, dated 20.06.2017, listed 59 members, of whom 56 were alive.
- The society’s registration was renewed on 03.09.2020 for a five-year term, effective from 31.07.2020, based on the 2017 list.
- On 30.07.2023, an election for the Committee of Management was conducted based on a newly claimed list of 69 members.
- The petitioners claimed that 19 life members were removed due to death or non-payment of subscription, and 21 new members were inducted.
- A notarized affidavit dated 20.08.2025 by Daya Shankar Mishra declared he was alive despite being listed as deceased in the 2020-21 list.
- No resolution, minutes of meeting, or record of voting was produced to substantiate the removal or induction of members.
- Clause 6-Ga of the bye-laws pertains to voting eligibility, not removal of members.
- Clause 16-Gha permits removal for absence in three consecutive meetings, but only if approved by two-thirds of the General Body - no such resolution was produced.
- The Deputy Registrar’s office had previously issued an order dated 04.09.2025 rejecting the 2025-26 list, which was set aside by this Court on 20.11.2025 in Writ-C No. 36738 of 2025 for lack of opportunity to the petitioners.
Procedural History
- 20.06.2017: Last undisputed membership list submitted by former Manager Shiv Nath Katiyar.
- 03.09.2020: Registration renewed for five years based on the 2017 list.
- 27.06.2025: Petitioners submitted list of 69 members for 2020-21 and 51 members for 2025-26.
- 30.06.2025: Deputy Registrar provisionally registered the 2025-26 list with a warning that falsification would render it void.
- 04.09.2025: Deputy Registrar cancelled both lists, citing lack of documentary proof.
- 20.11.2025: High Court set aside the 04.09.2025 order in Writ-C No. 36738 of 2025, directing a fresh hearing.
- 23.01.2026: Deputy Registrar issued a fresh order reaffirming cancellation of the 2020-21 and 2025-26 lists, and restoring the 2017 list as valid.
- 12.03.2026: First writ petition (Writ-C No. 10721 of 2026) filed by Committee through President Dr. Rajendra Katiyar, supported by affidavit of Gyanendra Awasthi, a stranger to the Committee.
- 28.03.2026: Second writ petition (Writ-C No. 13322 of 2026) filed by Committee through Manager Ashok Kumar Katiyar.
- 06.05.2026: High Court dismissed Writ-C No. 10721 of 2026 for improper affidavit and dismissed Writ-C No. 13322 of 2026 on merits.
The Genesis
The dispute originated from internal factionalism within the Committee of Management. The petitioners, led by Ashok Kumar Katiyar and Dr. Rajendra Katiyar, sought to expand the General Body to consolidate control. The complainants, led by Yogendra Singh Katiyar, alleged that 19 life members were arbitrarily removed and 21 new members were added without any formal procedure, violating the society’s bye-laws and Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
Procedural History (Continued)
- 06.05.2026: High Court dismissed Writ-C No. 10721 of 2026 with cost of Rs. 50,000 on each of the President and deponent for filing through a stranger.
- 06.05.2026: Writ-C No. 13322 of 2026 dismissed on merits.
Relief Sought
The petitioners sought:
- Quashing of the Deputy Registrar’s order dated 23.01.2026.
- Recognition of the 2020-21 and 2025-26 membership lists.
- Validation of the election held on 30.07.2023.
- Restoration of the Committee of Management elected on that date.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the Deputy Registrar, under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, has the authority to cancel a membership list and consequent election where the petitioners fail to produce documentary evidence of due process for the induction or removal of members, and whether such cancellation constitutes an excess of jurisdiction.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The learned Senior Advocate contended that the Deputy Registrar had no power to review or recall his earlier provisional registration of the 2025-26 list. He argued that Section 4-B only permits examination of the correctness of the list at the time of registration or renewal, not subsequent cancellation of elections or membership lists. He further submitted that the Registrar’s order went beyond statutory mandate by invalidating the entire election conducted on 30.07.2023, which required a separate proceeding under the Act. He relied on the High Court’s earlier direction in Writ-C No. 36738 of 2025, which had ordered a fresh hearing, not a reversal.
For the Respondent
The learned Senior Advocate for the private respondents argued that Section 4-B imposes a positive obligation on the society to maintain and produce original records - register of members, minutes book, cash book, receipt book, and bank passbook - to substantiate any change in membership. He emphasized that the petitioners failed to produce any resolution, minutes, or voting record to prove that the removal of 19 life members or induction of 21 new members was approved by the General Body. He pointed to the notarized affidavit of Daya Shankar Mishra, who declared himself alive despite being listed as deceased, as conclusive proof of falsification. He further noted that the bye-laws cited by petitioners did not authorize unilateral removal of life members.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which mandates that any change in the membership list - whether by induction, removal, death, or registration - must be filed with the Registrar within one month and must be approved by the Managing Body. The Court observed that the Registrar’s role under this provision is not merely administrative but quasi-judicial, requiring verification against original records.
"याचीगण सोसा०रजि०अधि० 1860 की धारा 4 बी के प्रावधानो के अन्तर्गत वर्ष 2020-21 की साधारण सभा में किये गये परिवर्तनो की शुद्धता की जांच हेतु वांछित संस्था के मूल अभिलेख धारा 4 बी (1) में किया गया है, को प्रस्तुत नही कर सके है।"
The Court held that the burden of proof lies squarely on the petitioners to demonstrate compliance with statutory and bye-law requirements. The failure to produce any resolution, minutes, or record of approval by the Managing Body rendered the changes invalid. The Court noted that the petitioners’ reliance on Clause 6-Ga and Clause 16-Gha of the bye-laws was misplaced, as neither provision authorizes removal of members without a formal resolution passed by two-thirds of the General Body.
The Court further rejected the argument that the Deputy Registrar had no power to revisit his earlier order. It held that where a provisional registration is granted subject to conditions and subsequent evidence reveals fraud or non-compliance, the Registrar retains the authority to correct the record. The Court emphasized that the 2023 election was conducted on a membership list that was itself defective, and therefore could not be legally sustained.
The Court also took note of the affidavit of Daya Shankar Mishra, which directly contradicted the petitioners’ claim that the 19 members were deceased. The petitioners offered no rebuttal to this affidavit, nor did they produce any record of subscription defaults that could justify removal under the bye-laws.
The Verdict
The writ petition was dismissed. The Deputy Registrar’s order dated 23.01.2026 was upheld. The membership lists for 2020-21 and 2025-26 were declared invalid. The election held on 30.07.2023 was set aside. The membership list dated 20.06.2017, listing 56 living members, was declared the valid and final list. The Committee of Management elected on the basis of the 2023 election was dissolved. The petitioners were directed to reconvene the General Body and conduct a fresh election in accordance with the 2017 list and the society’s bye-laws.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Documentary Evidence Is Mandatory for Membership Changes
- Practitioners must ensure that every change in a society’s membership list - whether addition or deletion - is supported by a formal resolution of the General Body, minutes of meeting, and proof of approval by the Managing Body.
- Oral testimony or self-serving affidavits are insufficient to discharge the burden of proof under Section 4-B.
- Failure to produce original records (register, minutes, cash book) will result in automatic invalidation of membership lists and consequent elections.
Registrar Has Authority to Correct Defective Registrations
- A Registrar’s provisional registration is not final if subsequent evidence reveals non-compliance.
- The Registrar may revisit and cancel registrations even after a court has directed a fresh hearing, provided the new order is based on evidence and statutory compliance.
- Courts will not interfere if the Registrar’s order is grounded in documentary absence and statutory mandate.
Life Members Cannot Be Removed Without Due Process
- Life membership cannot be terminated for non-payment of subscription unless explicitly permitted by the bye-laws and approved by a two-thirds majority.
- Any attempt to remove life members without formal procedure constitutes a violation of the society’s constitution and the Act.
- Affidavits from members declaring themselves alive will override claims of death unless contradicted by official records.
