Patna High Court
Bal Vikas Vidyalaya vs The State Of Bihar on 7 April, 2025
Author: Mohit Kumar Shah
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14697 of 2023
======================================================
Bal Vikas Vidyalaya through the Managing Director, Gopal Narayan Singh,
Male, aged about 82 years, Son of Late Deo Narayan Singh, resident of
Village - Jamuhar, P.S. - Dehri-on-Sone, District - Sasaram (Rohtas).
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-I.G. Registration,
Department of Registration, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Inspector General of Registration (I.G.), Department of Registration,
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Deputy Inspector General (D.I.G.) of Registration, (Society and Firm
Registration), Department of Registration, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Rohtas (Sasaram).
5. S.P. Verma, Son of Late Harihar Prasad Verma, Resident of Jainath Bhawan,
Civil Line, P.O. and P.S. - Sasaram, District Sasaram.
6. Rohit Verma, Son of S.P. Verma, Resident of Jainath Bhawan, Civil Line,
P.O. and P.S. - Sasaram, District Sasaram.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Advocate
Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Prabhakar Thakur, Advocate
Mr. Aamin Hayat, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Vikash Kumar ( SC- 11 )
For the Pvt. Respondents No. 5 & 6 : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Venkatesh Kirti, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 07-04-2025
The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the
order dated 19.09.2023 passed by the Chairman-cum-Member,
Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in Registration Case No. 30 of
2019, whereby and whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner
under Rule 22 (ii) of the Bihar Societies Registration Rules,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
2/46
2018 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules, 2018'), challenging
the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the Deputy Inspector
General (DIG) of Registration (Society and Firm Registration),
Department of Registration, Bihar, Patna i.e. the respondent no.
3, has been held to be not maintainable and accordingly the
appeal has been disposed off. The petitioner has further prayed
for quashing the order dated 26.11.2019, which though has been
communicated by the respondent no. 3, however, the same has
been passed by the Inspector General of Registration (I.G),
Department of Registration, Bihar, Patna i.e. the respondent
no.2, whereby and whereunder the District Magistrate, Rohtas at
Sasaram has been directed to conduct the election of Bal Vikas
Samiti, Sasaram bearing Registration No. 58 of 1985-86 in terms
of Rule 18 (iii) of the Rules, 2018.
2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner, are
that the petitioner i.e. Bal Vikas Vidyalaya is a progressive co-
educational school duly affiliated to the Central Board of
Secondary Education, New Delhi which was established on
14.01.1976
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 having
Registration No. 58 of 1985-86 dated 05.06.1984. The Managing
Director of the petitioner is Gopal Narayan Singh. The
respondent no. 5 i.e. Shri S.P. Verma, who was the earlier
Chairman of the Managing Committee of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
3/46
Sasaram (hereinafter referred to as the ‘School’), subsequently
showed his reluctance to continue, as such in his place one Shri
L.M. Poddar was made Chairman vide resolution dated 9.5.2018
of the Managing Committee of the said School, which was
unanimously confirmed vide resolution dated 15.07.2018.
Consequently, Shri L.M. Poddar became the Chairman of the
School, Shri Gopal Narayan Singh continued to be the Managing
Director while one Shri Upendra Verma became the Assistant
Director of the Managing Committee of the aforesaid School.
The respondents no. 5 and 6, being anguished by the aforesaid
development, questioned the resolution of the newly constituted
Managing Committee although respondent no. 5 was himself a
signatory to the said resolution and got a complaint filed before
the respondent no. 2 on 20.09.2018 as also before the Assistant
Registrar of Registration, Registration Department, Bihar, Patna
on 15.11.2018, relating to irregularities being committed by the
Managing Committee of the said School including financial
irregularity being done by the outsiders and it was prayed that
the same be enquired into by a government officer/committee
and thereafter, appropriate action be taken. The petitioner had
then filed its detailed reply to the aforesaid complaint on
27.02.2019 denying all the allegations levelled in the complaint
as also it was stated therein that the complainant had no locus
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
4/46
standi to file the said complaint, thus the complaint is fit to be
dismissed. The petitioner had also raised the issue of
maintainability of the complaint filed by the respondent no. 6 i.e.
Rohit Verma on the following grounds:-
a) Clause-2 of the Bye-laws of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya,
Sasaram deals with Membership which has five classes of
Members namely-
i. Patrons
ii. Founder Members
iii. Corporate Members
iv. Donors
v. Co-opted Guardian Representative
b) The Complainant Rohit Verma is not a Founder
Member of the Bal Vikas Vidyalaya.
c) Bal Vikas Vidyalaya was founded on 05.06.1984 and
was subsequently registered in the year 1985. It was
founded by 11 founder members but the complainant’s
name is not there, rather his father namely S.P. Verma
(Respondent No. 5) name is there.
d) The Complainant admits himself to be a Sponsor
Corporate Member. Under the category of the Corporate
Member in Clause-2 (iii), it has been clearly mentioned
that the Corporate Member shall be such institution/
association who pay an annual subscription as shown
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
5/46
here.
The Lions Club of Sasaram has been shown as
Principal promoter.
e) That even as per Clause-9(b)(i) of the Bye-laws, it is
clear that 11 persons will be nominated from the list of
Founder Members and 7 persons will be nominated by the
Founder Corporate Member which includes Lions Club of
Sasaram. It further signifies that the Corporate Member
shall be seven in number but the Lions Club of Sasaram
shall have only one Corporate Member and that too when
it fulfills the criteria as prescribed under Clause-2(5)(iii)
of Corporate Members and not seven members as has
been assumed by them arbitrarily.
f) The Respondent No. 6 also admits about there being 11
Founder Members in Bal Vikas Vidyalaya, Sasaram.
g) The Founder Corporate Member is only one member
and not seven as claimed by the Respondent No. 6.
h) In Clause-3 of the Bye-laws, it has been specifically
mentioned that Lions Club of Sasaram is only Founder
Corporate Member and not Founder Member.
i) That the Respondent No. 6 has filed the present
Complaint in his personal capacity with vengeance. He
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
6/46
has no locus standi to file the Complaint. There is no
unanimous decision of the Lions Club of Sasaram to file
and pursue the present Complaint. The Respondent No. 6
has also not filed any authority letter or document
authorizing him to file the Complaint against the
Managing Committee of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya, Sasaram,
Rohtas.
j) The Respondent No. 6 has not produced the Bye-laws
of the Lions Club of Sasaram and the same is not at all in
existence. Moreover, Rohit Verma has acquired his status
as a Corporate Member, thus he is only having the role of
a Sponsor who has the duty to sponsor the functioning of
the school. He has no role and powers which the Founder
Members and the Managing Committee of the School
possess.
3. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sri Y. V. Giri
has stated that the petitioner had also raised the issue with regard
to forged and fabricated bye-laws produced by the respondent
no. 6 along with his complaint before the respondent
Registration Department apart from raising the issue regarding
the respondent no. 6 being a perpetual defaulter who has not paid
the subscription money since several years. The Assistant
Inspector General of Registration, Registration Department,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
7/46
Bihar, Patna had thereafter, submitted an enquiry report dated
18.04.2019, to which the petitioner had submitted para-wise
reply on 13.08.2019. The respondent no. 3 had then vide Memo
No. 540 dated 06.09.2019 communicated to the petitioner as
well as to the respondent no. 6 to submit their para-wise reply to
the enclosed questionnaire, whereafter the petitioner had
submitted his para-wise reply on 22.10.2019. The respondent no.
3 had then, without granting any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner, issued memo no. 737 dated 26.11.2019, addressed to
the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram, stating therein that a
decision has been taken to get the election of Bal Vikas
Vidyalaya Samiti conducted in which only valid members will
participate, hence the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram was
requested to get the election of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya Samiti
bearing Registration No. 58/1985-86 conducted with information
to the Department. The petitioner had then challenged the said
order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 by filing
an appeal bearing Appeal No. 30 of 2019 before the Chairman-
cum- Member Board of Revenue, Patna which was admitted
vide order dated 10.02.2020 and the operative portion of the
letter dated 26.11.2019 relating to conduct of election of Bal
Vikas Vidyalaya Samiti was stayed. The matter was heard on
several dates, however, in the meantime the respondent no. 6 had
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
8/46
filed a writ petition bearing CWJC No. 7799 of 2023, which was
heard by the Hon’ble Patna High Court, Patna and disposed off
vide order dated 05.07.2023, with a direction to the appellate
authority to dispose off the pending appeal by passing a reasoned
and speaking order/judgment after hearing the respective parties
within a period of six months. The aforesaid appeal was again
heard by the Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar,
Patna and the parties were directed to file their respective written
submissions. The Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue,
Bihar, Patna by the impugned order dt. 19.09.2023 has disposed
off the said appeal with an observation that the letter dt.
26.11.2019 written by the D.I.G., Registration to District
Magistrate, Rohtas is a direction to conduct election in terms of
Rule 18(iii) of the Rules, 2018, which is an interim order and not
a final order, hence not appealable under Rule 22 of the Rules,
2018.
4. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner Shri Y.V.
Giri has submitted, by referring to the impugned order dated
26.11.2019, passed by the Deputy Inspector General (DIG), of
Registration (Society & Firm Registration), Department of
Registration, Patna i.e. the respondent no. 3, that the same is
wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the said order has been
passed by an officer who is not competent to pass the same as
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
9/46
per Rule 18 of the Rules, 2018,which authorizes the Inspector
General of Registration, Department of Registration, Bihar,
Patna i.e. the respondent no. 2 to pass suitable orders and in fact
even Rule 19 mandates that suitable orders shall be passed by
the Inspector General of Registration after giving due
opportunity of hearing to all the parties. It is also submitted that
the respondent no. 3, while passing the impugned order dated
26.11.2019 has also exceeded his jurisdiction inasmuch as the
complaint dated 20.09.2018 filed by the private respondent no. 6
before the respondent no. 2 as also the one dated 15.11.2018
filed by the private respondent no. 6 before the Assistant
Registrar, Registration Department, Bihar, Patna merely pertains
to irregularities in conduct of the affairs of the aforesaid School
by the Managing Committee as also financial irregularities being
committed by outsiders, however, no complaint was made
regarding holding of fresh elections of the Managing
Committee. In any view of the matter, the impugned order dated
26.11.2019 is cryptic in nature and bereft of any reasoning
inasmuch as the materials placed by the petitioner and
contentions raised by it has not been taken note of much less
considered while passing the said order dated 26.11.2019.
5. Now, coming to the appellate order dated 19.09.2023
passed by the Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
10/46
Patna in Registration Case No. 30 of 2019, it is submitted by the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the same is also bad
in law as well as on facts inasmuch as the order dt. 26.11.2019
passed by the respondent no. 3 directing to hold the election of
the Managing Committee of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya Samiti is in the
nature of final order inasmuch as a vital issue qua the parties has
been decided, hence the finding of the appellate authority in its
order dated 19.09.2023 that the order dated 26.11.2019 is merely
a direction in terms of Rule 18(iii) of the Rules, 2018, as such is
an interim order and not a final order, thus the appeal is not
maintainable, is not only perverse but also not tenable in the eyes
of law. It is further submitted that it is a well settled law that an
order which finally decides the issue and directly affects the
decision in the main case or an order which decides the collateral
issue or the question which is not the subject matter of the main
case or which determines the rights and obligations of the parties
in a final manner are appealable. In the present case, not only the
order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the respondent no. 3 is in the
nature of final order directing the District Magistrate, Rohtas at
Sasaram to conduct the election of the Managing Committee of
Bal Vikas Vidyalaya, Sasaram but even otherwise Rule 22(ii) of
the Rules, 2018 provides that all orders passed by the I.G.
Registration under the Rules, 2018, shall be appealable, hence it
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
11/46
is submitted that the impugned order dated 19.09.2023 is fit to
be set aside. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
reported in (1952)1 SCC 798 (Ebrahim Aboobakar & Anr. vs.
Custodian of Evacuee Property, New Delhi) to submit that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while noticing the provision of
appeal, whereby and whereunder an appeal may be preferred
under Section 24 of the Bombay Evacuees (Administration of
Property Act) 1949, by any person aggrieved by an order made
under Section 7, Section 60, Section 19 or Section 38 of the said
Act, 1949, has held that since the Appellate Court has been
constituted in words of the widest amplitude and the legislature
has not limited its jurisdiction by providing that such exercise
will depend on the existence of any particular state of facts, all
orders made under Section 7 etc. of the Act, 1949 would be
appealable inasmuch as Section 34 of the Act, 1949 does not
specify the nature of the orders made appealable. The learned
senior counsel for the petitioner has next relied on a judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of
Shiur Sakhar Karkhana (P) Ltd. vs. SBI, reported in (2020) 19
SCC 592, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court while interpreting
Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986,
regarding the power of the National Commission being vested
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
12/46
with the jurisdiction to entertain appeals against the orders of
any State Commission, has held the word “orders”, as used in
Section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 means
and includes “any orders”. Reliance has also been placed by the
learned senior counsel for the petitioner on a judgment rendered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shyam Sel & Power
Ltd. & Anr. vs. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., reported in (2023)1
SCC 634 to contend that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
has held that every interlocutory order cannot be regarded as a
judgment but only those orders would be judgment which decide
matters of moment or effect vital and valuable rights of the
parties and which causes serious injustice to the parties
concerned. Lastly, it is submitted that when the words of a
statute are clear, plain and unambiguous i.e. they are reasonably
susceptible to only one meaning, the Courts are bound to give
effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences. Thus, if
the word of a statute, like in the present case are in themselves
precise, unambiguous, then it is best to expand those words in
their natural and ordinary sense inasmuch as the words of a
statute themselves would best clear the intentions of the law
giver. It is equally a settled principle of statutory interpretation
that words be given grammatical meaning i.e. they should have a
general meaning. Reference in this connection has been made to
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
13/46
the judgments reported in (1992)4 SCC 711 (Nelson Motis v.
Union of India & Anr.), (2003)6 SCC 659 (Shiv Shakti Coop.
Housing Society vs. Swaraj Developers & Ors.) and the one
reported in (2005)2 SCC 271 (Nathi Devi vs. Radha Devi
Gupta). Thus, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel
for the petitioner that the impugned orders dated 26.11.2019
passed by the respondent no. 2 as also the one dated 19.09.2023
passed by the Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar,
Patna in Registration Case No. 30 of 2019 are fit to be set aside.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents no. 1
to 4 i.e. the respondent-State has submitted, by referring to the
counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no. 2 & 3,
that dispute arose after one Shri L.M. Poddar was made
Chairman vide resolution dated 09.05.2018 of the Managing
Committee of the petitioner School, since the earlier Chairman
namely Shri S.P. Verma i.e. the respondent no. 5 showed his
reluctance to continue. The said proceedings of the Committee
dated 09.05.2018 was unanimously confirmed vide resolution
dated 15.07.2018, whereafter the respondent no.6 had filed a
complaint before the I.G., Registration Department on 20.9.2018
and before the A.I.G., Registration Department on 15.11.2018
for carrying out enquiry relating to irregularities being
committed in the functioning of the petitioner School. After
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
14/46
submission of enquiry report by the A.I.G., Registration
Department, the respondent no. 3 directed the respondent no. 4
vide letter dated 26.11.2019 to conduct election of the petitioner
Samiti by appointing an observer as per Rules, 2018, however,
the petitioner filed an appeal bearing Appeal No. 30 of 2019
before the Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Bihar,
Patna challenging the aforesaid direction issued vide letter dated
26.11.2019, which was disposed off by an order dated 19.9.2023
wherein the appeal was held to be not maintainable inasmuch as
the impugned order dated 26.11.2019, was not a final order, thus
not appealable under Rule 22 of the Rules, 2018. It is stated that
the order dated 26.11.2019 has been passed by the I.G.,
Registration in exercise of the statutory power vested in him as
provided for under Rule 18(iii) of the Rules, 2018, which
empowers the I.G., Registration to cause re-election of the
governing and/or executive body to be done in the presence of
an observer appointed by the I.G., Registration, thus the same
does not require any interference. It is next contended that the
petitioner has wrongly labelled the direction issued vide letter
dated 26.11.2019 as “order” as it is not an order rather it is a
prerequisite step taken to get materials to pass appropriate orders
inasmuch as direction to conduct re-election is not an order as
per mandate of Section 18 of the Rules, 2018, therefore, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
15/46
same is not appealable under Section 22 of the Rules, 2018
before the Chairman, Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna, hence the
entire writ petition is misconceived and fit to be dismissed. A
counter affidavit has also been filed by the District Magistrate,
Rohtas, wherein he has stated that after he was directed to
conduct election as per Rules, 2018 and in case of any difficulty,
nominate an observer, he had written a letter dated 26.12.2023 to
the Inspector General, Registration for nomination of observer
by the Department for conducting election of the petitioner’s
Samiti, however, till date no observer has been nominated,
nonetheless, the A.I.G., Registration Department, Bihar, Patna
vide letter dated 30.11.2023 has directed the District Magistrate,
Rohtas to appoint a retainer till the election is held, whereupon
one Shri Chandra Shekhar Prasad Singh, A.D.M., Rohtas has
been appointed as a Retainer of the petitioner’s School.
7. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State
has relied on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Mahboob
S. Allibhoy and Another, reported in (1996) 4 SCC 411 to
contend that words “any order” must be read with “decision” so
as to exclude any interlocutory order of High Court from the
scope of appeal. In this connection, it may be relevant to
reproduce paragraph no. 3 herein below:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
16/46“3. The preliminary question which has to be examined is
whether in the facts and circumstances of the case an
appeal is maintainable against an order dropping the
proceeding for contempt. It is well settled that an appeal
is a creature of a statute. Unless a statute provides for an
appeal and specifies the order against which an appeal
can be filed, no appeal can be filed or entertained as a
matter of right or course. Section 19 of the Act says:
“19. Appeals.–(1) An appeal shall lie as of right
from any order or decision of High Court in the
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt-
(a) where the order or decision is that of a Single
Judge, to a Bench of not less than two Judges of
the Court;
(b) where the order or decision is that of a Bench,
to the Supreme Court:
Provided that where the order or decision is that of
the Court of the Judicial Commissioner in any
Union Territory, such appeal shall lie to the
Supreme Court.
(2) Pending any appeal, the appellate court may
order that–
(a) the execution of the punishment or order
appealed against be suspended;
(b) if the appellant is in confinement, he be
released on bail; and
(c) the appeal be heard notwithstanding that the
appellant has not purged his contempt.
(3) Where any person aggrieved by any order against
which an appeal may be filed satisfies the High Court
that he intends to prefer an appeal, the High Court
may also exercise all or any of the powers conferred
by sub-section (2).
(4) An appeal under sub-section (1) shall be filed-
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
17/46
(a) in the case of an appeal to a Bench of the High
Court, within thirty days;
(b) in the case of an appeal to the Supreme Court,
within sixty days, from the date of the order
appealed against.”
On a plain reading Section 19 provides that an appeal
shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the
High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for
contempt. In other words, if the High Court passes an
order in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish any person
for contempt of court, then only an appeal shall be
maintainable under sub-section (1) of Section 19 of the
Act. As sub-section (1) of Section 19 provides that an
appeal shall lie as of right from any order, an impression
is created that an appeal has been provided under the
said sub-section against any order passed by the High
Court while exercising the jurisdiction of contempt
proceedings. The words “any order” has to be read with
the expression ‘decision’ used in the said sub-section
which the High Court passes in exercise of its jurisdiction
to punish for contempt. “Any order” is not independent of
the expression ‘decision’. They have been put in an
alternative form saying ‘order’ or ‘decision’. In either
case, it must be in the nature of punishment for contempt.
If the expression “any order” is read independently of the
‘decision’ then an appeal shall lie under sub-section (1)
of Section 19 even against any interlocutory order passed
in a proceeding for contempt by the High Court which
shall lead to a ridiculous result.”
8. The learned senior counsel appearing for the private
respondents no. 5 & 6 has submitted, by referring to the counter
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
18/46
affidavit filed in the present case that the order impugned dated
19.09.2023 does not suffer from any illegality and does not call
for any interference by this Hon’ble Court and as far as the order
dated 26.11.2019 is concerned, the same is itself based upon a
detailed enquiry report submitted by the Assistant Inspector
General, Patna Division, Patna, wherein sufficient opportunity
was given to the parties to bring forth the materials on record. It
is stated that Bal Vikas Vidyalaya, Sasaram was brought into
existence by the Lions Club of Sasaram in the year 1975. The
Lions Club of Sasaram decided to formalize the functioning of
the school by creating Society to run Bal Vikas Vidyalaya,
Sasaram. Accordingly, the society by the name of Bal Vikas
Vidyalaya, Sasaram was constituted and the same was registered
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 on 05.06.1984 and it
specifically provided that Lions Club of Sasaram is the principal
promoter of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya, Sasaram as also the said
school is “Lions Sponsored School”. As per clause 9(1) of the
registered memorandum of association of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya
Society there were 11 members of the Managing Committee and
all of them were members of Lions Club of Sasaram. The Rules
and Regulations of the school was also formalized by getting the
same registered as bye-laws of the school. The signatories to the
Memorandum of Association were to be life members and were
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
19/46
declared as the “Founder Members”. The founder members were
not required to pay any annual subscription for their further
continuation as members of the school. In fact provision was
made for “Corporate Member” as well which was to be in the
nature of institutions (educational/cultural) and even non-
educational/ cultural were allowed to be made Corporate
Members. It is stated that Lion’s club of Sasaram, was
recognized as the “principal promoter” and also as “Founder
Member” and was only required to make an “initial donation” of
₹ 10,000/-. It is stated that though Lions Club of Sasaram was
made Corporate Member, its status was that of “Founder
Member” and was to remain as such with all the attributes of a
“Founder Member”. It is stated that as against the requirement of
deposit of ₹10,000/-, the Lions Club of Sasaram at that
particular point of time donated ₹1 lakh worth of land for the
establishment of the School. The Lions Club of Sasaram had
purchased land of Shri Chudda, Ram Chaurasia measuring 68
decimal vide land deed no. 3429 dated 25.03.1982, Land of
Kalika Prasad Sahu measuring 65.62 decimal vide land deed
no.1464 dated 26.02.1981 and land measuring 50 decimal vide
land deed no. 1338 dated 08.09.1983. These lands were utilized
by Bal Vikas Vidyalaya Society right from the day of purchase.
All the above three lands were donated by Lions Club of
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
20/46
Sasaram to Bal Vikas Vidyalaya Society in the year 1995 vide
deed no. 10870 dated 22.08.1995, deed no. 10871 dated
22.08.1995 and deed no. 10872 dated 22.08.1995. Further, Lions
Club of Sasaram also donated a sum of Rs 11,000/- on
05.03.1985 vide receipt no. 14/85 and Rs. 14,000/- on
04.07.1985 vide receipt no. 27/85 to Bal Vikas Vidyalaya
Society. The Lions Club of Sasaram, as a member was given the
authority to direct the implementation of its educational
program, wholly or partly, through the school.
9. The learned senior counsel appearing for the private
respondents no. 5 & 6 has further stated that in order to
effectuate the controlling role of the Lions Club, it was given
primacy in the “Board of Directors” which was to consist of not
less than 20 and not more than 22 members. The Board of
Directors was to consist of 11 “Founder Members” and it was
specifically clarified that the Board of Directors was to consist of
seven Additional Directors who would be nominee of the
“Founder Corporate Member” and the identity of the “Founder
Corporate Member” was further clarified by specifically
identifying the same with the Lion’s Club of Sasaram. Thus, out
of 20 to 22 members who had to constitute the Board of
Directors 11 were to be “founder members” and seven were to be
nominated by the Lions Club of Sasaram. The bye-laws had no
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
21/46
ambiguity and had been articulated with precision with regard to
the role of Lions Club of Sasaram in the Board of Directors and
that of the “founder members”. Rule 9(1) of the registered bye-
laws of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya Society states as follows- “Eleven
persons will be nominated from the list of founder members and
seven persons will be nominated by the founder corporate
member (i.e. Lions Club of Sasaram) and out of this the
following Board of Directors will be constituted by election in
the meeting convened for this purpose.” Thus, Rule 9(1) clearly
states that eleven founder members and seven nominated
members from Lions Club of Sasaram together constitutes the
Board of Directors of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya Society. The rest
three to five Directors’ were to be a government official, one
donor member and a guardian’s representative. It is stated that
while the “Founder Members” and “Corporate Founder Member
i.e the Lions Club of Sasaram” had tenure of a lifetime, the opted
members had to be brought in every year in the first meeting of
the year of the Board of Directors. The bye-laws unambiguously
state that a vacancy amongst the nominee of Lions Club of
Sasaram is to be filled up by fresh nomination that is to be made
only by the Lions Club of Sasaram. The bye-laws also provide
that there shall be only three co-opted members and their tenure
shall be of one year only and any vacancy amongst them shall be
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
22/46
filled up by the Board of Directors. The Lions Club of Sasaram
had declared the District Magistrate as the Chief Patron of the
school by its resolution dated 26.12.1975. The school was
affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education, New
Delhi in the year 1995 and Bal Vikas Vidyalaya, Sasaram was
accepted as a society running the school registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 vide Certificate No. 58/85 dated
05.06.1985. The school functioned well and in accordance with
the bye-laws, as had been registered under the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, with proper participation of the Founder
Members and the Founder Corporate Member i.e the Lions Club
of Sasaram. Suddenly from the year 2018 onwards an effort was
made to supersede the authority of the Board of Directors, the
Founder Members, and the Corporate Founder Member i.e the
Lions Club of Sasaram. The success of the school itself became
a bane for the school. One of the founder member, Shri G.N.
Singh, tried to grab the school for himself and in the process co-
opted outsider and ignored the requirements of the bye-laws of
Bal Vikas Vidyalaya Society. In fact the process to usurp the
school began with the meeting dated 09.05.2018 when persons
complete outsider to the school and in contravention of the terms
of the bye-laws, were made to participate on the pretext that they
were legal heirs of the Founder Members or were donor member,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
23/46
even though there had been no meeting making them members
of Board of Directors of the School.
10. It has also been stated by the learned senior counsel
appearing for the private respondents no. 5 & 6 that in Appeal
Case No. 30/2019, before the Board of Revenue, Sri Gopal
Narayan Singh has annexed Minutes of Meeting (‘MoM’ in
short) dated 09.05.2018 at two different places, one as Annexure
filed in the office of AIG Patna Division and another in the
office of I.G. Registration (Bihar), however, ironically, both the
MoMs are at variance and don’t match each other, since both are
fabricated. In the aforesaid proceeding no member of the Lions
Club of Sasaram was invited, hence they had not participated. It
is further stated that it is evident from the proceedings of the
subsequent meetings that persons who had not even become a
member had been participating in the meeting of the Board of
Directors without being qualified, as required in terms of the
bye-laws and moreover, Lions Club of Sasaram was not even
invited to the proceedings of the Board of Directors. It can be
observed from the minutes of meeting dated 07.10.2018 that the
person who had chaired the meeting namely Shri Munmun
Sarraf, his name has been incorporated as donor member along
with Shri Omprakash Chaurasia, Shri Aman Kumar and these
names were proposed by Shri Satish Kumar (Educationist), who
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
24/46
himself is an outsider and moreover, Shri Govind Narayan Singh
(son of Shri G.N. Singh) and Shri Krishna Prasad have also been
taken as member of the society which is totally illegal. It has
been pointed out that the abovenamed persons voted in the
meeting of 09.05.2018 without having any voting rights. Thus,
all the previous meetings had neither the mandate nor the
authority under the bye-laws of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya, Sasaram
and the proceedings were/are void-ab-initio. It is stated that Shri
Gopal Narayan Singh was made M.D. for a period of 3 years
(2018-21), based on the Election dated 09.05.2018, in which
people present were not validly registered members of Bal Vikas
Vidyalaya Society. Thus, Shri Gopal Narayan Singh was never
made M.D., neither there was any such declaration by the
registered members of the Board. In terms of the registered bye
laws there is no provision of hereditary Membership, therefore,
son/legal heir on death of Founder members cannot become
Member of the society.
11. It is contended by the learned senior counsel appearing
for the private respondents no. 5 & 6 that Sri G.N. Singh was
trying to wrest control of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya with the aid of
complete strangers, hence feeling aggrieved by the attitude of the
new set of purported office bearers of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya, the
members of the Lions Club of Sasaram made a complaint before
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
25/46
the Inspector General of registration, Bihar, by their letter dated
20.09.2018, with regard to the irregularities being committed by
the purported Managing Committee of the school. Thereafter, the
Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Bihar had initiated an
enquiry by directing the Assistant Inspector General, Patna
Division, Patna to make inquiries. The A.I.G. Registration, Patna
Division had then submitted its enquiry report on 18.04.2019,
whereafter, D.I.G. Registration, Bihar, vide letter dated
26.11.2019 instructed the District Magistrate, Rohtas to conduct
elections of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya.
12. It is thus submitted by the learned senior counsel appearing
for the private respondents no. 5 & 6 that the Deputy Inspector
General of Registration, vide letter no. 737 dated 26.11.2019 has
only directed the District Magistrate to get the election of the
Managing Committee of the Society conducted, wherein only
valid members, in terms of the bye-laws of the society, should be
allowed to participate, which is highly innocuous and does not
violate the rights of either of the parties. It is stated that the
petitioner had then challenged the aforesaid letter dt. 26.11.2019,
before the learned Board of Revenue by filing an appeal bearing
Appeal No. 30 of 2019. The learned Board of Revenue stayed
the election of the Managing Committee of the Society till
disposal of the Appeal, vide order dt. 07.02.2020. Nonetheless,
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
26/46
the petitioner got the election of Managing Committee of the
School conducted by calling a meeting of the Managing
Committee on 09.05.2021 at Gopal Narayan Singh University in
Chancellor Chamber at 10:30 am vide letter dated 01.05.2021.
Subsequent to election of office bearer of the School society,
communication was made by a press release. The Principal
Promoter Lion’s Club, Sasaram, upon receiving information
about the constitution of the new purported Managing
Committee of the school society, had immediately represented to
the District Magistrate, Rohtas vide letter dated 29.05.2021
informing him about the constitution of new Managing
Committee with illegal and disputed member as its office
bearers, despite stay order dated 10.2.2020, as also had requested
for taking action to stop the functioning of the purported
Managing Committee, but to no avail. Thereafter, the respondent
no. 6 being the nominated member of the principal promoter of
the said society i.e. the Lions Club had called for an urgent
meeting vide letter dated 30.05.2021 of the valid members of the
society and a meeting was held on 02.6.2021, wherein a valid
Managing Committee of the said society was constituted as per
the bye laws of the said society, followed by another meeting of
the valid Managing Committee of the said society on
09.06.2021, wherein the minutes of meeting dated 02.06.2021
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
27/46
were confirmed.
13. In the meantime, the learned Board of Revenue by an
order dated 19.09.2023 dismissed the appeal filed by the
petitioner on the ground that the I.G., Registration has not passed
the final order and the letter dated 26.11.2019 is merely a
direction under Rule 18(iii) of the Rules, 2018. Thereafter, the
respondent no. 6 had requested the I.G., Registration, vide letter
dated 21.09.2023 to appoint observer for holding of smooth and
fair election as also had informed the District Magistrate, Rohtas
vide letters dated 23.09.2023 and 07.10.2023 about the order of
the Board of Revenue and requested for holding election at the
earliest. The A.I.G., Registration, vide letter dated 07.06.2024
had then appointed Sub-Registrar, Rohtas as observer for
conducting election.
14. The learned senior counsel for the private respondents no.
5 & 6 has thus submitted that pursuant to dispute having arisen
among two set of members for control of the aforesaid society
and complaint having been made by the private respondent no. 6,
the Registration Department had initiated proceedings under
Rule 18 of the Rules, 2018, whereafter the respondent no. 2 had
directed the Assistant Inspector General, Registration, Patna
Division, Patna to enquire into the allegations levelled by the
respondent no. 6, whereupon the A.I.G., Registration had
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
28/46
submitted its report to the D.I.G., Registration vide letter dated
18.04.2019, recommending that General Body Meeting of the
registered members of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya Samiti be called at
some government building where the founder members and the
representatives named by the Lions Club of Sasaram be also
called, which should be presided over by the senior members of
the Bal Vikas Vidyalaya Samiti and new Executive/Managing
Committee be constituted. The respondent no. 3 had then, after
obtaining permission from the respondent no. 2, passed the
impugned direction dated 26.11.2019 under Rule 18(iii) of the
Rules, 2018 directing the District Magistrate, Rohtas to conduct
election of the said society under his supervision by appointing
an observer.
15. It is stated by the learned senior counsel for the private
respondents no. 5 & 6 that Rule 18 of the Rules, 2018 is invoked
under circumstances where dispute exists arising out of existence
of two rival governing and/or executive bodies. Thus, it is
submitted that in the present case, based on the report of the
A.I.G., Patna Division, Patna dated 18.04.2019, the D.I.G.,
Registration, after obtaining approval of the I.G., Registration,
and without adjudicating any issue between the parties has
merely directed the District Magistrate, Rohtas to conduct
elections of the aforesaid society in terms of Rule 18(iii) of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
29/46
Rules, 2018, hence the entire process of adjudication by the I.G.,
Registration has been deferred till completion of the election
process, thus the aforesaid direction dated 26.11.2019, issued by
the respondent no. 3 is merely a direction to the District
Magistrate for conducting elections in terms of Rule 18(iii) of
the Rules, 2018, therefore, the same is not appealable under Rule
22 of the Rules, 2018 inasmuch as any direction issued under
Rule 18(iii) of the Rules, 2018 does not decide any issue
between the parties, hence does not fall within the category of
“order” under Rule 22 of the Rules, 2018 inasmuch “order”,
which is appealable, must be a decision adjudicating issues
between the parties. In this connection, the learned senior
counsel for the petitioner has referred to a judgment rendered by
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Arun Kumar
Aggarwal vs. State of M.P., reported in (2014) 13 SCC 707 to
submit that it has been held therein that a direction issued by the
Courts is in the nature of command or authoritative instruction
which contemplates the performance of certain duty or act by a
person upon whom it has been issued and the same should be
specific, simple, clear, just and proper depending upon the facts
and circumstances of the case but it should not be vague or
sweeping. It would be relevant to reproduce paragraphs no. 19 to
23 herein below:-
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
30/46“19. Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Edn., 2009) defines the
term “direction” as an order; an instruction on how to
proceed.
20. The meaning of expression “direction” has been
discussed in Corpus Juris Secundum, Vol. 26-A, at pp.
955-56 as thus:
“The word ‘direction’ is of common usage, and is
defined as meaning the act of governing, ordering, or
ruling; the act of directing, authority to direct as
circumstances may require; guidance; management;
superintendence; ‘prescription’; also a command, an
instruction, an order, an order prescribed, either
verbally or written, or indicated by acts; that which is
imposed by directing, a guiding or authoritative
instruction; information as to method.”
21. According to P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law
Lexicon (3rd Edn., 2005) the word “direction” means:
address of letter, order or instruction as to what one has
to do. A direction may serve to direct to places as well as
to persons. Direction contains most of instruction in it
and should be followed. It is necessary to direct those
who are unable to act for themselves. Directions given to
servants must be clear, simple and precise.
22. According to Words and Phrases, Permanent Edn.,
Vol. 12-A, the term “direction” means a guiding or
authoritative instruction, prescription, order, command.
23. To sum up, the direction issued by the Court is in the
nature of a command or authoritative instruction which
contemplates the performance of certain duty or act by a
person upon whom it has been issued. The direction
should be specific, simple, clear and just and proper
depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
31/46
but it should not be vague or sweeping.
16. Thus, it is the submission of the learned senior counsel
for the private respondents no. 5 & 6 that the aforesaid letter
dated 26.11.2019 is merely a direction to the District Magistrate
to conduct elections in terms of Rule 18(iii) of the Rules, 2018,
hence is not an order appealable under Rule 22 of the Rules,
2018. The Ld. Senior counsel has also referred to a judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.B.
Minerals vs. MSPL Ltd., reported in (2010)12 SCC 24 to submit
that an order admitting a second appeal is neither a final order
nor an interlocutory/interim order and special leave petitions
against orders which do not decide any issue should not be
entertained. Reference has also been made to a judgment
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Shyam Sel &
Power Ltd. & Anr. vs. Shyam Steel Industries Ltd., reported in
(2013)1 SCC 634, paragraphs no. 22 to 25 whereof are
reproduced herein below:-
“22. It could thus be seen that both the judgments of S.
Murtaza Fazal Ali, J. as well as A.N. Sen, J. in Shah
Babulal Khimji [Shah Babulal Khimji v. Jayaben D.
Kania, (1981) 4 SCC 8], have a common thread that, as
to whether an order impugned would be a “judgment”
within the scope of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
However, for such an order to be construed as a
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
32/46
“judgment”, it must have the traits and trappings of
finality. To come within the ambit of “judgment”, such an
order must affect vital and valuable rights of the parties,
which works serious injustice to the party concerned.
Each and every order passed by the Court during the
course of the trial, though may cause some inconvenience
to one of the parties or, to some extent, some prejudice to
one of the parties, cannot be treated as a “judgment”. If
such is permitted, the floodgate of appeals would be open
against the order of the Single Judge.
23. In the light of this observation, we will have to
consider as to whether the order passed by the learned
Single Judge dated 2-4-2019 [Shyam Steel Industries Ltd.
v. Shyam Sel & Power Ltd., 2019 SCC OnLine Cal 9130],
could be construed as a “judgment” within the meaning
of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.
24. What the learned Single Judge has done by the said
order, was to grant two weeks’ time to the appellant-
defendants to file affidavit-in-opposition and postpone the
issue of grant of ad interim injunction by three weeks. No
doubt, that the learned Single Judge has at one place
observed that prima facie, he was of the view that
“SHYAM” being a part of the business name of the
appellant-defendants, no injunction should be passed to
restrain the appellant-defendants from using the said
word “SHYAM” on their packaging, but in the same order,
he has clarified that all the observations he has made in
the said order were prima facie for the purpose of
passing an order at the ad interim stage and the same
would have no relevance at the time of considering and
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
33/46
deciding the said application after exchange of affidavits.
25. It could thus be seen that the order in fact was
postponement of the question as to whether the
respondent-plaintiff was entitled to grant of an ad interim
injunction or not, and that too, by merely three weeks.
The order was only giving an opportunity to the
appellant-defendants to file their affidavit-in-opposition
within a period of two weeks. The order clarified that no
prayer for extension of time shall be entertained. The
learned Single Judge therefore postponed the issue with
regard to consideration of the prayer of the respondent-
plaintiff for grant of ad interim injunction by a period of
mere three weeks and that too only in order to afford an
opportunity to the appellant-defendants to file their
affidavit-in-opposition. While doing the same, the
respondent-plaintiff’s interest was also protected,
inasmuch as the appellant-defendants were directed to
maintain weekly accounts of sale of their products
covered by Class 6, which were sold under the mark
“SHYAM”.
17. The learned senior counsel for the private respondents no.
5 & 6 has submitted that in the present case the direction issued
vide letter dated 26.11.2019 by the respondent no. 3 cannot be
treated as order in finality, whereas the Rule itself is very clear,
which states that I.G., Registration shall pass the final order after
exercising all the three clauses mentioned under Rule 18 of the
Rules, 2018. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner has
also referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
34/46
Court of India in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji vs. Jayaben
D. Kania & Anr., reported in (1981) 4 SCC 8, paragraph no. 119
whereof is reproduced herein below:-
“119. Apart from the tests laid down by Sir White, C.J.,
the following considerations must prevail with the court:
“(1) That the trial Judge being a senior court with vast
experience of various branches of law occupying a
very high status should be trusted to pass discretionary
or interlocutory orders with due regard to the well
settled principles of civil justice. Thus, any discretion
exercised or routine orders passed by the trial Judge in
the course of the suit which may cause some
inconvenience or, to some extent, prejudice to one
party or the other cannot be treated as a judgment
otherwise the appellate court (Division Bench) will be
flooded with appeals from all kinds of orders passed by
the trial Judge. The courts must give sufficient
allowance to the trial Judge and raise a presumption
that any discretionary order which he passes must be
presumed to be correct unless it is ex facie legally
erroneous or causes grave and substantial injustice.
(2) That the interlocutory order in order to be a
judgment must contain the traits and trappings of
finality either when the order decides the questions in
controversy in an ancillary proceeding or in the suit
itself or in a part of the proceedings.
(3) The tests laid down by Sir White, C.J. as also by Sir
Couch, C.J. as modified by later decisions of the
Calcutta High Court itself which have been dealt with
by us elaborately should be borne in mind.”
18. The learned senior counsel for the private respondents no.
5 & 6 has next contended that “Order” is defined under Section
2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 as follows- “an order
means the formal expression of any decision of a Civil Court
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
35/46
which is not a decree”. Thus, it is submitted that an order to
become appealable must be a formal expression, must be a
decision, the decision should conclusively decide any issue and
must affect a valuable right of a party. However, in the present
case the letter dated 26.11.2019 does not contain any of the said
ingredients to be termed as an order, thus no appeal would lie
under Rule 22 of the Rules, 2018. As far as the said letter dated
26.11.2019 is concerned, it is a ministerial act and does not
involve any exercise of discretion. In this connection, reference
has been made to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of J.Y. Kondala Rao vs. A.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, reported in 1960 SCC online SC 66,
wherein it has been held that some acts are ministerial in nature
and only mechanical one carried out in the course of day-to-day
administration. In this connection, reference has also been made
to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Edukanti Kistamma (dead) through LRS. & Ors. vs. S.
Venkatareddy (dead) through LRS. & Ors., reported in (2010)1
SCC 756. Lastly, the learned senior counsel for the private
respondents no. 5 & 6 has submitted that even the Registration
Department has stated in its affidavit filed before the learned
Board of Revenue that I.G., Registration has not yet passed any
final order in terms of Rule 18 of the Rules, 2018, hence the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
36/46
issue raised by the private respondent no. 6 vide letter dated
20.09.2018 has still not been finally adjudicated upon and the
impugned direction dated 26.11.2019 does not give any cause of
action to the petitioner to seek stay or challenge the same, thus,
in absence of any trappings of an “order” under Rule 22 of the
Rules, 2018, the letter dated 26.11.2019 issued by the respondent
no. 2 is not appealable, hence the appeal filed by the petitioner
has been rightly dismissed by the Chairman, Board of Revenue,
Bihar, Patna vide order dated 19.09.2023. Therefore, the present
writ petition is fit to be dismissed.
19. I have heard the learned senior counsel/counsel for the
parties and perused the materials on record. The facts lie in a
narrow encompass inasmuch as upon a complaint made by the
private respondent no. 6 before the Inspector General of
Registration, Department of Registration, Bihar, Patna i.e. the
respondent no. 2 on 20.09.2018, relating to irregularities being
committed by the Managing Committee of the said school
including financial irregularity being done by outsiders, the
Deputy Inspector General of Registration, i.e. the respondent no.
3 had directed the Assistant Inspector General, Patna Division,
Patna to conduct an enquiry, whereafter enquiry was conducted
and a report dated 18.04.2019 was submitted by the Assistant
Inspector General, Registration, Patna Division, Patna. The
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
37/46
respondent no.3 had then vide letter dated 06.09.2019 asked the
petitioner as well as the respondent no. 6 to submit para-wise
reply to the enclosed questionnaire, whereafter the respondent
no. 3 had issued Memo No. 737 dated 26.11.2019 addressed to
the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram stating therein that a
decision has been taken to get the election of Bal Vikas
Vidyalaya Samiti conducted in which only valid members will
participate. The said letter dated 26.11.2019 was challenged by
the petitioner by filing an appeal bearing Appeal No. 30 of 2019
before the Chairman-cum-Member, Board of Revenue, Patna,
which was admitted vide order dated 10.02.2020 and the
direction issued vide letter dated 26.11.2019 to conduct election
was stayed. Finally the Chairman-cum-Member, Board of
Revenue, disposed off the said appeal vide order dated
19.09.2023 with an observation that the letter dated 26.11.2019
written by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration
(respondent no. 3) to the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram
is a direction to conduct election in terms of Rule 18 (iii) of the
Rules, 2018, which is an interim order and not a final order,
hence not appealable under Rule 22 of the Rules, 2018. The
said order dt. 19.09.2023 passed by the Board of Revenue,
Bihar, Patna as also the aforesaid letter dated 26.11.2019 issued
by the respondent no. 3 are under challenge in the present writ
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
38/46
petition.
20. At this juncture, it would be relevant to reproduce Rule
18 and Rule 22 of the Rules, 2018 herein below:-
“18. If a dispute arises out of the existence of two rival
Governing and/or executive bodies being a rightful
Managing body of the Society, then, the IG may-
(i) Ask the District Magistrate to enquire himself or
through one of his subordinate officers and submit a
report, and/or
(ii) Invite all the rival bodies and hear the matter in
person, and/or
(iii) Cause re-election of the Governing and/or
Executive Body to be done in the presence of an
Observer appointed by the IG, Registration.
Based on the findings from aforementioned steps, the IG
shall pass suitable Order adjudicating the matter.
22. Review and Appeal:-
(i) The IG Registration shall be competent to review any
of his orders passed under these Rules provided new
facts and information is brought to his notice.
(ii) All orders passed by the IG Registration under these
rules shall be appealable before the Member, Board of
Revenue, whose decision shall be final.”
21. Much has been argued by the learned senior counsel for
the petitioner that the order/letter dated 26.11.2019 passed/
issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Registration (Society
& Firm Registration) Department of Registration, Patna i.e. the
respondent no. 3, is wholly without jurisdiction inasmuch as the
said order has been passed by an officer who is not competent
to pass the same as per Rule 18 of the Rules, 2018, which only
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
39/46
authorizes the Inspector General of Registration, Department of
Registration, Bihar, Patna i.e. the respondent no. 2 to pass
suitable orders, however this Court finds from the note sheet of
the file in which the issue under consideration was/is being
dealt with, which has been handed over to this Court by the Ld.
Counsel for the parties, that the Deputy Inspector General of
Registration i.e. the respondent no. 3 had placed the file
containing a note with regard to conduct of election of the
aforesaid Samiti in presence of an observer, before the
Inspector General of Registration i.e. the respondent no. 2 for
approval and the same was approved by the Inspector General
of Registration i.e. the respondent no. 2 on 21.11.2019.
Thereafter, a draft order for the purposes of issuing orders for
conducting election of Bal Vikas Vidyalaya Samiti, Sasaram
was prepared and the same was also discussed and approved by
the Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna i.e. the
respondent no. 2 on 25.11.2019 and then the letter contained in
Memo No. 737 dated 26.11.2019 was issued to the District
Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram asking him to get the election of
Bal Vikas Vidyalaya Samiti conducted in which only valid
members shall participate. Thus, this Court finds that firstly; the
direction issued vide letter contained in Memo No. 737 dated
26.11.2019 has been termed to be an order in the said note sheet
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
40/46
and secondly; the same is only a communication of the order
approved by the Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna
i.e. the respondent no. 2. The said note sheet has not been
disputed by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner, which
is being reproduced herein below:-
22. In view of the aforesaid it can be prudently concluded that
communication has been issued vide letter dated 26.11.2019,
pertaining to holding of the election of the aforesaid Samiti, only
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
41/46upon approval of the same by the Inspector General of
Registration, Bihar, Patna i.e. the respondent no. 2 as also upon
approval of the draft order by the Inspector General of
Registration, Bihar, Patna. Therefore, the direction contained in
letter dated 26.11.2019 would be deemed to be the decision of the
Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Patna i.e. the respondent
no. 2. In this background, I find that Rule 18 of the Rules, 2018
stipulates three options to be exercised by the Inspector General
in case a dispute arises out of the existence of two rival
Governing and/or executive bodies being the rightful Managing
body of the Society. One of the option postulated under Rule 18
(iii) of the Rules, 2018 is that the Inspector General may cause re-
election of the governing and/or executive body in presence of an
observer. In the present case Inspector General has opted for the
recourse provided for in Rule 18(iii) of the Rules, 2018 and has
directed the District Magistrate, Rohtas at Sasaram to get the
election of the aforesaid Samiti conducted in presence of an
observer. It is apparent from the aforesaid order dated 26.11.2019
that the same, firstly does not contain any reason warranting
holding of re-election of the aforesaid Samiti and secondly, the
said order dated 26.11.2019 is in the nature of a final order which
definitely amounts to adjudication of the purported dispute
arising out of existence of two rival governing and/or executive
bodies by the Inspector General, thus the same would definitely
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
42/46
materially affect the rights and obligations of the petitioner. It is a
well settled law that an order is final if it amounts to a final
decision relating to the rights of the parties in dispute in a civil
proceeding. Reference be had to a judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of M/s. Jethanand and Sons vs.
The State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in AIR 1961 SC 794. Rule
22 (ii) of the Rules, 2018 postulates that all orders passed by the
Inspector General under these Rules shall be appealable before
the Member, Board of Revenue, therefore the decision contained
in the aforesaid order dated 26.11.2019, issued by the respondent
no. 3 being in the nature of a final decision of the Inspector
General, adjudicating the purported dispute arising out of
existence of two rival governing and/or executive bodies, would
definitely be appealable before the Member, Board of Revenue.
23. It is equally a well settled law that in case the appellate
Court has been constituted in words of the widest amplitude and
the legislature has not limited its jurisdiction, as is the case
herein, all orders passed by the Inspector General, Registration
under the Rules, 2018 shall definitely be appealable before the
Member, Board of Revenue. Reference, in this connection has
rightly been made by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner
to the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases
of Ebrahim Aboobakar & Anr. (supra), Shiur Sakhar Karkhana
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
43/46
(Pvt.) Ltd. (supra) and the one rendered in the case of Nelson
Motis (supra). Therefore, this Court finds that the Chairman-cum-
Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna has committed a grave
error while passing the impugned order dated 19.09.2023 in
Registration Case No. 30 of 2019 and holding that the direction
contained in letter dated 26.11.2019 to conduct election of the
aforesaid Samiti is an interim order and not a final order, hence
not appealable under Rule 22 of the Rules, 2018. As regards, the
judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the State,
rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mahboob S.
Allibhoy and Another (supra), this Court finds that reliance upon
the said judgment is misplaced inasmuch as in the said case, what
the Hon’ble Apex Court was considering was Section 19 of the
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, which itself postulates that an
appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of the High
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt,
meaning thereby that in case the High Court passes an order in
exercise of its jurisdiction to punish any person for contempt of
Court, then only an appeal shall be maintainable under sub-
section(1) of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
However, this is not the situation in the present case inasmuch as
under Rule 22 (ii) of the Rules, 2022, there is no rider/fetter and
the jurisdiction of the appellate Court has neither been limited nor
does it specify the nature/type of orders which are appealable
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
44/46
whereas Rule 22(ii) of the Rules, 2018 postulates that appeal can
be filed against all orders passed by the Inspector General,
Registration, under the Rules, 2018.
24. Now, coming to the judgment relied upon by the learned
senior counsel appearing for the respondents no. 5 & 6 rendered
by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Arun Kumar Aggarwal
(supra), this Court finds that there can be no two views to the
proposition that a direction issued by the Courts is in the nature of
command or authoritative instruction which contemplates
performance of certain duties or act by a person upon whom it has
been issued and that the term direction means a guiding or
authoritative instruction, prescription, order, command. As far as
reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of S.B. Minerals (supra) is concerned, the same is
distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the present case
inasmuch as the present case does not pertain to an order
admitting a second appeal and moreover, the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held in the said case that special leave petitions against orders
which do not decide any issue should not be entertained,
discernibly considering the fact that special leave petitions are not
statutory appeals but encompasses discretionary power of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India to grant special leave to appeal from any
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
45/46
judgment, decree, determination, sentence or order in any cause
or matter passed or made by any Court or Tribunal in the territory
of India. As regards, the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Shyam Sel & Power Ltd. & Anr. (supra) and
the one rendered in the case of Shah Babulal Khimji (supra),
referred to by the learned senior counsel for the respondents no. 5
and 6, this Court finds that the same are also distinguishable in
the facts and circumstances of the present case.
25. Now coming to the other argument raised by the learned
senior counsel for the respondents no. 5 and 6 to the effect that an
order, as defined under Section 2(14) of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 means formal expression of any decision of a
Civil Court which is not a decree, but in the present case the letter
dated 26.11.2019 is a ministerial act and does not involve any
exercise of discretion, thus the same would not be appealable
under Rule 22(ii) of the Rules, 2018. This Court finds that as far
as the letter dated 26.11.2019 is concerned, the same definitely
contains a formal expression of decision to hold re-election of the
aforesaid Samiti, affecting the valuable rights and obligations of
the petitioner, apart from the same being a communication of the
draft order approved by the Inspector General, Registration, on
25.11.2019, therefore the said submission advanced by the
learned senior counsel for the private respondents no. 5 and 6
Patna High Court CWJC No.14697 of 2023 dt.07-04-2025
46/46
does not merit any consideration.
26. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case
and for the reasons mentioned herein above, I deem it fit and
proper to quash the order dated 19.09.2023, passed by the
Chairman-cum-Member Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna in
Registration Case No. 30 of 2019, whereby and whereunder the
appeal filed by the petitioner under Rule 22 (ii) of the Rules,
2018, challenging the order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the
respondent no. 3 has been disposed off on the ground that the
same is not maintainable. Consequently, the appeal bearing
Registration Case No. 30 of 2019 stands remitted back to the
learned Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna for fresh adjudication on
merits. It is needless to state that any observation made by this
court hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs shall not be
construed to be an expression on the merits of the case.
27. The writ petition stands allowed to the aforesaid extent.
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
S.Sb/-
AFR/NAFR AFR CAV DATE 13.11.2024 Uploading Date 07.04.2025 Transmission Date N/A
[ad_1]
Source link