ALLAHABAD HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY ALLAHABAD & ANR.versusSTATE OF U.P. & ORS.

                     (2011] 6 S.C.R. 759


 ALLAHABAD HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY ALLAHABAD &                          A
                   ANR.
                               v.
                   STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
               (Civil Appeal No. 4329 of 2011)
                                                                    B
                         MAY 12, 2011

    [P. SATHASIVAM AND DR. B.S. CHAUHAN, JJ.]

     U.P. Societies Registration Act, 1860 - s. 12D(b) -
Amendment of Rules,. Constitution and Bye-laws of appellant         C
Society, which were registered -Assistant Registrar cancelled
registration of the proceedings related to the registered
amendments holding that there was manipulation in the
record; that the amendments to the proceedings were made
arbitrarily, unlawfully and decisions were taken without            D
following the democratic process and in contravention of the
provisions of the Act and the Rules - Direction issued to the
Chairman, Governing Body· to convene fresh meeting and
take a decision as per Rules - Said order upheld by the
Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court - On          E
appeal, held: The basic feature of the Society along with its
primary object had been altered by way of amendments to the
Rules - Meetings in which the amendments were carried out
had not been validly convened and were in violation of the
statutory provisions -In the light of the factual findings by the   F
Assistant Registrar which were upheld by the Single Judge
and Division Bench, it is impermissible for Supreme Court
to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution
- Rules of the Allahabad High Schools Society, 1952 -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 136.
                                                                    G
    The Rules, Constitution and Bye-laws of the appellant
Society were amended and were registered on
30.05.2007. The said information was communicated to
the Assistant Registrar. The Assistant Registrar cancelled
                            759                                     H
    760      SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2011) 6 S.C.R.


A the registration of proceedings related to amendments
  registered on 30.05.2007 and directed the Bishop,
  Diocese of Lucknow, who is an ex-officio member of the
  Society and Chairman of the Governing Body under the
  Rules, to convene a fresh General Body Meeting, after
B informing all the Members about the present situation and
  circumstances, and reasons as per the Rules; and take
  a fresh decision regarding amendments to the Rules. The
  appellant-Society challenged the said order. Both the
  Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High
c Court upheld the order passed by the Assistant
  Registrar. Therefore, the appellant-Society filed the instant
  appeal.

          Dismissing the appeal, the Court

D      HELD: 1.1 The Assistant Registrar, in his order held
  that the proceedings were illegal/frivotous.Jt was also
  held that the Members of the Society had die~ prior to
  1997 and there was manipulation in the te'Cord; and that
  the amendments to the proceedings were made
E arbitrarily, unlawfully and decisions were taken without
  following the democratic process and in contravention of
  the provisions of the U.P. Societies Registration Act, 1860
  and the Rules of the Allahabad High Schools Society,
  1952. After arriving at such factual conclusion based on
F appreciation of acceptable materials, the Assistant
  Registrar cancelled the registration of proceedings
  related to the amendments registered on 30.05.2007
  under Section 12D(b) of the Act. [Para 12] [768-F-G; 769-
  F-H]
G     1.2 The order of the Single Judge of the High Court
  shows that there was no quorum in the meeting held on
  28.05.2007 in which amendments had been carried out.
  Four Officers and five members of the Society were
  present in the meeting. One ex-officio member and four
H members were absent. There were total 14 (fourteen)
ALLAHABAD HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY ALLAHABAD 761
          & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P.
members of the Society. In the Special General Meeting         A
held on 28.05.2007 only nine members were present.
Three quarter member of 14 members would be 10.5
members. Therefore, according to Rule 38 of the Rules,
at least 10 members were required to be present at the
Special General Meeting held on 28.05.2007. In the             B
absence of quorum laid down by Rule 38, neither the
amendments could be passed in the Special General
Meeting of the Society nor could the amendments made
be registered by the Assistant Registrar. It was also
demonstrated that manipulations/manoeuvrings is writ           c
large that Principal in connivance with the outgoing
Bishop, in order to perpetuate themselves in the Society
have made amendments for their benefit and to the
disadvantage of the Society and therein Dioces
Education Board and the Bishop have been deliberately          D
kept at bay. Thereafter, the Single Judge correctly
concluded that in such a situation and in the said
background, any interference with the order of the
Assistant Registrar would amount to perpetuating the
illegality and subscribing to apparent illegality committed.   E
[Paras 14 and 15] [771-B-G]

    1.3 The order of the Single Judge was challenged
before the Division Bench which was also dismissed. The
Bench held that there was interpolation and forgery in the
records. The basic feature of the Society along with its       F
primary object had been altered by way of amendments
to the Rules. The Division Bench accepted that the
Assistant Registrar had the jurisdiction not only to deal
with the validity of the convening of the meeting but also
to examine the import of the resolution regarding the          G
amendments of the Rules. The Division Bench also
agreed with the conclusion that appellant No. 2 was not
a member of the Society but was holding the office of the
Secretary by virtue of being the Principal of the Boys'
High School, Allahabad. The Division Bench also                H
    762      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2011) 6 S.C.R.

A accepted that the meetings in which the amendments
  were carried out had not been validly convened. The
  Division Bench has pointed out that the minutes of the
  three meetings have also been registered on 30.05.2007
  by the Assistant Registrar and by the Impugned order
B dated 24.07.2010, he cancelled the registration. Ultimately,
  the Division Bench has rightly concluded that all other
  proceedings had been illegal and the meetings were in
  violation of the statutory provisions. The Division Bench,
  in view of its findings held that the meetings itself had not
c been validly convened as per the Rules of the Society
  and concluded that the orders passed by the Assistant
  Registrar and the Single Judge does not warrant any
  interference. A criminal prosecution has also been lodged
  against appellant No. 2 by filing an FIR under Sections
  467, 468, 471, 420 and 409 IPC in which chargesheet has
0
  already been flied on 11.07.2010 and the court has also
  taken cognizance of the same. [Paras 16, 17 and 18] [771-
  H; 772-A-G]

        1.4 In the light of the factual findings by the authority
E concerned-the Assistant Registrar, affirming the same by
  the Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court,
  it is impermissible for this Court to exercise jurisdiction
  under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Assistant
  Registrar, in his order dated 24.07.2010 Itself permitted
F the Bishop, Diocese of Lucknow, who Is an ex-officio
  member of the Society and Chairman of the Governing
  Body under the Rules, to convene a general body
  meeting after Informing all the members about the
  present situation and circumstances and reasons, there
G is no valid ground for interference by this Court. [Para 19]
  [772-H; 773·A-B]
        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
    4329 of 2011.
H         From the Judgment & Order dated 25.3.2011 of the High
 ALLAHABAD HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY ALLAHABAD 763
           & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P.
 Court of Judicature at Allahabad, U.P. in Special Appeal No.      A
 281 of 2011.
        C.S. Vaidyanathan, P.N. Misra, Ashok Khare, C.L. Pandey,
  R. Venkataramani, T.P. Singh, V.B. Singh, Yatish Mohan, Vinita
  Y. Mohan, Manish Goyal, Pooja, C.D. Singh, E.C. Vidya Sagar,
, Piyush Sharma, Shailender;Prabhakar Awasthi, Sushil Mishra,      B
  Dr. l.B. Gaur, H.K. Puri for the appearing parties.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
     P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. I.A. No.4 - Application for
 impleadment is allowed.                              C
     2. Leave granted.
     3. This appeal is directed against the judgment and final
 order dated 25.03.2011 passed by the Division Bench of the
 High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No.       D
 281 of 2011 whereby the Division Bench confirmed the order
 dated 22.02.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge and the
·order dated 24.07.2010 passed by the Assistant Registrar,
 Firms, Societies & Chits, Allahabad, who cancelled the
 proceedings related to amendments registered on 30.05.2007.       E
     4. Brief facts:
     (a) The appellant-Allahabad High School Society
(hereinafter referred to as "the Society") was established in the
year 1861 and was registered on 09.02.1888 under the U.P.
Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "the F
Act"). According to the constitution of the Society, it was
established and registered with the object to advance the cause
of Christian education in Allahabad, according to the teaching
of the Church of England as by law established, especially
amongst the children of the European and Anglo-Indian G
population, in conformity with, and agreeably to, the provisions
of the Rules of the Allahabad High Schools Society, 1952 (in
short 'the Rules'). The memorandum of the Society contains
various clauses which includes that the Society shall consist of
the Bishop of Lucknow and of other Members not exceeding H
   764      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A 23, three of whom shall be respectively the Senior Chaplain for
  the time being of the Church of England at Allahabad, the
  Commissioner for the time being of the Allahabad Division and
  the Collector for the time being of the Allahabad District. The
  affairs of the Society shall be managed by all the Members of
B the Society that the Bishop of Lucknow, the Honorary Secretary
  and the Honorary Treasurer of the Society, shall have the
  authority to execute all contracts and deeds on behalf of the
  Society. The management of the Girls' School shall be
  conducted by a Standing Committee of all the lady Members
c of the Society and the management of the Boys' School shall
  be conducted by a Standing Committee of all the men who are
   Members of the Society. These Schools shall be subject to the
  inspection of the Government and of the Diocesan Council and
  make such returns as may be required by the Diocesan Council
D from time to time.
       (b) On 28.05.2007, Rules, Constitution and Bye-laws of the
  Society, in question, were amended, which were registered on
  30.05.2007 and the above-said information was also
  communicated to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies &
E Chits, Allahabad. Since several objections were raised about
  the amendments made on 28.05.2007, the Assistant Registrar,
  who is the competent authority under the Act, after analyzing
  all the materials with reference to various clauses of
  memorandum, had concluded that the amendments were made
F arbitrarily, unlawfully and without following the democratic
  process, and in contravention of the provisions of the Act and
  the Rules and, therefore, by order dated 24.07.2010, cancelled
  the registration of the proceedings related to amendments
  registered on 30.05.2007, under Section 12D(b) of the Act, in
G pursuance of notice issued under Section 12D(1) of the Act. In
  the same order, the Assistant Registrar issued direction to the
  Bishop, Diocese of Lucknow, who is an ex-officio member of
  the Society and Chairman of the Governing Body under the
  Rules, to convene a General Body Meeting, after informing all
H the Members about the present situation and circumstances
ALLAHABAD HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY ALLAHABAD 765
  & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
and reasons regarding amendments to the Rules to comply with         A
Rule 11 of the 1952 Rules and to form a Governing Body and
present the same.

     (c) The above order of the Assistant Registrar was
challenged by the appellant-Society before the learned Single
                                                                     8
Judge of the High Court of Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No. 46551 of 2010. The learned Single Judge, after going into
the merits of the claim with reference to statutory provisions and
all other relevant materials, vide his order dated 22.02.2011,
confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Registrar and
dismissed the writ petition filed by the Society.                    C

     (d) Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge,
the Society filed Special Appeal No. 281 of 2011 before the
Division Bench of the High Court assailing the correctness of
the judgment and order dated 22.02.2011. The Division Bench, D
after considering the rival claims and taking note of the basic
and core objects of the Society to impart Chr.istian education
in Allahabad and neighbouring areas, by judgment and order
dated 25.03.2011, confirmed the orders passed by the learned
Single Judge and the Assistant Registrar, consequently, E
dismissed the special appeal being devoid of any merits. The ·
said order is under challenge in this appeal by way of special
leave.

      5. Heard Mr. C.S. Vaidyanathan, learned senior counsel
for the appellant-Society, Mr. R. Venkataramani, learned senior      F
counsel for respondent No.3 and Mr. T.P. Singh, learned senior
counsel for the impleaded party.

     6. In view of the various proceedings, orders by the
authorities under the Act and the decision of the learned Single     G-
Judge, the Division Bench and this Court after taking note of
the fact that the Assistant Registrar had issued a direction to
the Chairman of the Governing Body to convene a fresh
General Body Meeting after notifying all the Members about the
                                                                     H
      766     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 6 S.C.R.

 A present situation and circumstances and reasons as per the
   Rules and take a fresh decision regarding amendments to the
   Rules, we are of the view that it is not necessary to refer all those
   factual details and earlier orders.

. B     7. The points for consideration in this appeal are whether
   the Assistant Registrar was justified in cancelling the
   amendments and permitting the Chairman, Governing Body, to
   convene fresh meeting and take a decision as per the Rules
   and whether the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench
 C of the High Court have committed any error in confirming the
   said order?

         8. It is not in dispute that the Assistant Registrar of the
   Society issued certain show cause notices to the appellants
   which were challenged by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
 D 9598 of 2010. When notices dated 02.02.2010 and 11.02.2010
   were issued to the Society, the:, filed the said writ petition
   praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
   quashing the same. The High Court, after finding that it would
   be appropriate to adjudicate the matter by the relevant authority
 E on the basis of relevant records whether the amendments
   made in the bye-laws by the appellants were valid or not and
   whether the object of the Society meaning in the initial bye-laws
   has been changed or not or whether it is against public policy,
   all these have to be adjudicated on the basis of the show cause
 F notices and it will be inappropriate to go into the correctness
   of the same at this stage, dismissed the writ petition vide order
   dated 16.04.2010 as not maintainable and directed the
   Registrar to decide the dispute between the parties after
   affording opportunity to the appellants as well as the
 G respondents-objectors.
           9. The appellants, not satisfied with the above order of the
      learned Single Judge, filed Special Appeal No. 615 of 2010
      before the Division Bench which was dismissed on 20.05.2010
      observing that there was a fraud, manipulation and documents
 H
ALLAHABAD HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY ALLAHABAD 767
  & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
have been forged.                                                 A
    10. The following discussion and conclusion of the Division
Bench about Mr. C.V. Innis, functioning as Secretary of the
Society are relevant:

    "Mr. Cedric Valentine Innis, was born on 18.09.1948. He B
    is a CNI CHRISTIAN (Anglo-Indian). He was appointed as
    Principal of the BHS on 12.01.1988 by the Chairman of
    the Societyrrhe Bishop of Lucknow, Dio~se of Lucknow,
    C.N.I. He took charge on 15.03.1988. He was confirmed
    after one year w.e.f. 15.03.1989. At the time of his C
    appointment as Principal the age of superannuation of
    Principal BHS had already been enhanced from 58 years
    to 60 years. The age of superannuation was enhanced on
    the recommendation of Diocesan Education Board which
    had resolved on 10.01.1985 to fix the retirement age of D
    the Principals of the English medium Schools, governed
    by the Anglo-Indian Education Code, of the Diocese of
    Lucknow to sixty years. The proviso permitted yearly
    extensions up to a maximum of five years. The Society in
    the Governing Body meeting held on 12.12.1985 accepted E
    and adopted the Diocesan Education Board Resolution
    dated 10.01.1985.

           The Predecessor of Mr. C.V. Innis, retired atthe age
    of 60 years. The age of superannuation of the teaching        F
    staff was enhanced in the meeting dated 23.11.2006 from
    58 years to 62 years. In the proceedings of the meeting
       .
    dated 23.11.2006, it had not been mentioned as to whether
    the meeting was a Governing Body Meeting or an Annual
    General Meeting. There was no agenda for enhancing the
    age of superannuation. The proceedings of the meeting         G
    dated 23.11.2006 filed as Annexure SRA-II at Page 70 is
    a forged document as it mentions enhancement in age of
    superannuation of management staff and non-teaching
    staff whereas in the original proceedings of 23.11.2006
                                                                  H
    768       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A         produced by the counsel for the appellant only the age of
          superannuation of the teaching staff had been enhanced.
          A question arises that what was the need for forgery for
          enhancing the age of superannuation. The answer appears
          to be simple. The appellants wanted to hide under the
B         carpet that Principal's age of superannuation had already
          been enhanced by the Society on 12.12.1985 and they
          wanted to hide the control of Diocese of Lucknow.

                From the aforesaid discussion, it appears that the
          meeting dated 23 .11.2006 was illegal being in violation of
c         Rule 11 and in such a meeting age of superannuation
          could not be enhanced. The enhancement made in the
          meeting dated 23.11.2006 would not confer any right on
          Mr. C.V. Innis the Principal of BHS. His age of
          superannuation was 60 years and there being no material
D         on record about any extension of service granted to him,
          it appears that he retired from the post of Principal of BHS
          in September, 2008. •

        11. Against the dismissal of the Special Appeal No. 615
E of 2010, the Society approached this Court by way of special
  leave petition and the same was dismissed vide order dated
   15.06.2010 with an observation that the Assistant Registrar is
  free to pass an order on merits including the question of
  jurisdiction in accordance with law.
F       12. With this background, we have to verify whether the
  order of the Assistant Registrar dated 24.07.2010 holding that
  all the proceedings were illegal/frivolous or not. The Assistant
  Registrar, in his order, has also held that the Members of the
  Society had died prior to 1997 and there was manipulation in
G the record. It is pertinent to refer the discussion and ultimate
  conclusion by the Assistant Registrar which reads as under:
               "After going through the complaints pertaining to the
          amendment made by the Bishop and other people,
H         evidence and documents presented as had been
ALLAHABAD HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY ALLAHABAD 769
  & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    mentioned above, proceedings for brining fraudulent              A
    amendments are found to be contrary to the registered bye
    laws as well as directions given by the Assistant Registrar
    to comply with the provisions of the Societies Registration
    Act, 1860. In spite of several opportunities, the applicant
    has failed to prove the veracity and the genuineness of the      B
    proceedings. It is also obvious through the documents that
    neither list nor balance sheet has been produced regularly
    every year under Section 4(1) of the Act. From the
    documents produced, it is also clear that after complaints
    were made and information as sought regarding renewal,           c
    Shri C.V. Innes has sought to deposit the requisite fee
    under Section 3A(5) of the Act.

           In the list relating to managing committee as
    submitted, 15 lists have been submitted of members of the
    managing committee from the year 1977-78 to year 1997-           D
    98; in the said list 3 persons have been mentioned as
    occupying the post of Secretary; the reasons for the same
    are not clear. Along with the documents submitted, an
    affidavit of Shri C.V. Innes has also been submitted in
    which it is stated that all persons who were officers and        E
    members of the society prior to 1997 are dead. In such a
    situation it is not clear how the identity of the society
    continued to exist. If all the members were dead then it is
    not clear how new members were elected and whether they
    were elected under rules or not.. ... "                          F

     Apart from this, the Assistant Registrar has also
specifically concluded that the amendments to the proceedings
were made arbitrarily, unlawfully and decisions were taken
without following lhe-democratic process and in contravention        G
of the provisions of the Act and the Rules. After arriving at such
factual conclusion based on appreciation of acceptable
materials, the Assistant Registrar cancelled the registration of
proceedings related to the amendments registered on
30.05.2007 under Section 12D(b) of the Act.
                                                                     H
    770      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A      13. The said order of the Assistant Registrar dated
  24.07.2010 was challenged in the writ petition which was
  dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated
  22.02.2011 pointing out that the alleged Secretary of the
  appellants Mr. Innis has no business to continue in the said
B post. It is apt and relevant to quote the following conclusion of
  the learned Single Judge which reads as under:

          "Most surprising feature in the present case is that
          Secretary of the Society is no one else than the Principal
          of the institution himself.. He has been nominated as
c         Secretary by virtue of being ex-officio Member. In order to
          perpetuate himself in the society and in the institution being
          fully aware of the fact that he was going to attain the age
          of superannuation and his Secretaryship would also
          automatically come to an end, an attempt was made by
D         him to get his age extended and on the strength of the
          same to continue as Secretary of the society. After
          attaining the age of superannuation, Principal of the
          institution is not at all entitled to continue as Secretary.
          Specific mention has been made that petitioner No. 2 was
E         Secretary by virtue of being Principal, who happens to be
          ex-officio member, and once he attained the age of
          superannuation as Principal, then he could be elected as
          Secretary only when he was valid member of the society,
          but at no point of time he had ever been enrolled as valid
F         member of the general body of the society. This specific
          statement of fact has not been disputed in the rejoinder
          affidavit. Once this is the factual situational iil respect of
          status of petitioner No. 2 as Principal of the institution has
          already attained the age of superannuation and this fact
G         has not been substantiated before this Court as to in what
          way and manner he had been enrolled as member of the
          general body of the society, then legitimately petitioner No.
          2 has no grievance. The Bishop who had accepted the
          request to act as Chairman along with petitioner No. 2 has
H         already washed his sin, by resigning and submitting letter
ALLAHABAD HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY ALLAHABAD 771
  & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
     on 29.07.2010, regretting therein his deeds. These              A
     averments have been mentioned in paragraph 4(d) of the
     counter affidavit and said specific averments have not at
     all been replied."

       14. It was also highlighted and demonstrated that there
                                                                     8
 was no quorum in the meeting held on 28.05.2007 in which
 amendments had been carried out. It is seen that four Officers
 and five members of the Society were present in the meeting.
 One ex-officio member and four members were absent. There
 were total 14 (fourteen) members of the Society. In the Special     C
 General Meeting held on 28.05.2007 only nine members were
 present. Three quarter member of 14 members would be 10.5
 members. Therefore, according to Rule 38 of the Rules, at least
,10 members were required to be present at the Special
 ~neral Meeting held on 28.05.2007. In the absence of quorum
 laid'down by Rule 38, neither the amendments could be passed        D
 in the Special General Meeting of the Society nor could the
 amendments made be registered by the Assistant Registrar.
 The above details, as noted in the order of the learned Single
 Judge clearly show that there was no quorum in the meeting
 held on 28.05.2007 in which the amendments had been carried         E
 out.

     15. It was also demonstrated that manipulations/
manoeuvrings is writ large that Principal in connivance with the
outgoing Bishop, in order to perpetuate themselves in the            F
Society have made amendments for their benefit and to the
disadvantage of the Society and therein Dioces Education
Board and the Bishop have been deliberately kept at bay. After
saying so, the learned Single Judge correctly concluded that
in such a situation and in this background, any interference with    G
the order of the Assistant Registrar would amount to
perpetuating the illegality and subscribing to apparent illegality
committed.

     16. The above-said order of the learned Single Judge was
challenged before the Division Bench by way of Special Appeal        H
    772      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011] 6 S.C.R.


A No. 281 of 2011 which was also dismissed on 25.03.2011. The
  Bench has also arrived at a conclusion that there was
  interpolation and forgery in the records. The basic feature of
  the Society along with its primary object had been altered by
  way of amendments to the Rules. The Division Bench has
B accepted that the Assistant Registrar had the jurisdiction not
  only to deal with the validity of the convening of the meeting but
  also to examine the import of the resolution regarding the
  amendments of the Rules. The Division Bench has also agreed
  with the conclusion that the appellant No. 2 was not a member
c of the Society but was holding the office of the Secretary by
  virtue of being the Principal of the Boys' High School,
  Allahabad.

          17. The Division Bench has also accepted that the
    meetings in which the amendments were carried out had not
D been validly convened. The Division Bench has pointed out that
    the minutes of these three meetings have also been registered
    on 30.05.2007 by the Assistant Registrar and by the impugned
    order dated 24.07.2010, he cancelled the registration.
    Ultimately, the Division Bench has rightly concluded that all
E · other proceedings had been illegal and the meetings were in
    violation of the statutory provisions. The Division Bench, in view
    of its findings held that the meetings itself had not been validly
    convened as per the Rules of the Society and concluded that
    the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar and the learned
F Single Judge do not warrant any interference.

        18. It· is also brought to our notice that a criminal
  prosecution has also been lodged against the appellant No. 2
  by filing an FIR dated 09.03.2010 in Crime No. 54 of 2010
G under Sections 467, 468, 471, 420 and 409 IPC in which
  chargesheet has already been filed on 11.07.2010 and the
  court has also taken cognizance of the same.

       19. In the light of the factual findings by the authority
  concerned-the Assistant Registrar, affirming the same by
H learned Single Judge and Division Bench, it is impermissible
ALLAHABAD HIGH SCHOOL SOCIETY ALLAHABAD 773
  & ANR. v. STATE OF U.P. [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
for this Court to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the   A
Constitution. It is relevant to point out that the Assistant
Registrar, in his order dated 24.07.2010 itself permitted the
Bishop, Diocese of Lucknow, who is an ex-officio member of
the Society and Chairman of the Governing Body under the
Rules, to convene a general body meeting after informing all       B
the members about the present situation and circumstances
and reasons, there is no valid ground for interference by this
Court. Consequently, appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

N.J.                                       Appeal dismissed.
                                                                   c