Bus Operators Association Orai Konch and Another v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Court No. - 10 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 38780 of 2023 Petitioner :- Bus Operators Association Orai Konch And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akshay Prakash Srivastava,Dharmendra Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶1Heard Sri D.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Jitendra Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2.

¶2The petitioner is aggrieved by cancellation of registration of the petitioner-society, namely, Bus Operators Association Orai-Konch, Orai Bus Stand, Tehsil Konch, District Jalaun.

¶3It is contended that a show cause notice was issued to the respondent no.3 with its copy addressed to the petitioner no.2 calling upon the persons to appear before the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Jhansi Division, Jhansi (respondent no.2) to show cause as to why the certificate of registration of society be not cancelled in exercise of power under Section 12-D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 of the Act as registration of a society, having name similar to an earlier registered society, has been obtained.

¶4It is contended that though the petitioner no.1 association/society is different from respondent no.3 association/society and there is no similarity in between the two names, the Assistant Registrar has proceeded to make various observations in the order impugned and has cancelled the same by invoking Section 3(2) (a) and (b) read with Section 12-D (1)

(c) of the Act, whereas none of such provisions stands attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶5Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of availability of alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Commissioner of the Division under Section 12-D of the Act. He has also addressed the Court on the merits of the order impugned and supports the same.

¶6Though learned counsel for the petitioner submits that existence of alternative remedy is not an absolute bar in entertainment of writ petition, considering the fact that the order impugned was passed after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner nor is the order impugned without jurisdiction, but the submission is that powers under certain clauses/ sub-clauses of the Act have been wrongly exercised and grounds raised in defence have not been properly considered, in the opinion of the Court, statutory remedy of appeal would come in the way of the petitioner at least in the present set of facts and circumstances.

¶7The writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:-

(i) The petitioner may file an appeal against the order impugned before the Commissioner of the Division along with certified copy of this order, by the end of November, 2023 and in the event the appeal shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

(ii) The Commissioner shall decide the appeal after providing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the respondent no.3 on or before 28.02.2024. Order Date :- 8.11.2023 AKShukla/- High Court of Judicature at Allahabad