Writ Petition Challenging Prescribed Authority’s Order Setting Aside Society Election and Directing Fresh Polls Dismissed

The petitioner, Virendra Pal Singh, claimed to be the duly elected President of ‘Chauhan Sabha Samiti’, a registered society, following an election held on 20.04.2025.

The election process was initiated via a General House meeting on 13.04.2025 and a public notice on 17.04.2025.

Dispute arose regarding the validity of this election, leading to proceedings before the Prescribed Authority under the Societies Registration Act.

On 13.05.2026, the Prescribed Authority/SDM, Kashipur, set aside the election dated 20.04.2025 and directed respondent no. 2 to hold fresh elections.

The petitioner challenged this order via a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, arguing that the SDM overstepped his jurisdiction by adjudicating disputed questions of fact and misinterpreting the society's bye-laws.

1. Whether the Prescribed Authority/SDM acted within its statutory jurisdiction under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, in setting aside the election and ordering a fresh poll.

2. Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 to interfere with the order of the Prescribed Authority.

Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which empowers the Prescribed Authority to hear and decide doubts or disputes in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of a society.

Principles governing Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which limits judicial interference to cases involving jurisdictional errors, manifest illegality, or perversity.

The Court evaluated the petitioner’s contention that the SDM lacked the authority to adjudicate complex factual disputes regarding the interpretation of bye-laws.

The Court found that the SDM had considered the material on record and the specific provisions of the society’s bye-laws to identify irregularities in the election held on 20.04.2025.

The Court reasoned that since the dispute involved rival claims and potential procedural lapses, the SDM’s decision to mandate fresh elections fell within the proper exercise of power under Section 25(1) to resolve electoral "doubts".

The Court emphasized that there was no "manifest illegality" or "jurisdictional error" in the SDM’s approach that would warrant the High Court’s intervention.

The Court noted that a fresh electoral process was the most effective way to ensure the "smooth functioning of the society" and protect the interests of its members.

It held that the Prescribed Authority did not exceed its jurisdiction and that fresh elections were necessary to resolve the management dispute.

The Court directed the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Udham Singh Nagar, to ensure that the election process is concluded expeditiously, preferably within two months, in accordance with the society's bye-laws.