Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/403/2025 of METROPOLIS RESIDENT WELFARE ASSOCIATION Vs REGISTRAR FIRMS SOCIETIES AND CHITS on 11 August 2026
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA AND HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY 11TH AUGUST, 2026 SPECIAL APPEAL No. 403 of 2025 1: Metropolis Resident Welfare Association --Appellant Versus 1: Registrar Firms Societies And
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA
AND
HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY
11TH AUGUST, 2026
SPECIAL APPEAL No. 403 of 2025
1: Metropolis Resident Welfare Association
--Appellant
Versus
1: Registrar Firms Societies And Chits
2: Deputy Registrar
--Respondents
Counsel for the appellant.
: Mr. Aditya Singh, learned counsel.
Counsel for respondent no. 1.
: Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, learned counsel.
Counsel for respondent no. 2.
: Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand.
JUDGMENT : (per Shri Manoj Kumar Gupta, C.J.)
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. The present appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 17.11.2025 passed in WPMS/1402/2025, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Dehradun dated 13.01.2025, and the consequential order issued by the Deputy Registrar on 12.02.2025 to the same effect, as well as the order dated 06.05.2025, whereby the Tehsildar, Udham Singh Nagar convened a meeting of the residents of the Society, has been dismissed.
2. The appellant is a resident welfare Society of homebuyers of Metropolis City. It is registered under the Societies Registration Act. As per the by-laws of the society, there was a cap of 100 on the maximum number of members of the Society, although there were around 1600 occupants. Consequently, when complaints were filed by the residents that they were not being made members of the Society, the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits seems to have issued direction to the appellant to amend the by-laws of the Society. The said part of the direction given by the Registrar has not been interfered with by the learned Single Judge, observing that all the residents/ shopkeepers of the project are entitled to be the members of the appellant-Society, and the cap of maximum number of members was found to be unsustainable in law.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge erred in examining the said issue, inasmuch as, the Society itself had amended its by-laws and the same were also duly approved by the Registrar.
4. Even if we accept the said factual position, it would in no manner have any adverse impact upon the judgment under challenge.
5. The second submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that election of the appellant-Society was held in the year 2023, and as per by-laws of the Society, the term of the appellant-Society being five years, the direction issued by the Registrar for holding fresh elections was illegal.
6. We observe that, along with the writ petition, no material has been filed to show how elections were held in the year 2023, and whether the list of elected office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Society was ever filed before the Registrar, as required under Section 4 of the Act. In fact, there is admission of the appellant in the affidavit filed by it at the time of seeking amendment in the by- laws that because of lack of knowledge, the compliance of Section 4 of the Act was not made.
7. As the fact that there were much more residents/ shopkeepers then the members in the Society, and the cap under the by-laws has been found to be illegal, therefore, the legality of the alleged election of 2023 also becomes questionable.
8. Be that as it may, we need not express any final opinion on the same, inasmuch as, we are informed that, after induction of new members, fresh election had already taken place. The Committee so elected is stated to be managing the affairs of the Society.
9. Consequently, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge, or the order issued by the Registrar directing the appellant to hold the elections.
10. The appeal fails and is dismissed.
11. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.
______________________ MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, C.J.
___________________ SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 11th August, 2026 Rahul
RAHUL PRAJAPA TI Digitally signed by RAHUL PRAJAPATI DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=aa4fa3bee6691397758b14516ed3e66e61bf 4c848741983ed8c39e4145cf1dab, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=303B55CC3063D34AC45BF8A192FCA D15C390A1AAD7B39857D2540AE4C28A4898, cn=RAHUL PRAJAPATI Date: 2026.08.12 13:21:12 +05'30'