Shri Ram Mulakh Darbar v. Govt Of NCT Of Delhi And ORS

$~103 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 4064/2025 SHRI RAM MULAKH DARBAR .....Petitioner Through:

None.

versus GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI AND ORS .....Respondents Through:

Mr. Abhinav Singh and Mr. Karan Ahuja, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 08.04.2025

O R D E R

1.

The petitioner, Shri Ram Mulakh Darbar Society, is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, with registration no. S/17882/2017. It is submitted that the decision-making of the said society is governed by its constitution, particularly Rule 15 thereof, which outlines the process for election and succession of the spiritual head (Pradhan Yogacharya).

2.

It is submitted that upon the demise of Swami Devi Dayal Ji Maharaj, the spiritual head of the society, on 01.08.1998, a power vacuum was created. Instead of following the constitutional procedure of electing a successor through the Executive Committee, Madan Lal, the son of Swami Devi Dayal Ji, unlawfully declared himself as the Pradhan Yogacharya. It is submitted that Madan Lal was never even a member of the society. 3.

It is submitted that Madan Lal, in collusion with several outsiders, hatched a conspiracy to usurp control of the society and its assets. It is submitted that he created forged documents and fake resolutions, claiming that he was elected as Pradhan Yogacharya. It is submitted that these The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

fraudulent documents were fabricated on forged letterheads bearing incorrect registration numbers (e.g., S-3550) and were further submitted to the Registrar of Societies.

4.

It is further submitted that Madan Lal's actions were facilitated by officials in the Registrar's office, particularly Sh. H.K. Meena (Registrar) and Sh. Jagmohan Tyagi (Assistant Registrar, now Administrative Officer). It is submitted that these officers illegally entertained, accepted, and acted upon the forged submissions without verifying the authenticity or legitimacy of the documents.

5.

It is contended that two fake resolutions dated 30.08.1998 and 18.10.1998 were fraudulently presented by Madan Lal, claiming he had been elected as head of the society. These were submitted after an unreasonable delay (1 year and 18 months respectively) but were accepted by the Registrar's office.

6.

It is submitted that despite having access to the genuine list of Executive Committee members from 1988-1999, Registrar endorsed the backdated, forged resolutions submitted by Madan Lal. It is submitted that, a resolution dated 27.09.1998, electing Shri Sham Lal as Pradhan Yogacharya by legitimate members, was ignored.

7.

It is submitted that H.K. Meena, in his letter dated 13.08.1999, wrongfully declared the Executive Committee list submitted by the petitioner as non-genuine, without any authority or verification. 8.

It is also submitted that taking advantage of the letter dated 13.08.1999 of Registrar, the aforesaid Madan Lal opened fresh and new account in the Punjab National Bank, Maya Puri, Haridwar ·and Punjab State Co-operative Bank,Sector 30-A, Chandigarh in the name of petitioner The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

by using a forged letter head.

9.

Consequently, the petitioner filed a formal representation on 19.03.2018 to the Director of Vigilance, requesting investigation into the acts of corruption and misuse of authority by Sh. H.K. Meena and Sh. Jagmohan Tyagi (then Assistant Registrar, now Administrative Officer). 10.

It is submitted that despite repeated emails and reminders sent by the petitioner, no action has been taken by the Directorate of Vigilance, and the genuine grievances of the society remain unaddressed. 11.

In the above background, the petitioner has filed the present petition. The limited relief sought by the petitioner in the present petition is that the concerned respondents be directed to decide the representation dated 19.03.2018 submitted by the petitioner to the Director, Vigilance, read with the subsequent reminders referred to in the petition. 12.

Learned counsel for the respondents, who appears on advance notice, submits on instructions that the respondents are in the process of considering the representation of the petitioner and the same shall be considered and disposed of by the concerned SDM, Headquarters, within a period of 10 weeks from today.

13.

Let a reasoned order be passed by the concerned SDM, Headquarters, under intimation to the petitioner.

14.

The present petition is disposed of in the above terms. 15.

It is made clear that this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court as regards merits of the allegations made by the petitioner.

SACHIN DATTA, J APRIL 8, 2025/r The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.