Committee of Management and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

1

¶2

Special Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Committee of Management and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others

¶3

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:106096-DB

¶4

Chief Justice's Court

¶5

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 155 of 2025

¶6

Appellant :- Committee of Management and another Respondent :- State of U.P. and 3 others Counsel for Appellant :- Rahul Kumar Tiwari, Sandeep Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Ankit Gaur, Adarsh Singh, C.S.C., Indra Raj Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel, who, though not a party to the writ petition, had appeared before the learned Single Judge as caveator.

¶9

The instant appeal has been filed by petitioners of Writ-C No. 3985 of 2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has rejected the stay application and directed for exchange of affidavits in the main matter.

¶10

The facts of the case are that the petitioner-appellant no.1, being Committee of Management of V.K. Higher Secondary School, Kurshi Kheda, Kanpur Dehat (in short ‘the Institution’) and petitioner-appellant no.2 being its Manager, based upon the elections conducted by them, filed the said writ petition with the contention that the Institution being a recognized and aided educational institution, on which provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in short ‘the Act, 1921’) and U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of

¶11

2

¶12

Special Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Committee of Management and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others

¶13

Teachers and Other Employees) Act, 1971 (in short ‘the Act, 1971’), are applicable, has its approved Scheme of Administration and is run by a Society. The elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution were held on 17.11.2019, which were recognized by the District Inspector of Schools (in short ‘DIOS’) on 02.12.2019 attesting the signatures of the appellant no. 2 as Manager. When the term of the Committee, i.e. five years, was going to expire, the appellants moved an application before the DIOS seeking to appoint an Observer for the purposes of holding elections. The DIOS, by issuing letter dated 04.12.2024, called upon the appellants to submit an attested list of the members of the Society. The letter was replied by the appellants on 06.12.2024.

¶14

The case of the appellants is that when no Observer was appointed by the DIOS, the appellants proceeded to hold elections of the Committee of Management and, accordingly, held the same on 15.12.2024 and when the papers were submitted before the DIOS for according approval to the list of office bearers elected as such, an order dated 31.12.2024 was passed by the DIOS holding the constitution of the Committee of Management as not lawful with a further direction to hold fresh elections after making a request for appointment of Observer, failing which, a direction to operate accounts of the Institution by single hand operation would be issued in terms of Section 5(1) of the Act, 1971. By another order dated 09.01.2025, direction was issued by the DIOS to operate accounts by single hand operation.

¶15

The said orders dated 31.12.2024 and 09.01.2025 were challenged before the learned Single Judge by filing Writ-C No. 3985 of 2025 with a prayer to stay operation of the said orders, however, the learned Single Judge has rejected the stay application

¶16

3

¶17

Special Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Committee of Management and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others

¶18

and, after inviting response from the respondents, fixed 10.04.2025 in the main matter.

¶19

Challenging the order impugned, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submits that the learned Single Judge has rejected the stay application by observing that by an interim order, no final relief can granted, although, in the facts of the case, the interim relief was claimed in aid of final relief and, in the event of non-grant of such interim relief, the petition would be rendered infructuous. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Benedict Denis Kinny Vs. Tulip Brian Miranda and others: (2021) 12 SCC 780 , especially paragraph no. 51 thereof, it is urged that the High Court, in exercise of power of judicial review, has every jurisdiction to direct maintenance of status quo so that, by lapse of time, the petition may not be rendered infructuous and interim orders can always be passed in aid of final relief claimed.

¶20

Placing reliance upon another judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deoraj Vs. State of Maharashtra and others: (2004) 4 SCC 699 , it is submitted that when withholding of interim relief would tantamount to dismissal of main petition itself and a very strong prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury in favour applicant exist, the same may persuade the Court to grant interim relief.

¶21

By referring to the order impugned in the writ petition wherein the direction for single hand operation has been issued on the premise that managing body of the society is disputed, learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in Committee of Management, Jai Kisan Inter Inter College, Lalpur, Basti and another Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2014

¶22

4

¶23

Special Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Committee of Management and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others

¶24

(8) ADJ 89 , wherein it has been held that mere pendency of a dispute amongst rival claimants before the Prescribed Authority under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short ‘the Act, 1860’) cannot be made a ground for the Regional Level Committee to lay its hands off from adjudicating rival claims and pass appropriate orders as per Section 16-A (7) of the Act, 1921.

¶25

As far as the aspect of Observer is concerned, learned counsel, by referring to the Government Order dated 27.10.2023, made submissions that the Observer can be sent by the DIOS in maximum seven days period of time and, in the event of failure on his part to do so, the Committee of Management would be well within its rights to conduct elections which cannot be annulled only on the ground that the elections were not held under the supervision of Observer. Submission is that once the appellants applied for appointing Observer by submitting application dated 12.11.2024 and no Observer was appointed by the DIOS within seven days, elections held on 15.12.2024 could neither be annulled nor could be held to be not according to law and, therefore, the appellants had a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience lay in their favour and since the Committee was continuing since before, the orders impugned in the writ petition were a clear obstruction in exercise of managerial functions by the Committee and, hence, prayer for stay was rightly made but has been wrongly turned down by the learned Single Judge.

¶26

Per contra, learned counsel for the caveator submits that the elections held by the appellants were in teeth of specific clauses of the approved Scheme of Administration. By referring to Clause 11 thereof, it is urged that process to hold elections would begin

¶27

5

¶28

Special Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Committee of Management and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others

¶29

three months prior to expiry of the term of Committee of Management, whereas, in the present case, admittedly, the term of the previously elected Committee pursuant to elections dated 17.11.2019 came to an end on 16.11.2024, therefore, the process should have begun three months prior thereto, i.e. in August, 2024, but the appellants proceeded to conduct elections in contravention of the said requirement of Clause 11 and, therefore, no rights can be claimed on the basis of unlawful elections.

¶30

Further submission has been made that Clause 11 contains mandatory requirement of holding elections under the supervision of an Observer on the date and place so fixed by him but, in the present case, the appellants, without waiting for appointment of Observer, conducted the elections at their own which cannot be granted any recognition.

¶31

As far as the Government Order dated 27.10.2023 relied upon by the appellants, submission has been made that the said Government Order itself clearly provides that in case the Scheme of Administration of the Institution contains a provision for taking previous permission from the DIOS, the Scheme would remain effective, meaning thereby that elections could not be held in absence of Observer about which the Scheme contained specific provision.

¶32

Further submission has been made that there was a reference made by the Deputy Registrar to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860. The reference order dated 09.12.2024 mentions about another elections dated 28.11.2024 and, therefore, once the Society itself is disputed in terms of reference made, the DIOS was justified in passing the orders impugned in the writ petition.

¶33

6

¶34

Special Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Committee of Management and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others

¶35

Reliance has been placed on a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of U.P. Vs. Ram Sukhi Devi: Civil Appeal No. 6510 of 2004 , decided on 05.10.2004, to contend that the relief of final nature cannot be granted at interim stage and submission has been made that the order of learned Single Judge may not be interfered with.

¶36

Meeting the submissions made by learned counsel for the caveator, learned counsel for the appellants submits that though there was a dispute regarding office bearership of the Society running the Institution, the same has already been decided in favour of the appellants after filing of the writ petition in question and there was never any dispute regarding Committee of Management of the Institution and, hence, taking aid of the alleged dispute regarding office bearership of the Society, order of single hand operation qua Committee of the Institution, is wholly uncalled for and, therefore, the appellants have a case for grant of interim relief.

¶37

We have considered the submissions made and have gone through the material available on record.

¶38

There is no dispute about applicability of the approved Scheme of Administration governing the Institution which contains a specific Clause 11 as regards the election proceedings. The said clause reads as under :-

¶39

“11- चुनाव प ्र क�याः ्रि - प्रबन्धसक्रि�ति� का काय�काल स�ाप्त होने पर �ीन �ाह पूव� ही चुनाव कराये जाने की प्रक्रि�या प्रारम्भ कर दी जायेगी इस हे�ु प्रबन्धसक्रि�ति� नयी काय�कारिरणी के गठन हे�ु साधारण सभा के सभापति� से अनुरोध करेगी। साधारण सभा के सभापति� प्रबन्धसक्रि�ति� के अनुरोध पत्र को संलग्न कर�े हुये जिजला क्रिवद्यालय क्रिनरीक्षक से चुनाव हे�ु पय�वेक्षक की �ाँग करेंगे।

¶40

यक्रिद प्रबन्धसक्रि�ति� चुनाव कराये जाने हे�ु अनुरोधपत्र साधारण सभा के सभापति� को नहीं सौप�ी है �ो साधारण सभा के 1/3 सदस्यों के अनुरोध पर ही चुनाव हे�ु बैठक नहीं बुलायी जा�ी है �ो वह

¶41

7

¶42

Special Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Committee of Management and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others

¶43

जिजला क्रिवद्यालय क्रिनरीक्षक से चुनाव हे�ु अनुरोध कर सकेंगे। इन सदस्यों के अनुरोध पर जिजला क्रिवद्यालय क्रिनरीक्षक पय�वेक्षक क्रिनयुक्त कर�े हुये ति�थि=, स्=ान एवं स�य क्रिनधा�रिर� करेगा, जिजसकी सूचना साधारण सभा के सभापति� को देगा, बैठक �ें सभापति� की अनुपस्थिस्=� की दशा �ें चुनाव के स�य �ें उपस्थिस्=� सदस्य आपस �ें क्रि�लकर क्रिकसी 01 को बैठक का सभापति� बनायेंगे।

¶44

पुनश ्च : सपष ् ्ट ककया जा�ा है क ्रि क प ्रि त ्र ् येक दशा �े ं पबन ्र धसक ् �त ्रि � ि का चुनाव जजला क ि वद ्रि ्य ालय कनरीक ्रि ्ष क दारा क ्व नयुक ्रि पय�वेक ्त ्ष क की उपसस ्थि =� ् एवं कनयंत ्रि ण �े ्र ं कनधा�र ्रि र� त ि �थ ि = ि , स=ल एवं स�य पर ही होगा। ् "

¶45

From perusal of Clause 11 of the Scheme, it clearly reflects that election proceedings would begin three months prior to expiry of the term of previously elected Committee of Management and fresh elections can take place only under the supervision of the Observer appointed by the DIOS on the request of Committee of Management. In the instant case, the appellants sent a letter dated 27.11.2024 requesting the DIOS to send an Observer. The DIOS entertained the request and, by a communication dated 04.12.2024, called upon the appellants to provide a list of office bearers of year 2024-25 under the seal/certification made by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur. The said letter contained a clear stipulation that, in the event the requisite list was not provided within a period of one week, alongwith a further request to send Observer, action would be taken under appropriate provisions of the Act, 1921 and an order of single hand operation would also be passed under Section 5(1) of the Act, 1971.

¶46

Though it is true that the appellants responded to the aforesaid letter dated 04.12.2024 but relied upon the same list of office bearers, which was earlier produced by them explaining certain changes in the position of membership with a further recital that though the Deputy Registrar, by a communication dated 28.11.2024, had been requested for registering the list for the year

¶47

8

¶48

Special Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Committee of Management and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others

¶49

2024-25, the same was still not received.

¶50

It is reflected from the record and has also not been disputed before us that while no registered list of office bearers was placed by the appellants before the DIOS, elections were held by the appellants on 15.12.2024 without there being an Observer appointed and sent by the DIOS. In this view of the matter, it has to be seen by this Court as to whether, in terms of a Government Order dated 27.10.2023 read with Clause 11 of the approved Scheme of Administration of the Institution, validity can be attached to the elections dated 15.12.2024, particularly when a dispute was also raised on behalf of the caveator that other requirements of Clause 11 regarding initiation of proceedings for holding elections at appropriate time, were also not complied with by the appellants.

¶51

In this view of the matter, we find that various disputed questions of facts are involved in the matter and, therefore, once the learned Single Judge formed an opinion while considering the stay application that grant of interim relief would amount to granting final relief and, then, the learned Single Judge proceeded to fix a date after inviting response from the respondents and the caveator, declining to grant interim relief in the aforesaid background of factual position, cannot be faulted.

¶52

At this stage, we may observe that since the matter is pending before the writ court where affidavits may or may not have been exchanged so far, it would not be appropriate for this Court to express any further opinion on the merits of the rival claims as any observation made by us would certainly prejudice the case of either of the parties. We are, at the moment, concerned with validity of the order impugned before us, whereby the learned Single Judge

¶53

9

¶54

Special Appeal No. 155 of 2025 Committee of Management and another Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others

¶55

has declined to grant interim relief. As to what are further developments which might have taken place during the pendency of the writ petition, as argued by learned counsel for the appellants, and what is the nature of response to be furnished on behalf of the respondents of the writ petition and the caveator, all such matters being open to be agitated before the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that the order impugned neither calls for any interference nor are we required to make any further deliberations in the matter.

¶56

Consequently, the appeal has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the parties to place before the learned Single Judge all the relevant material which they want to rely on and argue the matter finally. They may also request the writ court to fix an early date of hearing.

¶57

Order Date :- 7.7.2025 AKShukla/-

¶58

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶59

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Committee of Management and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Committee of Management and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S New Manoj Medical Store vs State of U.P and 2 Others

M/S Huma Scrap Traders vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another

Kaushal Kishore Lal Gautam vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Union of India and 3 Others vs Vimal Kumar Yadav and Another

Union of India and 3 Others vs Neeraj Prakash and Another

Shri Virendra Singh vs Union of India through the Secretary Ministry of Defence(Army) and 3 Others