Dismissed¶¶10

Shri Virendra Kumar Sarraf @ Pillu v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC27 Feb 2025WRIC/3084/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition dismissed: challenge to rejection of objection regarding recognition of committee of management election. Bye-laws never approved by Vice-Chancellor, so permission for alteration not required. Petition not maintainable at instance of solitary member after repeated re-elections of outgoing committee.

What did the court decide?

Where the bye-laws of the committee of management were never approved by the Vice-Chancellor, the requirement of obtaining prior permission for any alteration under Clause 13.05 of the University Statutes does not arise. ¶¶8

Shri Virendra Kumar Sarraf @ Pillu vs State of U.P. and 6 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27660-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3084 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shri Virendra Kumar Sarraf @ Pillu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prateek Rai

¶4

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

¶5

This writ petition is directed against orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor of the respondent University; whereby petitioner's objection in respect of grant of recognition to the election of the committee of management of S.S.V. (P.G.) College, Hapur, has been rejected.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bye-laws of the committee of management of the institution has been altered without obtaining any prior permission of the ViceChancellor as is required in accordance with the Clause 13.05 of the Statutes of the University.

¶7

The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Chancellor after noticing the petitioner's objection itself that the bye-laws of the committee of management was never got approved by the Vice-Chancellor.

¶8

In the event the bye-laws itself are not approved the question of obtaining any permission of the Vice-Chancellor before any change is made in it will apparently not arise. Changes in the bye-laws are allegedly made from 2000 to 2020 and several elections are held, thereafter. The Chancellor has otherwise observed that periodical election has been held in the year 2016, 2019 and 2022, as per bye-laws of the society. The order also records that only after petitioner has lost the election that he has raised a claim and that there is otherwise no dispute with regard to election of the committee of management of the institution itself.

¶9

Though, learned counsel for the petitioner states orally that petitioner had not contested the election, but no such pleading is shown to exist in the writ petition. Even otherwise, at the instance of solitary member, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition, particularly when the outgoing committee has been re-elected in subsequent elections.

¶10

The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Ranjeet Sahu

¶12

Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shri Virendra Kumar Sarraf @ Pillu v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Virendra Kumar Sarraf @ Pillu v. State of U.P. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Amit Kumar Rai and Another Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Pinki Singh vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shitu vs the State of U.P. and 3 Others

Krishan Gopal vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Rajkuamri vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ashok Kumar Vishwakarma vs State of U.P. and 4 Others