Yunus Siddiqui and 8 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1128 of 2025

¶3

Yunus Siddiqui and 8 others

¶4

…..Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of U.P. and 3 others

¶7

…..Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashok Khare, (Sr. Advocate) Siddharth Khare, Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rajiv Singh S.C., G.K. Singh (Sr. Advocate), Mohammad Ali Ausaf

¶8

With

¶9

Special Appeal No.1129 of 2025

¶10

Committee of Management, Masdarul Uloom Education Society Madarsa Uloom-asdaquia, Purani Chakiya and another

¶11

…..Appellant(s)

¶12

Versus

¶13

State of UP and 3 others

¶14

…..Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashok Khare, (Sr. Advocate) Siddharth Khare, Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rajiv Singh S.C., G.K. Singh (Sr. Advocate), Mohammad Ali Ausaf

¶15

With

¶16

Special Appeal No.1146 of 2025

¶17

Committee of Management, Masdarul Uloom Educational Society and another

…..Appellant(s)

Versus

2

SPLA No. - 1128 of 2025

¶22

State of UP and 3 others

¶23

	…	..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)	: Ashok Khare, Siddharth Khare,	(Sr. Advocate)
Counsel for Respondent(s) Chief Justice's Court	: Rajiv Singh S.C., Advocate), Moha	G.K. Singh (Sr. mmad Ali Ausaf

¶24

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

¶25

Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents in all the three appeals.

¶26

All these appeals raise challenge to the order dated 15.10.2025 whereby learned Single Judge has disposed of three writ petitions being Writ C No.24581 of 2020 (Yunus Siddiqui and 8 others v. State of U.P. and 3 others), Writ C No.25902 of 2020 (Committee of Management Masdarul Uloom Educational Society and another v. State of U.P. and others) and Writ C No.34615 of 2023 (Committee of Management Masdarul Uloom Educational Society and another v. State of U.P. and others). The order impugned reads as under:-

¶27

“1. Heard Sri Arvind Srivastava, Sri Namit Srivastava on behalf of petitioners, Sri G.K.Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Mohammad Ali Ausaf and Sri Pradeep Verma on behalf of respondents.

¶28

In the present case, array of parties is the legal impediment to challenge the elections or the list confirmed under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, therefore, all these writ petitions are disposed with liberty to the petitioners either to file a fresh writ petition after curing the aforesaid legal impediments or to take alternative remedy as available under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

¶29

Court takes note of a judgment passed by this Court in Special Appeal No.666 of 2016, Azsiz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, decided on 20.10.2016. ”

¶30

Since the controversy involved in all the three appeals and the writ petitions is common, all are being decided by this common judgement.

¶31

3

¶32

SPLA No. - 1128 of 2025

¶33

Brief facts giving rise to the controversy between rival claimants of Masdarul Uloom Educational Society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (‘the Act’), are that its office bearers were elected on 20.11.2011 wherein one Sabihuddin Khan was elected as Secretary. Papers were forwarded to the Registrar for exercise of powers under Section 4-B of the Act. On 08.03.2013, respondent-Atiqur Rehman submitted an application before the Registrar along with resolution of General Body dated 25.02.2013 indicating acceptance of resignation allegedly tendered by Sabihuddin Khan and it was prayed that only that list be registered wherein Atiqur Rehman had been shown as Secretary. Thereafter, on 17.04.2013, a list of office bearers pertaining to year 2013-14, submitted by Atiqur Rehman was registered.

¶34

When a communication was made by District Minority Welfare Officer to the Assistant Registrar about change in the office bearership, Sabihuddin Khan came to know about holding of elections by Atiqur Rehman, whereupon he moved an application before the Registrar based upon his list of office bearers pertaining to the year 2013-14. The matter was contested in between Sabihuddin Khan and Atiqur Rehman and, ultimately, it formed subject matter of two writ petitions being Writ C No.62989 of 2013 and Writ C No.1245 of 2014 which were decided on 28.05.2014 whereby the matter was referred to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act.

¶35

Before the Prescribed Authority, parties put their rival claims and since a First Information Report was also registered in relation to genuineness of the resignation allegedly tendered by Sabihuddin Khan, a request was made from the Prescribed Authority to summon Forensic Expert’s Report that was prepared in the criminal case. The said application was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 23.04.2015 and by his another order dated 24.04.2015, claim of office bearership was decided holding Atiqur Rehman as the lawfully elected Secretary of the Society.

¶36

4

¶37

SPLA No. - 1128 of 2025

¶38

Challenging the said orders dated 23.04.2015 and 24.04.2015, the appellants filed Writ C No.41188 of 2015 which was allowed by order dated 28.05.2018, the orders impugned therein were quashed and the matter was remanded to the Prescribed Authority to decide the same afresh with certain observations/directions. For a ready reference, operative portion of the order dated 28.05.2018 is reproduced as under :-

¶39

“In the result, the writ petition is allowed . The orders dated 23.4.2015 and 24.4.2015 are quashed.

¶40

The matter is now remanded back to the Prescribed Authority which shall decide the matter afresh. If the resignation is found to be correct then, of course, the election which were held in 2016 would continue. But if the resignation letter is found to be forged, then the Registrar shall proceed to hold the election under Section 25(2) of the Act. This exercise shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. “

¶41

The aforesaid order of the Writ Court was assailed directly before the Hon’ble Supreme Court by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) (‘SLP’) No.24011 of 2018 wherein an interim order was passed on 14.09.2018 staying operation of the order dated 28.05.2018. During the pendency of SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, subsequent elections were held in the year 2020 wherein also the respondents’ Committee was elected. When the factum of subsequent elections was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the SLP was decided by order dated 07.07.2023 which reads as under:-

¶42

“1. IA No. 134422/2019 is allowed, at the risk of the petitioner.

¶43

In view of the subsequent developments i.e. fresh elections having been held, we find that nothing survives for adjudication in present petition.

¶44

We are informed that challenging the result of the aforementioned elections, respondent Nos.5, 6 and 7 have also filed a writ petition before the High Court.

¶45

We clarify that we have not considered anything on the merits of the present petition and all the questions are left open to be decided by the High Court in the writ proceedings.

¶46

We request the High Court to dispose of the petition expeditiously.

¶47

The special leave petition is, accordingly, disposed of.

¶48

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”

¶49

5

¶50

SPLA No. - 1128 of 2025

¶51

The Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly observed that in view of subsequent developments, i.e. fresh elections having been held, nothing survives for adjudication and, further, taking note of the fact that subsequent elections have also been challenged by the present appellants by filing a writ petition before the High Court, a request was made to this Court to dispose of the petitions expeditiously leaving all questions open to be decided in the writ proceedings.

¶52

As far as challenge to the subsequent elections, as observed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the same was in the nature of Writ C No.24581 of 2020 and Writ C No.25902 of 2020 filed by the appellants wherein a prayer was made for quashing of the order dated 09.09.2020 along with list of office bearers with further prayer for a decision at the end of the Assistant Registrar on the membership dispute under Section 4-B of the Act and restraining Atiqur Rehman from acting as Secretary.

¶53

While the said two writ petitions were pending, the appellants, after SLP was decided on 07.07.2023, filed third writ petition being Writ C No.34615 of 2023 making prayer to quash elections dated 15.10.2021 with an identical prayer for decision by the Assistant Registrar qua dispute of membership under Section 4-B of the Act. However, there is one feature of Writ C No.34615 of 2023 and that is to the effect that though challenge was sought to be laid to elections dated 15.10.2021, only a list of office bearers elected therein was annexed as Annexure No.18 to the writ petition, however, in the index of the writ petition, it was the order dated 09.09.2020 passed by the Assistant Registrar that was stated to be ‘impugned order’. This feature is being noted herein based upon the submissions made during the course of hearing of these matters.

¶54

All the aforesaid three writ petitions being Writ C No.24581 of 2020, 25902 of 2020 and 34615 of 2023 have been disposed of by the learned Single Judge by order dated 15.10.2025 (already reproduced hereinbefore) with an observation that array of parties is legal impediment to challenge the elections or list confirmed under Section 4-

¶55

6

¶56

SPLA No. - 1128 of 2025

¶57

B and, therefore, liberty was granted to the petitioners (appellants) either to file a fresh writ petition after curing the aforesaid legal impediments or to take alternative remedy as available under the Act. Learned Single Judge also took note of a judgement passed by this Court in Special Appeal No.666 of 2016 (Aziz Ahmad v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 20.10.2016.

¶58

Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants, has made vehement submissions that the main controversy formed subject matter of Writ C No.41188 of 2015 decided on 28.05.2018 whereby the matter was referred to the Prescribed Authority and though the order remained suspended for a period of 5 years under the interim order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, when ultimately the SLP was decided on 07.07.2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court left all the questions to be decided by the High Court in the pending writ petitions, however, learned Single Judge has not decided anything by the order impugned and, therefore, the same is not sustainable.

¶59

Further submission has been made that there was no factual or legal impediment to raise challenge either to the elections or the list confirmed under Section 4-B of the Act and reference made to the order of Special Appellate Bench in the case of Aziz Ahmad (supra) was misplaced, inasmuch as, the said case had arisen from a situation where challenge was laid to an order finalizing membership of the General Body of the Society at the instance of a single member and the said special appeal was dismissed on the ground that persons whose crucial rights were directly involved, had not been arrayed as parties. Submission is that in the present case, challenge was laid not by a single individual, rather by nine (9) members vide Writ C No.24581 of 2020 and by the Committee of Management in remaining two writ petitions and, therefore, learned Single Judge has committed an error by not deciding the dispute on merits.

¶60

It is further submitted by Shri Khare that unless genuineness of the resignation allegedly tendered by Sabihuddin Khan is examined by the

¶61

7

¶62

SPLA No. - 1128 of 2025

¶63

Prescribed Authority based upon the material placed before him, no sanctity can be attached to any subsequent action or proceedings undertaken by the rival claimants and, therefore, either the writ petitions should be restored to their original status for decision on merits or, in the alternative, matter may be referred to the Prescribed Authority for decision in accordance with law pursuant to the directions issued by the Writ Court in its order dated 28.05.2018 passed in Writ C No.41188 of 2015.

¶64

Per contra , learned Standing Counsel has made submissions that the learned Single Judge has already left it open for the appellants either to file a fresh writ petition for the reason that all the members whose list had been approved were not impleaded as parties, or to avail alternative remedy under the Act and, therefore, the appellants are not remediless and, hence, the orders impugned in these appeals do not call for any interference.

¶65

Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the private contesting respondents submitted that all the writ petitions have become infructuous by efflux of time for the reason that the prayers contained therein cannot be examined now in view of the fact that not only elections were held in 2020 but also subsequently and no challenge having been laid to the same, order of the learned Single Judge granting liberty to the appellants to file a fresh writ petition is appropriate in the facts of the case. Further submission has been made that the dispute qua genuineness of resignation tendered by Sabihuddin Khan cannot now be decided by any Authority or Court after death of Sabihuddin Khan which has occurred on 08.02.2019.

¶66

It is further submitted that the list dated 09.09.2020 forms part of the order passed by the Assistant Registrar wherein validity has been attached to induction of various members enrolled by the contesting respondents and unless all such members were impleaded as party respondents in either of the three writ petitions, no adjudication ex-parte to them could be made and, therefore, observations made by the learned

¶67

8

¶68

SPLA No. - 1128 of 2025

¶69

Single Judge as regards existence of legal impediment qua challenge to the elections or the list under Section 4-B, is perfectly justified and no interference is warranted in the matter.

¶70

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶71

There is no dispute between the parties that subsequent elections from time to time have been held qua the office bearership of the Society. In light of this fact, if we peruse the prayers made in all the three writ petitions decided by the learned Single Judge, we find no substantial challenge laid to the subsequent elections. Therefore, in absence of any material either before the writ Court or before us, we cannot decide validity of the elections held after decision in Writ C No.41188 of 2015, which formed subject matter of SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶72

As to what would be the effect of the order dated 07.07.2023 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court with reference to the contentions raised by Shri Khare that the writ petitions be decided on merits or the matter be referred to the Prescribed Authority in terms of Writ Court’s order dated 28.05.2018, we find that while two writ petitions being Writ C No.24581 of 2020 and 25902 of 2020 were instituted during pendency of SLP, the third Writ C No. 34615 of 2023 was filed in September, 2023 i.e. two months after the SLP was decided, however, interestingly, no prayer was made for making reference to the Prescribed Authority and a cursory challenge to the elections dated 15.10.2021 without any reference to election proceedings was made.

¶73

A careful perusal of the entire Writ C No.34615 of 2023 would reveal that the attack was on the list registered on 09.09.2020 and a subsequent list of elected office bearers pertaining to year 2020-21 was annexed as ‘Annexure No.18’ to the writ petition. The nature of pleadings, grounds and prayers contained in the writ petitions do not impress the Court regarding a proper or substantial challenge to the

¶74

9

¶75

SPLA No. - 1128 of 2025

¶76

subsequent elections of 2020-21 and no other petition is before us wherein further elections are under challenge.

¶77

Above being the position, we are not inclined to accept the argument or prayer which is now being advanced before us that adjudication be made by the Prescribed Authority in terms of the order dated 28.05.2018 passed in Writ C No.41188 of 2015, inasmuch as, the appellants were never precluded from making such prayer in any of the three writ petitions, which were filed subsequent to the order dated 28.05.2018. Though, it is true that the order dated 28.05.2018 remained suspended pending SLP, even after the SLP was decided on 07.07.2023, it was open for the appellants to file a petition confining their prayer either in relation to the subsequent elections with full vehemence or to submit a reference before the Prescribed Authority after satisfying statutory requirements or to make a prayer from this Court for making such reference. No such step was taken, rather direction was sought for the Assistant Registrar to decide the membership dispute by banking upon past proceedings which had formed subject matter of Writ C No.41188 of 2015.

¶78

In such view of the matter, if the learned Single Judge has found himself in a position where improper array of parties and/or other aspects are operating as legal impediments to challenge the elections or the lists and, therefore, has granted liberty to the appellants either to file a fresh writ petition after curing legal impediments or to take alternative remedy as available under the law, we are not inclined to take a different view of the matter.

¶79

Consequently, we do not find any merit in all the appeals. The same are, accordingly, dismissed .

¶80

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

¶81

January 13, 2026 Jyotsana

¶82

Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Yunus Siddiqui and 8 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

Yunus Siddiqui and 8 Others 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

Abhay Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Committee of Management Ishwari Narayan Sanskrit Pathshala Samiti and Another vs State of Up and 5 Others

Ashok Kumar Gupta vs State of U.P. and Another

Pradeep Kumar Pandey (Advocate) vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Union of India and 2 Others vs Santosh Kumar Sharma and Another

Committee of Management, Masdarul Uloom Education Society Madarsa Uloom-Asdaquia, Purani Chakiya a vs State of Up and 3 Others