Committee of Management Mpp Arya Kanya Inter College and Another vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1301 of 2025

¶3

Committee of Management M.P.P. Arya Kanya Inter College and another

¶4

.....Appellant(s)

¶5

Versus State of U.P. and 3 others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Durga Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Jagdish Pathak, S.C., Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi

¶6

Chief Justice's Court

¶7

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

¶8

Heard Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

¶9

The present intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 12.11.2025 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed four writ petitions being Writ-C Nos. 3829 of 2020, 53830 of 2015, 51267 of 2017 and 23375 of 2025.

¶10

The appellants have confined their challenge to dismissal of Writ-C No. 51267 of 2017, which stands reflected from the reliefs claimed in the memo of the present appeal wherein further prayer has been made to set aside the orders dated 24.06.2017 and 05.08.2017 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur (‘DIOS’), which were impugned in the said writ petition. Therefore, we would examine the challenge to the order impugned before us only with reference to the controversy involved in Writ-C No. 51267 of 2017 and not in relation to remaining three other writ petitions.

¶11

Writ-C No. 51267 of 2017 was filed by the appellants being aggrieved of the orders dated 24.06.2017 and 05.08.2017, both issued by DIOS, Gorakhpur. By the order dated 24.06.2017, signatures of one Utkarsh Pandey, through whom respondent no. 4 Committee of Management is

¶12

SPLA No. 1301 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

represented, were attested in the capacity of Manager of the Committee and by the order dated 05.08.2017 also, same attestation was held valid with reference to certain proceedings of two other writ petitions pending before the High Court.

¶15

Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition along with three other writ petitions taking note of pendency of a reference under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (‘the Act, 1860’) before the Prescribed Authority in pursuance of certain orders passed by this Court and a direction has been issued to the Prescribed Authority to decide the reference within a period of eight weeks. It has further been observed that all issues including whether the respondents are members of the concerned society, shall remain open.

¶16

Learned counsel for the appellants has made following submissions before us:-

¶17

(i) The Society was declared as defunct (time barred) on 24.12.2010 by an order passed by the Assistant Registrar, whereafter on 29.12.2010, 52 new members were inducted by the respondent no. 4, which could not be done and, therefore, the elections held by respondent no. 4 based upon the list of invalid members had no legal sanctity and, hence, attestation of signatures of the Manager so elected was bad.

¶18

(ii) By an order dated 02.03.2016, the Deputy Registrar attached validity to induction of 52 members, though the same was unlawful and, therefore, the appellants challenged the same by filing Writ-C No. 11194 of 2016, which was allowed by order dated 20.12.2016, whereby the order dated 02.03.2016 was quashed. Against the said order, aggrieved respondents filed Special Appeals No. 74 of 2017 and 75 of 2017, which were disposed of by order dated 08.02.2017 as not pressed and, therefore, once the membership of the persons inducted by respondent no. 4 stood discarded upto this Court, dismissal of writ petition merely on account of pendency of a reference

¶19

SPLA No. 1301 of 2025

¶20

3

¶21

under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 is not justified.

¶22

(iii) The reference under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 is not maintainable as the same can be entertained either on a reference made by the Assistant Registrar or by way of representation made by quorum provided under Section 25 but since the very membership of the persons inducted has been discarded upto this Court, pendency of reference and also directions issued by the learned Single Judge to the Prescribed Authority would amount to reopening of issues already decided upto this Court and, therefore the order passed by the learned Single Judge should be set aside.

¶23

Per contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that reference has been registered pursuant to order dated 20.12.2016 passed in Writ-C No. 11194 of 2016 and also order dated 08.02.2017 passed in Special Appeals No. 74 of 2017 and 75 of 2017 and, therefore, learned Single Judge has not erred in issuing direction for deciding the pending reference, hence, the order impugned does not call for any interference.

¶24

Shri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no. 4, has made following submissions:-

¶25

(i) Writ-C No. 51267 of 2017 had become infructuous by efflux of time on account of the fact that challenge was laid to attestation of signatures made in the year 2017 based upon which respondent no. 4 completed its term and subsequent elections were held in the year 2022, which still remain unchallenged and, therefore, at this stage, reliefs claimed in the writ petition have lost their significance and cannot be examined on merits.

¶26

(ii) Though order dated 02.03.2016 passed by the Deputy Registrar was quashed by this Court on a challenge made by the appellants in Writ-C No. 11194 of 2016, in the same order liberty was reserved for the contesting respondent to make

¶27

SPLA No. 1301 of 2025

¶28

4

¶29

appropriate reference under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860, which direction was reiterated while disposing of Special Appeals No. 74 of 2017 and 75 of 2017 by order dated 08.02.2017 and, therefore, learned Single Judge has not committed any error.

¶30

(iii) The issue of membership can always be decided in pending reference under Section 25 of the Act, 1860 and there being consistent directions of this Court in the present matter itself, long pendency of the reference has been curtailed by learned Single Judge by issuing a direction for disposal of reference within a period of eight weeks and, therefore, all issues including the issue of membership being open to be agitated before the Prescribed Authority, no interference is warranted in the order of the learned Single Judge.

¶31

(iv) When subsequent elections were held on 12.06.2022, the appellants filed Writ-C No. 32645 of 2022, which was disposed of permitting them to file objections before the DIOS against attestation of signatures based upon the elections dated 12.06.2022 and, therefore, the appellants are raising a stale claim based upon the attestation of signatures in the year 2017, which challenge cannot be entertained.

¶32

In rejoinder, Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that Writ-C No. 32645 of 2022 was filed without being aware of the fact that some elections in a clandestine manner were conducted by the contesting respondent on 12.06.2022 and prayer was made for restraining the DIOS from holding elections, however, when the factum of holding of elections dated 12.06.2022 came to the notice of the Court as well as appellants on 16.11.2022, the said writ petition was disposed of that very day permitting the appellants to file objections before the DIOS.

¶33

It is further submitted that since the subsequent elections dated 12.06.2022 were unlawful, the appellants filed an amendment application in January, 2024 in Writ-C No. 51267 of 2017 with a prayer to quash the

¶34

SPLA No. 1301 of 2025

¶35

5

¶36

elections dated 12.06.2022, however, the amendment application remained undisposed of either way and writ petition was dismissed on the ground of pendency of reference under Section 25 of the Act, 1860. Submission, therefore, is that the elections of 2022 were in continuation of the unlawful attestation of signatures in 2017 which was under challenge in the writ petition and, therefore, the amendment application should have been allowed and the writ petition should have been decided on its own merits, irrespective of the controversy raised in three other writ petitions.

¶37

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

¶38

It is not in dispute that the order dated 02.03.2016, whereby validity was attached to induction of 52 members by respondent no. 4, was set aside by this Court by order dated 20.12.2016 passed in Writ-C No. 11194 of 2016. The operative portion of the said order needs reproduction and is reproduced as under:-

¶39

“In view of the discussions aforesaid, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order passed by the Deputy Registrar, dated 2.3.2016, is quashed. Liberty is, however, reserved to the respondents to make appropriate reference under Section 25(1) of the Act,, on the strength of 1/4th members, which shall be dealt with, in accordance with law. In case, a valid reference under Section 25(1) is made by 1/4th members of the society, the same shall be dealt with, with all expedition.”

¶40

Special Appeals No. 74 of 2017 and 75 of 2017 filed against the said order were disposed of as not pressed by order dated 08.02.2017, the operative portion whereof is reproduced as under:-

¶41

“The appeals are disposed of as not pressed. The declaration of the result of elections and registration of the list of office bearers shall be subject to the order that would be passed in the reference, if made by the appellants under Section 25(1) of the Act. It is needless to mention that the appellants may make a reference within a period of two weeks from today. The concerned authority shall consider and decide the same, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within a period of sixteen weeks from the date of its representation after granting an opportunity of being heard to all concerned. All contentions, in so far as

¶42

SPLA No. 1301 of 2025

¶43

6

¶44

the reference is concerned, are kept open. It is needless to mention that the concerned authority shall take all necessary steps to give effect to the order passed in the second writ petition.”

¶45

A bare perusal of the afore-quoted two orders indicates that liberty was reserved for the respondents to make appropriate reference under Section 25 of the Act, 1860 on the strength of 1/4 members, which was directed to be dealt with in accordance with law and all contentions as far as reference is concerned were kept open. As stated before us, the reference is still pending and the same has been directed to be decided by the learned Single Judge under the order impugned before us.

¶46

Be that as it may, what is significant to observe in the present case is that Writ-C No. 51267 of 2017 was filed by the appellants being aggrieved of the orders dated 24.06.2017 and 05.08.2017 whereby signatures of Utkarsh Pandey representing respondent no. 4 were attested as Manager. There is no discussion of the validity of the said two orders in the order passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition has been dismissed taking note of a pending reference under Section 25 of the Act, 1860.

¶47

In the light of above, if we examine the submissions made by learned counsel for respondent no. 4 that the controversy involved in the writ petition has been rendered infructuous in view of subsequent elections dated 12.06.2022, we find no substance therein in view of the fact that when the factum of holding of such elections came in light during the course of proceedings of Writ-C No. 32645 of 2022, which was disposed of by order dated 16.11.2022 giving liberty to the appellants to file objection against attestation of signatures before the DIOS, the appellants may or may not have filed objections before the DIOS, but they certainly challenged the same by filing amendment application in Writ-C No. 51267 of 2017. Admittedly, the amendment application was not decided either way and the writ petition was dismissed by the order impugned dated 12.11.2025.

¶48

Considering the nature of submissions made as well as non-disposal of amendment application, we are of the view that the writ petition has

¶49

SPLA No. 1301 of 2025

¶50

7

¶51

not become infructuous, rather in the light of material on record wherein certain decisions of this Court, as already referred to hereinabove, are of significance qua merits of rival claims, it cannot be said that mere holding of subsequent elections in 2022 would either render the writ petition as infructuous or that the issue of membership having been left open to be decided by the Prescribed Authority would be a circumstance sufficient to dismiss the writ petition.

¶52

We are of the considered opinion that when attestation of signatures in 2017 was specifically challenged by filing writ petition and a further challenge to the subsequent elections of 2022 was sought to be raised by way of amendment, the learned Single Judge should have dealt with both the said aspects, however, without touching the merits of the claim raised by the appellants by way of writ petition and the amendment application and without deciding the amendment application itself either way, the writ petition has been dismissed.

¶53

Since we are not touching the merits of dismissal of other three writ petitions being Writ-C Nos. 3829 of 2020, 53830 of 2015 and 23375 of 2025 nor dismissal thereof is under challenge before us, we confine our order to dismissal of Writ-C No. 51267 of 2017 and, in view of the above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the said writ petition needs to be decided separately on its own merits as also the pending amendment application therein. Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order impugned and restore the writ petition to its original number and status.

¶54

Accordingly, the special appeal is allowed .

¶55

The order dated 12.11.2025 to the extent it dismissed Writ-C No. 51267 of 2017 stands set aside .

¶56

Writ-C No. 51267 of 2017 stands restored to its original number and the same shall be listed before appropriate Bench on 29.01.2026 .

¶57

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

¶58

January 7, 2026 AKShukla/-

¶59

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

Committee of Management Mpp Arya Kanya Inter College and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Committee of Management Mpp Arya Kanya Inter College 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rahul and 4 Others vs State of U.P., through Principal Secretary and 5 Others

Sudheer Kumar Tyagi vs Committee of Management of K.L. Janta Inter College and 6 Others

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

Uday Singh Yadav vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Satyam Sahu vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Sharad Kumar Pandey vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others