Mahendra Singh and 10 Others vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

…..Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Prabhakar Awasthi, (Sr. Advocate), Manish Nath Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ankit Gaur, S.C., Rahul Jain

¶16

Chief Justice's Court

¶17

2

¶18

SPLA No. - 435 of 2026

¶19

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

¶20

Heard Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Manish Nath Tripathi for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Rahul Jain for the contesting private respondents in both the appeals.

¶21

Both these appeals are directed against order dated 25.03.2026, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of Writ – C No. 10299 of 2026 (Mahendra Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and Writ -C No. 10397 of 2026 (Committee of Management, Sri Anant Adarsh Shiksha Parishad and others vs. State of U.P. and others) filed by the appellants.

¶22

Since controversy involved in both the matters is identical, both the appeals are being decided by this common order. For the sake of convenience, Special Appeal No. 435 of 2026 arising out of Writ – C No. 10299 of 2026 is being treated as the leading one. The said petition was filed by the appellants challenging the orders dated 29.04.2025 and 29.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur. By the order dated 29.04.2025, a tentative list of 120 members of the General Body of the Society was published inviting objections against the same with an observation that after determination of final list, election of the time barred Committee would be conducted. By the subsequent order dated 29.12.2025, list of 120 members was finalized and direction was issued for holding elections for which a programme was to be notified separately.

¶23

The same orders were also impugned in connected Writ -C No. 10397 of 2026 with an additional challenge to the order dated 10.03.2026, whereby the Assistant Registrar had appointed District Inspector of Schools, Deoria as an Election Officer for the purposes of

¶24

3

¶25

SPLA No. - 435 of 2026

¶26

holding elections under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

¶27

Learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petitions by observing that since election schedule has already been published and the process is already on, let the same be completed as per the scheduled programme and the Committee of Management so elected take over the charge of the affairs of the Society. Further observation has been made that the petitioners, thereafter, will be at liberty to avail all such remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law challenging the elections, if so desired.

¶28

Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has made following submissions:-

¶29

(i) the orders impugned in the writ petitions were passed behind the back of the appellants and though the appellants’ Committee was duly elected in 2023 for a term of 5 years and signatures of the Manager were already attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 16.04.2023, there was neither any justification nor occasion for passing the orders assailed in the writ petitions.

¶30

(ii) based upon the orders dated 29.04.2025 and 29.12.2025, some elections were held by the rival party, which have no sanctity in the eyes of law. The learned Single Judge should have decided the controversy involved in the matter, but validity of the orders impugned, despite emphatic submissions advanced, was not touched by wrongly applying the proposition that after the election process has begun, interference should not be made.

¶31

4

¶32

SPLA No. - 435 of 2026

¶33

(iii) on the one hand, learned Single Judge declined to interfere in the orders impugned in the writ petitions, on the other hand, not only direction for completion of process of election was issued, the writ Court went quite ahead by issuing a direction for handing over charge to the Committee of Management so elected.

¶34

(iv) the orders impugned in the writ petition were already stayed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer by order dated 18.03.2026 passed in Case No. 3068 of 2026 under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860, one week prior to the order passed by the learned Single Judge and, for this reason also, no elections could be held based upon determination of electoral list made by the Assistant Registrar under the orders impugned in the writ petition.

¶35

Learned Standing Counsel submits that it is well settled that once election process has begun, no interference should be made therein and in case anyone is aggrieved by the election or its result, he is always at liberty to avail appropriate remedy available to him and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶36

Learned counsel for private respondents has vehemently opposed the special appeals and has made following submissions:-

¶37

(i) once elections have already been held, which have not been challenged by the appellants, the entire controversy raised in the writ petitions or these appeals has rendered meaningless.

¶38

(ii) the order dated 29.12.2025 was passed after due consideration of objections preferred by the group belonging to the appellants as reflected from the order itself and insofar as the stay order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the Prescribed

¶39

5

¶40

SPLA No. - 435 of 2026

¶41

Authority is concerned, the same was never brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge and was deliberately concealed.

¶42

(iv) even otherwise, the Sub Divisional Officer entertaining a reference under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860, has no jurisdiction to pass any interim order and, therefore, the order dated 18.03.2026 is of no avail.

¶43

(v) while exercising power under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860, the Assistant Registrar is only required to see inclusion and deletion of the members and he can modify the list but is not required to go into the validity of the list of members, which has already been finalized.

¶44

(vi) the dispute regarding membership as raised by the appellants cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction and they can obtain either a declaration from the civil court or an order from the Prescribed Authority in a reference under Section 25 and, therefore, challenge laid to the orders determining the electoral list was not sustainable.

¶45

(vii) lists of members were already finalized in the year 20002001 and, thereafter, in 2019, which documents form part and parcel of Special Appeal No. 436 of 2026 and once the determination so made long ago has attained finality, passing of orders in 2025, based upon the lists already finalized and after deletion of the names of dead members, was a rightful exercise on the part of the Assistant Registrar requiring no interference by this Court and, hence, both the appeals are merit-less and deserve dismissal.

¶46

In support of his submissions, learned counsel for private respondents has placed reliance upon Meerut Collegiate Association,

¶47

6

¶48

SPLA No. - 435 of 2026

¶49

Meerut and others vs. Arvind Nath Seth and others , 1982 AIR (Allahabad) 172, Katar Singh Baliyan vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019 (5) ADJ 492, C/M Sri Khadeshwari Baba Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya and 2 others , (Special Appeal No. 1954 of 2013) decided on 17.12.2013 and Brahmavir Singh vs. State of U.P. and 4 others (Special Appeal No. 382 of 2019) decided on 23.04.2019.

¶50

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

¶51

The parties are not at issue that the Society, on account of not holding of elections since 2005, has become defunct/time barred, order to which effect was passed by the Assistant Registrar on 27.08.2024 which has remained unchallenged. The dispute between the parties is as regards determination of valid electoral roll in the form of list of members.

¶52

The Court finds that the orders dated 29.04.2025 and 29.12.2025 have already been stayed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer on 18.03.2026, whereafter the writ petitions were disposed of by the learned Single Judge; however, admittedly, interim order dated 18.03.2026 was not placed before the learned Single Judge, whatever might have been the reason behind that.

¶53

The order dated 18.03.2026, not being subject matter of either of the two writ petitions or otherwise, the very fact that an intervention has been made by the Sub Divisional Officer in the orders impugned in the writ petition, a question arises as to whether the elections in furtherance of the orders which have already been stayed, could be held. Therefore, utilization of list finalized under the orders impugned in the writ petitions for the purposes of holding of elections, itself becomes of significance and at least we cannot ignore the same as the document is before us in the form of Annexure-3 to the stay

¶54

7

¶55

SPLA No. - 435 of 2026

¶56

application, appended at page no. 206 of the paper book of Special Appeal No. 435 of 2026.

¶57

As far as the question raised qua status of the appellants in the Society with reference to determination made in the year 2000-2001 and 2019, as argued by Shri Jain, we are not inclined to enter into the same in the present special appeals for the simple reason that the said aspect has not been examined by the learned Single Judge. As a matter of fact, the writ petitions have not been entertained on merits only in view of publication of election schedule and for no other reason.

¶58

Considering the nature of order passed by the learned Single Judge, we are satisfied that the issues raised by rival parties require adjudication on merits. We are also of the opinion that once the learned Single Judge had declined to interfere with the election process, there was no occasion for directing handing over charge to the Committee of Management elected in the elections and then granting liberty to the appellants to avail remedies challenging the elections.

¶59

As far as judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for private respondents, we find that once nature of challenge laid by the appellants to the orders impugned has not at all been examined by the learned Single Judge on facts and law, we refrain ourselves from making any observation on applicability of law on the given fact situation, otherwise our observations would prejudice case of either of the parties before the writ Court.

¶60

Without making further deliberations of the issues raised by the parties, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the writ petitions based upon contentions raised.

¶61

8

¶62

SPLA No. - 435 of 2026

¶63

Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. The order dated 25.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ – C No. 10299 of 2026 and Writ -C No. 10397 of 2026 is hereby set aside .

¶64

Writ – C No. 10299 of 2026 and Writ – C No. 10397 of 2026 are restored to their original number and status and the same shall be listed before the appropriate Bench on 27.04.2026 as a fresh case .

¶65

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

¶66

April 15, 2026 Sazia

¶67

Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Mahendra Singh and 10 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Singh and 10 Others v. State of U.P. and 5 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

Committee of Management, Sri Anant Adarsh Shiksha Parishad and 2 Others Vs State of Up and 5 Others

Manoj Kumar Yadav and Another Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Mansha Devi Vs Union of India and 6 Others

Committee of Management, Sri Anant Adarsh Shiksha Parishad and 2 Others vs State of Up and 5 Others

Union of India and 8 Others vs Anil Kumar Tripathi and 28 Others

Rinku Ram vs State of U.P. and 4 Others