Committee of Management, Madhav Vidya Mandir Inter College and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1112 of 2025

¶2

Committee of Management, Madhav Vidya Mandir Inter College and another

¶3

…..Appellant(s)

¶4

Versus

¶5

State of U.P. and 3 others

¶6

…..Respondent(s)

¶7

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : Radha Kant Ojha (Sr. Adv.), Anil Kumar, Seema Agarwal, S.C.

¶8

Chief Justice's Court

¶9

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

¶10

Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anil Kumar for respondent no. 4.

¶11

The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 9 days. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. For the reasons indicated in the affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned.

¶12

2

¶13

SPLAD No. - 1112 of 2025

¶14

This appeal is directed against order dated 27.10.2025, whereby learned Single Judge has disposed of the appellants’ Writ-C No. 34585 of 2025 observing that the petitioner will have liberty to settle the issue of his membership before any competent civil court or forum or concerned authority.

¶15

The writ petition was filed by the appellants challenging the order dated 08.08.2025 whereby the Regional Level Committee (‘RLC’), while disposing of the representation dated 31.05.2025 filed by appellant no. 2, approved the elections of respondent no. 4- Committee of Management.

¶16

The case of the appellants is that the appellant no. 2 was duly elected as Manager of the Committee of Management in the periodical elections held in the years 2009, 2012 and 2015 and the same were duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools (‘DIOS’). On a dispute being raised by one Shyam Lal qua membership of appellant no. 2, the matter reached to the RLC in the year 2016, wherein the objection raised by Shyam Lal was turned down by order dated 08.09.2016, which attained finality.

¶17

Further case of the appellants is that when model scheme of administration was adopted by the Management, next elections were due in February/March, 2021, but due to pandemic COVID-19, elections could not be conducted and it is only on 06.03.2024 when appellant no. 2 made a request to the DIOS to appoint Departmental Observer for conducting elections that the election programme was notified in newspapers and in furtherance thereof, elections were held, in which appellant no. 2 was elected as Manager.

¶18

When the papers requesting grant of approval to the elections were forwarded to the DIOS in March, 2024, no decision was taken by him, consequently, the appellants filed Writ – C no. 19297 of 2024, which is

¶19

3

¶20

SPLAD No. - 1112 of 2025

¶21

pending. As per appellants, they came to know about settling up of another election by respondent no. 4 and approval granted to the same by the DIOS. The appellants preferred a representation against recognition/approval granted to the election of respondent no. 4, however, the same was rejected by the DIOS on 28.05.2024.

¶22

Being aggrieved of the order dated 28.05.2024, the appellants filed Writ – C no. 42630 of 2024, which was dismissed as not pressed granting liberty to the appellants to avail remedy by filing representation under the Government Order dated 19.12.2000. The appellants, then, filed representation before the RLC and, by order dated 08.08.2025, RLC rejected the representation and kept the order of DIOS according approval to the elections of respondent no. 4, intact. It is against the said order dated 08.08.2025, the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal was filed, which has been disposed of with the observations already indicated hereinbefore.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellants has made submissions that the learned Single Judge has wrongly declined to entertain the challenge to the order passed by the RLC on the ground that the RLC had recorded finding to the effect that the appellant no. 2 had failed to establish his membership and the writ petition, according to the learned Single Judge, is silent about induction of appellant no. 2 as Manager and, resultantly, the appellants’ locus to challenge the elections of respondent no. 4 has been wrongly held to be doubtful.

¶24

Further submission has been made that though the writ petition contained specific pleadings and grounds to the effect that issue of membership of appellant no. 2 had already been settled in terms of order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the RLC, it was not open to be discussed or decided again and, therefore, the order dated 08.08.2025 amounts to reviewing the earlier order qua membership, however, the learned Single

¶25

4

¶26

SPLAD No. - 1112 of 2025

¶27

Judge has recorded a perverse observation that RLC had not gone to the question of membership of appellant no. 2 in its order dated 08.09.2016.

¶28

It is further submitted that the General Body of the Committee of Management as well as Society running the institution being the same, once, based upon further elections of the Society, a list of office bearers has already been registered by the Assistant Registrar under Section 4-B of Societies Registration Act, 1860 for the year 2025-26 and, that too, prior to passing of RLC’s order dated 08.08.2025, the order passed by the learned Single Judge causes serious prejudice to the appellants’ case and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶29

Learned Standing Counsel has made submissions that once appellant no. 2 failed to establish his membership before the RLC and, then, before the writ Court, findings recorded by the RLC were not shown to be perverse, no error was committed by the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the appeal has no merit.

¶30

Learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no. 4 has made submissions that RLC’s order dated 08.09.2016 did not decide the issue of membership of appellant no. 2 and once it is an admitted fact that some receipts pertaining to the year 1987 and 1988 were sought to be relied upon by appellant no. 2 to establish his membership but his name was not there in the list of members published in the year 1989, a heavy burden lay upon him to establish his membership and since he could not discharge the burden, any elections set up by him at whatever point of time, become invalid and, therefore, the RLC has not erred in passing the order dated 08.08.2025.

¶31

Further submission has been made that Writ – C No. 19297 of 2024 filed by the appellants is still pending and once the prayer to accord approval to the elections allegedly held by the appellants in March, 2024, is still under consideration in the said writ petition, no relief can be

¶32

5

¶33

SPLAD No. - 1112 of 2025

¶34

granted to the appellants in the present matter. It is further submitted that an Authorized Controller remained in control of affairs of the institution for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 1989 to 2009 and as soon as the Controller was removed, further elections were held by the appellants, however at no point of time, the membership of appellant no. 2 was thoroughly examined by any authority except what has now been done under the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the RLC.

¶35

As regards the list of office bearers registered under Section 4-B of the Act for the year 2025-26, submission has been made that the said order is under challenge in another writ petition, which is yet to be heard by this Court and, hence, plea based upon registration of list by the Assistant Registrar has no substance.

¶36

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

¶37

Since the appellants’ claim has been discarded by the RLC in the order dated 08.08.2025 and also by the learned Single Judge mainly on the ground that the appellant no. 2 failed to establish his membership, the Court has gone into the earlier order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the RLC, which was sought to be interpreted by both sides according to their convenience. We find that at the instance of one Shyam Lal, Writ – C No. 8090 of 2016 was filed before this Court, which was disposed of by order dated 23.02.2016 permitting him to approach the RLC to decide the dispute raised by him and, in furtherance of the said order, RLC passed a detailed order dated 08.09.2016. Qua membership of appellant no. 2, following conclusions were drawn by the RLC:-

¶38

"्ቦी श्याम लाल ्ቛारा उठाये गये साधारण सभा की सदस्यता एवं ्ቚबन्ध समिमतित के चुनाव ्ቚ्቞ ों का अध्ययन मिकया गया और अध्ययनोंपरान्त मिनम्न ቝኌस्,तित पाई गयी।

¶39

1- जहां तक सदसयता का ् ् ቚ्቞ है इस संबध मं से ं वय ् ं ् ቦ ी शयामलाल ् 2009 व 2012 जो म ि क व् ቧ 8 क े े चुनाव मे ं ् ቚ बन ् ध सम ि मत ि त क े े को् ቧ ाधय ् ् ቌ चुन

¶40

6

¶41

SPLAD No. - 1112 of 2025

¶42

गये ,े और ् ቦ ी म ि दनश े ् ቚ काश ि ሺ सह को ् ቚ बन ् धक चुना गया ,ा। सवय ् ं ् ቦ ी शयाम लाल ् ् ቛ ारा सवीकार म ् ि कया गया है और इस संबध मं े ं कोई म ि ववाद नही म ि कया गया। जब ् ቦ ी शयामलाल उसी च ् ुनाव म उसी साधारण सभा कीे ं सदसयता को मानत ् े हुए ् ቚ त ि तभाग करते है तो पुनः बाद क े े व् ቧ 8 म मे ं ि कये जान वाले चुनाव म उसी साधारण सभा के ं े े सदसय ज ् ि जनक े े सा, उनहो ् ं ने ् ቚ बन ् ध सम ि मत ि त मे ं काय8 भी म ि कया को कस ै ै े म ि ववाम ि दत कह सकत हे ।ै

¶43

2- सदसय बनन ् े हेतु इच ् छक ु ु वयቝ ् ኌ EF क े े ् ቛ ारा सदसयता श ् लु ् क जमा म ि कया जाता ह, सदसयता स ् ूची मे ं वह सवय ् ं अपने नाम का उ् ቤे ख े नही करता। सदसयता श ् ुल ् क तत ् समय जमा म ि कया गया ह, नाम जोडन ़ े मे ं या उ् ቤे ख े करने म यमे ं ि द कोई ् ቚ म ि Nयात ् मक या ल ि लम ि पकीय ् ቔु म ि ु Q है। उसक े े ल ि लय सम ् बቝ ኌ न ् धत सदसय का कोई दो ् ् ቧ नही ं हो सकता, वह भी जब वह इससे पूव ्ब ቚ न ् धक भी रह चका हो कायु 8काल पूरा कर चुका हो, और सा, म कोईे ं पदात ि धकारी पूरे काय8काल तक सा, मे ं काय8 भी कर चुका हो और वह उस समय कोई आपल ि F न कर उसके बाद आपल े े ि F म ि नराधार ह।ै

¶44

वस्तुतः मिव्ቕालय में आपसी मतभेद है और मिववादकता8 स्वयं भी मिव्ቕालय से जुड़े रहे है, अपनी सेवायें देते रहे है। ऐसी ቝኌस्,तित में मिववाद उत्प्ቐ होना स्वाभामिवक है मिकन्तु आपसी महत्वाकां्ቌा के लिलये शिश्ቌण संस्,ा तथ्ण शिश्ቌण का अमिहत सव8,ा अनुतिचत है।

¶45

उपरो्ሹानुसार जिजला मिव्ቕालय मिनरी्ቌक के प्ቔांक ्ቚबन्ध/454448/2015-16 मिदनांक 03.02.2016 ्ቛारा ्ቚबन्धक का जो हस्ता्ቌर्ቚ माशिणत मिकया गया है। उसे स्वीकार मिकया जाता है।"

¶46

A bare perusal of the order passed by the RLC indicates that the objector Shyam Lal himself had been elected as Treasurer in the elections of 2009 and 2012, in which appellant no. 2 was elected as Manager and, therefore, the challenge laid by Shyam Lal was found to be without any basis. The RLC further held that if a person becomes member by depositing membership fees, but his name is not incorporated in the documents, the same being a procedural/clerical error, blame cannot be found in the member, particularly when he has already completed his term as Manager without any objection from anyone.

¶47

The RLC, now in the order dated 08.08.2025, observed that in the list of alive members pertaining to the year 1989, name of appellant no. 2 and one Sabhajeet Singh was not indicated, though a sum of Rs.2001/was shown to have been received from appellant no. 2 on 23.01.1987

¶48

7

¶49

SPLAD No. - 1112 of 2025

¶50

and a sum of Rs.2005/- from Sabhajeet Singh on 06.02.1988, based upon which, new list was directed to be made available to the Authorised Controller. The RLC further observed that if the said two persons were enrolled as members in 1987 and 1988, non-inclusion of their names in the list of 1989 and, then, to add their names in the new list published after 20 years in 2009, is contradictory as the Authorised Controller has no power/right to determine new membership list.

¶51

We find that qua the findings recorded by the RLC, not only pleadings were contained in paragraphs no. 43 and 44 of the writ petition, but also the very first two grounds raised therein assailed validity of the said findings in the light of finality attached to the earlier order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the RLC. In view of above, we find that the observations made by the learned Single Judge that the writ petition is ‘silent’ about induction of appellant no. 2 as a member and, therefore, his locus to challenge the elections of respondent no. 4 becomes doubtful, are based upon misreading of the writ petition. Further finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the RLC, in its order dated 08.09.2016, had not gone into the question of membership of appellant no. 2 to the extent argued by the appellants, also does not appear to be based upon critical analysis of the issue of membership, as raised.

¶52

The order of learned Single Judge being based upon mainly the determination qua membership, we, in the light of discussion made hereinabove, are inclined to remit the matter to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration of the controversy involved in the case. As far as the registration of list of members/office bearers under Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the same not being subject matter of present appeal and another writ petition being pending in that regard, we need not comment upon the same.

¶53

Consequently, the appeal is allowed .

¶54

8

¶55

SPLAD No. - 1112 of 2025

¶56

The order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ – C No. 34585 of 2025 is hereby set aside.

¶57

Writ -C No. 34585 of 2025 is restored to its original number and status and the same shall be listed before the appropriate Bench on 22.04.2026 as a fresh case .

¶58

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

¶59

April 08, 2026

¶60

Sazia

¶61

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

Committee of Management, Madhav Vidya Mandir 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, Madhav Vidya Mandir 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Ameer Khan @ Ameer Ahmad vs State of U.P. and 19 Others

Union of India and 3 Others vs Central Administrative Tribunal and Another

Sachin Kumar and 3 Others Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Mustaq Ahmad Vs State of U.P. and Others

Executive Engineer, Saprar Division and 4 Others vs M/S Singh Brothers through Proprietor Jagram Singh

Jai Prakash Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Others