Shalini Chaudhary, Secretary Executive Committee and 6 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Nitish Shakya, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Nitinjay Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4.

¶11

Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the impugned order dated 01.01.2024 was passed in a cursory manner in purported exercise of powers under Section 4(1) read with Section 4-B of the Act, 1860, which is in the teeth of the judgment rendered in the case of Committee of Management Sri H.P. Singh Krishi Shiksha Samiti, Bisawar, District Hathras and Another vs. State of U.P. and 7 Others in Writ-C No. 21396 of 2025. He has further submitted that the last undisputed election took place on 30.07.2023 for a period of three years, wherein Sri Pratap Singh was elected as Manager and Sri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (father of the petitioner) was elected as Secretary, along with two Joint Secretaries, namely, Dinesh Singh Chaudhary and Kuldip Singh. It is further submitted that on 21.08.2023, Sri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, the then Secretary, died. Taking advantage of the said situation, a meeting was allegedly convened on 22.10.2023, wherein one Sri Amit Singh was inducted as Joint Secretary and Varun Singh, who was earlier an Executive Member, was also inducted as Joint Secretary. Thereafter, the papers were transmitted to the Assistant Registrar for the purpose of registration of the list of members, as contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act.

¶12

WRIC No. 10419 of 2026

¶13

2

¶14

Even prior to the approval of the list of members submitted on 27.10.2023, the aforesaid Sri Amit Singh enrolled 22 members on 21.12.2023. It was only thereafter that, on 01.01.2024, an ex parte order came to be passed under Sections 4(1) and 4-B of the Act.

¶15

When the aforesaid facts came to the knowledge of Smt. Shalini Chaudhary, she inspected the records on 06.04.2024 and thereafter filed a complaint on 16.04.2024. In the said complaint, it was specifically alleged that the proceedings dated 22.10.2023 (meeting of the Executive Committee) and 17.12.2023 (meeting of the General Body) are forged. It was also pointed out that there was a specific stipulation in the order dated 01.01.2024 that, in case any facts contrary to what had been represented come to light, the said order would stand void from the date of its passing. However, although notices were issued by the Assistant Registrar on 09.05.2025 and 26.05.2025, he ultimately, by the second impugned order, held that he lacked jurisdiction to review the order dated 01.01.2024. Notwithstanding the same, he proceeded to hold that the removal of all the petitioners was in accordance with law and also approved the proceedings dated 22.10.2023.

¶16

Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, with great vehemence, has argued that once the Assistant Registrar had held that he did not have the power to review, he could not have proceeded further to pass an order approving the proceedings dated 22.10.2023 or the proceedings dated 04.11.2024 and 17.11.2024, whereby eight members were removed, as these proceedings are distinct in nature and entail different consequences.

¶17

Per contra, Sri Nitinjay Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4, has submitted that there are specific findings recorded to the effect that, insofar as the meetings dated 22.10.2023 and 17.12.2023 are concerned, the same were held in accordance with the bye-laws. It is further submitted that after the death of the Manager, Sri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, and in terms of the bye-laws, Sri Kuldip Singh (earlier Joint Secretary) was appointed as Secretary on 04.09.2023. Thereafter, the meetings were duly held on 22.10.2023 and 17.12.2023, wherein changes were made in the list of members and the same were duly forwarded to the Assistant Registrar, as contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act.

¶18

However, as far as the question of induction of new members on 22.10.2023, i.e., prior to the passing of the order dated 01.01.2024 under

¶19

WRIC No. 10419 of 2026

¶20

3

¶21

Sections 4(1) and 4-B of the Act, 1860, are concerned, he has submitted that once the Secretaries were duly elected on 04.09.2023, they were competent to induct new members. Accordingly, the acceptance of such induction, by way of exercise of powers under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860, does not suffer from any infirmity.

¶22

At this juncture, Sri Nitinjay Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4, has expressed his agreement with the argument, to the extent that the petitioners seeks indulgence of this Court on the ground that the question of removal of his membership ought to have been dealt with as a separate exercise under Section 4-B of the Act.

¶23

In view of the aforesaid, and with the consent of the parties, the present writ petition is being decided at the admission stage. Respondent no. 2 is directed to hear both sides as well as all affected parties while proceeding under Section 4-B of the Act, strictly in accordance with law and the mandate of Section 4-B.

¶24

It is, however, kept open for the petitioners, subject to the outcome of the proceedings under Section 4-B, to assail, if so advised, the order dated 01.01.2024 by availing the remedy of appeal under Section 4(1-A) of the Act, 1860, as against the registration of the list of members.

¶25

It is needless to say that the aforesaid exercise by respondent no. 2 shall be carried out expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it.

¶26

With the aforesaid, observations and directions the writ petition stands disposed of .

¶27

April 20, 2026 Vikram

¶28

(Siddharth Nandan,J.)

¶29

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

Shalini Chaudhary, Secretary Executive Committee and 6 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shalini Chaudhary, Secretary Executive Committee and 6 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

Similar cases

Committee of Management, St. Peter School Rawat Nagar vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Smt Jyoti Mishra vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Narendra Pratap Singh and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Nirmal and Others Vs D.D.C.and Others

Shri Sardar Singh and Others Vs D.D.C.and Others

Babu Lal and Others Vs the Board of Revenue and Others