Committee of Management, Schiller Instiute and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

WRIT - C No. - 17422 of 2026

Committee Of Management, Schiller Instiute And Another

noer	Versus .....Petitioner(s)
State Of U.P. And 3 Others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Nabeela Arjumand, Saurabh Tripathi, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Naman Agarwal, C.S.C.

¶5

Court No. - 38

¶6

HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

¶7

Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sourabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Naman Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4, and learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 2.

¶8

The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-

¶9

“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the case and to quash the impugned order dated 07.04.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut, respondent no.2 (Annexure No.34 to the writ petition).

¶10

ii. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the impugned order dated 07.02.2025 passed under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, an appeal was preferred on 06.08.2025 along with an application for condonation of delay. The said appeal came to be allowed on 19.01.2026 without condoning the delay.

¶12

It is submitted that the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ-

¶13

WRIC No. 17422 of 2026

¶14

2

¶15

C No. 5088 of 2026 and this Court, placing reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs.Jahangir Byramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal heirs, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489, remitted the matter back with a direction that the question of delay be considered first and only thereafter, depending upon the outcome, the appeal be heard on merits.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once again the Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, without application of mind and without recording any finding regarding sufficiency of cause for not preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of one month, has passed the impugned order dated 15.04.2026.

¶17

Reliance has been placed upon the proviso to Section 25(1)(d) of the Act, 1860, wherein it has been provided that the appellate authority may admit the appeal after expiry of the prescribed period if satisfied that sufficient cause existed for not preferring the appeal within such period.

¶18

It has further been argued that, in the first place itself, the appeal was not maintainable inasmuch as Section 25(1)(d) of the Act, 1860 contemplates an appeal only against an order passed under the said provision and not against an order passed under Section 25(2) of the Act, 1860.

¶19

Per contra, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the delay has been condoned in the interest of justice and, since this is the second round of litigation, this Court may not interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India merely on technical grounds.

¶20

In rejoinder affidavit Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that even otherwise the appeal itself was not maintainable and the authority ought to have first considered the objection regarding maintainability.

¶21

Although the impugned order dated 07.04.2026 is alleged to be

¶22

WRIC No. 17422 of 2026

¶23

3

¶24

vitiated on technical grounds, this Court finds that the interest of justice would be adequately protected if the issue regarding maintainability of the appeal under Section 25(1)(d) of the Act, 1860 is examined as a preliminary issue by the Commissioner, to which the counsel for the parties, have no objection.

¶25

In view of the aforesaid, without interfering with the impugned order dated 07.04.2026, respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the issue regarding the maintainability of the appeal as a preliminary issue, before proceeding further with the adjudication of the appeal on merits, expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶26

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

¶27

(Siddharth Nandan,J.)

¶28

May 12, 2026

¶29

Sushma

¶30

Digitally signed by :- SUSHAMA YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Committee of Management, Schiller Instiute and Another v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Committee of Management, Schiller Instiute 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

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

Vaibhav Saharawat vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Vaibhav Saharawat Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Committee of Management, Kisan Inter College Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Committee of Management Shiv Parvati and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Sri Narendra Lal and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others