Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Haryana v. Jitender Kumar IAS

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jan 2026COCP/1508/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

COCP contempt petition; alleged violation of Division Bench order dated 12.9.2013 in LPA-578-2011 (Arya Pratinidhi Sabha vs. State of Haryana and others); compliance affirmed — orders Annexures P-23 to P-25 withdrawn and possession restored; Speaking Order dated 02.12.2025 taken on record; bye-law 32.3(a) — Managing Committee members generally up to 11, could be 15 but no more; nomination versus election under society bye-laws; Rule discharged; petition disposed; Justice Nidhi Gupta; decision date 08.01.2026.

What did the court decide?

Rule stands discharged; pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of; no coercive action, compliance with the order dated 12.9.2013 having been affirmed by both sides. ¶¶25

Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Haryana Vs Jitender Kumar IAS — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

COCP-1508-2025 (O & M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

210

¶4

COCP No.1508 of 2025 (O & M) Date of decision :-08.01.2026

¶5

Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Haryana (Regd.) Jagdev Singh Sidhanti Bhawan, Dayanand Math, Gohana Road, Rohtak through Shri Umed Singh Sharma

¶6

…..Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Jintender Kumar, IAS, Director Secondaryn Education Haryana and others

¶9

…..Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present:Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocat e with Mr. Tej Kanwar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. A. G ., Haryana.

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

¶14

Present contempt petition has b een filed alleging violation of order dat e d 12.9.2013 (Annexure P-1) pass e d by a Division Bench of this Court in LPA-578-2011 titled as “Arya P ratinidhi Sabha vs. State of Haryana a nd others”, whereby the LPA was disposed of with the following observati o ns :-

¶15

“….The learned Single J udge in the present case while passing the impugned o r der dated 22.03.2011 has held that there could not be a ny direction issued not to hold elections as prayed for by the appellant in view of the orders passed in the L e tters Patent Appeal, however, the moot point was w hether the bye-laws of the appellant society read w ith the said rules necessarily envisage the election process or could there be nomination of certain members to the managing committees of different i nstitutions. We find that such a

¶16

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.09 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

¶18

COCP-1508-2025 (O & M)

¶19

nomination is envisage d in the said Rules itself very clearly and bye-laws of the appellant society also provides for the same.

¶20

We may, ho w ever, clarify that such a nomination has to be a s per the bye-laws of the society and we clarify at the re q uest of learned counsel for the respondents that in ter m s of Clause (a) of bye-law 32.3 the members of the M anaging Committee should generally be upto 11 which could be 15 but no more…..”

¶21

At the very outset, learned co u nsel for the petitioner submits that the LPA order dated 12.9.2013 s t ands complied with as the responde n ts have withdrawn the orders ( A nnexures P-23 to P-25) and restored t h e possession to the petitioner.

¶22

Learned counsel for the resp o ndents-State also affirms the said fact a nd handed over a copy of Spe a king Order dated 02.12.2025, whereby t he needful has been done. C opy of the said order dated 02.12.202 5 is taken on record. Copy thereo f is supplied to learned counsel for the pe t itioner.

¶23

Heard.

¶24

In view of the submissions m a de by learned counsel for the

¶25

parties, th e present contempt petition has be e n disposed of. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.

¶26

January 0 8 , 2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) Vijay Asija JUDGE

¶27

Whether sp e aking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Re p ortable Yes / No

¶28

VIJAY ASIJA 2026.01.09 17.08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Haryana v. Jitender Kumar IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arya Pratinidhi Sabha Haryana v. Jitender Kumar IAS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Veena Alias Parveen Singal Vs District Collector, Bathinda and Another

Salender Vs Rajender and Ors.

Nafe Singh Vs Naresh Kumar

Sunita Rani and Others Vs Jaswinder Kumar and Others

Usha Devi and Others Vs Kuldeep Kumar and Others

Narinder Singh Lamba Vs Kawaljit Kaur