The Mohammadan Education Committee,versusThe State of Bihar

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9987 of 2025
     ======================================================
     The Mohammadan Education Committee, Patna City, a society registered
     under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having its registered office at
     campus of Oriental College, Guzri Bazar, Patna City, Patna-800008 through
     its Secretary, Sami Ahmad, Male, aged about 77 years, S/o Late Jameel
     Ahmad, R/o Shah Kamal Road, Bagh Kaloo Khaa, P.O. and P.S- Sampatchak,
     District- Patna-800008.

                                                                     ... ... Petitioner/s
                                         Versus



1.   The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
     Department, Government of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
2.   The Director (Higher Education), Education Department, Government of
     Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
3.   The Inspector General, (Registration), Department of Prohibition, Excise
     and Registration, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.
4.   The Deputy Inspector General of Registration, Bihar, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey
     Road, Patna.
5.   The Assistant Inspector General, Patna Divison, District Registrar Office, 1st
     Floor, Chajjubag, Patna.
6.   The District Magistrate, Patna, Patna Collectorate, Bankipore, Patna.
7.   Najmul Afreen Shamsi Son of late S.A. Shamsi, R/o House No. 321, Road
     No. 3H, New Patliputra Colony, P.O. and P.S- Patliputra, District- Patna.

                                               ... ... Respondent/s
     ======================================================
     Appearance :
     For the Petitioner/s     :     Mr. Rajendra Narain, Sr. Adv.
                                    Ms.Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Adv.
     For the State            :     Mr. Anuj Kumar, AC to GP 24
     For the Pvt. Res.No. 7   :     Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Sr. Adv.
                                    Mr. Rashid Rais, Adv.
     =======================================================
     CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
                         ORAL JUDGMENT
     Date : 27-01-2026
               Heard Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned Senior Advocate

      with Ms. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, learned Advocate for the petitioner
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           2/21




         and Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.

         Rashid Rais, learned Advocate for the respondent no. 7. Mr.

         Anuj Kumar, learned Advocate for the State is also present.

                     2. The petitioner, a Society registered under the

         Societies Registration Act, 1860 through its Secretary, has

         approached this Court for the following reliefs:

                           (i) For issuance of writ in the nature of
                 Certiorari for quashing the order contained in Memo
                 No.339 dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Deputy Inspector
                 General of Registration, Bihar whereby and whereunder
                 it has held that the election conducted on 18.08.2024 of
                 the executive committee, governing body or management
                 committee of the Mohammedan Education Committee,
                 Patna City, Patna (hereinafter to be referred as "the
                 M.E.C."), Oriental College, and M.A.A. School will not
                 be deemed to be valid and that the decisions taken in the
                 meeting of the Executive Committee dated 02.07.2023
                 and 16.04.2024 should be confirmed by passing a
                 resolution by the organization and issued directions for
                 forming a new executive committee by appointing an
                 observer through the District Magistrate, Patna under
                 Rule 18 (iii) of the Bihar Society Regulation Rules, 2018
                 for conducting elections in the presence of an observer
                 which is beyond its jurisdiction;
                           (ii) For holding and declaring that the election
                 conducted on 18.08.2024 of the executive committee,
                 governing body or management committee of the
                 Mohammedan Education Committee, Patna City, Patna,
                 Oriental College, and M.A.A. School is legally valid and
                 due procedure of law has been followed.
                           (iii) For any other writ/writs, order/orders,
                 directions for which the petitioner is found to be entitled
                 in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           3/21




                     3. While assailing the impugned order, Mr. Rajendra

         Narayan, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner primarily

         presented the background of the case, inter alia, the

         Mohammadan Education Committee (in short ‘MEC’) is a

         Society to induce, encourage and popularize the study of

         modern science & technology and humanities among Muslim

         youths by providing easy conditions and conveniences to enable

         them to receive their education to establish schools and colleges

         for fulfillment of the above objectives and to raise and maintain

         enough funds to cover the capital needs and facilities intended

         to be provided and was established in the year 1984 having

         registration No. 62 of 1973-74 dated 13.07.1973. The MEC

         comprises of General Body where the members are added by

         nomination. Further there is an Executive Committee comprises

         of elected members from the General Body. The afore noted

         MEC runs two institutions. The Oriental College, Patna City,

         Patna having own Governing Body and further the MAA Senior

         Secondary School, Patna City, Patna comprising four office

         bearers.

                     4. The facts giving rise to the present application has

         briefly stated are that on 02.07.2023 an urgent meeting of the

         Executive Committee of the MEC was called in which
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           4/21




         application of seven members were presented for induction as

         new members           in the MEC. On 16.04.2024, the Executive

         Committee of the MEC, confirming the proceeding of the last

         meeting held on 02.07.2023 which was approved with few

         additions, i.e., out of the initial seven proposed names, six

         names were unanimously approved and confirmed. In the next

         meeting, the Executive Committee of the MEC confirmed the

         proceeding of the last meeting held on 16.04.2024. The

         respondent No. 7 participated in all the above proceedings as a

         member of the Executive Committee of the MEC. On

         05.06.2024, a letter was issued by the Secretary, MEC for

         holding the Annual General Body Meeting of the MEC on

         30.06.2024 along with the agenda for the meeting including

         agenda No. 7 to confirm the majority member recommendations

         of the Executive Committee meeting held on 16.04.2024

         regarding inclusion of members. The Annual General Body

         Meeting of MEC was held on 30.06.2024 with respect to the

         agendas as enumerated in the notice          which confirmed the

         proceedings of the Executive committee of MEC along with

         action taken report and resolved that out of thirteen vacancies,

         six names which were already approved unanimously by

         majority by the Executive Body of the MEC, were also
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           5/21




         confirmed.

                     5. In the meanwhile, since three years tenure of office

         bearers of previous Executive Members of MEC, Governing

         Body of Oriental College & Management Committee of the

         MAA Senior Secondary School came to an end, so fresh

         election for these posts were required. Election was held on

         18.08.2024. All posts of office bearers of the Executive

         Committee of MEC were elected uncontested. Similarly, all

         posts of office bearers of the Management Committee of the

         MAA Senior Secondary School were also elected uncontested.

         Only post of Secretary of Governing Body of Oriental College

         was contested and the respondent No. 7 lost by four votes. The

         results were communicated to all the members of the MEC but

         none has raised any dispute or put objections with regard to

         election till 29.11.2024, when for the first time the respondent

         No. 7 wrote a letter to the IG, Registration, Bihar to cancel the

         election and hold fresh election vide Annexure-P/11.

                     6. Awaiting no response by the side of IG,

         Registration, Bihar, the respondent No. 7 preferred         CWJC

         No.19082 of 2024, which came to be disposed of with a

         direction to file fresh representation before the I.G.,

         Registration, Bihar, who shall pass a reasoned and speaking
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           6/21




         order, in accordance with law, after hearing the parties within

         four weeks. On 21.03.2025, a fresh representation was filed by

         the respondent No. 7 where he raised dispute with regard to

         induction of six new members in the MEC and their subsequent

         induction as office bearers and members in the MEC and other

         two institutions, on the ground that Annual General Body

         meeting of MEC had never ratified/confirmed the induction of

         six new members, which was required as per the Bye laws of

         the MEC. The petitioner also submitted its reply in detail

         controverting each and every ground raised by the respondent

         No. 7, nonetheless the impunged order dated 30.04.2025 came

         to be passed by the Deputy Inspector General, Registration.

                     7. Learned Senior Advocate adverting to the aforesaid

         facts submitted that the DIG, Registration has completely failed

         to consider that the Rule 18 (iii) of the Bihar Societies

         Registration Rules, 2018 (in short ‘Rules, 2018’) deals with

         only dispute between two Governing Bodies, which is not the

         fact in the present case where one disgruntled member who has

         lost the election and facing show cause notice by the MEC

         raised an objection against the duly elected bodies of the MEC.

         However, the respondent DIG, Registration acceded his

         jurisdiction in holding the election of the Executive Committee
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           7/21




         of the MEC, the Management Committee of the MAA Senior

         Secondary School and the Governing Body of the College as

         invalid, irrespective of the fact that all the posts of office bearers

         in the MEC as well as the MAA Senior Secondary School and

         the Oriental College were elected as uncontested, except the

         post of Secretary of the Governing Body of the Oriental College

         in which election the petitioner lost by four votes. It is further

         submitted that the impugned order is further bad in the eyes of

         law as well as on facts that there is no provision of ratification

         by Annual General Body of MEC for induction of new

         members. Only payment of fees is required under Section 20 of

         the Bye laws of the MEC which the newly elected member has

         paid. The Annual General Body Meeting of the MEC was held

         on 30.06.2024 with respect to the agendas as enumerated in the

         notice     (Annexure-P/5)        and     subsequently   confirmed   the

         proceeding of the Executive Committee of the MEC along with

         action take report, and states that out of 13 vacancies, six names

         which were already approved unanimously by majority by the

         Executive Committee of the MEC were confirmed vide

         Anneuxre-P/6.

                     8. The respondent No. 7 participated in all the

         proceedings as a member of the Executive Committee of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           8/21




         MEC and unanimously approved the induction of six new

         members but has never objected to their induction. The revised

         list of the newly elected members was personally sent to all the

         members of the MEC including respondent No. 7 to ensure

         wider publication. Even on receipt thereof, no objection has

         been raised. The election was held on 18.08.2024 even at that

         time the respondent No. 7 did not raise any objection to

         inclusion of the new members and when they cast their votes in

         the election. The respondent No. 7 participated in the election

         and once he lost election, he started raising an objection

         belatedly. Thus, the principle of estoppel applies. For the first

         time, the respondent No. 7 raised objection against the election

         on 29.11.2024. Moreover,             CWJC No. 19082 of 2024 was

         disposed of merely with a direction to the State respondent to

         dispose of the representation after hearing both the parties, but

         bare perusal of the impugned order it appears that not a single

         submission of the petitioner has been taken note of and the

         Deputy Inspector General, Registration travelled beyond his

         jurisdiction and held all the elections invalid by giving a further

         direction for holding fresh election in presence of the observer

         appointed by the District Magistrate, Patna.

                     9. The impugned order is further bad for the reason
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                           9/21




         that there was a direction upon the Inspector General,

         Registration, Bihar to consider the representation and pass a

         reasoned and speaking order, after hearing the parties,

         nonetheless the impugned order has been passed by the Deputy

         Inspector General, Registration. Though later on approval has

         been taken by the competent authority but that will not make the

         order sustainable.

                     10. On the other hand, Mr. Amit Shrivastava, learned

         Senior Advocate with Mr. Rashid Rais, learned Advocate

         representing the respondent no. 7 refuted all the contentions and

         made a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability

         of the writ petition on various grounds, inter alia, the writ

         petitioner is admittedly a Society registered under the Societies

         Registration Act and as such it is not a “State” in terms of the

         Article 12 of Constitution of India. Secondly, the foundational

         facts upon which the relief prayed for by the writ petitioner are

         with regard to the election process and thus Article 226 of the

         Constitution is not a fora/remedy for any matter pertaining to

         election process of registered society. To support the aforesaid

         contention, heavy reliance has been placed on a coordinate

         Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ratnesh Prasad

         Singh vs. the State of Bihar & Ors. [2024(4) PLJR 68]. It is
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                          10/21




         further contended that since there is a provision of appeal

         against the order impugned before the Member, Board of

         Revenue under Rule 22(ii) of the Rules, 2018, hence a petition

         under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be entertained.

         To strenthen his argument reliance has also been placed on a

         recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of

         Leelavathi N. & Ors. vs. The State of Karnataka & Ors. [2025

         INSC 1242].

                     11. Besides the afore noted submission, to bolster the

         objection with regard to maintainability of the writ petition,

         learned Senior Advocate for the respondent No. 7 has submitted

         that the order impugned has been passed in accordance with law

         and in deference to the order passed in CWJC No. 19082 of

         2024. It is submitted that a bare perusal of Section 18(iii) of the

         Rules, 2018 it fully empowers the authorities to appoint an

         observer. It is well recognized tenet of election process that it

         must be transparent and fair. It is indeed shocking to the

         conscience that the writ petitioner is opposed to the idea of free,

         fair and transparent election. The writ petitioner along with

         other members of the Society who had contested the election,

         which have now been set aside by the impugned order, and

         thereafter have also regularly participated in the inquiries
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                          11/21




         conducted by the AIG, Registration, Government of Bihar,

         Patna,     they     cannot      approbate    and   reprobate.   Having

         participated in the proceeding, in fact the petitioners are

         precluded to raise issue of jurisdiction in view of the well

         recognized principle of waiver and acquiescence.

                     12. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of

         respondent Nos. 3 to 6. While making submission in support of

         the impugned order, it is submitted that the respondent No. 7

         had approached before the I.G., Registration by filing a detailed

         representation on 29.11.2024 alleging that no record of meeting

         through which newly members were inducted was made public

         and the election held on 18.08.2024 was not in accordance with

         the Bye laws of the MEC. It is further submitted that, in fact, the

         MEC had filed an application on 16.11.2023 for renewal of the

         Executive Committee of the MEC along with the list of the

         office bearers whereupon the answering respondents vide letter

         No. 380 dated 16.05.2024 directed the MEC to provide certain

         details including the register of all the general meetings of the

         Committee convened, date of joining and of the oath of the

         office bearers. However, the same were not provided. Thus the

         approval of the Executive Committee remained pending. In the

         meanwhile, the respondent No. 7 challenged the result of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                          12/21




         election. The entire matter was considered in the light of Rule

         18(iii) of the Rules, 2018 and on being found serious

         irregularities in the election and the proceedings conducted by

         the MEC, reasoned order has been passed by holding all the

         elections conducted by the MEC to be invalid and directed for

         fresh election in presence of an observer. The impugned order

         has been approved by the Inspector General, Registration. The

         petitioner was also given an appropriate opportunity and has

         also filed detailed reply to the allegation. Since there is a dispute

         between two rival bodies and further it was found that the

         decisions in the meeting were taken not in consonance with the

         rules; there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

                     13. This Court has heard the learned Senior Advocate/

         Advocate for the respective parties at length and also perused

         the materials available on record. First, this Court address the

         primary objection as to whether the present writ petition is

         maintainable.

                     14. Admittedly the present writ petition is filed by a

         Society against the impugned order passed by the Deputy

         Inspector General, Registration, Bihar in pursuance of the order

         passed by this Court in CWJC No.19082 of 2024. This Court is

         not oblivious of the fact that earlier it is the respondent No. 7,
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                          13/21




         who had moved before this Court by filing the afore noted

         CWJC No. 19082 of 2024 seeking quashing of the result of the

         election of MEC by which the elected office bearers and the

         Members of the Governing Body of the Oriental College, Patna

         City have been nominated. The petitioner is not seeking

         issuance of any writ against the Society rather he is aggrieved

         with the order passed by the State authorities, who is said to

         have acceded his jurisdiction by passing the impugned order.

         Hence, even if the petitioner is a private body and a Society, if

         he is aggrieved with the order/action of the State authorities, he

         is said to be an aggrieved person having locus to challenge the

         same by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court under

         Article 226 of the Constitution of India, if it is ultra vires,

         violates principles of natural justice or malafide. So far the

         decision rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the

         case of Ratnesh Prasad Singh (supra) is concerned, the

         challenge in the said writ petition was the order dated

         12.09.2023 passed by the Deputy Development Commissioner

         Siwan-cum-Vice President of the Indian Red Cross Society,

         Siwan. The Court having taken note of series of decisions

         passed by the Apex Court as well as the High Courts, has held

         that the function of the Red Cross Society is not in the nature of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                          14/21




         public duty and purely an impartial voluntary organization.

         Hence, the present writ petition against the Society is held to be

         not maintainable giving liberty to the petitioner to go to Civil

         Court or to avail any appropriate remedy that may be available

         to him. This is not the case in hand. No relief has been prayed

         against the Society rather the Society is aggrieved with the

         action of the respondent authorities of the Department of

         Prohibition, Excise and Registration. Hence, the order passed by

         the learned coordinate Bench hereinabove does not affect the

         maintainability of the writ petition.

                     15. Now coming to the additional challenge with

         regard to the maintainability of the writ petition in view of the

         availability of the alternative remedy under Rule 22(ii) of the

         Rules, 2018; There is no dispute that the High Court should not

         issue, in general, prerogative writ when alternative remedy is

         available. However, it is well settled and as has been reinforced

         by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in the case of Tamil Nadu Cements

         Corporation Ltd. vs. Micro and Small Enterprises Facilitation

         Council &Anr. [(2025) 4 SCC 1] that the access to High Court

         by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is

         not a constitutional right but also a part of the basic structure. It

         is available to every citizen whenever there is violation of their
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                          15/21




         constitutional rights or even statutory rights. Rule of exclusion

         of writ jurisdiction in case of availability of an alternative

         remedy is rather a rule of discretion and not a rule of

         compulsion. The power to issue prerogative writ under Article

         226 of the Constitution is plenary in nature and the same is not

         limited by any provision of the Constitution and cannot be

         restricted or circumscribed by Statute. The Supreme Court in

         Whirlpool Corporation vs Registrar Of Trade Marks, Mumbai

         & Ors [(1998) 8 SCC 1] held that under Article 226 of the

         Constitution, the High Court has discretion in regard to the

         matter entertaining the writ petition and the existence of

         alternative remedy has been consistently held by this Court not

         to operate as a bar in three contingencies (i) writ petition has

         been filed for enforcement of any of the fundamental rights

         protected by Part-III of the Constitution, (ii) there has been a

         violation of the principles of natural justice and, (iii) the order or

         proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or vires of an Act is

         challenged.

                     16. The reliance placed by the learned Senior

         Advocate representing on behalf of the respondent No. 7 on a

         decision rendered in Leelavathi N. (supra) while reiterating and

         reaffirming the earlier orders have concluded that on careful
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                          16/21




         perusal of the judgments leads us to the conclusion that an

         efficacious remedy is available, the High Court should not

         entertain a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in

         matters falling squarely within the domain of the Tribunals.

         However, with a caveat as noted in para-37 of the said

         judgment, which is reproduced hereinbelow:

                                   “Nevertheless, a writ petition under Article 226
                       may still be maintainable notwithstanding the existence of
                       such an alternative remedy in exceptional circumstances,
                       including the enforcement of fundamental rights guaranteed
                       under Part III of the Constitution; instances of ultra vires or
                       illegal exercise of power by a statutory authority; violation of
                       the principles of natural justice; or where the vires of the
                       parent legislation itself is under challenge. While these
                       exceptions have been carved out and reiterated by this Court
                       in a catena of decisions, the facts of the present case do not
                       fall within any of these exceptions so as to warrant the
                       maintainability of the writ petitions before the High Court.”
                                                                Emphasis Supplied

                     17. Having conscious of the fact the petitioner has

         alternative remedy under Rule 22(ii) of the Rules, 2018, this

         Court finds that since the concerned respondent has illegally

         exercised his power and acceded his jurisdiction in passing the

         impugned order, besides caused violation of the principles of

         natural justice; the present writ petition is being entertained

                     18. Before proceeding further it would be pertinent to

         quote Rule 18 of the Rules, 2018 which reads as follows:

                         “18. If a dispute arises out of the existence of two
                         rival Governing and / or executive bodies for being
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                          17/21




                         a rightful Managing body of the Society, then, the
                         IG may :- (i)Ask the District Magistrate to enquire
                         himself or through one of his subordinate officers
                         and submit a report, and / or(ii)Invite all the rival
                         bodies and hear the matter in person, and /
                         or(iii)Cause re-election of the Governing and / or
                         Executive Body to be done in the presence of an
                         Observer appointed by the IG, Registration. Based
                         on the findings from aforementioned steps, the IG
                         shall pass suitable Order adjudicating the matter.”

                     19. Bare reading of the Rule 18 it is manifest that the

         jurisdiction of the I.G., Registration may be invoked if there is a

         dispute arising out of existence of two rival governing and/or

         executive bodies for being a rightful managing body of the

         Society, then the I.G. may direct for enquiry or invite all the

         rival bodies and hear the matter in presence or cause re-election

         of the Governing and/or executive body to be done in presence

         of an Observer.

                     20. In the case in hand, there is no dispute with regard

         to the two rival governing and/or executive bodies, rather it is a

         case where the respondent No. 7 being a member of the MEC

         had participated in all the proceedings including the proceeding

         in which the new members were inducted but he never made

         any     protest     with     regard      to   their   induction   in   any

         meeting/proceeding, rather participated in the election for the

         post of Secretary of the Governing Body of the Oriental
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                          18/21




         College. This fact is also not in dispute that all posts of office

         bearers of the Executive Committee of the MEC as well as the

         Management Committee of MAA Senior Secondary School

         were nominated uncontested and no challenge to their

         nominations and any kind of allegation has ever been made.

         Once the respondent No. 7 had lost the election on the post of

         Secretary of the Governing Body of the Oriental College his

         challenge ought and in fact was confined to the afore noted post

         and accordingly he filed his representation on 29.11.2024. Since

         no action was taken by the concerned authority, he filed CWJC

         No. 19082 of 2024 seeking quashing of the result of the election

         of the MEC by which the elected office bearers and the

         members of the Governing Body of the Oriental College, Patna

         City have been nominated. The aforesaid writ petition was

         disposed of taking note of the fact that the petitioner had already

         filed representation before the I.G., Registration, Bihar but till

         date no order has been passed, hence a direction was given to

         the petitioner to file fresh representation before the respondent

         No. 3, who would be obliged to pass a reasoned and speaking

         order in accordance with law, after hearing the parties within

         four weeks thereafter.

                     21. This Court has also perused the impugned order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                          19/21




         Besides the fact, there was specific direction under order dated

         17.03.2025 in CWJC No. 19082 of 2024 to the Inspector

         General, Registration (Bihar) to hear the parties and pass a

         reasoned order but the same has not been heard by him rather it

         was heard by the Deputy I.G., Registration and he passed the

         order after getting approval of the competent authority. Hence

         this Court is of the view that there is no proper application of

         mind of the authority who was obligated to hear and pass the

         order. Further, there is no discussion with regard to the objection

         raised by the petitioner and to reply filed by the petitioner of the

         respondent No. 7, which the concerned respondent was obliged

         to consider in the light of the order of this Court passed in

         CWJC No. 19082 of 2024.

                     22. The finding of the respondent DIG, Registration

         that in the institution there is an internal dispute and both of

         them are making allegation and counter allegation, hence took

         the shelter of Rule 18(iii) of Rules, 2018, is not based upon any

         material rather the election of Governing Body of the Oriental

         College was only under challenge. Hence, the impugned order

         came to be passed by the Deputy I.G. Registration would

         certainly amount to acceding the jurisdiction.

                     23. Further before passing of the impugned order, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                          20/21




         petitioner has neither been show caused or given opportunity

         with respect to election of other office bearers of the Executive

         Committee of the MEC and the Management Committee of

         MAA Senior Secondary School nor the elected or nominated

         members have been noticed; all of them have been deprived

         from the opportunity to rebut the allegation of alleged

         irregularities in those elections. Once the members have been

         elected uncontested, right has been accrued in their favour,

         which cannot be curtailed and withdrawn without giving any

         proper opportunity of hearing to them. Hence, in the opinion of

         this Court, the impugned order suffers from complete violation

         of the principles of natural justice.

                     24. For all these reasons, this Court finds substance in

         the writ petition. Accordingly, the impugned order as contained

         in Memo No. 339 dated 30.04.2025 passed by the Deputy

         Inspector General of Registration, Bihar stands set aside.

         However, if the respondent No. 7 is aggrieved with the result of

         his election, he may avail appropriate remedy available under

         law.

                     25. It is made clear that the concerned respondents

         shall continue with the proceeding pertaining to approval of the

         Executive Committee of the MEC, in accordance with law.
             Patna High Court CWJC No.9987 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
                                                       21/21




                                  26. The writ petition stands allowed.

                                  27. There shall be no order as to cost.



                                                  (Harish Kumar, J)

Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date            04.02.2026
Transmission Date