PANKAJ JAISWAL, MEMBER, ARYAN EDUCATION TRUST AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF UP AND 13 OTHERS

    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
         SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1027 of 2025

Pankaj Jaiswal, Member, Aryan Education Trust And 6
Others
                                       .....Appellant(s)

                           Versus
State Of Up And 13 Others
                                             .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)  : Abhishek Shekhar Ojha,
                            Anurag   Kumar     Ojha,
                            Parmatma Nand Ojha, Sr.
                            Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashima   Goel,   C.S.C.,
                            Manu Srivastava, Yogesh
                            Kumar Saxena

Along with :
1. Special Appeal Defective No. 932 of 2025:
   Committee of Management, Aryan Education Trust and
   another
                           Versus
   State of U.P. and 3 others


Court No. - 2
           HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J.
           HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J.

Order on Appeals

1. The present two appeals have been filed by the
appellants against the impugned order dated 10.10.2025
passed by the learned Single Judge by which the order
impugned in the said writ petitions were set aside.

2. The brief facts of the case essential to be stated herein
are as follows:

     a. The two writ petitions being Writ C Nos.39295
     of 2023 and 40788 of 2023 filed by the petitioners
     were disposed of by an order dated 09.02.2024
     passed by learned Single Judge. The controversy
     relates to a society named as 'Aryan Educational
     Trust, Meerapur, District Prayagraj' whereunder
                                              SPLA No. 1027 of 2025
                       2


    Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act,
    1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act')
    challenge was given to the election that was held
    on 12.11.2023 and 14.11.2023 electing R-3 in the
    aforementioned writ petition as Secretary of the
    Committee of Management of the Society.
    Challenge was given to the said election on the
    ground that the objection of the petitioners in the
    petition mentioned hereinabove filed under
    Section 4-B of the Act were pending before the
    Assistant Registrar an order notifying elections
    was made without testing the objections under
    Section 4-B of the Act. In paragraph-8 of the
    order dated 19.02.2024, the learned Single
    Judge transferred the case pending before the
    Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
    Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as 'Assistant
    Registrar, Prayagraj') to the Assistant Registrar,
    Firms,    Societies    and    Chits,    Azamgarh
    (hereinafter referred to as 'Assistant Registrar,
    Azamgarh')with a direction that objections were
    to be decided within one month from the date of
    the receipt of the records and the Assistant
    Registrar, Prayagraj was also directed to ensure
    the transmission of the records within one week
    of the order.

3. After the list of eligible candidates was prepared, the
election was conducted by the Assistant Registrar,
Prayagraj and on 05.10.2025 the appellants herein were
declined elected to the executive committee. On
06.10.2025 itself the writ petitions were filed before the
learned Single Judge from which the present writ appeals
have arisen. It is also necessary to mention here that
before the elections on 24.09.2025 the Assistant Registrar,
Prayagraj published the election programme and on
25.09.2025 the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj had
published the list of legitimate candidates and on
26.09.2025 the list of returned candidates to the Executive
Committee was released.
                                               SPLA No. 1027 of 2025
                         3


4. When the matter was proceeding before the learned
Single Judge the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj appeared
in person and in paragraph-9 of the order under challenge
admitted to an error on his part in conducting the elections.
Upon the said submission, the order challenged in these
appeals have been passed.

5. The preliminary argument putforth by the learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that
material respondents were never even issued notice and
neither were heard in this case. In other words, the learned
Senior Counsel has argued that there was violation of
principles of natural justice as the learned Single Judge did
not gave an opportunity to those candidates who were
returned elected and were respondents in the petition to
appear before the learned Single Judge and forward a
submission that the admission on the part of the Assistant
Registrar, Prayagraj notwithstanding, the same did not
vitiate the result of the election. The admitted fact is that
only one of the elected members, Mr. Sudhir Kumar
Saxena was represented by his learned counsel, Sri Y.K.
Saxena, before the learned Single Judge.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant before this Court has
submitted that he appears on behalf of other elected
members whose names are as follows:

a. Mr. Pankaj Jaiswal,

b. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal,

c. Mr. Narendra Prakash,

d. Mr. Vinay Pratap Singh,

e. Mr. Ravindra Nath Jaiswal,

f. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Khanna, and

g. Mr. Vijay Kumar Jaiswal.

7. There are other members also who were elected, who
are 9 in number who the learned counsel for the appellant
does not represent.
                                               SPLA No. 1027 of 2025
                        4

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent has submitted that the error pointed out by
learned counsel for the appellants is merely technical and
that the proceedings that took place before the Assistant
Registrar, Prayagraj were murky, without bona fides and
tainted with fraud. In order to substantiate his arguments,
learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
earlier order passed in the previous two writ petitions
mentioned hereinabove dated 19.02.2025 had for this very
reason transferred the preparation of the list of eligible
candidates to stand for elections to the Executive
Committee from the office of the Assistant Registrar,
Prayagraj to the Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh. Learned
Senior Counsel has submitted that this Court had to deviate
from the norm and pass such an order because it had
taken into cognizance the wrong activities in this particular
case in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj. He
has also argued with great vehemence that the Assistant
Registrar, Prayagraj having appeared before the learned
Single Judge and having admitted that he committed error
by carrying out electoral process at Prayagraj which has
been recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph
no.9 of the order under challenge goes to establish beyond
the shadow of doubt that the sanctity of the election was
itself under doubt at Prayagraj and therefore, the order was
rightly passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Senior
Counsel also desired that this Court goes into the merits of
the case in order to appreciate why this appeal should be
dismissed.

9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
order challenged before this Court passed by the learned
Single Judge.

10. Undisputedly, it was only Mr. Sudhir Kumar Saxena
who was represented before the learned Single Judge
through his counsel, Mr. Y.K. Saxena who has categorically
stated before this Court that he did not appear for the other
respondents who were also elected members before the
learned Single Judge. He has also not disputed the fact
that no notice was issued to any of the elected members by
                                                 SPLA No. 1027 of 2025
                         5

the Court of the learned Single Judge. As regards the
submission putforth by learned counsel for the respondent
that the proceedings in the case relating to Aryan
Education Trust, Meerapur, Prayagraj lack bonafides and
there were many misdemeanors being committed by the
Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj and that being the reason
why on the earlier occasion that this Court had transferred
the proceedings from the office of the Assistant Registrar,
Prayagraj to that of the Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh. The
contention putforth by learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents may be right but this Court is not required to
comment upon the same at this juncture. As regards the
submission putforth by the learned counsel for the
respondents that this Court would be required to go into the
merits of the matter notwithstanding the technical defect of
the respondents not being noticed or given an opportunity
on account of overwhelming material to show the misdeeds
of the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj is concerned, this
Court is of the considered opinion that violation of audi
alteram partum moreso when rights have been generated
in favour of those who were left out as they were elected
through an electoral process, even if the same is
challenged and found bad way through, had to be heard.
Their absence before the learned Single Judge did not give
them an opportunity to place a case before the learned
Single Judge that the admission on the part of the Assistant
Registrar, Prayagraj notwithstanding, the election process
conducted at Prayagraj were nonetheless tainted.

11. If the appellants herein were heard by the learned
Single Judge, this Court is unable to say whether the same
would have made the learned Single Judge to pass an
order different from the one which is under challenge
before this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it
is in the province of the learned Single Judge to go into the
merits of the case and examine misdemeanors, fraud etc.
in detail and not with this Court to comment upon same at
this juncture once it has been admitted that procedure
established was not followed, as the said appellants were
never noticed by the learned Single Judge.
                                                SPLA No. 1027 of 2025
                        6


12. Under the circumstances, this appeal succeeds. The
order challenged is setaside and the writ petitions are
remanded to the learned Single Judge for de novo hearing
after ensuring the presence of the respondents.

13. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondents has submitted that he would appear before the
learned Single Judge on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Jaiswal, Mr.
Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal, Mr. Narendra Prakash, Mr. Vinay
Pratap Singh, Mr. Ravindra Nath Jaiswal, Mr. Ramesh
Kumar Khanna and Mr. Vijay Kumar Jaiswal. Under the
circumstances, the necessity to issue notice to the
aforementioned persons stands obviated. They shall
appear through counsel on the date of hearing before the
learned Single Judge. Sudhir Kumar Saxena will continue
to be represented by his counsel Mr. Yogesh Kumar
Saxena who is present before this Court today. As regards
Mr. Rajendra Srivastava, Mr. Alok Chandra, Mr. Shailendra
Kumar Srivastava, Mrs. Madhuri Saxena, Mr. Adarsh
Srivastava, Mr. Ajeet Verma, Mr. Sohan Lal, Mr Akhil
Kumar Srivastava and Mr. Ashok Srivastava are
concerned, they are not being represented before this
Court and therefore, the learned Single Judge would have
to take a call on issuance of notice to the said persons
mentioned hereinabove.

14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents
has voiced apprehension that the delay in issuing notices to
the aforementioned persons may result in a delay of grant
of interim relief.

15. As regards this submission putforth by the learned
Senior Counsel for the respondents, the learned Single
Judge is also the high court asmuch as this Division Bench.
It is entirely within its domain and its discretion whether or
not interim relief should be granted even before notice is
served upon the aforementioned persons. Therefore, in
view of what has been argued, considered and held as
hereinabove, these appeals stands disposed of with the
aforesaid terms.

16. Put up these cases as fresh before the learned Single
                                                                                       SPLA No. 1027 of 2025
                                                                7

                                        Judge.

                                        Re: Leave to Appeal Application No.02 of 2025 in
                                        Special Appeal Defective No.932 of 2025

                                        17. As regards Special Appeal Defective No.932 of 2025
                                        which has the leave to appeal, the appellants were not
                                        parties before the learned Single Judge but are still
                                        adversely affected by the said order, therefore, the leave to
                                        appeal application stands disposed of giving liberty to the
                                        appellants to move an application for impleadment in the
                                        writ petitions which have been disposed of by before the
                                        learned Single Judge.

                                        18. The defects notwithstanding, in view of the order that
                                        this Court has passed hereinabove, the application is
                                        allowed giving liberty to the appellants to move an
                                        appropriate application for amendment in the writ petitions.




                                        April 2, 2026
                                        Deepika
                                                           (Vivek Saran,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.)




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