Allahabad High Court
MAHENDRA SINGH AND 10 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
Both special appeals are allowed; the order of the Single Judge is set aside and the writ petitions are remitted for fresh adjudication.
Summary
The appellants challenged orders of the Assistant Registrar, Gorakhpur, which published a tentative electoral roll of 120 members and later finalized it, directing elections for a time‑barred committee of a society. The Single Judge declined to interfere, allowing the election process to continue and directing the newly elected committee to take charge, while noting that the appellants could challenge the election later. The appellants argued that the orders were passed without justification, that a stay order dated 18‑03‑2026 by the Sub‑Divisional Officer under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act had already stayed the Registrar’s orders, and that the court should not have directed the hand‑over of the committee. The respondents contended that once the election process begins it cannot be interfered with, that the Sub‑Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to stay the orders, and that the dispute over membership should be decided in a civil forum. The High Court held that the Single Judge had erred in both refusing to examine the merits and in directing the hand‑over, set aside his order, and remitted the writ petitions for fresh consideration. Consequently, both special appeals were allowed and the matter was restored to its original status for listing before a bench.
Issues considered
- Whether the Single Judge should have interfered with the Assistant Registrar’s orders concerning the electoral roll and election schedule.
- Whether the stay order issued by the Sub‑Divisional Officer under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, is valid and binding on the court.
- Whether the court can direct the hand‑over of the Committee of Management elected under a disputed process.
- Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer has jurisdiction to pass interim orders in matters under Section 25 of the Act.
Legislation cited
- Societies Registration Act, 1860 — s. 25(1), 25(2), 4-B
Subjects
- Societies Registration Act
- Election process
- Stay order
- Writ jurisdiction
- Special appeal
- Electoral roll
- Defunct society
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 435 of 2026
Mahendra Singh and 10 others
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 5 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Prabhakar Awasthi, (Sr. Advocate),
Manish Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ankit Gaur, S.C., Rahul Jain
Along with
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 436 of 2026
Committee of Management, Sri Anant Adarsh Shiksha Parishad and 2
others
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of UP and 5 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Prabhakar Awasthi, (Sr. Advocate),
Manish Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ankit Gaur, S.C., Rahul Jain
Chief Justice's Court
2
SPLA No. - 435 of 2026
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Heard Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Shri Manish Nath Tripathi for the appellants, learned Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Rahul Jain for the
contesting private respondents in both the appeals.
2. Both these appeals are directed against order dated 25.03.2026,
whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of Writ – C No. 10299
of 2026 (Mahendra Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others) and
Writ -C No. 10397 of 2026 (Committee of Management, Sri Anant
Adarsh Shiksha Parishad and others vs. State of U.P. and others) filed
by the appellants.
3. Since controversy involved in both the matters is identical, both
the appeals are being decided by this common order. For the sake of
convenience, Special Appeal No. 435 of 2026 arising out of Writ – C
No. 10299 of 2026 is being treated as the leading one. The said petition
was filed by the appellants challenging the orders dated 29.04.2025 and
29.12.2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Gorakhpur. By the order dated 29.04.2025, a tentative list of 120
members of the General Body of the Society was published inviting
objections against the same with an observation that after determination
of final list, election of the time barred Committee would be conducted.
By the subsequent order dated 29.12.2025, list of 120 members was
finalized and direction was issued for holding elections for which a
programme was to be notified separately.
4. The same orders were also impugned in connected Writ -C No.
10397 of 2026 with an additional challenge to the order dated
10.03.2026, whereby the Assistant Registrar had appointed District
Inspector of Schools, Deoria as an Election Officer for the purposes of
3
SPLA No. - 435 of 2026
holding elections under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act,
1860.
5. Learned Single Judge has declined to interfere with the orders
impugned in the writ petitions by observing that since election schedule
has already been published and the process is already on, let the same
be completed as per the scheduled programme and the Committee of
Management so elected take over the charge of the affairs of the
Society. Further observation has been made that the petitioners,
thereafter, will be at liberty to avail all such remedies as may be
available to them in accordance with law challenging the elections, if
so desired.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has made following
submissions:-
(i) the orders impugned in the writ petitions were passed
behind the back of the appellants and though the appellants’
Committee was duly elected in 2023 for a term of 5 years and
signatures of the Manager were already attested by the District
Inspector of Schools on 16.04.2023, there was neither any
justification nor occasion for passing the orders assailed in the
writ petitions.
(ii) based upon the orders dated 29.04.2025 and 29.12.2025,
some elections were held by the rival party, which have no
sanctity in the eyes of law. The learned Single Judge should
have decided the controversy involved in the matter, but
validity of the orders impugned, despite emphatic submissions
advanced, was not touched by wrongly applying the
proposition that after the election process has begun,
interference should not be made.
4
SPLA No. - 435 of 2026
(iii) on the one hand, learned Single Judge declined to
interfere in the orders impugned in the writ petitions, on the
other hand, not only direction for completion of process of
election was issued, the writ Court went quite ahead by
issuing a direction for handing over charge to the Committee
of Management so elected.
(iv) the orders impugned in the writ petition were already
stayed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional Officer by
order dated 18.03.2026 passed in Case No. 3068 of 2026
under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860, one week prior to the
order passed by the learned Single Judge and, for this reason
also, no elections could be held based upon determination of
electoral list made by the Assistant Registrar under the orders
impugned in the writ petition.
7. Learned Standing Counsel submits that it is well settled that once
election process has begun, no interference should be made therein and
in case anyone is aggrieved by the election or its result, he is always at
liberty to avail appropriate remedy available to him and, therefore, no
interference is warranted in the order passed by the learned Single
Judge.
8. Learned counsel for private respondents has vehemently opposed
the special appeals and has made following submissions:-
(i) once elections have already been held, which have not
been challenged by the appellants, the entire controversy raised
in the writ petitions or these appeals has rendered meaningless.
(ii) the order dated 29.12.2025 was passed after due
consideration of objections preferred by the group belonging to
the appellants as reflected from the order itself and insofar as
the stay order dated 18.03.2026 passed by the Prescribed
5
SPLA No. - 435 of 2026
Authority is concerned, the same was never brought to the
notice of the learned Single Judge and was deliberately
concealed.
(iv) even otherwise, the Sub Divisional Officer entertaining a
reference under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860, has no
jurisdiction to pass any interim order and, therefore, the order
dated 18.03.2026 is of no avail.
(v) while exercising power under Section 4-B of the Act,
1860, the Assistant Registrar is only required to see inclusion
and deletion of the members and he can modify the list but is
not required to go into the validity of the list of members,
which has already been finalized.
(vi) the dispute regarding membership as raised by the
appellants cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction and they can
obtain either a declaration from the civil court or an order from
the Prescribed Authority in a reference under Section 25 and,
therefore, challenge laid to the orders determining the electoral
list was not sustainable.
(vii) lists of members were already finalized in the year 2000-
2001 and, thereafter, in 2019, which documents form part and
parcel of Special Appeal No. 436 of 2026 and once the
determination so made long ago has attained finality, passing
of orders in 2025, based upon the lists already finalized and
after deletion of the names of dead members, was a rightful
exercise on the part of the Assistant Registrar requiring no
interference by this Court and, hence, both the appeals are
merit-less and deserve dismissal.
9. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for private
respondents has placed reliance upon Meerut Collegiate Association,
6
SPLA No. - 435 of 2026
Meerut and others vs. Arvind Nath Seth and others, 1982 AIR
(Allahabad) 172, Katar Singh Baliyan vs. State of U.P. and others, 2019
(5) ADJ 492, C/M Sri Khadeshwari Baba Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya
and 2 others, (Special Appeal No. 1954 of 2013) decided on 17.12.2013
and Brahmavir Singh vs. State of U.P. and 4 others (Special Appeal No.
382 of 2019) decided on 23.04.2019.
10. We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.
11. The parties are not at issue that the Society, on account of not
holding of elections since 2005, has become defunct/time barred, order
to which effect was passed by the Assistant Registrar on 27.08.2024
which has remained unchallenged. The dispute between the parties is as
regards determination of valid electoral roll in the form of list of
members.
12. The Court finds that the orders dated 29.04.2025 and 29.12.2025
have already been stayed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub Divisional
Officer on 18.03.2026, whereafter the writ petitions were disposed of
by the learned Single Judge; however, admittedly, interim order dated
18.03.2026 was not placed before the learned Single Judge, whatever
might have been the reason behind that.
13. The order dated 18.03.2026, not being subject matter of either of
the two writ petitions or otherwise, the very fact that an intervention
has been made by the Sub Divisional Officer in the orders impugned in
the writ petition, a question arises as to whether the elections in
furtherance of the orders which have already been stayed, could be
held. Therefore, utilization of list finalized under the orders impugned
in the writ petitions for the purposes of holding of elections, itself
becomes of significance and at least we cannot ignore the same as the
document is before us in the form of Annexure-3 to the stay
7
SPLA No. - 435 of 2026
application, appended at page no. 206 of the paper book of Special
Appeal No. 435 of 2026.
14. As far as the question raised qua status of the appellants in the
Society with reference to determination made in the year 2000-2001
and 2019, as argued by Shri Jain, we are not inclined to enter into the
same in the present special appeals for the simple reason that the said
aspect has not been examined by the learned Single Judge. As a matter
of fact, the writ petitions have not been entertained on merits only in
view of publication of election schedule and for no other reason.
15. Considering the nature of order passed by the learned Single
Judge, we are satisfied that the issues raised by rival parties require
adjudication on merits. We are also of the opinion that once the learned
Single Judge had declined to interfere with the election process, there
was no occasion for directing handing over charge to the Committee of
Management elected in the elections and then granting liberty to the
appellants to avail remedies challenging the elections.
16. As far as judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for
private respondents, we find that once nature of challenge laid by the
appellants to the orders impugned has not at all been examined by the
learned Single Judge on facts and law, we refrain ourselves from
making any observation on applicability of law on the given fact
situation, otherwise our observations would prejudice case of either of
the parties before the writ Court.
17. Without making further deliberations of the issues raised by the
parties, we deem it appropriate to remit the matter back to the learned
Single Judge for deciding the writ petitions based upon contentions
raised.
8
SPLA No. - 435 of 2026
18. Consequently, both the appeals are allowed. The order dated
25.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ – C No. 10299
of 2026 and Writ -C No. 10397 of 2026 is hereby set aside.
19. Writ – C No. 10299 of 2026 and Writ – C No. 10397 of 2026 are
restored to their original number and status and the same shall be listed
before the appropriate Bench on 27.04.2026 as a fresh case.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
April 15, 2026
Sazia
Digitally signed by :-
SAZIA AQUIL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…