COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, MADHAV VIDYA MANDIR INTER COLLEGE AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
           SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 1112 of 2025

Committee of Management, Madhav Vidya Mandir Inter College and
another
                                               …..Appellant(s)

                                Versus

State of U.P. and 3 others
                                                       …..Respondent(s)


Counsel for Appellant(s)           : Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, Vinod
                                     Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s)          : Radha Kant Ojha (Sr. Adv.), Anil
                                     Kumar, Seema Agarwal, S.C.


Chief Justice's Court

            HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.


1.    Heard Shri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to
3 and Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri
Anil Kumar for respondent no. 4.

2.    The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 9 days. An
application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. For the reasons
indicated in the affidavit, the application is allowed. Delay in filing the
appeal is hereby condoned.
                                    2
                                                  SPLAD No. - 1112 of 2025

3.     This appeal is directed against order dated 27.10.2025, whereby
learned Single Judge has disposed of the appellants’ Writ-C No. 34585
of 2025 observing that the petitioner will have liberty to settle the issue
of his membership before any competent civil court or forum or
concerned authority.

4.     The writ petition was filed by the appellants challenging the order
dated 08.08.2025 whereby the Regional Level Committee (‘RLC’),
while disposing of the representation dated 31.05.2025 filed by appellant
no. 2, approved the elections of respondent no. 4- Committee of
Management.

5.     The case of the appellants is that the appellant no. 2 was duly
elected as Manager of the Committee of Management in the periodical
elections held in the years 2009, 2012 and 2015 and the same were duly
approved by the District Inspector of Schools (‘DIOS’). On a dispute
being raised by one Shyam Lal qua membership of appellant no. 2, the
matter reached to the RLC in the year 2016, wherein the objection raised
by Shyam Lal was turned down by order dated 08.09.2016, which
attained finality.

6.     Further case of the appellants is that when model scheme of
administration was adopted by the Management, next elections were due
in February/March, 2021, but due to pandemic COVID-19, elections
could not be conducted and it is only on 06.03.2024 when appellant no.
2 made a request to the DIOS to appoint Departmental Observer for
conducting elections that the election programme was notified in
newspapers and in furtherance thereof, elections were held, in which
appellant no. 2 was elected as Manager.

7.     When the papers requesting grant of approval to the elections were
forwarded to the DIOS in March, 2024, no decision was taken by him,
consequently, the appellants filed Writ – C no. 19297 of 2024, which is
                                      3
                                                    SPLAD No. - 1112 of 2025

pending. As per appellants, they came to know about settling up of
another election by respondent no. 4 and approval granted to the same by
the   DIOS.    The    appellants    preferred   a   representation   against
recognition/approval granted to the election of respondent no. 4,
however, the same was rejected by the DIOS on 28.05.2024.

8.    Being aggrieved of the order dated 28.05.2024, the appellants filed
Writ – C no. 42630 of 2024, which was dismissed as not pressed
granting liberty to the appellants to avail remedy by filing representation
under the Government Order dated 19.12.2000. The appellants, then,
filed representation before the RLC and, by order dated 08.08.2025,
RLC rejected the representation and kept the order of DIOS according
approval to the elections of respondent no. 4, intact. It is against the said
order dated 08.08.2025, the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal
was filed, which has been disposed of with the observations already
indicated hereinbefore.

9.    Learned counsel for the appellants has made submissions that the
learned Single Judge has wrongly declined to entertain the challenge to
the order passed by the RLC on the ground that the RLC had recorded
finding to the effect that the appellant no. 2 had failed to establish his
membership and the writ petition, according to the learned Single Judge,
is silent about induction of appellant no. 2 as Manager and, resultantly,
the appellants’ locus to challenge the elections of respondent no. 4 has
been wrongly held to be doubtful.

10.   Further submission has been made that though the writ petition
contained specific pleadings and grounds to the effect that issue of
membership of appellant no. 2 had already been settled in terms of order
dated 08.09.2016 passed by the RLC, it was not open to be discussed or
decided again and, therefore, the order dated 08.08.2025 amounts to
reviewing the earlier order qua membership, however, the learned Single
                                      4
                                                      SPLAD No. - 1112 of 2025

Judge has recorded a perverse observation that RLC had not gone to the
question of membership of appellant no. 2 in its order dated 08.09.2016.

11.   It is further submitted that the General Body of the Committee of
Management as well as Society running the institution being the same,
once, based upon further elections of the Society, a list of office bearers
has already been registered by the Assistant Registrar under Section 4-B
of Societies Registration Act, 1860 for the year 2025-26 and, that too,
prior to passing of RLC’s order dated 08.08.2025, the order passed by
the learned Single Judge causes serious prejudice to the appellants’ case
and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

12.   Learned Standing Counsel has made submissions that once
appellant no. 2 failed to establish his membership before the RLC and,
then, before the writ Court, findings recorded by the RLC were not
shown to be perverse, no error was committed by the learned Single
Judge and, therefore, the appeal has no merit.

13.   Learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondent no. 4 has made
submissions that RLC’s order dated 08.09.2016 did not decide the issue
of membership of appellant no. 2 and once it is an admitted fact that
some receipts pertaining to the year 1987 and 1988 were sought to be
relied upon by appellant no. 2 to establish his membership but his name
was not there in the list of members published in the year 1989, a heavy
burden lay upon him to establish his membership and since he could not
discharge the burden, any elections set up by him at whatever point of
time, become invalid and, therefore, the RLC has not erred in passing the
order dated 08.08.2025.

14.   Further submission has been made that Writ – C No. 19297 of
2024 filed by the appellants is still pending and once the prayer to accord
approval to the elections allegedly held by the appellants in March,
2024, is still under consideration in the said writ petition, no relief can be
                                        5
                                                       SPLAD No. - 1112 of 2025

granted to the appellants in the present matter. It is further submitted that
an Authorized Controller remained in control of affairs of the institution
for a period of 20 years w.e.f. 1989 to 2009 and as soon as the Controller
was removed, further elections were held by the appellants, however at
no point of time, the membership of appellant no. 2 was thoroughly
examined by any authority except what has now been done under the
order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the RLC.

15.   As regards the list of office bearers registered under Section 4-B
of the Act for the year 2025-26, submission has been made that the said
order is under challenge in another writ petition, which is yet to be heard
by this Court and, hence, plea based upon registration of list by the
Assistant Registrar has no substance.

16.   We have considered the submissions made and have perused the
material available on record.

17.   Since the appellants’ claim has been discarded by the RLC in the
order dated 08.08.2025 and also by the learned Single Judge mainly on
the ground that the appellant no. 2 failed to establish his membership,
the Court has gone into the earlier order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the
RLC, which was sought to be interpreted by both sides according to their
convenience. We find that at the instance of one Shyam Lal, Writ – C
No. 8090 of 2016 was filed before this Court, which was disposed of by
order dated 23.02.2016 permitting him to approach the RLC to decide
the dispute raised by him and, in furtherance of the said order, RLC
passed a detailed order dated 08.09.2016. Qua membership of appellant
no. 2, following conclusions were drawn by the RLC:-

             "्ቦी श्याम लाल ्ቛारा उठाये गये साधारण सभा की सदस्यता एवं ्ቚबन्ध
             समिमतित के चुनाव ्ቚ्቞ों का अध्ययन मिकया गया और अध्ययनोंपरान्त मिनम्न
             ቝኌस्,तित पाई गयी।

                    1- जहां तक सदस्यता का ्ቚ्቞ है इस संबंध में स्वयं ्ቦी श्यामलाल
             जो मिक व्ቧ8 2009 व 2012 के चुनाव में ्ቚबन्ध समिमतित के को्ቧाध्य्ቌ चुने
                                         6
                                                         SPLAD No. - 1112 of 2025

            गये ,े और ्ቦी मिदनेश ्ቚकाश िሺसह को ्ቚबन्धक चुना गया ,ा। स्वयं ्ቦी
            श्याम लाल ्ቛारा स्वीकार मिकया गया है और इस संबंध में कोई मिववाद नहीं
            मिकया गया। जब ्ቦी श्यामलाल उसी चुनाव में उसी साधारण सभा की
            सदस्यता को मानते हुए ्ቚतितभाग करते है तो पुनः बाद के व्ቧ8 में मिकये जाने
            वाले चुनाव में उसी साधारण सभा के सदस्य जिजनके सा, उन्होंने ्ቚबन्ध
            समिमतित में काय8 भी मिकया को कैसे मिववामिदत कह सकते है।

                     2- सदस्य बनने हेतु इच्छुक व्यቝኌEF के ्ቛारा सदस्यता शुल्क जमा
            मिकया जाता है, सदस्यता सूची में वह स्वयं अपने नाम का उ्ቤेख नहीं
            करता। सदस्यता शुल्क तत्समय जमा मिकया गया है , नाम जोड़ने में या
            उ्ቤेख करने में यमिद कोई ्ቚमिNयात्मक या लिलमिपकीय ्ቔुमिQ है। उसके लिलये
            सम्बቝኌन्धत सदस्य का कोई दो्ቧ नहीं हो सकता , वह भी जब वह इससे पूव8
            ्ቚबन्धक भी रह चुका हो काय8 काल पूरा कर चुका हो , और सा, में कोई
            पदातिधकारी पूरे काय8 काल तक सा, में काय8 भी कर चुका हो और वह उस
            समय कोई आपलिF न करे उसके बाद आपलिF मिनराधार है।

                    वस्तुतः मिव्ቕालय में आपसी मतभेद है और मिववादकता8 स्वयं भी
            मिव्ቕालय से जुड़े रहे है, अपनी सेवायें देते रहे है। ऐसी ቝኌस्,तित में मिववाद
            उत्प्ቐ होना स्वाभामिवक है मिकन्तु आपसी महत्वाकां्ቌा के लिलये शिश्ቌण
            संस्,ा तथ्ण शिश्ቌण का अमिहत सव8 ,ा अनुतिचत है।
                    उपरो्ሹानुसार जिजला मिव्ቕालय मिनरी्ቌक के प्ቔांक ्ቚबन्ध/4544-
            48/2015-16 मिदनांक 03.02.2016 ्ቛारा ्ቚबन्धक का जो हस्ता्ቌर
            ्ቚमाशिणत मिकया गया है। उसे स्वीकार मिकया जाता है।"

18.   A bare perusal of the order passed by the RLC indicates that the
objector Shyam Lal himself had been elected as Treasurer in the
elections of 2009 and 2012, in which appellant no. 2 was elected as
Manager and, therefore, the challenge laid by Shyam Lal was found to
be without any basis. The RLC further held that if a person becomes
member by depositing membership fees, but his name is not
incorporated in the documents, the same being a procedural/clerical
error, blame cannot be found in the member, particularly when he has
already completed his term as Manager without any objection from
anyone.

19.   The RLC, now in the order dated 08.08.2025, observed that in the
list of alive members pertaining to the year 1989, name of appellant no.
2 and one Sabhajeet Singh was not indicated, though a sum of Rs.2001/-
was shown to have been received from appellant no. 2 on 23.01.1987
                                      7
                                                     SPLAD No. - 1112 of 2025

and a sum of Rs.2005/- from Sabhajeet Singh on 06.02.1988, based upon
which, new list was directed to be made available to the Authorised
Controller. The RLC further observed that if the said two persons were
enrolled as members in 1987 and 1988, non-inclusion of their names in
the list of 1989 and, then, to add their names in the new list published
after 20 years in 2009, is contradictory as the Authorised Controller has
no power/right to determine new membership list.

20.   We find that qua the findings recorded by the RLC, not only
pleadings were contained in paragraphs no. 43 and 44 of the writ
petition, but also the very first two grounds raised therein assailed
validity of the said findings in the light of finality attached to the earlier
order dated 08.09.2016 passed by the RLC. In view of above, we find
that the observations made by the learned Single Judge that the writ
petition is ‘silent’ about induction of appellant no. 2 as a member and,
therefore, his locus to challenge the elections of respondent no. 4
becomes doubtful, are based upon misreading of the writ petition.
Further finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the RLC, in its
order dated 08.09.2016, had not gone into the question of membership of
appellant no. 2 to the extent argued by the appellants, also does not
appear to be based upon critical analysis of the issue of membership, as
raised.

21.   The order of learned Single Judge being based upon mainly the
determination qua membership, we, in the light of discussion made
hereinabove, are inclined to remit the matter to the learned Single Judge
for fresh consideration of the controversy involved in the case. As far as
the registration of list of members/office bearers under Section 4-B of
the Societies Registration Act, 1860, the same not being subject matter
of present appeal and another writ petition being pending in that regard,
we need not comment upon the same.

22.   Consequently, the appeal is allowed.
                                                                    8
                                                                                 SPLAD No. - 1112 of 2025

                            23.         The order dated 27.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in
                            Writ – C No. 34585 of 2025 is hereby set aside.

                            24.         Writ -C No. 34585 of 2025 is restored to its original number and
                            status and the same shall be listed before the appropriate Bench on
                            22.04.2026 as a fresh case.


                                                            (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

                            April 08, 2026
                            Sazia




Digitally signed by :-
SAZIA AQUIL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad