Allahabad High Court
RAM PAL SINGH AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The observations in paragraph 6 do not constitute authority to validate or mandate the fresh elections and must not influence any subsequent adjudication of objections.
Summary
The appellants challenged a High Court order that had merely observed that fresh elections could proceed pending jurisdictional determination, arguing that the observation effectively authorized the elections held on 23 March 2026. The Single Judge had declined to quash the communication scheduling a meeting on the membership dispute and noted that any substantive order required a jurisdictional check. The Court held that the observation in paragraph 6 did not constitute an authority to hold or validate the elections and should not influence any later objections. It further noted that the Committee’s term had expired and elections had already been conducted, rendering the writ petition moot. Consequently, the Special Appeal was disposed of with a clarification that the observation does not validate the election proceedings and that any objections must be decided on their merits without reliance on that observation.
Issues considered
- Whether the observation in paragraph 6 of the Single Judge's order amounts to an authority to hold fresh elections of the Committee of Management.
- Whether the Special Appeal is maintainable after the elections have been held and the Committee's term has expired.
- Whether objections to the election results can be considered independently of the Single Judge's observations.
Subjects
- jurisdiction
- committee of management
- fresh elections
- writ petition
- high court observation
- objection to election
- legal impediment
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 199 of 2026
Ram Pal Singh and another
…..Appellant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and 5 others
…..Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : Sanjay Kumar Pundir, Sr.
Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Krishna Mohan
Asthana
Chief Justice's Court
HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. Heard Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate
assisted by Shri Sanjay Kumar Pundir for the appellants, learned
Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 4 and Shri Krishna
Mohan Asthana, learned counsel for respondents no. 5 and 6.
3. This appeal is directed against the order dated 25.02.2026
whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of Writ - C No.
2
SPLAD No. - 199 of 2026
7663 of 2026 filed by respondents no. 5 and 6 with certain
observations.
4. The writ petition was filed challenging an order/letter dated
27.01.2026 issued by the Director/Additional Director
(Secondary), Prayagraj to the Regional Joint Director of
Education, whereby the latter was informed regarding holding of
meeting in the office of Additional Director on 19.02.2026 at
12:00 Noon for the purposes of deciding the membership dispute
concerning Chacha Nehru Smarak Inter College, Balapur Akheda,
District Bijnor. Further prayer was made to direct the respondent
authority/District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor to pass appropriate
order for holding fresh elections of the Committee of Management
of the Institution through an observer appointed by the authority
and under the supervision of the Presiding Officer, within a
specified period of time and, further, not to interfere in functioning
of the Committee of Management of the petitioners (respondents
no. 5 and 6).
5. Learned Single Judge, after noticing that the tenure of the
Committee of Management was up to 23.02.2026 with one month
grace period, declined to quash the order impugned and disposed
of the writ petition with the observation that since, at this stage,
concerned respondent has only summoned concerned parties to
place their case, no illegality has been committed. Learned Single
Judge further observed that if the respondent proceeds to pass any
order on merit, he shall first decide as to whether he has
jurisdiction to decide the issue of dispute of Committee of
Management and membership. While concluding the order, an
observation was made in paragraph no. 6 that 'in the meanwhile,
3
SPLAD No. - 199 of 2026
proceedings for fresh election may go on, if there is no other legal
impediment'.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants has made
submissions that on the one hand, learned Single Judge has
declined to quash the order/communication dated 27.01.2026 and
observed that in case the respondent authority proceeds to pass
any order on merits, question the jurisdiction to decide a dispute
of Committee of Management and membership would be decided
at the first instance, on the other hand, an unwarranted observation
has been made regarding holding of fresh elections.
7. Submission is that taking advantage of the observation
contained in 6th paragraph of the order, the respondents have
surreptitiously and unlawfully held elections in furtherance of the
notice dated 16.03.2026 published in a newspaper and the
elections have been held illegally on 23.03.2026 (i.e. yesterday).
8. Further submission has been made that the petitioners have
every right to file objections against the election proceedings as
well as result thereof, however, in case any such objections are
filed, the same would not be accorded due consideration and the
authority would hold the elections as valid by observing that the
same were permitted to be held by the writ Court as per
observations made in 6th paragraph of the order.
9. It has further been submitted that in any case, if the
appellants are permitted to file objections against the election
proceedings and result thereof, the same may be directed to be
considered on its own merits without being influenced by the
observations made by the learned Single Judge.
4
SPLAD No. - 199 of 2026
10. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents-writ
petitioners submits that the Special Appeal has been rendered
infructuous in view of the fact that the Committee of Management
has lived its term and fresh elections have been held on
23.03.2026 and, therefore, neither the cause espoused through writ
petition survives as on today nor any other direction can be issued
in the present appeal and, therefore, he prayed for dismissal of the
appeal.
11. We have considered the submissions made and have
perused the material available on record.
12. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge rightly declined to
interfere with the communication dated 27.01.2026 whereby a
meeting was scheduled to be held by the Additional Director of
Education in relation to the consideration and disposal of
membership dispute. Further, the learned Single Judge rightly
observed that if the authority proceeds to pass any order on merits,
it shall first decide as to whether it has jurisdiction to decide the
issue of dispute of Committee of Management and membership.
13. Once observations to the aforesaid effect were made, there
was no necessity to make an observation regarding holding of
fresh elections and, in this regard, the apprehension of Shri Ojha
appears to have substance that in case, pursuant to the elections
held on 23.03.2026, the appellants prefer any objections before the
competent authority, an occasion may arise where the authority
may turn down the objections only on the ground that the
elections have been held in furtherance of or permission granted
by the High Court.
5
SPLAD No. - 199 of 2026
14. We are of the view that, in the facts and circumstance of the
case, observations made in paragraph 6 of the order of learned
Single Judge were not warranted and, in any case, since the
elections have been held and the validity thereof has to be
examined in appropriate proceedings, we are inclined to dispose
of the present appeal with certain observations.
15. In view of the above discussion, the Special Appeal is
disposed of with a clarification that mere observations made by
learned Single Judge in paragraph 6 of the order dated 25.02.2026
passed in Writ - C No. 7663 of 2026, would not be treated as an
authority in favour of the writ-petitioners (respondents no. 5 and
6) to hold elections nor would the same, in itself, be treated as
validating the election proceedings or result thereof.
16. It is further directed that in case, parties aggrieved of the
elections or their result, prefer any objections before the
competent authority, the same shall be dealt with strictly in
accordance with law and on their own merits after providing
opportunity of hearing to the rival parties and without being
influenced by the observations made in paragraph 6 of the order of
the learned Single Judge.
(Kshitij Shailendra, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)
March 24, 2026
Sazia
Digitally signed by :-
SAZIA AQUIL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…