COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF MADHUBAN SHIKSHA SAMITI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
              SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 976 of 2025


Committee of Management of Madhuban Shiksha
Samiti and another                                        .....Appellant(s)
                                  Versus

State of U.P. and 5 others
                                                        .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s)       : G.K. Singh (Sr. Adv.) with Utsav
                                 Singh, Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : Meenakshi Singh, AC.S.C., Vinod
                                 Kumar Pandey, Ashutosh Ganguli

Chief Justice's Court
            HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE
            HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Heard Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Utsav
Singh, appearing for the applicants-appellants, learned Standing Counsel
for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Shri Vinod Kumar Pandey, learned
Counsel appearing for respondents no. 4, 5 and 6.

2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated
09.10.2025, whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of Writ-C No.
34322 of 2025 (Committee of Management Madhuban Shiksha Samiti
and 2 others Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) filed by the private
respondents and set aside the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra with an observation
that legal consequences shall follow. Learned Single Judge has also sent
the matter to the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Agra Region, Agra
to proceed further in accordance with law.

3. An application supported by affidavit, seeking leave to file appeal has
been filed stating therein that under the orders dated 12.06.2025 and
19.06.2025 impugned in the writ petition, it was applicant-Committee of
Management that was recognized as the valid Committee of the Society
and though it was a necessary party, it was not impleaded as a respondent
in the writ petition and, therefore, leave to file appeal be granted.

4. Submission has been made that in the array of the writ petition, though
                                                        SPLAD No. 976 of 2025
                               2


the Manager and President of the Committee were impleaded in their
personal capacity, the writ petition, in absence of Committee of
Management as a party thereto, was defective and though such argument
was advanced before the learned Single Judge, the order was reserved
after hearing the parties but the said aspect has not been dealt with while
disposing of the writ petition.

5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find substance in the
submissions made and, in view of the fact that the order impugned in the
writ petition was passed in furtherance of an order dated 01.08.2024
passed by this Court in Writ-C No. 22711 of 2024 filed by the applicant-
appellants, non-impleadment of the Committee was a fatal defect in the
writ petition.

6. In view of the above, the application for leave to file appeal is allowed.
The applicants are granted leave to file the present appeal.

Order on Appeal

7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants has made
submissions that at an earlier point of time, a list of members/office
bearers of the appellant-Committee of Management was registered,
however the same was illegally cancelled by the Assistant Registrar by an
order dated 26.06.2024 with a direction for filling the vacancies in
accordance with the provisions of the Bye-laws of the Society. The said
order was set aside by this court vide order dated 01.08.2024 passed in the
appellants’ Writ-C No. 22711 of 2024 mainly on the ground of violation
of principles of natural justice and the matter was remanded back to the
Assistant Registrar to decide the same afresh.

8. Submission has been made that pursuant to the said order of the writ
court, the Assistant Registrar, after making extensive analysis of the rival
claims and the material available on record, rejected the complaints filed
by the respondents and directed registration of appellants' list of office
bearers for the year 2025-26 by an order dated 12.06.2025. It is contended
that without recording any finding on the rival contentions qua office
bearership, the writ petition has been decided in a cursory manner
discussing those aspects which did not form subject matter of controversy
                                                        SPLAD No. 976 of 2025
                               3


between the parties and, therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge
may be set aside.

9. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has made submissions
that the main issue involved in the matter was qua the alleged
Presidentship of one Maharaj Singh and the decisions taken by him in
respect of induction of Gopal Prasad (respondent no. 3 in the writ
petition) as a member and elect him as Manager and once the learned
Single Judge has arrived at a conclusion that no finding was recorded by
the Assistant Registrar as to how Maharaj Singh was shown as President,
the order of the Assistant Registrar as well as proceedings qua induction
of Gopal Prasad were rightly found to be illegal and, therefore, no
interference is warranted in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

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

11. It is not in dispute that the list of office bearers of the Committee of
Management of the appellants’ society was registered in the office of
Assistant Registrar. However, when the same was cancelled on
26.06.2024, the said order was assailed by the appellants in Writ-C No.
22711 of 2024, which was allowed by order dated 01.08.2024 setting
aside the order of cancellation of list and the Assistant Registrar was
directed to re-decide the matter after providing opportunity of hearing to
the parties.

12. The Assistant Registrar, in the order dated 12.06.2025, made detailed
discussion of the aspects raised through complaints made by the
respondents and also the response given by the appellants. Prima facie,
the Court does not find any discussion either in the earlier order passed in
Writ-C No. 22711 of 2024 or in the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the
Assistant Registrar qua status of Maharaj Singh. Rather the controversy
was otherwise, i.e. based upon the documents produced by the rival
parties which reflected filling up of vacancies.

13. From perusal of the detailed order dated 12.06.2025, we are of the
view that the challenge laid to the same should have been decided not
only after impleading the Committee of Management as a party
                                                        SPLAD No. 976 of 2025
                               4


respondent but also after exchange of affidavits, however the learned
Single Judge, after reproducing the earlier order passed in Writ-C No.
22711 of 2024 and some portion of the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by
the Assistant Registrar, has directly arrived at a conclusion that no finding
had been recorded as to how Maharaj Singh was shown as President when
Gopal Prasad was inducted as a member.

14. Learned Single Judge has also observed that the impugned order is
mainly based upon one portion of the statement made by Rajesh Kumar
(one of the petitioners) and in ignorance of larger part of the said
statement. Learned Single Judge has also referred to record of some
criminal case and decided the writ petition by observing that the order
impugned had been passed in a cursory manner without looking into real
dispute between the parties. While setting aside the order dated
12.06.2025, learned Single Judge has observed that legal consequences
shall follow and, thereafter, the matter has been sent to the Registrar to
proceed in accordance with law.

15. Such kind of observations made and the conclusion drawn by the
learned Single Judge, in our opinion, would create not only complications
but would also lead the parties to nowhere. In our opinion, what was
required to be done in the writ petition was to invite response from the
respondents therein including the Committee of Management which had
not been impleaded as a party, though the order impugned was in its
favour and, then, decide the matter based upon the dispute between the
rival parties and not simply by referring to one or other part of statement
of one or other person or status of Maharaj Singh as President and his act
of inducting member(s).

16. In view of the record of proceedings and the order impugned, we are
inclined to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and restore the
writ petition for hearing on merits and, that too, after impleadment of
present appellant Committee of Management as party respondent in the
said writ petition.

17. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed.

18. The order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge is
                                                                                            SPLAD No. 976 of 2025
                                                                   5


                                    hereby set aside.

                                    19. Writ-C No. 34322 of 2025 is restored to its original number and
                                    status.

                                    20. The writ petitioners are directed to implead the appellant Committee
                                    of Management as party respondent in the writ petition within a period of
                                    ten days from today.

                                    21. The appellants shall file counter affidavit in the writ petition within a
                                    period of three weeks from the date of their impleadment.

                                    22. The writ petition shall be listed before the learned Single Judge on
                                    16.04.2026 as a fresh case.

                                    23. It is made clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits
                                    of the rival claims and contentions of the parties qua the orders impugned
                                    in the writ petition which shall be decided by the writ court on its own
                                    merits.



                                                                 (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)
                                    March 11, 2026
                                    AKShukla/-




Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad