SHALINI CHAUDHARY, SECRETARY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND 6 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                      WRIT - C No. - 10419 of 2026

Shalini Chaudhary, Secretary Executive Committee
And 6 Others                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                           .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Nitish Shakya, Saurabh Tripathi, Sr.
                                  Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : Santosh Kumar Dubey, C.S.C., Nitinjay
                                  Pandey

Court No. - 38
                 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Nitish Shakya, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Nitinjay Pandey, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 4.

2. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the impugned order dated
01.01.2024 was passed in a cursory manner in purported exercise of powers
under Section 4(1) read with Section 4-B of the Act, 1860, which is in the
teeth of the judgment rendered in the case of Committee of Management Sri
H.P. Singh Krishi Shiksha Samiti, Bisawar, District Hathras and Another vs.
State of U.P. and 7 Others in Writ-C No. 21396 of 2025. He has further
submitted that the last undisputed election took place on 30.07.2023 for a
period of three years, wherein Sri Pratap Singh was elected as Manager and
Sri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary (father of the petitioner) was elected as
Secretary, along with two Joint Secretaries, namely, Dinesh Singh
Chaudhary and Kuldip Singh. It is further submitted that on 21.08.2023, Sri
Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, the then Secretary, died. Taking advantage of the
said situation, a meeting was allegedly convened on 22.10.2023, wherein
one Sri Amit Singh was inducted as Joint Secretary and Varun Singh, who
was earlier an Executive Member, was also inducted as Joint Secretary.
Thereafter, the papers were transmitted to the Assistant Registrar for the
purpose of registration of the list of members, as contemplated under Section
4(1) of the Act.
                                                         WRIC No. 10419 of 2026
                                2


3. Even prior to the approval of the list of members submitted on
27.10.2023, the aforesaid Sri Amit Singh enrolled 22 members on
21.12.2023. It was only thereafter that, on 01.01.2024, an ex parte order
came to be passed under Sections 4(1) and 4-B of the Act.

4. When the aforesaid facts came to the knowledge of Smt. Shalini
Chaudhary, she inspected the records on 06.04.2024 and thereafter filed a
complaint on 16.04.2024. In the said complaint, it was specifically alleged
that the proceedings dated 22.10.2023 (meeting of the Executive Committee)
and 17.12.2023 (meeting of the General Body) are forged. It was also
pointed out that there was a specific stipulation in the order dated 01.01.2024
that, in case any facts contrary to what had been represented come to light,
the said order would stand void from the date of its passing. However,
although notices were issued by the Assistant Registrar on 09.05.2025 and
26.05.2025, he ultimately, by the second impugned order, held that he lacked
jurisdiction to review the order dated 01.01.2024. Notwithstanding the same,
he proceeded to hold that the removal of all the petitioners was in
accordance with law and also approved the proceedings dated 22.10.2023.

5. Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, with great vehemence, has argued that once the
Assistant Registrar had held that he did not have the power to review, he
could not have proceeded further to pass an order approving the proceedings
dated 22.10.2023 or the proceedings dated 04.11.2024 and 17.11.2024,
whereby eight members were removed, as these proceedings are distinct in
nature and entail different consequences.

6. Per contra, Sri Nitinjay Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent
no. 4, has submitted that there are specific findings recorded to the effect
that, insofar as the meetings dated 22.10.2023 and 17.12.2023 are concerned,
the same were held in accordance with the bye-laws. It is further submitted
that after the death of the Manager, Sri Vinod Kumar Chaudhary, and in
terms of the bye-laws, Sri Kuldip Singh (earlier Joint Secretary) was
appointed as Secretary on 04.09.2023. Thereafter, the meetings were duly
held on 22.10.2023 and 17.12.2023, wherein changes were made in the list
of members and the same were duly forwarded to the Assistant Registrar, as
contemplated under Section 4(1) of the Act.

7. However, as far as the question of induction of new members on
22.10.2023, i.e., prior to the passing of the order dated 01.01.2024 under
                                                                                              WRIC No. 10419 of 2026
                                                                     3


                                    Sections 4(1) and 4-B of the Act, 1860, are concerned, he has submitted that
                                    once the Secretaries were duly elected on 04.09.2023, they were competent
                                    to induct new members. Accordingly, the acceptance of such induction, by
                                    way of exercise of powers under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860, does not
                                    suffer from any infirmity.

                                    8. At this juncture, Sri Nitinjay Pandey, learned counsel appearing for
                                    respondent no. 4, has expressed his agreement with the argument, to the
                                    extent that the petitioners seeks indulgence of this Court on the ground that
                                    the question of removal of his membership ought to have been dealt with as
                                    a separate exercise under Section 4-B of the Act.

                                    9. In view of the aforesaid, and with the consent of the parties, the present
                                    writ petition is being decided at the admission stage. Respondent no. 2 is
                                    directed to hear both sides as well as all affected parties while proceeding
                                    under Section 4-B of the Act, strictly in accordance with law and the
                                    mandate of Section 4-B.

                                    10. It is, however, kept open for the petitioners, subject to the outcome of the
                                    proceedings under Section 4-B, to assail, if so advised, the order dated
                                    01.01.2024 by availing the remedy of appeal under Section 4(1-A) of the
                                    Act, 1860, as against the registration of the list of members.

                                    11. It is needless to say that the aforesaid exercise by respondent no. 2 shall
                                    be carried out expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from
                                    the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it.

                                    12. With the aforesaid, observations and directions the writ petition stands
                                    disposed of.

                                    April 20, 2026
                                    Vikram
                                                                                          (Siddharth Nandan,J.)




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