COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, SCHILLER INSTIUTE AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 17422 of 2026


Committee Of Management, Schiller Instiute And
Another                                                     .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                          .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)       : Nabeela Arjumand, Saurabh Tripathi,
                                  Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s)       : Naman Agarwal, C.S.C.

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

1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Sourabh Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.K. Ojha,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Naman Agrawal, learned counsel
for respondent nos. 3 and 4, and learned Standing Counsel for respondent
nos. 1 and 2.


2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-


“i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for
the records of the case and to quash the impugned order dated
07.04.2026 passed by the Commissioner, Meerut Region, Meerut,
respondent no.2 (Annexure No.34 to the writ petition).


ii. Issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Court may
deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”


3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the impugned
order dated 07.02.2025 passed under Section 25(2) of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860, an appeal was preferred on 06.08.2025 along with
an application for condonation of delay. The said appeal came to be
allowed on 19.01.2026 without condoning the delay.


4. It is submitted that the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ-
                                                       WRIC No. 17422 of 2026
                               2


C No. 5088 of 2026 and this Court, placing reliance upon the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs.Jahangir Byramji
Jeejeebhoy (D) through his legal heirs, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 489,
remitted the matter back with a direction that the question of delay be
considered first and only thereafter, depending upon the outcome, the
appeal be heard on merits.


5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once again the
Commissioner, Meerut Division, Meerut, without application of mind and
without recording any finding regarding sufficiency of cause for not
preferring the appeal within the prescribed period of one month, has
passed the impugned order dated 15.04.2026.


6. Reliance has been placed upon the proviso to Section 25(1)(d) of the
Act, 1860, wherein it has been provided that the appellate authority may
admit the appeal after expiry of the prescribed period if satisfied that
sufficient cause existed for not preferring the appeal within such period.


7. It has further been argued that, in the first place itself, the appeal was
not maintainable inasmuch as Section 25(1)(d) of the Act, 1860
contemplates an appeal only against an order passed under the said
provision and not against an order passed under Section 25(2) of the Act,
1860.


8. Per contra, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the
respondents submits that the delay has been condoned in the interest of
justice and, since this is the second round of litigation, this Court may not
interfere in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India merely on technical grounds.


9. In rejoinder affidavit Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel
for the petitioner submits that even otherwise the appeal itself was not
maintainable and the authority ought to have first considered the objection
regarding maintainability.


10. Although the impugned order dated 07.04.2026 is alleged to be
                                                                                           WRIC No. 17422 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    vitiated on technical grounds, this Court finds that the interest of justice
                                    would be adequately protected if the issue regarding maintainability of the
                                    appeal under Section 25(1)(d) of the Act, 1860 is examined as a
                                    preliminary issue by the Commissioner, to which the counsel for the
                                    parties, have no objection.

                                    11. In view of the aforesaid, without interfering with the impugned order
                                    dated 07.04.2026, respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the issue
                                    regarding the maintainability of the appeal as a preliminary issue, before
                                    proceeding further with the adjudication of the appeal on merits,
                                    expeditiously and preferably within a period of one month from the date
                                    of production of a certified copy of this order.

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



                                                                                        (Siddharth Nandan,J.)
                                    May 12, 2026
                                    Sushma




Digitally signed by :-
SUSHAMA YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad