Allahabad High Court
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, SHIKARPUR SIKSHA VIKAS SAMITI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 8 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SIDDHARTH NANDAN
Holding
The court ordered respondent No. 2 to conclude the pending proceedings within two months and disposed of the writ petition.
Summary
The petitioners, a society, challenged the actions of certain respondents who allegedly took forceful possession of the society's institution after an election held on 01‑06‑2025 and subsequent amendment of its bye‑laws on 12‑11‑2025. The petitioners claimed that a respondent filed an objection on 22‑12‑2025 and set up a parallel election, prompting a notice issued by respondent No. 2 on 24‑12‑2025, to which replies were filed but no further action was taken. The petitioners also reported a police complaint and an injunction suit concerning the alleged illegal possession. The court examined whether the objection and the pending notice proceedings should be concluded to resolve the dispute. It directed respondent No. 2 to complete the proceedings within two months of the order and consequently disposed of the writ petition.
Issues considered
- Whether the objection to the election and amendment of the society's bye‑laws is maintainable.
- Whether the court should order the respondent to expedite the pending notice proceedings.
- Whether the writ petition should be dismissed after such direction.
Subjects
- Society bye‑laws
- Election dispute
- Writ petition
- Injunction
- Possession
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 19262 of 2026
Committee Of Management, Shikarpur Siksha
Vikas Samiti And Another .....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 8 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petition....er(s) : Arvind Kumar Verma, Mahesh Sharma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 38
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.
1. Sri Mahesh Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners
and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. In view of the order proposed to be passed at this stage, notices to
respondents No. 5 to 9 are dispensed with.
3. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the last election was held on
01.06.2025, and the papers were transmitted to Respondent No. 2.
Subsequently, certain amendments were made to the bye-laws of the
Society on 12.11.2025, which were also forwarded on 28.11.2025. He
further submits that an objection was filed on 22.12.2025 by the
respondent No. 7 and one Rakesh Sharma, who is not a member of the
Society, and that they had set up a parallel election.
4. In view of the aforesaid, a notice was issued on 24.12.2025 by
Respondent No. 2, to which he had also submitted replies on 05.01.2026
and 25.02.2026, but no further proceedings have taken place."
5. During the pendency of the aforesaid proceedings, as per the
allegations of the petitioners, the respondents have taken forceful
possession of the institution run by the Society. A complaint was also
made before the police authorities on 17.03.2026, and a suit for injunction
has also been filed.
6. However, he submits that, in case the objection filed by the respondents
WRIC No. 19262 of 2026
2
vis-à-vis the election dated 01.06.2025 and the amendment dated
12.11.2025 is brought to its logical end by respondent No. 2, the
controversy can be settled; the learned Standing Counsel has no objection.
7. In view of the aforesaid, Respondent No. 2 is directed to conclude the
proceedings initiated by the issuance of the notice dated 24.12.2025
expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the service
of the certified copy of this order.
8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
(Siddharth Nandan,J.)
May 18, 2026
piyush
Digitally signed by :-
PIYUSH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…