Piyush Pratap Narayan Singh v. State of U.P. and

1. Heard Shri Ashwani Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4.

2. The present appeal raises a challenge to the order dated 09.10.2025, whereby learned Single Judge has disposed of Writ-C No. 34098 of 2025 (Piyush Pratap Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) filed by the petitioner-appellant with certain observations.

3. The appellant claims to be a life member of a Society, namely, Kisan Shiksha Sansthan, Sakhopar, Village & Post Sakhopar, District Kushinagar. Challenge laid by him in the writ petition was to the orders dated 21.07.2010, 13.05.2019 and 02.09.2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur. Submissions were made before the learned Single Judge that an election of the society took place in the year 2010 which was challenged before this Court by means of Writ-C No. 58815 of 2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.09.2010 and the matter was remanded to the District Inspector of Schools ('DIOS') to pass appropriate orders regarding recognition of the election of Committee of Management. It was submitted that after remand, the matter is still pending before the DIOS and a list of 53 members has been approved by the Assistant Registrar vide order dated

13.05.2019, seeking recall/review of which order, the petitioner filed an application in the year 2024, however, the same has been illegally 2 SPLA No. 1168 of 2025 rejected vide order dated 02.09.2025. The case of the appellant before the writ court was that the dispute about list of members can still be considered based upon the material and, therefore, rejection of petitioner's application was not justified.

4. Learned Single Judge, based upon the submissions made before him, arrived at a conclusion that list of 53 members had been approved long back, firstly in the year 2010 and, again, in the year 2019 and, therefore, a highly belated challenge laid to the said determination, respectively after 15 years and 6 years from such determination, was not justified and, therefore, no interference was made by the learned Single Judge.

5. While disposing of the writ petition, an observation was made by the learned Single Judge that since the society was registered upto 22.01.2021 and, presently, the same is unregistered, in case any application is moved by any of the parties for registration and any objection is filed by the petitioner at that stage, concerned authority will take note of it and shall proceed strictly in accordance with law. It was further observed that the authority would also take care of outcome of proceedings of recognition of election in pursuance of the order dated 24.09.2010 passed by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has made submissions that since valid membership has not been decided which can still be decided by respondent no. 2, the orders wrongly deciding the membership, though may have been passed in 2010 and 2019, should be set aside and the contention of the appellant based upon his recall application dated

08.04.2025, be considered.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has made submissions that the learned Single Judge has rightly discarded a highly belated challenge to the orders that had attained finality and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the order passed by learned Single Judge.

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 has made submissions that though the learned Single Judge has reproduced the entire order dated

24.09.2010 passed in Writ-C No. 58815 of 2010 and noted that, after remand, matter is still pending before the concerned DIOS, as a matter of 3 SPLA No. 1168 of 2025 fact, the order dated 24.09.2010 was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2010 passed in Special Appeal No. 1770 of 2010 (Committee of Management, Kisan Inter College and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) and it was left open to the respondents therein to approach the Regional Level Committee.

9. It is, therefore, submitted that any observation made by learned Single Judge based upon the order dated 24.09.2010 is in ignorance of the order passed in Special Appeal No. 1770 of 2010 and, in any case, even if the observations based upon the order of writ court are ignored, the petitioner-appellant has no case to raise a challenge to the orders passed in 2010 and 2019 merely by moving an application for recall/review of such orders and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the order of learned Single Judge.

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

11. As per the case of the appellant himself, list of 53 members was approved in the year 2010 and 2019. Though status of the appellant as life member of the society has also been disputed on behalf of respondent no. 4, even ignoring such objection at this stage, there is nothing on record to indicate as to when the appellant was life member, as per his own version, what was he doing after 2010 till 2019 and after 2019 till 2025. It stands reflected from record that some objections were raised by Abhay Pratap Singh and, then, by the appellant Piyush Pratap Narayan Singh. The appellant's objection being dated 08.04.2025, which is in the nature of an application seeking to nullify the approved lists dated 21.07.2010 and

13.05.2019, was filed also with a prayer to approve the list of 139 members. In the said application, it is indicated that the appellant has come to know about his exclusion from a previous list of 139 members and, therefore, he has filed the application with appropriate prayers.

12. Last order under challenge before the writ court was dated 02.09.2025 rejecting the representations/objections filed by Abhay Pratap Singh and the appellant Piyush Pratap Narayan Singh with the observation that the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to review the orders passed on 4 SPLA No. 1168 of 2025

21.07.2010 and 13.05.2019, as per the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find that though the learned Single Judge has rightly discarded the challenge laid by the appellant to the orders passed or lists approved in the year 2010 and 2019 on the ground of inordinate delay, the observations contained in paragraph no. 19 of the order impugned with reference to previous order dated 24.09.2010 passed in Writ-C No. 58815 of 2010, appear to be in ignorance of fact that the special appeal against the order being Special Appeal No. 1770 of 2010, was allowed by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2010 and the order dated 24.09.2010 was set aside. For a ready reference, operative portion of the order dated 24.10.2010 is reproduced as under:- "Accordingly, the order dated 24.09.2010 is hereby set aside. It shall be open to the respondent - petitioner to approach the Regional Level Committee with a certified copy of this order before the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 on receipt of the application alongwith a copy of this order, shall proceed in accordance with law to decide the dispute after putting the concerned parties to notice within a period of three months. Appeal stands allowed. Learned Counsel agree that writ petition no.49675 of 2010 be also disposed of. Accordingly writ petition no.49675 of 2010 stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be placed on the file of the said writ petition."

14. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error, either in the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar declining to review the previous determination made in the year 2010 and 2019 or in the view taken by the learned Single Judge discarding a highly belated challenge to the previous determination made in 2010 and 2019, however, at the same time, invoking inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 we are inclined to set aside the observations contained in paragraph no. 19 of the order of learned Single Judge which are based upon the order dated 5 SPLA No. 1168 of 2025

24.09.2010, which was, as stated above, set aside in the Special Appeal.

15. The instant appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the directions contained in paragraph no. 19 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. December 3, 2025 AKShukla/- (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

1. Heard Shri Ashwani Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3 and Shri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4.

2. The present appeal raises a challenge to the order dated 09.10.2025, whereby learned Single Judge has disposed of Writ-C No. 34098 of 2025 (Piyush Pratap Narayan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) filed by the petitioner-appellant with certain observations.

3. The appellant claims to be a life member of a Society, namely, Kisan Shiksha Sansthan, Sakhopar, Village & Post Sakhopar, District Kushinagar. Challenge laid by him in the writ petition was to the orders dated 21.07.2010, 13.05.2019 and 02.09.2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur. Submissions were made before the learned Single Judge that an election of the society took place in the year 2010 which was challenged before this Court by means of Writ-C No. 58815 of 2010, which was disposed of vide order dated 24.09.2010 and the matter was remanded to the District Inspector of Schools ('DIOS') to pass appropriate orders regarding recognition of the election of Committee of Management. It was submitted that after remand, the matter is still pending before the DIOS and a list of 53 members has been approved by the Assistant Registrar vide order dated

13.05.2019, seeking recall/review of which order, the petitioner filed an application in the year 2024, however, the same has been illegally 2 SPLA No. 1168 of 2025 rejected vide order dated 02.09.2025. The case of the appellant before the writ court was that the dispute about list of members can still be considered based upon the material and, therefore, rejection of petitioner's application was not justified.

4. Learned Single Judge, based upon the submissions made before him, arrived at a conclusion that list of 53 members had been approved long back, firstly in the year 2010 and, again, in the year 2019 and, therefore, a highly belated challenge laid to the said determination, respectively after 15 years and 6 years from such determination, was not justified and, therefore, no interference was made by the learned Single Judge.

5. While disposing of the writ petition, an observation was made by the learned Single Judge that since the society was registered upto 22.01.2021 and, presently, the same is unregistered, in case any application is moved by any of the parties for registration and any objection is filed by the petitioner at that stage, concerned authority will take note of it and shall proceed strictly in accordance with law. It was further observed that the authority would also take care of outcome of proceedings of recognition of election in pursuance of the order dated 24.09.2010 passed by this Court.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant has made submissions that since valid membership has not been decided which can still be decided by respondent no. 2, the orders wrongly deciding the membership, though may have been passed in 2010 and 2019, should be set aside and the contention of the appellant based upon his recall application dated

08.04.2025, be considered.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has made submissions that the learned Single Judge has rightly discarded a highly belated challenge to the orders that had attained finality and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the order passed by learned Single Judge.

8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 has made submissions that though the learned Single Judge has reproduced the entire order dated

24.09.2010 passed in Writ-C No. 58815 of 2010 and noted that, after remand, matter is still pending before the concerned DIOS, as a matter of 3 SPLA No. 1168 of 2025 fact, the order dated 24.09.2010 was set aside by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2010 passed in Special Appeal No. 1770 of 2010 (Committee of Management, Kisan Inter College and another Vs. State of U.P. and others) and it was left open to the respondents therein to approach the Regional Level Committee.

9. It is, therefore, submitted that any observation made by learned Single Judge based upon the order dated 24.09.2010 is in ignorance of the order passed in Special Appeal No. 1770 of 2010 and, in any case, even if the observations based upon the order of writ court are ignored, the petitioner-appellant has no case to raise a challenge to the orders passed in 2010 and 2019 merely by moving an application for recall/review of such orders and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the order of learned Single Judge.

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

11. As per the case of the appellant himself, list of 53 members was approved in the year 2010 and 2019. Though status of the appellant as life member of the society has also been disputed on behalf of respondent no. 4, even ignoring such objection at this stage, there is nothing on record to indicate as to when the appellant was life member, as per his own version, what was he doing after 2010 till 2019 and after 2019 till 2025. It stands reflected from record that some objections were raised by Abhay Pratap Singh and, then, by the appellant Piyush Pratap Narayan Singh. The appellant's objection being dated 08.04.2025, which is in the nature of an application seeking to nullify the approved lists dated 21.07.2010 and

13.05.2019, was filed also with a prayer to approve the list of 139 members. In the said application, it is indicated that the appellant has come to know about his exclusion from a previous list of 139 members and, therefore, he has filed the application with appropriate prayers.

12. Last order under challenge before the writ court was dated 02.09.2025 rejecting the representations/objections filed by Abhay Pratap Singh and the appellant Piyush Pratap Narayan Singh with the observation that the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to review the orders passed on 4 SPLA No. 1168 of 2025

21.07.2010 and 13.05.2019, as per the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

13. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we find that though the learned Single Judge has rightly discarded the challenge laid by the appellant to the orders passed or lists approved in the year 2010 and 2019 on the ground of inordinate delay, the observations contained in paragraph no. 19 of the order impugned with reference to previous order dated 24.09.2010 passed in Writ-C No. 58815 of 2010, appear to be in ignorance of fact that the special appeal against the order being Special Appeal No. 1770 of 2010, was allowed by this Court vide order dated 24.10.2010 and the order dated 24.09.2010 was set aside. For a ready reference, operative portion of the order dated 24.10.2010 is reproduced as under:- "Accordingly, the order dated 24.09.2010 is hereby set aside. It shall be open to the respondent - petitioner to approach the Regional Level Committee with a certified copy of this order before the respondent no.2. The respondent no.2 on receipt of the application alongwith a copy of this order, shall proceed in accordance with law to decide the dispute after putting the concerned parties to notice within a period of three months. Appeal stands allowed. Learned Counsel agree that writ petition no.49675 of 2010 be also disposed of. Accordingly writ petition no.49675 of 2010 stands disposed of. Let a copy of this order be placed on the file of the said writ petition."

14. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any error, either in the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar declining to review the previous determination made in the year 2010 and 2019 or in the view taken by the learned Single Judge discarding a highly belated challenge to the previous determination made in 2010 and 2019, however, at the same time, invoking inherent jurisdiction under Article 226 we are inclined to set aside the observations contained in paragraph no. 19 of the order of learned Single Judge which are based upon the order dated 5 SPLA No. 1168 of 2025

24.09.2010, which was, as stated above, set aside in the Special Appeal.

15. The instant appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. However, the directions contained in paragraph no. 19 of the order passed by the learned Single Judge are set aside. December 3, 2025 AKShukla/- (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)