Allahabad High Court

2. Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh while passing the impugned order dated 07.08.2025, recorded the finding that the election of Committee of Management held on 24.04.2022, was not held on the basis of list of general body registered under Section 4-B of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short the "Act, 1860").

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that the Joint Director of Education while passing the impugned order further issued direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Etah to conduct election of Committee of Management of the Institution within two months on the basis of list of general body under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that the impugned order was passed ex parte without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which is violative of principles of natural justice. 2 WRIC No. 29737 of 2025 It is also vehemently argued that the Joint Director of Education without having any authority or jurisdiction, cancelled the recognition of election of the petitioners' Committee of Management held in the year 2022 vide order dated 25.03.2025, which has been challenged before the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.15702 of 2025. This Hon'ble Court after hearing the parties, has passed interim order dated 20.05.2025, which is still in operation.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Joint Director of Education issued a direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Etah to conduct election of Committee of Management on the basis of list of Committee of Management under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860, but there was no registered list of General Body under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860, before 12.08.2024. It is also apprised the Court that the prescribed authority by order dated 12.08.2024 by which recognizing the election of the respondent, which has been challenged before the Writ Court, was dismissed and the same was challenged before the Division Bench. The Division Bench quashed the order passed by the prescribed authority.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that because the election of Committee of Management held in the month of April, 2024 for four years and same was recognized by the D.I.O.S. on

05.05.2025, in view of term prescribed under approved scheme of Administration, petitioners' Committee of Management is entitled to continue till April, 2026.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh is absolutely without jurisdiction, contrary to the law, arbitrary and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

8. Per contra, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 vehemently opposed the writ petition and apprised the Court that the election has already been notified in pursuance of impugned order and the date of election is scheduled on 14.09.2025.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant writ petition or the dispute as stated in the writ petition. It is further submitted that whatever the 3 WRIC No. 29737 of 2025 submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, during arguments and averments made in the writ petition, may be taken in the election petition after completion of the election process. In support of his contention, he has placed the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 in Special Appeal Defective No.496 of 2025 (Shri Kund Kund Jain Education Association and another Vs. Sudhir Kumar Jain and 3 others). He has relied upon the paragraph nos.12 & 13 of the said judgment, which is quoted as under:- "12. Law in relation to election disputes is well-settled to the effect that once an election programme is notified, challenge to the previous determination of electoral college/membership cannot be made and grievance, if any, as regards determination of electoral college or membership etc. can be raised by the person aggrieved alongwith result of the elections. This view finds support from judgement of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Maharana Pratap Vidyalaya Prabandh Samiti, Bhadwara, Kanpur (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench, in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said judgement, has observed as under:- "5. A large number of writ petitions are being filed in the High Court seeking directions either way during the process of elections. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that thousands of writ petitions are filed every year in the matters of elections of the societies and the committee of management of the educational institutions for which a separate determination has been carved out. This Court is very often swayed by the circumstances and the aggressive arguments advanced by learned Counsels appearing for the parties and pass interim orders or directions, which causes interference in the process of election. Very often the parties do not give the background of the case and the number of writ petitions filed earlier in respect of same elections, causing further confusion, which is later on sought to be resolved by making representations to consider as to who is in effective control of the institutions to be decided by the Regional Level Committee. In the present case also a second writ petition was filed giving rise to this special appeal seeking directions for deciding the objections to the validity of the electoral college.

6. In the matter of elections the Supreme Court and this Court have consistently taken a view that the Courts should not interfere in the process of elections once the elections have been notified, as the adjudicating authority cannot conclusively decide any dispute in the middle of the process of election nor the fundamental rights of any of the parties are affected as elections have always been held to be statutory right. The parties can always be relegated to the forums of adjudication and election Tribunals after the results of the elections are declared.

13. In view of the above factual and legal proposition, we are of the view that once election programme was notified on 02.06.2025 and the writ petition was filed on 4 WRIC No. 29737 of 2025

18.06.2025, passing of interim order on 04.07.2025, on which date, factum of holding of election was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, as noted in second paragraph of the order impugned, it was not appropriate to grant interim order against holding of elections and intervention made by the learned Single Judge at the stage when the matter came up for consideration before him, does not appear to be in accordance with the settled proposition of law."

10. Sri Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 has also referred the paragraph nos.9, 24 and 31 of the writ petition and submitted that the approval granted by the D.I.O.S. in terms of the conditions which have been mentioned in the approval order and it is further submitted that the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions which have been given by passing appropriate order, therefore, the election as mentioned in the approval order itself bad in law.

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 further submitted that in view of above-said facts and circumstances, there are no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners stating that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Joint Director of Education and it is also no force that the petitioner has been duly elected and elected body has been duly approved by the competent authority. Therefore, the instant writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.

12. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri D.K. Singh learned Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of the State-respondents, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4, perused the contents made in the writ petition and documents on record.

13. Taking into consideration above-said submissions and contents made in the writ petition, I am of the view that matter requires consideration.

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 is directed to file short counter affidavit within two weeks.

15. List this case on 08.10.2025, as fresh. (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) August 28, 2025 Atul

2. Sri V.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh while passing the impugned order dated 07.08.2025, recorded the finding that the election of Committee of Management held on 24.04.2022, was not held on the basis of list of general body registered under Section 4-B of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short the "Act, 1860").

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that the Joint Director of Education while passing the impugned order further issued direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Etah to conduct election of Committee of Management of the Institution within two months on the basis of list of general body under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that the impugned order was passed ex parte without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which is violative of principles of natural justice. 2 WRIC No. 29737 of 2025 It is also vehemently argued that the Joint Director of Education without having any authority or jurisdiction, cancelled the recognition of election of the petitioners' Committee of Management held in the year 2022 vide order dated 25.03.2025, which has been challenged before the Writ Court in Writ Petition No.15702 of 2025. This Hon'ble Court after hearing the parties, has passed interim order dated 20.05.2025, which is still in operation.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the Joint Director of Education issued a direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Etah to conduct election of Committee of Management on the basis of list of Committee of Management under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860, but there was no registered list of General Body under Section 4-B of the Act, 1860, before 12.08.2024. It is also apprised the Court that the prescribed authority by order dated 12.08.2024 by which recognizing the election of the respondent, which has been challenged before the Writ Court, was dismissed and the same was challenged before the Division Bench. The Division Bench quashed the order passed by the prescribed authority.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners further submitted that because the election of Committee of Management held in the month of April, 2024 for four years and same was recognized by the D.I.O.S. on

05.05.2025, in view of term prescribed under approved scheme of Administration, petitioners' Committee of Management is entitled to continue till April, 2026.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently submitted that the impugned order passed by the Joint Director of Education, Aligarh Region, Aligarh is absolutely without jurisdiction, contrary to the law, arbitrary and without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

8. Per contra, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 vehemently opposed the writ petition and apprised the Court that the election has already been notified in pursuance of impugned order and the date of election is scheduled on 14.09.2025.

9. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 submitted that this Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant writ petition or the dispute as stated in the writ petition. It is further submitted that whatever the 3 WRIC No. 29737 of 2025 submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, during arguments and averments made in the writ petition, may be taken in the election petition after completion of the election process. In support of his contention, he has placed the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.08.2025 in Special Appeal Defective No.496 of 2025 (Shri Kund Kund Jain Education Association and another Vs. Sudhir Kumar Jain and 3 others). He has relied upon the paragraph nos.12 & 13 of the said judgment, which is quoted as under:- "12. Law in relation to election disputes is well-settled to the effect that once an election programme is notified, challenge to the previous determination of electoral college/membership cannot be made and grievance, if any, as regards determination of electoral college or membership etc. can be raised by the person aggrieved alongwith result of the elections. This view finds support from judgement of a Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Maharana Pratap Vidyalaya Prabandh Samiti, Bhadwara, Kanpur (supra). The Co-ordinate Bench, in paragraphs 5 and 6 of the said judgement, has observed as under:- "5. A large number of writ petitions are being filed in the High Court seeking directions either way during the process of elections. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that thousands of writ petitions are filed every year in the matters of elections of the societies and the committee of management of the educational institutions for which a separate determination has been carved out. This Court is very often swayed by the circumstances and the aggressive arguments advanced by learned Counsels appearing for the parties and pass interim orders or directions, which causes interference in the process of election. Very often the parties do not give the background of the case and the number of writ petitions filed earlier in respect of same elections, causing further confusion, which is later on sought to be resolved by making representations to consider as to who is in effective control of the institutions to be decided by the Regional Level Committee. In the present case also a second writ petition was filed giving rise to this special appeal seeking directions for deciding the objections to the validity of the electoral college.

6. In the matter of elections the Supreme Court and this Court have consistently taken a view that the Courts should not interfere in the process of elections once the elections have been notified, as the adjudicating authority cannot conclusively decide any dispute in the middle of the process of election nor the fundamental rights of any of the parties are affected as elections have always been held to be statutory right. The parties can always be relegated to the forums of adjudication and election Tribunals after the results of the elections are declared.

13. In view of the above factual and legal proposition, we are of the view that once election programme was notified on 02.06.2025 and the writ petition was filed on 4 WRIC No. 29737 of 2025

18.06.2025, passing of interim order on 04.07.2025, on which date, factum of holding of election was brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge, as noted in second paragraph of the order impugned, it was not appropriate to grant interim order against holding of elections and intervention made by the learned Single Judge at the stage when the matter came up for consideration before him, does not appear to be in accordance with the settled proposition of law."

10. Sri Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 has also referred the paragraph nos.9, 24 and 31 of the writ petition and submitted that the approval granted by the D.I.O.S. in terms of the conditions which have been mentioned in the approval order and it is further submitted that the petitioner has not fulfilled the conditions which have been given by passing appropriate order, therefore, the election as mentioned in the approval order itself bad in law.

11. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.5 further submitted that in view of above-said facts and circumstances, there are no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners stating that there is no illegality in the order passed by the Joint Director of Education and it is also no force that the petitioner has been duly elected and elected body has been duly approved by the competent authority. Therefore, the instant writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected.

12. Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri D.K. Singh learned Standing Counsel appeared on behalf of the State-respondents, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4, perused the contents made in the writ petition and documents on record.

13. Taking into consideration above-said submissions and contents made in the writ petition, I am of the view that matter requires consideration.

14. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4 is directed to file short counter affidavit within two weeks.

15. List this case on 08.10.2025, as fresh. (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) August 28, 2025 Atul