Committee of Shri Shankar Adarsh Vidyalaya Imlo v. Counsel for

Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, has been stayed.

2. An application seeking leave to file appeal has been filed by seven persons who are President, Treasurer and Executive Members of the Committee of Management, Appellant No. 1 against the order dated

18.02.2025, impugned in the present appeal with the submissions that they are entitled to elect the office bearers for the remaining period in view of applicable provisions. The respondent-writ petitioner did not implead them and that the Committee of Management has nine members out of which the applicants are seven members and to emphasize the said aspect, they may be permitted to file appeal.

3. No response to the application has been filed.

4. For the reasons indicated in the application, the same is allowed.

5. The applicants are permitted to file appeal and be impleaded as appellant nos. 3 to 9.

6. The dispute pertains to the Committee of Management of the Society 2 SPLAD No. 253 of 2025 named as Shri Shankar Adarsh Vidyalaya, Imlo Pandey Patti, District Jaunpur wherein by an order dated 27.01.2024, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi accepted the claim of Ajeet Kumar Chaubey, as Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society.

7. The said order dated 27.01.2024 was challenged by the respondents in Writ C No. 6149 of 2024 on the ground that the meeting which was called for the purpose of election was unauthorized and contrary to the bye-laws of the Society and, therefore, the election held was bad.

8. Against the interim order granted by learned Single Judge, Special Appeal No. 428 of 2024 was filed wherein the Division Bench on finding that meeting in terms of Clause 9.2 of the bye-laws was required to be convened by the Deputy Manager for filling up the vacant post of Manager on account of his death and as the same was not convened by the Deputy Manager, on the counsel appearing for the Deputy Manager and the appellant agreeing to hold the meeting in terms of bye-laws qua election of the Manager, the special appeal was disposed of and the order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the Assistant Registrar was set aside and the Deputy Manager was directed to hold the election for the purpose of election of Manager in terms of the bye-laws within a period of four weeks after undertaking the due process. The Court further observed that the parties would be free to request the Assistant Registrar to depute an independent person to observe the proceedings of the election.

9. It appears that pursuant to the said direction, the respondents claimed to have held elections on 18.08.2024 and when the matter went to the Assistant Registrar, after hearing the parties by order dated 25.11.2024, he rejected the election dated 18.08.2024 and directed holding of fresh election under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, pursuant to which the elections were held on 08.12.2024 wherein the appellants-Manager and Vice President were elected. After the elections, list of office bearers was registered by the Assistant Registrar on

18.12.2024.

10. Writ Petition No. 4587 of 2025 was filed by the respondents seeking 3 SPLAD No. 253 of 2025 quashing of orders dated 25.11.2024, election proceedings dated

08.12.2024, registration of list of office bearers dated 18.12.2024 and seeking restoration of election dated 18.08.2024.

11. Learned Single Judge noticed the contentions raised alleging that the order dated 25.11.2024 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Assistant Registrar does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the validity of election of the office bearers of the Society and he should have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority.

12. The submissions made were contested with reference to the provisions of the bye-laws qua filling of mid term vacancies which was required to be filled up by the Committee of Management. It was also contended that out of nine members of the Committee of Management of the Society, seven members had filed affidavit that no meeting was held on

18.08.2024 and, therefore, the plea raised has no substance.

13. On behalf of petitioner, another issue was raised that in the special appeal, this Court had directed to appoint an Observer and did not authorize the Assistant Registrar to appoint Election Officer and, therefore, on that count also, the order was bad.

14. Learned Single Judge found the matter requiring consideration and stayed the operation of order dated 25.11.2024.

15. Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that the learned Single Judge was not justified in passing the order dated 18.02.2025 staying effect and operation of order dated 25.11.2024 when admittedly pursuant to the said order, the elections had already been held and list of office bearers was registered by the Assistant Registrar and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

16. Further submissions have been made that the respondents were seeking to hair split the order passed by Division Bench which left it open for the parties to seek appointment of an Observer and the Assistant Registrar appointed the Election Officer, which plea was absolutely baseless. 4 SPLAD No. 253 of 2025

17. Submissions have also been made that the issue raised regarding only the General Body having right to elect the Office Bearers in case of a mid term vacancy and not the Committee of Management besides being contrary to the provisions of bye-laws, is not open for the respondents to raise the said plea as the election which they claim to be valid dated

18.08.2024 were also conducted by the Committee of Management only and not the General Body and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

18. Learned counsel for the respondents made vehement submissions. It was submitted that the respondents are not estopped from questioning the elections held which are contrary to the provisions of the bye-laws despite the fact that they committed the same mistake.

19. Further submissions have been made that the order of the Division Bench was clear and the Assistant Registrar could not have assumed jurisdiction to appoint an Election Officer and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in staying the order dated 25.11.2024, the appeal, therefore, deserved to be dismissed.

20. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

21. It is not in dispute that the respondents by way of writ petition, questioned the validity of order dated 25.11.2024 passed by Assistant Registrar, election proceedings dated 08.12.2024 held pursuant to the order dated 25.11.2024 and registration of the list of Office Bearers dated

18.12.2024.

22. Once, the fact that pursuant to the order dated 25.11.2024, the elections have already been held and Office Bearers have been registered pursuant to the election, passing of the interim order by learned Single Judge staying the effect and operation of order dated 25.11.2024, part of which order had already exhausted by holding of election and registration of Office Bearers, apparently was an exercise in futility.

23. Once the facts of election having been held on 08.12.2024 and registration of Office Bearers on 18.12.2024 were before the learned 5 SPLAD No. 253 of 2025 Single Judge, staying the order dated 25.11.2024 only, apparently is of no effect and the same essentially was ineffective.

24. So far as the plea raised regarding the appointment of Election Officer instead of Observer by the Assistant Registrar is concerned, apparently the said plea has been raised only in an attempt to catch at straws inasmuch as apparently this Court when ordered for seeking appointment of an Observer, the appointment by the Assistant Registrar by naming the appointee as Election Officer apparently cannot and does not vitiate the said appointment.

25. In view of above fact situation, as the nature of order passed by learned Single Judge has been found to be futile and ineffective, the same cannot be sustained.

26. Consequently the appeal is allowed. The order dated 18.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ C No. 4587 of 2025 is set aside.

27. The respondents would be free to re-agitate the stay application and/or seek decision on the writ petition on merits after counter is filed. In case counter has not been filed so far, the same be filed within a period of three weeks from today. September 2, 2025 Sandeep (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi, has been stayed.

2. An application seeking leave to file appeal has been filed by seven persons who are President, Treasurer and Executive Members of the Committee of Management, Appellant No. 1 against the order dated

18.02.2025, impugned in the present appeal with the submissions that they are entitled to elect the office bearers for the remaining period in view of applicable provisions. The respondent-writ petitioner did not implead them and that the Committee of Management has nine members out of which the applicants are seven members and to emphasize the said aspect, they may be permitted to file appeal.

3. No response to the application has been filed.

4. For the reasons indicated in the application, the same is allowed.

5. The applicants are permitted to file appeal and be impleaded as appellant nos. 3 to 9.

6. The dispute pertains to the Committee of Management of the Society 2 SPLAD No. 253 of 2025 named as Shri Shankar Adarsh Vidyalaya, Imlo Pandey Patti, District Jaunpur wherein by an order dated 27.01.2024, the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi accepted the claim of Ajeet Kumar Chaubey, as Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society.

7. The said order dated 27.01.2024 was challenged by the respondents in Writ C No. 6149 of 2024 on the ground that the meeting which was called for the purpose of election was unauthorized and contrary to the bye-laws of the Society and, therefore, the election held was bad.

8. Against the interim order granted by learned Single Judge, Special Appeal No. 428 of 2024 was filed wherein the Division Bench on finding that meeting in terms of Clause 9.2 of the bye-laws was required to be convened by the Deputy Manager for filling up the vacant post of Manager on account of his death and as the same was not convened by the Deputy Manager, on the counsel appearing for the Deputy Manager and the appellant agreeing to hold the meeting in terms of bye-laws qua election of the Manager, the special appeal was disposed of and the order dated 27.01.2024 passed by the Assistant Registrar was set aside and the Deputy Manager was directed to hold the election for the purpose of election of Manager in terms of the bye-laws within a period of four weeks after undertaking the due process. The Court further observed that the parties would be free to request the Assistant Registrar to depute an independent person to observe the proceedings of the election.

9. It appears that pursuant to the said direction, the respondents claimed to have held elections on 18.08.2024 and when the matter went to the Assistant Registrar, after hearing the parties by order dated 25.11.2024, he rejected the election dated 18.08.2024 and directed holding of fresh election under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, pursuant to which the elections were held on 08.12.2024 wherein the appellants-Manager and Vice President were elected. After the elections, list of office bearers was registered by the Assistant Registrar on

18.12.2024.

10. Writ Petition No. 4587 of 2025 was filed by the respondents seeking 3 SPLAD No. 253 of 2025 quashing of orders dated 25.11.2024, election proceedings dated

08.12.2024, registration of list of office bearers dated 18.12.2024 and seeking restoration of election dated 18.08.2024.

11. Learned Single Judge noticed the contentions raised alleging that the order dated 25.11.2024 was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The Assistant Registrar does not have any jurisdiction to entertain the validity of election of the office bearers of the Society and he should have referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority.

12. The submissions made were contested with reference to the provisions of the bye-laws qua filling of mid term vacancies which was required to be filled up by the Committee of Management. It was also contended that out of nine members of the Committee of Management of the Society, seven members had filed affidavit that no meeting was held on

18.08.2024 and, therefore, the plea raised has no substance.

13. On behalf of petitioner, another issue was raised that in the special appeal, this Court had directed to appoint an Observer and did not authorize the Assistant Registrar to appoint Election Officer and, therefore, on that count also, the order was bad.

14. Learned Single Judge found the matter requiring consideration and stayed the operation of order dated 25.11.2024.

15. Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that the learned Single Judge was not justified in passing the order dated 18.02.2025 staying effect and operation of order dated 25.11.2024 when admittedly pursuant to the said order, the elections had already been held and list of office bearers was registered by the Assistant Registrar and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

16. Further submissions have been made that the respondents were seeking to hair split the order passed by Division Bench which left it open for the parties to seek appointment of an Observer and the Assistant Registrar appointed the Election Officer, which plea was absolutely baseless. 4 SPLAD No. 253 of 2025

17. Submissions have also been made that the issue raised regarding only the General Body having right to elect the Office Bearers in case of a mid term vacancy and not the Committee of Management besides being contrary to the provisions of bye-laws, is not open for the respondents to raise the said plea as the election which they claim to be valid dated

18.08.2024 were also conducted by the Committee of Management only and not the General Body and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside.

18. Learned counsel for the respondents made vehement submissions. It was submitted that the respondents are not estopped from questioning the elections held which are contrary to the provisions of the bye-laws despite the fact that they committed the same mistake.

19. Further submissions have been made that the order of the Division Bench was clear and the Assistant Registrar could not have assumed jurisdiction to appoint an Election Officer and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was justified in staying the order dated 25.11.2024, the appeal, therefore, deserved to be dismissed.

20. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

21. It is not in dispute that the respondents by way of writ petition, questioned the validity of order dated 25.11.2024 passed by Assistant Registrar, election proceedings dated 08.12.2024 held pursuant to the order dated 25.11.2024 and registration of the list of Office Bearers dated

18.12.2024.

22. Once, the fact that pursuant to the order dated 25.11.2024, the elections have already been held and Office Bearers have been registered pursuant to the election, passing of the interim order by learned Single Judge staying the effect and operation of order dated 25.11.2024, part of which order had already exhausted by holding of election and registration of Office Bearers, apparently was an exercise in futility.

23. Once the facts of election having been held on 08.12.2024 and registration of Office Bearers on 18.12.2024 were before the learned 5 SPLAD No. 253 of 2025 Single Judge, staying the order dated 25.11.2024 only, apparently is of no effect and the same essentially was ineffective.

24. So far as the plea raised regarding the appointment of Election Officer instead of Observer by the Assistant Registrar is concerned, apparently the said plea has been raised only in an attempt to catch at straws inasmuch as apparently this Court when ordered for seeking appointment of an Observer, the appointment by the Assistant Registrar by naming the appointee as Election Officer apparently cannot and does not vitiate the said appointment.

25. In view of above fact situation, as the nature of order passed by learned Single Judge has been found to be futile and ineffective, the same cannot be sustained.

26. Consequently the appeal is allowed. The order dated 18.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ C No. 4587 of 2025 is set aside.

27. The respondents would be free to re-agitate the stay application and/or seek decision on the writ petition on merits after counter is filed. In case counter has not been filed so far, the same be filed within a period of three weeks from today. September 2, 2025 Sandeep (Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.) SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad