(Committee of Management and 5 others v. State of U.P. and 4 others) Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89690-DB Chief Justice's Court

Judgment

1. Heard Shri Radha Kant Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Mahesh Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners-appellants, learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Shri Kunal Shah, learned counsel for respondent No. 5 and perused the record.

2. The present intra-court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules has been filed challenging the order dated 21.04.2025 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed Writ C No. 10856 of 2025 (Committee of Management

Shri Gyananand Inter College Padhri and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) filed by the appellants. The said writ petition was filed claiming two reliefs; firstly, raising a challenge to an order dated 31.07.2023 whereby the District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur (in short ‘the D.I.O.S.), had attested signatures of the President and Manager of the Committee of Management of the 1 of 7 Special Appeal No. 389 of 2025 (Committee of Management and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) educational institution in question and the second relief was in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2, i.e. Regional Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 and headed by Joint Director of Education, to decide the dispute in relation to an order dated

27.11.2021 as well as election dated 19.07.2023, as approved by the D.I.O.S. by order dated 31.07.2023.

3. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the report endorsed by the Stamp Reporter, as regards 516 days’ laches in filing the writ petition and, after reproducing the explanation offered by the petitioners-appellants regarding such delay, observed that the delay had not been properly explained. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge observed that the petitioners, having failed to demonstrate that they are members of the General Body of the College, dismissed the writ petition for want of their locus to challenge the election of respondent No. 5.

4. Assailing the order of learned Single Judge, Shri Ojha, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the petitioner No. 1 before the learned Single Judge was Committee of Management of Intermediate College governed by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in short ‘the Act of 2021’) whereas the remaining petitioners were members of the said Committee. Submission is that while the petitioners were continuing as members, a fraudulent election was set up by the respondents whereupon signatures of Shri Amresh Mishra and Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha were illegally attested, respectively as President and Manager of the Committee of Management and 2 of 7 Special Appeal No. 389 of 2025 (Committee of Management and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) raising such grievance, the petitioners have approached the Regional Level Committee with a request to adjudicate the dispute.

5. Attention of the Court has been drawn towards a communication dated 28.11.2024 made by the Joint Director of Education to the D.I.O.S. for taking appropriate action pursuant to the applications moved by the petitioners. It is, therefore, contended that once the matter is pending before the Regional Level Committee and the Joint Director of Education, being head thereof, has already called upon the D.I.O.S. to proceed with the matter, the learned Single Judge should have disposed of the writ petition by issuing appropriate directions for a decision at the level of the Regional Level Committee and should have not dismissed the writ petition.

6. Shri Kunal Shah, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that, earlier, the institution was run by a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 but, by an order dated 27.11.2021, the society was converted into a trust and the appellants, neither being any office bearers of the trust nor even its trustees, have no locus to challenge the validity of any act done by the Committee of Management of the institution run by the trust. It is further submitted that the order dated 27.11.2021, having not been challenged so far, so long as the same remains intact, no challenge to the consequential elections held in 2023 can be laid by the appellants and, therefore, learned Single Judge has not erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of locus standi. 3 of 7 Special Appeal No. 389 of 2025 (Committee of Management and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) It is also urged that Joint Director of Education has no jurisdiction, power or competence to enter into a dispute regarding conversion of a society into a trust and, therefore, adjudication of validity of order dated 27.11.2021 being beyond his power or jurisdiction, reliefs claimed in the writ petition could not be granted.

7. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on a judgement of this Court in Committee of Management Sri Mahaveer Inter College vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, 2024 (10) ADJ 655, particularly paragraph 14 thereof wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that Joint Director of Education does not have any jurisdiction to test the validity of registration of a trust, more so, when said conversion has been permitted under the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921.

8. Shri Ojha, in rejoinder, submits that it was the Joint Director of Education himself who had, under the powers conferred upon him by Chapter VII of Regulations framed under the Act of 1921, approved conversion of society into trust and, once, the appellants have all material with them to demonstrate that the act of conversion itself was dehors the provisions of law and, even otherwise, arbitrary and malicious, the Regional Level Committee headed by Joint Director of Education would have all competence to determine the validity of the order dated

27.11.2021 and, hence, prayer No. 2 claimed in the writ petition was perfectly justified. Shri Ojha further submits that, very surreptitiously and in a clandestine manner, large number of members of the society were reduced to a few as a result of unlawful conversion of the society into a trust and, therefore, the 4 of 7 Special Appeal No. 389 of 2025 (Committee of Management and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) appellants having been ousted, have every right to assail the validity of conversion as well as act of their ouster.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, we find that the order dated

27.11.2021 converting the society into trust was never challenged over a period of last more than three years before any Court/Forum. It appears that challenge to the same was laid for the first time before learned Single Judge, in terms of second relief claimed in the writ petition and such a challenge has been merged with the cause relating to the elections dated 19.07.2023 and order dated 31.07.2023 regarding attestation of signatures of office bearers pursuant to the said elections.

10. The appellants might have been members of the society running the institution, but once the society has been converted into trust under the order passed in the year 2021, unless the said order is set aside, challenge to the consequential action undertaken by the trust/trustees of the trust or members of the Committee of Management of the institution run by the trust, cannot be entertained. For this purpose, certainly the appellants would also have to establish before the Court or the Authority that they have a locus standi to raise such a challenge.

11. As far as challenge to the order dated 27.11.2021, though Shri Ojha has submitted with vehemence that the said order came to the knowledge of the appellants in the later part of the year 2024 only and, therefore, they raised a challenge to the same before the Joint Director of Education, we find no substance 5 of 7 Special Appeal No. 389 of 2025 (Committee of Management and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) in the submissions inasmuch as Annexure No. 16 to the writ petition is a compilation of various representations filed by the appellants in October, 2024 before the Joint Director of Education, however, in none of the representations, even a single word has been stated about the order dated 27.11.2021. The prayers made in the representations are with regard to setting aside of the order dated 31.07.2023, attesting signatures of the Manager and President of the Committee. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submission of Shri Ojha that validity of the order dated

27.11.2021 ever formed subject matter of challenge before the Regional Level Committee or the Joint Director of Education.

12. We find that although, learned Single Judge began the order impugned by considering the laches on the part of the appellants in approaching this Court and recorded his dissatisfaction in that regard, dismissal of the petition is primarily on the ground of appellants having no locus standi. However, this Court, sitting in appeal, cannot ignore the contents of entire order under challenge in the light of submissions made before us and we find that having raised no challenge to the basic order dated

27.11.2021 over a period of more than three years, certainly there were inordinate laches in filing the writ petition. As far as the order dated 31.07.2023 based upon the elections held in 2023 is concerned, its validity would depend on result of challenge to the order dated 27.11.2021 and considering the interrelationship between the orders on record, which may be detrimental to the interest of the appellants, we are not inclined to, directly or indirectly, confer jurisdiction upon any authority to deal with the 6 of 7 Special Appeal No. 389 of 2025 (Committee of Management and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) matter without even raising a challenge to the same. It is always open for the appellants to raise a challenge to the basic order order dated 27.11.2021 before the appropriate forum as provided under the law.

13. In view of the above discussion, while finding no error in the order of the learned Single Judge, we dispose of the instant special appeal with liberty to the appellants to raise a challenge to the order dated 27.11.2021 before the appropriate forum on all grounds available to them. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) 7 of 7 SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shri Gyananand Inter College Padhri and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) filed by the appellants. The said writ petition was filed claiming two reliefs; firstly, raising a challenge to an order dated 31.07.2023 whereby the District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur (in short ‘the D.I.O.S.), had attested signatures of the President and Manager of the Committee of Management of the 1 of 7 Special Appeal No. 389 of 2025 (Committee of Management and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) educational institution in question and the second relief was in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 2, i.e. Regional Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 and headed by Joint Director of Education, to decide the dispute in relation to an order dated

27.11.2021 as well as election dated 19.07.2023, as approved by the D.I.O.S. by order dated 31.07.2023.

3. The learned Single Judge, taking note of the report endorsed by the Stamp Reporter, as regards 516 days’ laches in filing the writ petition and, after reproducing the explanation offered by the petitioners-appellants regarding such delay, observed that the delay had not been properly explained. Thereafter, the learned Single Judge observed that the petitioners, having failed to demonstrate that they are members of the General Body of the College, dismissed the writ petition for want of their locus to challenge the election of respondent No. 5.

4. Assailing the order of learned Single Judge, Shri Ojha, learned Senior Advocate has vehemently argued that the petitioner No. 1 before the learned Single Judge was Committee of Management of Intermediate College governed by the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (in short ‘the Act of 2021’) whereas the remaining petitioners were members of the said Committee. Submission is that while the petitioners were continuing as members, a fraudulent election was set up by the respondents whereupon signatures of Shri Amresh Mishra and Shri Ajay Kumar Ojha were illegally attested, respectively as President and Manager of the Committee of Management and 2 of 7 Special Appeal No. 389 of 2025 (Committee of Management and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) raising such grievance, the petitioners have approached the Regional Level Committee with a request to adjudicate the dispute.

5. Attention of the Court has been drawn towards a communication dated 28.11.2024 made by the Joint Director of Education to the D.I.O.S. for taking appropriate action pursuant to the applications moved by the petitioners. It is, therefore, contended that once the matter is pending before the Regional Level Committee and the Joint Director of Education, being head thereof, has already called upon the D.I.O.S. to proceed with the matter, the learned Single Judge should have disposed of the writ petition by issuing appropriate directions for a decision at the level of the Regional Level Committee and should have not dismissed the writ petition.

6. Shri Kunal Shah, learned counsel for respondent No. 5, on the other hand, vehemently opposed the appeal and submitted that, earlier, the institution was run by a society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 but, by an order dated 27.11.2021, the society was converted into a trust and the appellants, neither being any office bearers of the trust nor even its trustees, have no locus to challenge the validity of any act done by the Committee of Management of the institution run by the trust. It is further submitted that the order dated 27.11.2021, having not been challenged so far, so long as the same remains intact, no challenge to the consequential elections held in 2023 can be laid by the appellants and, therefore, learned Single Judge has not erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of locus standi. 3 of 7 Special Appeal No. 389 of 2025 (Committee of Management and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) It is also urged that Joint Director of Education has no jurisdiction, power or competence to enter into a dispute regarding conversion of a society into a trust and, therefore, adjudication of validity of order dated 27.11.2021 being beyond his power or jurisdiction, reliefs claimed in the writ petition could not be granted.

7. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on a judgement of this Court in Committee of Management Sri Mahaveer Inter College vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, 2024 (10) ADJ 655, particularly paragraph 14 thereof wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court has held that Joint Director of Education does not have any jurisdiction to test the validity of registration of a trust, more so, when said conversion has been permitted under the Regulations framed under the Act of 1921.

8. Shri Ojha, in rejoinder, submits that it was the Joint Director of Education himself who had, under the powers conferred upon him by Chapter VII of Regulations framed under the Act of 1921, approved conversion of society into trust and, once, the appellants have all material with them to demonstrate that the act of conversion itself was dehors the provisions of law and, even otherwise, arbitrary and malicious, the Regional Level Committee headed by Joint Director of Education would have all competence to determine the validity of the order dated

27.11.2021 and, hence, prayer No. 2 claimed in the writ petition was perfectly justified. Shri Ojha further submits that, very surreptitiously and in a clandestine manner, large number of members of the society were reduced to a few as a result of unlawful conversion of the society into a trust and, therefore, the 4 of 7 Special Appeal No. 389 of 2025 (Committee of Management and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) appellants having been ousted, have every right to assail the validity of conversion as well as act of their ouster.

9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material on record, we find that the order dated

27.11.2021 converting the society into trust was never challenged over a period of last more than three years before any Court/Forum. It appears that challenge to the same was laid for the first time before learned Single Judge, in terms of second relief claimed in the writ petition and such a challenge has been merged with the cause relating to the elections dated 19.07.2023 and order dated 31.07.2023 regarding attestation of signatures of office bearers pursuant to the said elections.

10. The appellants might have been members of the society running the institution, but once the society has been converted into trust under the order passed in the year 2021, unless the said order is set aside, challenge to the consequential action undertaken by the trust/trustees of the trust or members of the Committee of Management of the institution run by the trust, cannot be entertained. For this purpose, certainly the appellants would also have to establish before the Court or the Authority that they have a locus standi to raise such a challenge.

11. As far as challenge to the order dated 27.11.2021, though Shri Ojha has submitted with vehemence that the said order came to the knowledge of the appellants in the later part of the year 2024 only and, therefore, they raised a challenge to the same before the Joint Director of Education, we find no substance 5 of 7 Special Appeal No. 389 of 2025 (Committee of Management and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) in the submissions inasmuch as Annexure No. 16 to the writ petition is a compilation of various representations filed by the appellants in October, 2024 before the Joint Director of Education, however, in none of the representations, even a single word has been stated about the order dated 27.11.2021. The prayers made in the representations are with regard to setting aside of the order dated 31.07.2023, attesting signatures of the Manager and President of the Committee. Therefore, we are not inclined to accept the submission of Shri Ojha that validity of the order dated

27.11.2021 ever formed subject matter of challenge before the Regional Level Committee or the Joint Director of Education.

12. We find that although, learned Single Judge began the order impugned by considering the laches on the part of the appellants in approaching this Court and recorded his dissatisfaction in that regard, dismissal of the petition is primarily on the ground of appellants having no locus standi. However, this Court, sitting in appeal, cannot ignore the contents of entire order under challenge in the light of submissions made before us and we find that having raised no challenge to the basic order dated

27.11.2021 over a period of more than three years, certainly there were inordinate laches in filing the writ petition. As far as the order dated 31.07.2023 based upon the elections held in 2023 is concerned, its validity would depend on result of challenge to the order dated 27.11.2021 and considering the interrelationship between the orders on record, which may be detrimental to the interest of the appellants, we are not inclined to, directly or indirectly, confer jurisdiction upon any authority to deal with the 6 of 7 Special Appeal No. 389 of 2025 (Committee of Management and 5 others vs. State of U.P. and 4 others) matter without even raising a challenge to the same. It is always open for the appellants to raise a challenge to the basic order order dated 27.11.2021 before the appropriate forum as provided under the law.

13. In view of the above discussion, while finding no error in the order of the learned Single Judge, we dispose of the instant special appeal with liberty to the appellants to raise a challenge to the order dated 27.11.2021 before the appropriate forum on all grounds available to them. Order Date :- 26.5.2025 Sazia (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) 7 of 7 SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad