Sudhir Kumar Jain v. State of U.P. and on 12 Aug 2025

Judgment

1. The appeal is reported to be defective on account of non- filing of certified copy of the impugned order. Requisite certified copy has, later on, been filed alongwith supplementary affidavit. The defect, therefore, stands removed. Re:-Appeal

2. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri A.P. Shahi for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 and Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior

Counsel assisted by Shri Nitin Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.1.

3. The present special appeal, at the instance of respondents in Writ C No.20292 of 2025 (Sudhir Kumar Jain vs. State of U.P. and 4 others), has been filed challenging an interim order dated

04.07.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the 1 of 7 proposed election, if any, has been kept in abeyance till the next date of listing.

4. The dispute relates to a Society, namely Shri Kund Kund Jain Education Association, registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (in short ‘the Act’). Admittedly, the respondent No.1 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’), i.e. petitioner in the writ petition, is one of the members of the Society and he, alongwith three persons, namely Manoj Kumar Jain, Sanjeev Kumar Jain and Anupam Jain, submitted a complaint dated 15.06.2024 before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Saharanpur questioning the validity of a meeting held by the appellants on 16.06.2024 with certain other allegations regarding unexpected increase in the membership fees. Another complaint dated 12.01.2025 by 130 persons, including the petitioner, was also moved on the same lines.

5. The aforesaid complaints were entertained by the Assistant Registrar, who, by an order dated 21.03.2025, disapproved the amended bye-laws presented by the appellants and directed the Society to call a meeting of General Body within a period of 15 days after due intimation to members. The Assistant Registrar further declared a list of 2471 members as valid by excluding members aged less than 21 years, out of 265 members and issued a direction to design a new membership form disclosing all conditions and follow a procedure to entertain complaints regarding proxy intervention in the affairs of the Society.

6. It is the said order dated 21.03.2025 which was challenged by the respondent by filing Writ C No.20292 of 2025 and submissions were made before the learned Single Judge that the order impugned had been passed contrary to the provisions of the Act; that the elections were proposed to be held based upon a 2 of 7 voter list which suffered various discrepancies and infirmities and that objections preferred by the respondent were not properly considered by the Assistant Registrar. After recording arguments on that line, learned Single Judge proceeded to invite response from the respondents in the writ petition and directed that elections, if any, would be kept in abeyance till the next date of listing.

7. Shri Khare, learned Senior Counsel, submits that writ petition at the instance of a single member of the Society was not maintainable; that the petitioner being a member of the Society was not a person aggrieved by the order dated 21.03.2025; that once election programme had already been notified on 02.06.2025 pursuant whereto the election proceedings were to be held w.e.f.

06.07.2025 till 31.08.2025, there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to stay holding of elections. Further submission has been made that, admittedly, term of the Society is over and elections have to be held and, in any case, if the writ petitioner is aggrieved by election proceedings or its result, the order dated

21.03.2025 could be challenged alongwith the election proceedings and their result but not separately. In support of his submissions, Shri Khare has placed reliance upon the following judgements of this Court:- (i). Committee of Management, Maharana Pratap Vidyalaya Prabandh Samiti, Bhadwara, Kanpur and another vs. State of U.P. thru. Principal Secretary (Finance), Lucknow and others: 2013 SCC OnLine All 13283: (2013) 101 ALR 880; (ii). Ratan Kumar Solanki vs. State of U.P. and others: 2009 SCC OnLine All 1426: (2010) 78 ALR 272.

8. Per contra, Shri V.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel submits that the order dated 21.03.2025 passed by the Assistant 3 of 7 Registrar reflects unwarranted exercise undertaken by him and, infact, the Assistant Registrar has failed to exercise statutory powers conferred upon him under Section 4-B of the Act by leaving everything to be decided by the Society which renders his decision invalid; therefore, any election proceedings based thereupon would be invalid and, hence, the learned Single Judge has not erred in restraining holding of elections. While reading out the observations made in the order dated 21.03.2025 as regards membership, it is contended by Shri Singh that once the Assistant Registrar himself observed that original record in relation to members enrolled at serial Nos.1 to 1889, being in ruinous condition, could not be produced, the Assistant Registrar erred in declaring members enrolled at the aforesaid numbers as valid.

9. As regards submission of Shri Khare that a single member cannot maintain a writ petition, submission has been made that petitioner was one of the four complainants in the first complaint dated 15.06.2024 and one of the 130 complainants in second complaint dated 12.01.2025 and, therefore, he has every right to maintain the writ petition, particularly when the objections preferred by the petitioner alongwith other complainants were not properly considered.

10. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we find that the writ petition, as per the status report available on the official website of this Court, was filed on 18.06.2025, i.e. about three months after passing of the order dated 21.03.2025, impugned therein. Sixteen (16) days prior to filing of the writ petition, election programme had been notified on 02.06.2025, a perusal whereof reveals that 06.07.2025 was the date fixed for perusal of voter list, filing of objections and their disposal, 07.07.2025 was fixed for depositing nomination fees,

08.07.2025 as the date for filing of nomination papers, objections 4 of 7 thereagainst, their scrutiny and disposal, return of nomination papers and allotment of election symbol and, lastly, 31.08.2025 was fixed as the date of secret ballot, if required.

11. It is not the case of the writ petitioner that the order dated

21.03.2025 was not in his knowledge. As to what prevented the petitioner from challenging the same at the earliest and before the election programme was notified, is not clear from record nor has any explanation for such a belated challenge has been made before us. It, therefore, follows that the petitioner did not have any urgent or pressing grievance against the order dated 21.03.2025. The impugned interim order has been passed by the learned Single Judge on 04.07.2025 i.e. just two days before the first date fixed in the election schedule.

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 5 of 7 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 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.

14. Insofar as the contention of Shri Khare that petitioner being a single member of the Society could not maintain the writ petition, we are not inclined to make any comment in that regard and leave this aspect open to be considered by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition. At this stage, we are only concerned with validity of the interim order keeping the election in abeyance and we also take note of the fact that all the dates notified in the election schedule, except 31.08.2025, having 6 of 7 already lapsed, the election programme dated 02.06.2025 has lost its efficacy. Nevertheless, in view of the discussion made above, we are of the view that elections have to be held in furtherance of the order dated 21.03.2025, impugned in the writ petition, however, with liberty to the person aggrieved to challenge the result of election on all grounds available to him, as and when and if the said stage arrives.

15. Accordingly the special appeal is partly allowed and the interim order dated 04.07.2025 to the extent the learned Single Judge has directed keeping of election, if any, in abeyance, is hereby set aside.

16. The Election Officer is at liberty to re-notify the election schedule and elections may be held in accordance with law. The elections, so held, would always remain subject to challenge, if any, made by any person aggrieved of the same by instituting appropriate proceedings.

17. It is made clear that this order would not be treated as expression of any opinion on challenge laid to the order dated

21.03.2025 impugned in the writ petition or the rival contentions in relation thereto which shall always be open to be dealt with by the learned Single Judge while considering the writ petition. Order Date :- 12.8.2025 Jyotsana (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) 7 of 7 JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad