High Court · 2025

the pendency of the writ petition.

2. It was further provided that no fresh election pursuant to the impugned order shall take place and granted time to the respondents to file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks.

3. The writ petition was filed by the appellants aggrieved of order dated 15.07.2024 passed by Regional Level Committee, whereby the Regional Level Committee set aside the elections dated

12.10.2023 conducted by Durga Singh Rana and 14.01.2024 conducted by Manager of the outgoing Committee as the same were not found in terms of Sub-clause (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration and authorized the DIOS to hold fresh elections of the Committee of Management. The principal reason indicated that the date of elections was not declared two months before the completion of the term and the list of members were not produced 11 months before the completion of the term in the office of DIOS. The District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police were not requested to appoint representative/observer. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petition was filed, wherein as noticed hereinbefore, though the order impugned was stayed, directions were given for appointment of Authorized Controller.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to order for appointment of an Authorized Controller in the school as in terms of the Scheme of Management, the elections were held, which was wrongly set aside by the Regional Level Committee and once operation/consequence of the said order was stayed, there was no reason to order for appointment of Authorized Controller.

5. Submissions have been made that the DIOS had already ordered for single hand operation of the bank accounts of the Committee/Institution and once the appellants were able to make out a prima facie case, the order impugned was required to be stayed and directions ought to be given for attesting the signatures. The appointment of Authorized Controller, in the circumstances of the case, by way of an interim order, is wholly unjustified and the same deserves to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. Submissions have been made that once the term of the Committee was over and the purported elections held have been set aside by the Regional Level Committee, in terms of the Scheme of Administration, the appointment of the Authorized Controller is a natural consequence and therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. Submissions were made that if the relief, as claimed, was granted by the learned Single Judge and/or by this Court, the same would amount to allowing the writ petition at interim stage, which even otherwise is not permissible and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

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

8. The facts are not in dispute that the elections were conducted within the time frame and as prescribed under the Scheme of Administration, however, on challenge being laid, the same was set aside and fresh elections were ordered to be held. Once a challenge to setting aside of the said election was laid by filing the present writ petition, wherein the learned Single Judge, on finding a prima facie case, stayed the holding of fresh elections pursuant to the impugned order, apparently, there was then no occasion for bringing in a new state of affairs by ordering for appointment of an Authorized Controller.

9. The fact that the elections pursuant to the order impugned were stayed by the learned Single Judge, the status as it existed at the time of election was required to be restored or in case no such order was required to be passed appointing Authorized Controller. As stated, the DIOS had already ordered for single hand operation of the bank accounts of the institution and therefore, the same would have been sufficient for the purpose of safeguarding the interest of the Society till decision was taken in the pending writ petition and apparently, there was no reason to bring new state of affairs by appointing Authorized Controller.

10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.

11. The order impugned dated 19.11.2024, passed in Writ - C No. 25273 of 2024, is set aside only to the extent that by way of interim measure, Authorized Controller has been ordered to be appointed by learned Single Judge. It is ordered that the bank accounts of the institution shall be under single hand operation regarding which, the DIOS would pass appropriate order. The interim order granted by learned Single Judge regarding not holding of fresh election pursuant to the impugned order shall continue.

12. Looking to the nature of dispute, it is expected that the petition shall be heard and decided with expedition. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Mukesh Pal (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

the pendency of the writ petition.

2. It was further provided that no fresh election pursuant to the impugned order shall take place and granted time to the respondents to file counter affidavit within a period of four weeks.

3. The writ petition was filed by the appellants aggrieved of order dated 15.07.2024 passed by Regional Level Committee, whereby the Regional Level Committee set aside the elections dated

12.10.2023 conducted by Durga Singh Rana and 14.01.2024 conducted by Manager of the outgoing Committee as the same were not found in terms of Sub-clause (2), (3) and (4) of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration and authorized the DIOS to hold fresh elections of the Committee of Management. The principal reason indicated that the date of elections was not declared two months before the completion of the term and the list of members were not produced 11 months before the completion of the term in the office of DIOS. The District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police were not requested to appoint representative/observer. Feeling aggrieved, the writ petition was filed, wherein as noticed hereinbefore, though the order impugned was stayed, directions were given for appointment of Authorized Controller.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant made vehement submissions that there was no occasion for the learned Single Judge to order for appointment of an Authorized Controller in the school as in terms of the Scheme of Management, the elections were held, which was wrongly set aside by the Regional Level Committee and once operation/consequence of the said order was stayed, there was no reason to order for appointment of Authorized Controller.

5. Submissions have been made that the DIOS had already ordered for single hand operation of the bank accounts of the Committee/Institution and once the appellants were able to make out a prima facie case, the order impugned was required to be stayed and directions ought to be given for attesting the signatures. The appointment of Authorized Controller, in the circumstances of the case, by way of an interim order, is wholly unjustified and the same deserves to be set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. Submissions have been made that once the term of the Committee was over and the purported elections held have been set aside by the Regional Level Committee, in terms of the Scheme of Administration, the appointment of the Authorized Controller is a natural consequence and therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. Submissions were made that if the relief, as claimed, was granted by the learned Single Judge and/or by this Court, the same would amount to allowing the writ petition at interim stage, which even otherwise is not permissible and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

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

8. The facts are not in dispute that the elections were conducted within the time frame and as prescribed under the Scheme of Administration, however, on challenge being laid, the same was set aside and fresh elections were ordered to be held. Once a challenge to setting aside of the said election was laid by filing the present writ petition, wherein the learned Single Judge, on finding a prima facie case, stayed the holding of fresh elections pursuant to the impugned order, apparently, there was then no occasion for bringing in a new state of affairs by ordering for appointment of an Authorized Controller.

9. The fact that the elections pursuant to the order impugned were stayed by the learned Single Judge, the status as it existed at the time of election was required to be restored or in case no such order was required to be passed appointing Authorized Controller. As stated, the DIOS had already ordered for single hand operation of the bank accounts of the institution and therefore, the same would have been sufficient for the purpose of safeguarding the interest of the Society till decision was taken in the pending writ petition and apparently, there was no reason to bring new state of affairs by appointing Authorized Controller.

10. Consequently, the appeal is allowed.

11. The order impugned dated 19.11.2024, passed in Writ - C No. 25273 of 2024, is set aside only to the extent that by way of interim measure, Authorized Controller has been ordered to be appointed by learned Single Judge. It is ordered that the bank accounts of the institution shall be under single hand operation regarding which, the DIOS would pass appropriate order. The interim order granted by learned Single Judge regarding not holding of fresh election pursuant to the impugned order shall continue.

12. Looking to the nature of dispute, it is expected that the petition shall be heard and decided with expedition. Order Date :- 5.3.2025 Mukesh Pal (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad