C/M Ramkali Balika Inter College Thru. Manager & Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Edu. Lko. And 3 Others

on 25.11.2018, in which one Smt. Rakhi Jaiswal was elected as Manager of the college and her signatures were duly attested on

07.12.2018. It is also stated that respondent No.2 passed an order appointing an authorized controller for a period of six months under Section 6(3) of the Act, 1971 and the Principal was appointed as an authorized controller. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred, which was dismissed on

19.04.2023 and thereafter, a writ petition was also preferred being Writ-C No.3977 of 2023, wherein the writ petition was allowed and the appellate order was quashed. This Court had remanded the matter in its judgement dated 17.05.2023 and on remand, a fresh order came to be passed on 24.07.2023, wherein the case of the petitioner was rejected once again. It is stated that subsequently on 09.08.2023, the term of the authorized controller was extended for a further period of six months and the Associate DIOS was appointed as authorized controller. Against the order appointing authorized controller, Writ-C No.7663 of 2023 was preferred, which came to be allowed vide order dated 15.09.2023. It appears from the record that the Committee of Management of the college filed an application on 05.12.2023 for registration of the list of the members of the general body of the Society before the Deputy Registrar of the Societies and as the list was not approved, the Committee of Management was declared as time barred vide order dated 14.12.2023 and directions were issued for single operation till the formation of the new Committee of Management. It is further stated that, some complaints were filed under Section 12-D of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 by respondent No.4, for which Writ-C No.3660 of 2024 was also filed, which came to be partly allowed on 22.04.2024. In compliance of the order passed by this Court on 22.04.2024, an order came to be passed on 12.12.2024, whereby the objections filed by respondent No.4 were rejected. It is claimed that the list of 58 members of the general body of the Society was published on 20.01.2025 in the newspaper 'Aaj' (Annexure No.9). The said list came to be registered on 20.03.2025 despite there being objections by respondent. The said list is contained in Annexure No.21 to the writ petition. In terms of the list that was finalized, steps were taken for holding the election for formation of the Committee of Management of the college. A request was also made to respondent No.2 for appointment of an observer, which was prescribed in terms of the scheme of the administration. It is stated that despite a letter being given, no further steps were taken for sending the observer and thus, an election was conducted on 06.04.2025 in the school premises in the presence of majority of the members of the general body. It is claimed that in the election held on 06.04.2025, Smt. Renu Jaiswal was elected as Manager of the college and the other office bearers were also elected. In terms of the said election, the documents were forwarded for attestation of the signatures of the newly elected Manager Smt. Renu Jaiswal as is required in terms of the Act, 1971. Before the said authority, respondent No.4 filed objections. It appears from the order impugned that has been passed that some report was called by the Principal, who had stated that no elections were held in the school and it was further recorded that the observer was not appointed, as such, an order came to be passed rejecting the request for attestation of the signatures of the Manager.

6. Challenging the said order, learned counsel for the petitioners argues that while attesting the signatures in terms of the provisions contained in the Act, 1971, the DIOS has no authority to comment on the elections which were held on

06.04.2025. It is further argued that the report of the Principal, based upon which the impugned order has been passed, is wholly unwarranted as the Principal is prejudiced. With regard to there being no observer, reliance is placed upon a Government Order dated 02.09.2008 and its subsequent clarification on 27.10.2023 that in case, the observer is not appointed within seven days, the election can be held. In the light of the said arguments, it is argued that the writ petition is liable to allowed.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, extensively argues that the entire election held by the petitioner was false, much emphasis was laid on the fact that the list of the members, which is shown to be published in the newspaper is a forged and fabricated documents as filed on Page No.140 of the paper book. It is further argued that even on the said list, it has been mentioned in the communication contained in Annexure No.21 (Page No.148) that although the list has been registered, in case it is found that it contained any false assertions, it can be declared as legally void. It is argued that respondent No.4 has filed detailed objections to the list of the members submitted and approved by the respondent, which are still pending adjudication. It is further argued that in terms of the scheme of administration, which is contained in the writ petition, the manners in which, the elections are to be held have been prescribed and the same have not been followed. It is further argued that once the authorized controller was appointed, the manner in which the election was held was wholly unjustified. The manners in which the elections are to be held are contained in para 11 of the scheme of the administration, to which my attention has been drawn to argue that the elections that have been held are not in consonance with the mandate of para 11. In the light of the said, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

8. Considering the submissions made at the Bar, the order impugned has been passed mainly on two grounds. Firstly, the report of the Principal, who had given a report that the elections were not held in the school premises. The said report was furnished by the Principal on 07.04.2025. An allegation has been levelled that the report of the Principal is prejudiced. The second foundation for passing the order is that no observer was appointed by the DIOS. The other allegation as raised by learned counsel for the respondent, cannot be seen at this stage for judicial review of the order impugned dated 16.06.2025, which has to be done based upon the material, based upon which the order impugned has been passed as has been settled in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Others; AIR 1978 SC 851

9. On perusal of the impugned order, it is clear that based upon the report of the Principal, a view has been formed that the election was not held, the same is wholly arbitrary inasmuch as for holding of the election, it was necessary and incumbent that the views of the members, who had participated in the elections had to be seen. Non sending of the observer, cannot be said to be fatal to the election in view of the Government Order of the year 2008.

10. Thus, on both the grounds, the order cannot be sustained. In addition to the said infirmities, the DIOS in exercise of powers of registration of the signatures prima facie has no powers to see the validity of the election, as appeared to have been done by means of the order impugned.

11. Thus for all the reasons recorded above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is allowed.

12. The order dated 16.06.2025 is quashed. The DIOS is directed to attest the signatures as requested by the petitioner associate.

13. It is further, however, clarified that the objections filed by the respondent with regard to the list furnished and said to be pending will be decided on their own merits without being influenced by the present order.

14. It is further clarified that this Court has not gone into the issue of publication of the list at this stage. Order Date :- 14.8.2025 Ashutosh ASHUTOSH PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench