# Adhoc C/M Sri Kashi Annapurna Vasavi Arya Vyaya Vrudhashramam & Nityanna Satram & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 467
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-12-22
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 30950 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/adhoc-c-m-sri-kashi-annapurna-vasavi-arya-vyaya-vrudhashramam-nityanna-satram-47536
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C., Sri Kartikeya Saran, Sri Ujjawal Satsangi

Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article 226 & 19 (1) (c) - Societies
Registration Act, 1860 - Section 25(2) -
Validity of Election of Management - no
publication
inviting
objections
before
finalization of list of members of general body
for election of management - Challenge as to
what is the basis of finalization of the list of
286 members - impugned order appears to be
arbitrary and unreasonable - it is settle by
several judgments of this court that such
orders which are arbitrary, illegal can always
be look into in judicial review - impugned
orders liable to be set aside - direction issued
to the Assistant Registrar to finalize the list as
per law accordingly.(Para 24, 25, 26, 327)

Ordered Accordingly. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,939 of 55,520. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39939 for what follows._

2 All. Adhoc C/M Sri Kashi Annapurna Vasavi Arya Vyaya Vrudhashramam & Nityanna
 Satram & Anr.
467
order passed by the licensing authority and
the appellate authority are bad in law. The
authorities have to act in accordance with
the provisions contained in sub-clause (7)
of Clause 8 of the Control Order, 2016. The
dealer does not have a vested right to carry
on the license of fair price shop. The
licensee is an agent of the Government and
the
distribution
of
the
essential
commodities from the fair price shop
should be strictly in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the license. Any
violation of conditions, would result in
proceedings for suspension and revocation
of such license.

36.
Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner has not been able to point out
that the procedure prescribed under subclause (7) of Clause 8 of the Control
Order, 2016 has not been followed or
complied with in case of the petitioner.

37. Giving a license for a fair price
shop, is a privilege conferred by the State
on a person. It is a largesse, which is
given of discretion vested in the authority
to a person. There are serious allegations
against the petitioner, which have been
proved during the course of inquiry and,
the petitioner was unable to produce any
document or evidence in support of his
defence in respect of the allegations
levelled against him.

38. Two competent authorities
under the relevant statute, have not found
the case of the petitioner bona fide in
respect of his defence regarding the
serious
allegations
and,
they
have
concurrently held that petitioner can not
be allowed to run the fair price shop of
the Village Panchayat and it has been
cancelled. Petitioner does not have any
fundamental right for fair price shop
license. Petitioner was required to run the
fair price shop in accordance with the
terms and conditions of the license and
the provisions of the Control Order, 2016
issued in this respect. Two competent
authorities have found that petitioner was
wanting in running the fair price shop and
he was not carrying out the terms and
conditions
of
the
license
properly,
therefore, the petitioner's license has been
cancelled. This Court while exercising
the powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution
of
India,
can
not
reappreciate the evidence, which has been
considered
by
the
two
competent
authorities and, therefore, this Court does
not find any ground for interfering with
the impugned orders.

39. Thus, writ petition lacks merit
and substance, which is hereby dismissed.
----------

(2022)02ILR A467
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No. 30950 of 2021
With
Writ- C No. 34056 of 2021

Adhoc C/M Sri Kashi Annapurna Vasavi
Arya Vyaya Vrudhashramam & Nityanna
Satram & Anr. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vineet Kumar Singh, Sri H.N. Singh (Sr.
Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
468 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
C.S.C., Sri Kartikeya Saran, Sri Ujjawal Satsangi

Criminal Law - Constitution of India,1950
- Article 226 & 19 (1) (c) - Societies
Registration Act, 1860 - Section 25(2) -
Validity of Election of Management - no
publication
inviting
objections
before
finalization of list of members of general body
for election of management - Challenge as to
what is the basis of finalization of the list of
286 members - impugned order appears to be
arbitrary and unreasonable - it is settle by
several judgments of this court that such
orders which are arbitrary, illegal can always
be look into in judicial review - impugned
orders liable to be set aside - direction issued
to the Assistant Registrar to finalize the list as
per law accordingly.(Para 24, 25, 26, 327)

Ordered Accordingly. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

1. Harshit Agarwal & ors. Vs U.O.I. & ors. (2021
vol. 2 SCC 710)

2. St. of Pun. Vs Bandeep Singh & ors. (2016
vol. 1 SCC 724)

3. Committee of Management, Arya Kanya
Pathshala Inter College, Bulandshahar Vs St. of
U.P. & ors. - (2011 vol. 2 ADJ 65 (DB))

4. Ratan Kumar Solanki Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2010 vol. 1 ADJ 262 (DB))

5. Deepak Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & ors. (2002 O
Supreme (All) 2628)

6. Achin Jain & ors. Vs Assistant Registrar,
Firms, Societies & Chits, U.P., Moradabad & ors.
(2006 vol. 3 AWC 2846)

7. Committee of Management of Krishak
Sevasamiti, Ghazipur & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(2009 vol. 1 ADJ 460)

8. Basant Prasad Srivastava & ors. Vs St. of U.P.
& ors. (AIR 1994 All 112)

9. Pt. Suraj Pal Sharma & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(Writ-C No. 21092/2021, decided on 21.10.2021)
10. Katar Singh Baliyan Vs St. of U.P. & ors.
(Special
Appeal
No.355/2019,
decided
on
26.3.2019)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. As the basic facts, impugned order
and legal aspects involved are identical in
both the writ petitions, they have been
clubbed and heard together and are being
decided by this common judgement. The
facts recorded in Writ C No. 30950 of 2021
(Adhoc C/M Sri Kashi Annapurna And
Another Versus State of U.P. And 6
Others) are being treated to be the leading
case.

2. Heard Mr. H.N. Singh, Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Vineet Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners'
Committee of Management, Mr. Mangala
Prasad, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr.
Abhishek Dwivedi, learned counsel for the
petitioners, Mr. Kartikeya Saran, learned
counsel for respondent nos.3 and 4, Mr.
Shailendra
Singh
and
Mr.
Aseem
Mukherjee, learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents.

3. The writ petition has been filed by
the petitioners with the following prayer:-

"(a) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 02.11.2021 passed
by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies
and Chits, Varanasi so far it denied the
membership to 27411 members of the
Society and confined its membership to 286
only.

(b) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents not to give effect to the
impugned order referred to above and to
2 All. Adhoc C/M Sri Kashi Annapurna Vasavi Arya Vyaya Vrudhashramam & Nityanna
 Satram & Anr.
469
stay all further proceedings consequent
thereupon during the pendency of the writ
petition before this Hon'ble Court.

(c) Issue a writ, order or direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents
to
allow
further
27411
members of the general body of Society
namely Sri Kashi Annapurna Vasavi Arya
Vyaya
Vrudhashramam
and
Nityanna
Satram,Varanasi apart from 286 members
finalized by the Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Varanasi in the
election of the Society to be held under
Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration
Act, 1860."

4. Brief facts of the case are that "Sri
Kashi Annapurna Vasavi Arya Vyaya
Vrudhashramam and Nityanna Sataram,
Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as ''the
Society') is a Society duly registered under
the provisions of Societies Registration
Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the
''Act, 1860'). The aforesaid society was
initially registered on 10.09.1999 and has
been renewed from time to time.

5. As per the bye-laws of the Society,
the first Executive Committee will function
for the term of five years and this period
was liable to be extended for another five
years. The founder Committee dated
10.09.1999 functioned for five years and its
term was extended for another five years,
as such, the founder Committee worked up
to 10.09.1999. That as per the bye-laws of
the Society amended from time to time,
there is no specific provision of induction
of person as member of the general body
by any resolution either of managing
committee, executive committee or general
body.

6. Clause 5 of the bye-laws of the
Society enunciates that the person, who are
from Arya Vysya Community, are eligible
for membership of old age home and
Sataram and the founder members and any
donor, who contributes Rs.25,156/- or more
to any existing donations schemes or any
other donations schemes, to be introduced
in future, shall be a general body member,
only after the full payment is realized, thus,
the criteria of the membership is only
donation to the Society and it is automatic
subject to condition that the person is of
Arya
Vysya
Community
and
has
contributed Rs.25,156/- as a donation to the
Society.

7. Clause 7 of the bye-laws provides
that membership of the general body of the
Society is hereditary and in case of death or
retirement of the general body member,
their legal heirs or nominees will become
members, which means that the member of
Arya Vysya Society, who has once donated
Rs.25,156/- will be considered as member
along with his legal heirs.

8. A dispute arose, as the rival set has
claimed that, on the basis of alleged
election held on 29.7.2012 Jakka Naag
Bhushanam was elected as President, as he
resigned on 27.07.2013, on the same day,
the Committee of Management has coopted Yakkali Balakrishna Murthy as
President. The aforesaid dispute was raised
before Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies
and Chits, Varanasi and after hearing the
parties, the Assistant Registrar vide order
dated 07.09.2016, holding that the term of
the Committee of Management of the
Society had already expired and no election
of the Committee of Management was held
on 29.7.2012, hence, there was no question
of resignation of Jakka Naag Bhushanam
and co-option of Yakkali Balakrishan
Murthy. He has further directed to hold the
election of the Society in question in terms
470 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of Section 25(2) of the Act, 1860, at
Hyderabad Administration office.

9. The Hon'ble Court on 02.08.2017
finally disposed off the writ petition by
holding that there was no illegality in the
order of the Assistant Registrar but the
order dated 07.09.2016 was modified to the
extent directing the Assistant Registrar to
conduct the fresh election after inviting the
objections of the electoral college. For
managing the affairs of the Society, an
Adhoc
Committee
was
appointed
in
August, 2017 information of which was
given to the Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Varanasi by the
coordinator.

10. A modification application was
filed by Yakkali Balakrishna Murthy with a
request
to
modify
the
order
dated
02.08.2017 to the extent that the charge of
the President of Committee of Management
may be handed to him till the fresh
elections are held. The said modification
application was dismissed on 20.4.2018.

11. Against the order of the Writ
Court
dated
20.04.2018,
Yakkali
Balakrishna Murthy filed Special Appeal
No. 495 of 2018 which is still pending and
no interim order has been passed therein.

12. In the meantime, Dr. Raj Kumar
Verma filed Writ-C No.45743 of 2017 (Dr. Raj
Kumar Vemula Vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others)
questioning
the
appointment
of
Adhoc
Committee and the Hon'ble Court vide order
dated 22.09.2017 disposed off the writ petition
with direction to the Assistant Registrar to
dispose off the objections filed by Dr. Raj
Kumar Vemula. It was further observed that the
Assistant Registrar may ensure that the parties
shall not syphon the money of the Society.

13. The Special Appeal Defective
No.561 of 2017 was filed against the order
dated 16.11.2017, which was allowed by a
Division Bench of this Court vide order
dated dated 16.11.2017 and the order of the
Hon'ble Single Judge, to the effect, that the
parties shall not syphon the money of the
Society, was set aside.

14. In compliance of the order dated
16.11.2017, the Assistant Registrar, has
passed
an
order
dated
14.01.2020
requesting
the
District
Magistrate/Collector,
Hyderabad,
to
nominate an appropriate Election Officer as
per the exigency, to conduct the elections
of the Society.

15. The aforesaid order was assailed
on the ground that responsibility under the
statue to determine the list of members is
that of Assistant Registrar when he
proceeds to exercise his power under
Section 25(2) of Act, 1860. Questioning the
order
dated
14.01.2020
one
Gande
Ganganna has filed Writ-C No.8618 of
2020 which was disposed off by the
judgement and order dated 06.03.2020
directing the Assistant Registrar to finalize
the list of the members after obtaining the
objections in the matter. A further direction
was issued to the Assistant Registrar to
convene the election meeting, thereafter, it
would be open for him to allow any other
responsible officer to preside over the
meeting of the election. The Court has
further observed that the Adhoc committee
arrangement, which was continuing as on
date, shall remain subject to fresh elections
and the orders passed by the competent
authority. It was also expected from the
Assistant Registrar to conduct the elections
within further period of six weeks,
thereafter.
2 All. Adhoc C/M Sri Kashi Annapurna Vasavi Arya Vyaya Vrudhashramam & Nityanna
 Satram & Anr.
471

16. Pursuant to the direction of this
Hon'ble Court, the Assistant Registrar has
proceeded to finalize the list of members of
general body and in continuation of the
same, respondent nos. 3 to 6 with their joint
signatures have submitted a list of 995
members of the general body, as is referred
in the meeting of general body dated
28.4.2002. The aforesaid four persons have
subsequently filed their objections before
the Assistant Registrar on 12.06.2018
separately submitting that they have no
objection, if the election is to be held by all
founder members and members, who were
the members of the Society at the time of
amendment of the bye-laws in the year
2002, 2012 and 2015. Thereafter another
joint
application
was
submitted
by
aforesaid respondents annexing the alleged
list of 286 members of the Society to
which, there is no basis and relying upon
the aforesaid, the Assistant Registrar has
published a tentative list of 286 members of
the general body vide his order dated
20/21.8.2018. An objection to the tentative
list was filed by B.N. Vilas, member of
Adhoc Committee pointing out that there
are more than 25000 members of the
Society. The Assistant Registrar fixed
08.10.2021 as the date of hearing, and on
the said date, the petitioners have submitted
the list of members in 14 volumes which
contains the list of members since 1999 to
29.02.2020, which is total 27697 members.
The Assistant Registrar has closed the oral
hearing on 22.10.2021 and the petitioners
have submitted written
argument on
25.10.2021 again clarifying the position of
the members and have also disclosed that
there are total 27697 members, detailing as
to how the aforesaid persons became the
members of the general body of the Society
as per the required bye-laws.

17. On the basis of objections filed by
the petitioners as well as respondent nos. 3
to 6, the Assistant Registrar has proceeded
to pass impugned order dated 02.11.2021
finalizing the list of 286 members, as was
published in the tentative list, inviting
objections
against
the
tentative
membership.

18.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners submits that the impugned order
dated 02.11.2021 passed by Assistant
Registrar finalizing the list of 286 members
is arbitrary and wholly unjustified in the
eyes of law.

19. The Hon'ble Court vide order
dated 06.03.2020 had directed the Assistant
Registrar to finalize the list of members
after obtaining objections in the matter
within a period of two months. However,
there is nothing on record to show that any
publication in this respect was made to
invite objections, which was required to be
done, as the objections were to be raised by
members coming from five main States i.e.
Hyderabad, Varanasi, Tirupati, Sirdi and
Haridwar and no information whatsoever
was given to the petitioner for filing the
objections against the tentative list.

20.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners
further
submits
that
the
Assistant Registrar, while finalizing the list
of 286 members, has not disclosed as to
what is the basis of accepting the claim of
the respondents, when once they had
initially submitted the list of general body
of 995 members. The Assistant Registrar
has also not taken into consideration the
provisions of the bye-laws as detailed in the
aforesaid paragraphs while finalizing the
list of 286 members of the general body.
472 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

21.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners then submits that the Assistant
Registrar has passed the order, without
applying his mind, in an arbitrary manner,
by not taking into consideration the
objections
raised
by
the
petitioners,
recording therein that the adhoc committee
of the petitioners does not have any locus,
ignoring the fact that the constitution of the
adhoc Committee for looking after the
affairs of the Society, has already been
affirmed by various orders of this Court.

22. On the cumulative strength of the
aforesaid, the learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that it is within the
jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India to interfere in
such orders which have been passed in an
arbitrary manner or are illegal or irrational.
In support of the submissions, he has
placed the following judgements:-

(i). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Harshit Agarwal and Others Vs.
Union of India and Others reported in
(2021) 2 SCC 710 has held as under:-

"10.
Judicial
review
of
administrative action is permissible on
grounds of illegality, irrationality and
procedural
impropriety.
An
administrative decision is flawed if it is
illegal. A decision is illegal if it pursues
an objective other than that for which the
power
to
make
the
decision
was
conferred 1. There is no unfettered
discretion in public law2. Discretion
conferred on an authority has to be
necessarily
exercised
only
for
the
purpose provided in a Statute. The
discretion exercised by the decision
maker is subject to judicial scrutiny if a
purpose other than a specified purpose is
pursued.
If
the
authority
pursues
unauthorized purposes his decision is
rendered
illegal.
If
irrelevant
considerations are taken into account for
reaching
the
decision
or
relevant
considerations have been ignored, the
decision stands vitiated as the decision
maker has misdirected himself in law. It
is useful to refer to R. vs. St. Pancras
Vestry in which it was held: -

"......If people who have to exercise a
public duty by exercising their discretion
take into account maters which the Courts
consider not to be proper for the exercise
of their discretion, then in the eye of law
they have not exercised their discretion"."

(ii). The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of Punjab Vs. Bandeep Singh
and others reported in (2016) 1 SCC 724
also held as under:-

"4. There can be no gainsaying that
every decision of an administrative or
executive nature must be a composite and
self sustaining one, in that it should contain
all the reasons which prevailed on the
official taking the decision to arrive at his
conclusion. It is beyond cavil that any
Authority cannot be permitted to travel
beyond the stand adopted and expressed by
it in the impugned action. If precedent is
required for this proposition it can be
found
in
the
celebrated
decision
titled Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief
Election Commissioner, New Delhi [1978]
2 SCR 272, of which the following
paragraph deserves extraction:

"8. The second equally relevant matter
is that when a statutory functionary makes
an order based on certain grounds, its
validity must be judged by the reasons so
mentioned and cannot be supplemented by
fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or
otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the
beginning may, by the time it comes to
court on account of a challenge, get
validated by additional grounds later
2 All. Adhoc C/M Sri Kashi Annapurna Vasavi Arya Vyaya Vrudhashramam & Nityanna
 Satram & Anr.
473
brought out. We may here draw attention to
the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas
Bhanji [1952] 1 SCR 135:

9. ........Public orders publicly made,
in exercise of a statutory authority cannot
be construed in the light of Explanations
subsequently given by the officer making
the order of what he meant, or of what was
in his mind, or what he intended to do.
Public orders made by public authorities
are meant to have public effect and are
intended to affect the acting and conduct of
those to whom they are addressed and must
be construed objectively with reference to
the language used in the order itself.

Orders are not like old wine becoming
better as they grow older".

7. The same principle was upheld
more recently in Ram Kishun Vs. State of
U.P. (2012) 11 SCC 511. However, we
must hasten to clarify that the Government
does not have a carte blanche to take any
decision it chooses to; it cannot take a
capricious,
arbitrary
or
prejudiced
decision. Its decision must be informed and
impregnated with reasons. This has already
been discussed threadbare in several
decisions of this Court, including in
Sterling Computers Ltd. v. M & N
Publications Ltd. (1993) 1 SCC 445, Tata
Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC
651, Air India Ltd. v. Cochin International
Airport Ltd. (2000) 2 SCC 617, B.S.N.
Joshi & Sons Ltd. v. Nair Coal Services
Ltd. (2006) 11 SCC 548, Jagdish Mandal v.
State of Orissa (2007) 14 SCC 517."

(iii). This Court in the case of
Committee of Management, Arya Kanya
Pathshala Inter College, Bulandshahar
Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in
2011 (2) ADJ 65 (DB) has also observed as
under:-

"11. The Division Bench in Rajveer
Singh's case (supra) had placed reliance on
another Division Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Ratan Kumar Solanki
vs. State of U.P. reported in 2010(1)
Additional District Judge 262 (Division
Bench). The Division Bench in Ratan
Kumar Solanki's case had elaborately
considered the issue in question and after
considering laid down that the question as
to whether an individual member has locus
to challenge the election depends on facts
of each case and an individual member
may have locus to challenge the election if
he is person aggrieved. There is no such
proposition that an individual member
cannot, in no circumstance, challenge the
election of the Committee of Management.
The Division Bench in Ratan Kumar
Solanki's case (supra), laid down following
in paragraphs 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the
judgment:-

"23. In Satya Narain Tripathi (supra)
the question whether a member of the
general body can challenge the election by
filing a writ petition was considered by the
Hon'ble Single Judge (Hon'ble Janardan
Sahai, J.) and his Lordship held that
participation either by contesting election
or exercising right to franchise is not a
fundamental right, but merely a common
right originating from the statute or the
rules and bye-laws of an association etc. A
breach of such statutory rights or right
under the rules and regulations can be
redressed by the available remedy which
the statute or bye-laws provide or by a civil
suit where such remedy is not otherwise
barred. Where the elections are held under
statutory
provision,
the
remedy
of
challenging the election, if provided under
the statute, has to be availed as an
alternative remedy which would ordinarily
bar the maintainability of a writ petition.
The infringement of a right under the byelaws of the society would not make the writ
petition maintainable under Article 226 but
in such a case the incumbent would have to
474 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
avail remedy either by filing a civil suit or
under
Section
25
of
the
Societies
Registration
Act.
His
Lordship
also
observed if there is a breach of a right of a
person affecting his right to form an
association, which is a fundamental right
under Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution,
in that case or where there is breach of the
statute,
the
writ
petition
may
be
maintainable
subject
to
the
Court
exercising its discretion if an alternative
remedy is available. The proposition,
therefore, that an individual member
cannot challenge an election in any
circumstance is not correct. When a writ
petition can be maintainable at the instance
of an individual member of the general
body of the society or the office bearer of
the society or by the body itself is a
different issue but when an election itself
can be challenged is another aspect.
Similarly whether a writ petition would be
maintainable at
the
instance of
an
individual or the collective body and in
what circumstances stands on different
footings.

24. What is discernible from the above
discussion is where the right of an
individual is affected or infringed, and, he
has no other effective remedy, if such rights
of the individual concerned are borne out
from the statute or the provision of byelaws etc. having the flavour of statute, a
writ petition at his instance may be
maintainable subject to attracting the
condition where the Court may decline to
interfere namely availability of alternative
remedy, delay, laches etc. but where a legal
right of an individual is not directly
affected, a writ petition expousing the
cause of the collective body or other
members of the collective body would not
be maintainable at the instance of an
individual who himself is not directly
affected. We may add here that in a given
case, if it is found that an election was held
by an imposter and he is supported by
District Inspector of Schools or other
educational authorities, such an action of
DIOS as also the election can be
challenged by the individual member since
it cannot be said that he is not a person
aggrieved but whether a writ petition at his
instance would be maintainable or he can
challenge the election by filing a civil suit
etc., would be a different aspect of the
matter and has to be considered in each
and every case considering the facts,
relevant provision and other relevant
aspects of the matter.

25. Now coming to the present dispute,
we find that here the election was held in
accordance with scheme of administration
which has been prepared in accordance
with 1921 Act and the Regulations framed
thereunder and is duly approved by the
educational authorities. The petitioner was
a contestant in the election. Complaining
some irregularities, he made a complaint
before District Inspector of Schools who
after getting a report from the Authorised
Controller and prima facie getting satisfied
directed for re-counting of the votes and
accepted the request of the petitioner to this
extent. But thereafter no re-counting took
place. The elections were recognised by the
education
authorities
without
such
recounting. In these circumstances, it
cannot be said that the petitioner is not an
aggrieved person or has no locus standi.
Whether the writ petition was filed for
infringement of a legal or statutory right or
a right under bye-laws having force of law
is not an issue raised by the respondents in
the earlier petition as well as the present
one but their basic objection is that the
petitioner cannot be said to be an
aggrieved person and thus has no locus
standi. From the record of the earlier writ
petition filed by the petitioner, we find that
2 All. Adhoc C/M Sri Kashi Annapurna Vasavi Arya Vyaya Vrudhashramam & Nityanna
 Satram & Anr.
475
the respondents at no point of time raised
this issue since the locus standi of the
petitioner appellant was writ large. It is a
different aspect as to why and in what
circumstances,
the
writ
petition
was
dismissed as having rendered infructuous
by observing that term of the Committee of
Management has
expired.
It
is
the
consequential order passed by the DIOS
after dismissal of the first writ petition of
the petitioner-appellant that he has to file
the second writ petition which is concerned
with the correctness of the order of DIOS,
and in the above facts and circumstances,
we find it difficult to subscribe the view as
canvassed by the respondents that the
petitioner has no locus standi to maintain
the writ petition and, therefore, reject the
same. We hold that the petitioner is a
person aggrieved and has locus standi in
the matter.

26.
We
again
clarify
that
our
observations are only confined for the
purpose of the present case to the
preliminary objection raised on behalf of
the
respondents
that
the
petitionerappellant has no locus standi i.e. he is not
the person aggrieved. In respect to the
wider issue as to when a writ petition can
be entertained challenging the validity of
an election is a different aspect of the
matter and in this respect neither any
objection
has
been
raised
by
the
respondents nor the arguments have been
advanced, therefore, we are leaving this
issue to be considered in some other case
at appropriate time."

12. From the proposition as laid down
in the above Division Bench judgments, it
is clear that the question as to whether an
individual member has locus to challenge
the
election
of
the
Committee
of
Management depends on facts of each case.
In the present case, the objection was
raised on behalf of the present appellant,
who was respondent to the writ petition,
that the writ petition at the instance of
respondent No.4, who is alleged to be
member
of
general
body,
is
not
maintainable. The Hon'ble Single Judge
has accepted the said objection and, in fact,
has held that writ petition is not maintain
been closed there and there was no
occasion for issuing any direction at the
instance of a person on whose instance the
writ
petition
was
held
to
be
not
maintainable. There is no appeal by the
writ petitioner challenging the said view
taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge. Thus it
is not necessary for us to proceed to
examine as to whether in the present case
writ petition could have been entertained at
the instance of respondent No.4 who
alleged himself to be member of the general
body. It is suffice to say that Hon'ble Single
Judge having taken the view that the writ
petition was not maintainable at the
instance of respondent No.4, the matter
should have been closed there and there
was no occasion for issuing any direction
at the instance of a person on whose
instance the writ petition was held to be not
maintainable."
(iv). This Court in the case of Ratan
Kumar Solanki Vs. State of U.P. and
others reported in 2010 (1) ADJ 262 (DB)
has also held as under:-

23. In Satya Narain Tripathi (supra)
the question whether a member of the
general body can challenge the election by
filing a writ petition was considered by the
Hon'ble Single Judge (Hon'ble Janardan
Sahai, J.) and his Lordship held that
participation either by contesting election
or exercising right to franchise is not a
fundamental right, but merely a common
right originating from the statute or the
rules and bye-laws of an association etc. A
breach of such statutory rights or right
under the rules and regulations can be
476 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
redressed by the available remedy which
the statute or bye-laws provide or by a civil
suit where such remedy is not otherwise
barred. Where the elections are held under
statutory
provision,
the
remedy
of
challenging the election, if provided under
the statute, has to be availed as an
alternative remedy which would ordinarily
bar the maintainability of a writ petition.
The infringement of a right under the byelaws of the society would not make the writ
petition maintainable under Article 226 but
in such a case the incumbent would have to
avail remedy either by filing a civil suit or
under
Section
25
of
the
Societies
Registration
Act.
His
Lordship
also
observed if there is a breach of a right of a
person affecting his right to form an
association, which is a fundamental right
under Article 19 (1) (c) of the Constitution,
in that case or where there is breach of the
statute,
the
writ
petition
may
be
maintainable
subject
to
the
Court
exercising its discretion if an alternative
remedy is available. The proposition,
therefore, that an individual member
cannot challenge an election in any
circumstance is not correct. When a writ
petition can be maintainable at the instance
of an individual member of the general
body of the society or the office bearer of
the society or by the body itself is a
different issue but when an election itself
can be challenged is another aspect.
Similarly whether a writ petition would be
maintainable at
the
instance of
an
individual or the collective body and in
what circumstances stands on different
footings.

24. What is discernible from the above
discussion is where the right of an
individual is affected or infringed, and, he
has no other effective remedy, if such rights
of the individual concerned are borne out
from the statute or the provision of byelaws etc. having the flavour of statute, a
writ petition at his instance may be
maintainable subject to attracting the
condition where the Court may decline to
interfere namely availability of alternative
remedy, delay, laches etc. but where a legal
right of an individual is not directly
affected, a writ petition expousing the
cause of the collective body or other
members of the collective body would not
be maintainable at the instance of an
individual who himself is not directly
affected. We may add here that in a given
case, if it is found that an election was held
by an imposter and he is supported by
DIOS or other educational authorities,
such an action of DIOS as also the election
can be challenged by the individual
member since it cannot be said that he is
not a person aggrieved but whether a writ
petition
at
his
instance
would
be
maintainable or he can challenge the
election by filing a civil suit etc., would be
a different aspect of the matter and has to
be considered in each and every case
considering the facts, relevant provision
and other relevant aspects of the matter."

(v). This Court in the case of Deepak
Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others,
reported in 2005 0 Supreme(All) 2628 has
also held as under:-

"45. The parameters of the Court's
power have been analyzed by the Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
in
Commissioner
of
Income-tax, Bombay & Ors,. Vs. Mahindra
& Mahindra Ltd. & Ors., AIR 1984 SC
1182 as under-:

"By now, the parameters of the Court's
power of judicial review of administrative
or executive action or decision and the
grounds on which the Court can interfere
with the same are well settled and it would
be redundant to recapitulate the whole
catena
of
decisions
of
this
Court
commencing from Barium Chemicals, AIR
2 All. Adhoc C/M Sri Kashi Annapurna Vasavi Arya Vyaya Vrudhashramam & Nityanna
 Satram & Anr.
477
1967
SC
295
case
on
the
point.
Indisputably, it is a settled position that if
the action or decision is perverse or is such
that no reasonable body of persons,
properly informed, could come to, or has
been
arrived
at
by
the
authority
misdirecting itself by adopting a wrong
approach, or has been influenced by
irrelevant or extraneous matters the Court
would be justified in interfering with the
same. This Court in one of its later
decisions in Smt. Shalini Soni Vs. Union of
India, AIR 1981 SC 431, has observed thus:
"It is an unwritten rule of the law,
constitutional and administrative, that
whenever a decision-making function is
entrusted to the subjective satisfaction of a
statutory functionary, there is an implicit
obligation to apply his mind to pertinent
and proximate matters only, eschewing the
irrelevant and the remote". Suffice it to say
that the following passage appearing at
pages 285-86 in Prof. de Smith's treatise
''Judicial Review of Administrative Action'
(4th Edn.) succinctly summarises the
several principles formulated by the Courts
in that behalf thus: "The authority in which
a discretion is vested can be compelled to
exercise that discretion, but not to exercise
it in any particular manner. In general, a
discretion must be exercised only by the
authority to which it is committed. That
authority must genuinely address itself to
the matter before it: it must not act under
the dictation of another body or disable
itself from exercising a discretion in each
individual case. In the purported exercise
of its discretion it must not do what it has
been forbidden to do, nor must it do what it
has not been authorised to do. It must act
in good faith, must have regard to all
relevant considerations, must not be
swayed by irrelevant considerations, must
not seek to promote purposes alien to the
letter or to the spirit of the legislation that
gives it power to act, and must not act
arbitrarily or capriciously. Nor where a
judgment must be made that certain facts
exist can a discretion be validly exercised
on the basis of an erroneous assumption
about those facts. These several principles
can conveniently be grouped in two main
categories; failure to exercise a discretion,
and excess or abuse of discretionary
power. The two classes are not, however,
mutually exclusive. Thus, discretion may be
improperly fettered because irrelevant
considerations
have
been
taken
into
account; and where an authority hands
over its discretion to another body it acts
ultra
vires.
Nor,
is
it
possible
to
differentiate with precision the grounds of
invalidly contained within each category".

46. In State of U.P. & Ors., Vs.
Renusagar Power Co. & Ors,. AIR 1988
SC 1737 it was held that exercise of
administrative power will be set aside if
there is a manifest error in the exercise of
such power or the exercise of the power is
manifestly arbitrary.

47. The famous "Wednesbury Case"
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd.
Us. Wednesbury Corp. (1947) 2 All ER 680
(CA) is considered to be the landmark in so
far as the basic principles relating to
judicial
review
of
administrative
or
statutory direction are concerned. We
quote a passage from the judgment of Lord
Greene which is as follows:-

"It is true that discretion must be
exercised reasonably. Now what does that
mean?
Lawyers
familiar
with
the
phraseology used in relation to exercise of
statutory discretions often use the word
''unreasonable' in a rather comprehensive
sense. It has frequently been used and is
frequently used as a general description of
the things that must not be done. For
instance, a person entrusted with a
discretion must, so to speak, direct himself
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
properly in law. He must call his own
attention to the matters, which he is bound
to consider. He must exclude from his
consideration matters, which are irrelevant
to what he has to consider. If he does not
obey those rules, he may truly be said, and
often is said, to be acting ''unreasonably'.
Similarly, there may be something so
absurd that no sensible person could even
dream that it lay within the powers of the
authority...... . In another, it is taking into
consideration extraneous matters. It is
unreasonable that it might almost be
described as being done in bad faith; and
in fact, all these things run into one
another."

48. The principles of judicial review of
administrative
action
were
further
summarized in 1985 by Lord Diplock in
Council of Civil Service Unions Vs.
Minister for the Civil Service 1984 (3) Al.
ER. 935, (commonly known as CCSU case)
as illegality, procedural impropriety and
irrationality. He said more grounds could
in future become available, including the
doctrine of proportionality which was a
principle
followed
by
certain
other
members of the European Economic
Community. Lord Diplock observed in this
case as follows:-

"....... Judicial review has I think,
developed to a stage today when, without
reiterating any analysis of the steps by
which the development has come about,
one can conveniently classify under three
heads the grounds on which administrative
action is subject to control by judicial
review. The first ground I would call
''illegality', the second ''irrationality' and
the third ''procedural impropriety'.