# C/m Intermediate College, Babusarai, Bhadohi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 9 ILRA 1002
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-08-28
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 15412 of 2023
- **Bench:** Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-intermediate-college-babusarai-bhadohi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-50710
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Section 4-B - U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 - Section 16-A(7) -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 -
Validity of Membership List and Elections -
Petitioners in Writ-C Nos. 15412 and 11662 of
2023 challenged the order dated 16.12.2022 by
the Assistant Registrar, declaring 29 members of
the General Body valid, alleging fabrication by
Ram Rekha Shastri in 2014. Writ-C No. 21573 of
2023 challenged orders dated 02.06.2023 by the
Joint Director of Education and District Inspector
of
Schools,
summoning
records
and
referring rival election disputes to the
Regional
Level
Committee.
Petitioners
claimed a list of 74 members was valid,
supported
by
prior
orders,
while
respondents relied on a list of 29 members,
alleging
petitioners'
enrollment
violated
bye-laws. Court found that the petitioners'
enrollment of members in June 2014 was
invalid due to non-compliance with bye-laws
requiring
Committee
approval
of
bank
drafts, and meetings on 28.06.2014 and
29.06.2014 lacked sanctity. Allegations of
forgery required civil court adjudication
under Sections 31 and 34 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, and Section 45 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The order dated
16.12.2022 was upheld for 26 members,
with
disputes
over
three
members
unresolvable due to their absence as
parties. Elections on 01.06.2023, held by
the District Inspector of Schools, were valid
per prior court orders, rendering the Joint
Director's order and reference to the
Regional Level Committee unsustainable.
Writ-C Nos. 15412 and 11662 dismissed
with liberty to approach civil court; Writ-C
No. 21573 allowed, quashing orders dated
02.06.2023. (Paras 27-29, 31-34)

Writ-C Nos. 15412 and 11662 dismissed;
Writ-C No. 21573 allowed.

List of Cases cited:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,959 of 41,315. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39959 for what follows._

1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
judgment passed by the Division Bench in
Criminal
Miscellaneous
Writ
Petition
cannot be treated as "alien to the present
proceedings" either on facts or on law or
on the categorization etc. etc.

50. Now while referring to two more
documents on record, I find that even the
Recognition Letter dated 27.07.2011, 'Annexure
No.5' to Writ C No. 11005/ 2023, clearly reflects
that recognition is subject to sub-clauses (v), (vi)
(vii) and (viii) of Section 10 of the Act, 2004. It
means that, in case, violation of the aforesaid
provisions of law is found to have taken place,
withdrawal of recognition can be a necessary
consequence. Insofar as the letter dated
25.08.2017 issued by the District Magistrate,
Azamgarh to various Authorities is concerned, I
find that the concerned Committee was headed by
the Sub Divisional Officers of the concerned
Tehsils and its members being District Backward
Class Welfare Officers, District Minority Welfare
Officers and District Social Welfare Officers
concerned and even the District Magistrate
observed that considering the large number of
Madarsas and the fact that they did not fulfill
standards, extensive inquiry is expected.
Hence, if SIT has conducted the extensive
investigation, its report cannot be said to be
unlawful, merely, because in 2016-2017, some
inquiry at Tehsil level was conducted.

51. While concluding this judgment,
another important feature associated with the
power of the State Government conferred by
Section 13 (4) of the Act, 2004 should not be left
undiscussed as the said power speaks that
whenever, in the opinion of the State Government,
it is necessary or expedient to take immediate
action, it may without making any reference to the
Board under the foregoing provisions, pass such
order or take such other action consistent with this
Act as it deems necessary and, in particular, may
by such order, modify or rescind or make any
regulation in respect of any matter and shall
forthwith inform the Board accordingly. Hence, if
the State Government constituted a Special
Investigation Team to carry out inspection and it
carried
investigation,
either
through
spot
inspection or through Portal information uploaded
by the Board or by both modes, action or steps
taken by it cannot be said to be unjustified in
totality of facts and circumstances of the case, as
elaborately discussed.

52. In view of the above discussion,
following is the end result of these writproceedings:-

(i) prayers to quash or set aside either the
S.I.T. report dated 30.11.2022 or the Resolution of
the State Government dated 19.12.2022 or the
communication of the Special Secretary dated
09.01.2023 are hereby refused and declined and
both the writ petitions are dismissed with the same
liberty to the petitioners, as granted by the
Division Bench of this Court in order dated
09.02.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition
No.1131 of 2023.

(ii) Interim order dated 19.04.2023 passed in
Writ C No.11005 of 2023 and dated 28.03.2023 in
Writ C No.5992 of 2023 are hereby vacated.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1002
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.08.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Writ-C No. 15412 of 2023
connected with
Writ-C Nos.11662 of 2023 & 21573 of 2023

C/m
Intermediate
College,
Babusarai,
Bhadohi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
9 All. C/m Intermediate College, Babusarai, Bhadohi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1003
Sri Ashish Kumar Singh, Sri Ajay Kumar Singh,
Sri Tejas Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sankalp Narain, Sri G.K. Singh (Sr.
Advocate)

Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860 - Section 4-B - U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 - Section 16-A(7) -
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 -
Validity of Membership List and Elections -
Petitioners in Writ-C Nos. 15412 and 11662 of
2023 challenged the order dated 16.12.2022 by
the Assistant Registrar, declaring 29 members of
the General Body valid, alleging fabrication by
Ram Rekha Shastri in 2014. Writ-C No. 21573 of
2023 challenged orders dated 02.06.2023 by the
Joint Director of Education and District Inspector
of
Schools,
summoning
records
and
referring rival election disputes to the
Regional
Level
Committee.
Petitioners
claimed a list of 74 members was valid,
supported
by
prior
orders,
while
respondents relied on a list of 29 members,
alleging
petitioners'
enrollment
violated
bye-laws. Court found that the petitioners'
enrollment of members in June 2014 was
invalid due to non-compliance with bye-laws
requiring
Committee
approval
of
bank
drafts, and meetings on 28.06.2014 and
29.06.2014 lacked sanctity. Allegations of
forgery required civil court adjudication
under Sections 31 and 34 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963, and Section 45 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The order dated
16.12.2022 was upheld for 26 members,
with
disputes
over
three
members
unresolvable due to their absence as
parties. Elections on 01.06.2023, held by
the District Inspector of Schools, were valid
per prior court orders, rendering the Joint
Director's order and reference to the
Regional Level Committee unsustainable.
Writ-C Nos. 15412 and 11662 dismissed
with liberty to approach civil court; Writ-C
No. 21573 allowed, quashing orders dated
02.06.2023. (Paras 27-29, 31-34)

Writ-C Nos. 15412 and 11662 dismissed;
Writ-C No. 21573 allowed.

List of Cases cited:
1. Ajab Singh Vs District Inspector of Schools,
Meerut & ors., 1980 UPLBEC 308

2. Central Industrial Security Force & ors.Vs
Abrar Ali, (2017) 4 SCC 507

3. Krishna Rice and Dal Mill & anr. Vs Food
Commissioner/Food Secretary & ors., 2002 (3)
AWC 2466

4. The Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial
Hall Vs Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity &
ors., AIR 2010 SC 1285

5. U.O.I.& ors.Vs P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC
610

6. S. Sreesanth Vs Board of Control for Cricket
in India & ors., (2019) 4 SCC 660

7. C/M Dayanand Inter College & anr. Vs St. of
U.P. & ors., Special Appeal Defective No. 335 of
2023

(Delivered by Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.)

1. These three writ petitions were
heard at length on 24.08.2023 and since no
time was left to dictate the judgment, the
matters were placed today for summing up
of the arguments of both the sides and also
for dictation of the judgment. Today also
the matters have been heard for about two
hours.

The Challenge

2. Writ C No. 15412 of 2023 has been filed
by
the
Committee
of
Management
Intermediate College, Babusarai, District
Bhadohi challenging the order dated
16.12.2022
whereby
the
Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Varanasi has declared 29 members of the
General Body as valid under section 4-B of
the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The
same order has been assailed by certain
members by filing Writ C No. 11662 of
1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2023. The third writ petition No. 21573 of
2023 has been filed by the Committee of
Management, which has been elected
pursuant
to
the
elections
held
on
01.06.2023 and the first order under
challenge is dated 02.06.2023, whereby the
Joint Director of Education, Bhadohi has
summoned the record of the District
Inspector of Schools, Bhadohi on the
ground that two rival sets of elections have
been asserted by the parties and, therefore,
as per section 16 A (7) of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the
District Inspector of Schools should send
the entire record of rival elections with
specific report so that the matter may be
decided as per Government Order dated
19.12.2000. Another order under challenge
is dated 02.06.2023, whereby the District
Inspector of Schools, Bhadohi has referred
the matter to Regional Level Committee, in
furtherance of order dated 02.06.2023
passed by the Joint Director of Education.

Case and Contention of Petitioners
of Writ C Nos. 15412 of 2023 & 11662 of
2023

3. The submissions of Shri Ajay
Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners in Writ C No. 15412 of
2023 and Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned
counsel appearing for petitioners in Writ C
No. 11662 of 2023 are almost common and
it has vehemently been argued by both of
them that the Society was established in
1967 and in the Institution, which is run by
the Society, one Daya Prasad Baranwal
remained elected Manager from 1973 till
1992 and, after his death, his son, namely,
Anil Kumar Baranwal became Manager in
1992 and he remained as such till 2014.

4. The case of the petitioners is that
one
Shri
Ram
Rekha
Shastri,
who
happened to be Principal of the Institution,
was going to retire on 30.06.2014 and, just
before his retirement, he manipulated
certain things and submitted a list of 29
members before the Assistant Registrar for
the purposes of its registration. The said
list, according to the petitioners, is
fabricated and also the letter dated
25.03.2014 along with which it was
submitted. It has been vehemently argued
that on the letter dated 25.03.2014,
signatures of Anil Kumar Baranwal were
fabricated and even his forged affidavit
dated 29.05.2014 was submitted before the
Assistant Registrar, which matter was
complained of by the petitioners before the
Joint Director of Education with supporting
material and also before the Assistant
Registrar and though the Joint Director of
Education called upon Ram Rekha Shastri
to answer the issues raised, the said matter
is still pending and has not been settled. It
is further contended that the petitioners'
Committee enrolled certain members in the
month of June, 2014, exact number being
74 at some placed and 79 at some other
places.

5. From perusal of the record, I find
that on numerous occasions, the dispute
regarding valid membership has engaged
attention of this Court. At one stage, the
District Inspector of Schools granted
permission to Yogesh Chandra Mishra to
hold elections but later on, by order dated
18.06.2014, the said order was recalled by
the
District
Inspector
of
Schools.
Consequently, Writ C No. 33694 of 2014
(Yogesh Chandra Mishra and 9 others vs
State of U.P. and 3 others) was filed, which
was disposed of by order dated 04.07.2014
directing the Joint Director of Education to
determine the electoral college of the
Institution, either himself or through an
officer appointed by him.
9 All. C/m Intermediate College, Babusarai, Bhadohi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1005

6. It is contended that the District
Inspector of Schools, by order dated
29.05.2015, determined the valid electoral
college finding 74 members as valid for the
purposes of holding elections and the list
was finalized. Yogesh Chandra Mishra and
9 others challenged the said decision by
filing Writ C No. 36602 of 2015 (Yogesh
Chandra Mishra and 8 others vs State of
U.P. and 4 others), which was disposed of
by order dated 06.07.2015, whereby the
parties were left at liberty to approach the
Regional Level Committee for redressal of
their grievances. Special Appeal No. 477 of
2015 (Yogesh Chandra Mishra and 8 others
vs State of U.P. and 4 others) filed against
the said order dated 06.07.2015 was also
disposed of by the Division Bench by order
dated 27.07.2015, whereby the Regional
Level Committee was directed to conclude
the proceedings within one month.

7. It is further contended that in
pursuance of the aforesaid orders, the
Regional Level Committee decided the
dispute by an order dated 09.10.2015
attaching finality to the list of 74 members.
Against the order dated 09.10.2015, Yogesh
Chandra Mishra and 8 others filed Writ C
No. 60481 of 2015, which was allowed, in
part, by order dated 18.11.2015 setting
aside
the
order
of
Regional
Level
Committee and the Committee was directed
to pass a fresh order in accordance with
law.

8. The case of the petitioners is that
the Regional Level Committee again
decided the matter in their favour on
20.05.2016, which was again assailed by
Yogesh Chandra Mishra and 8 others by
filing Writ C No. 24802 of 2016, in which
an interim order was passed by this Court
on 22.11.2016 staying the effect and
operation of the decision of Regional Level
Committee
until
further
orders
and
payment of salary to the teachers and
employees of the Institution was directed to
be made by way of single hand operation of
accounts.
The
interim
order
dated
22.11.2016 was assailed before the Special
Appellate Bench by filing Special Appeal
No. 790 of 2016 (C/M Intermediate
College, Babu Sarai vs State of U.P. and 12
others), which was disposed of by order
dated 15.12.2016 with a direction to the
District Magistrate or Additional District
Magistrate to conduct fresh elections of the
Committee of Management. A direction
was also issued to the effect that these
officers shall decide the question as to
whether the disputed 52 new members are
entitled to continue as members and could
be allowed to participate in the elections.
The elections were not stayed by the
Division
Bench
and
the
appellantCommittee of Management, i.e. petitioners
of Writ C No.15412 of 2023, were allowed
to function till newly elected body takes
charge. Writ C No. 24802 of 2016 was also
disposed of by the Division Bench.

9. It is further contended that pursuant
to the order of Special Appellate Bench, the
District Magistrate passed a detailed order
dated
13.02.2017
again
holding
74
members as valid on the basis of
proceedings relied upon by the petitioners
in relation to different dates of June, 2014,
particularly, the proceedings of meeting
dated 28.06.2014, in which the bank drafts
of the members were allegedly placed and
were
accepted
by
the
concerned
Committee. It is further contended that
pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2017, the
petitioners Committee of Management held
elections on 19.03.2017, which were
approved and the signatures of Anil Kumar
Baranwal were also attested on 20.03.2017.
The said elections and attestation of the
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
signatures have been challenged by the
contesting-respondent by filing Writ C No.
29385 of 2017, which is pending and there
is no interim order therein.

10. It has also come on record that the
petitioners-Committee of Management held
another elections on 17.04.2022, which
were disapproved by the District Inspector
of Schools on 26.04.2022 and, thereafter,
an order of single hand operation was
passed on 11.05.2022. By that time, the
term of the elections of 2017 was
admittedly over. The petitioners challenged
the aforesaid electons dated 17.04.2022 and
orders dated 26.04.2022 and 11.05.2022 by
filing Writ C No. 16556 of 2022 (C/M of
Intermediate College vs State of U.P. and 6
others), which was disposed of by order
dated 25.07.2022 with the following
operative portion:-

"Now the Court is coming to the
electoral college, which is required to hold
the election. Earlier Division Bench has
given right to aggrieved party to file
objection against the list so finalized by
District Magistrate, but not to wait the
decision upon objection, if any filed. It is
not in dispute that last election was held
upon the electoral college finalized by
District Magistrate vide order dated
13.02.2017, which is under challenge in
Writ-C No. 29385 of 2017 having no
interim order. Therefore, considering the
mandate of Division Bench, this Court
further directs respondent no. 4 to hold
fresh election within two months from the
date of production of certified copy of this
order alongwith electoral college either
duly approved by respondent no. 7 or
electoral college earlier finalized by
District Magistrate vide order dated
13.02.2017. In all eventuality election shall
take place within two months from the date
of production of certified copy of this
order."

11. It is clear from the aforesaid order
that taking into consideration the mandate
of the Division Bench, the co-ordinate
Bench directed the District Inspector of
Schools to hold fresh elections within two
months
along
with
determination
of
electoral college, either duly approved by
the respondent No. 7 of the writ petition or
the electoral college or earlier finalized by
the District Magistrate by order dated
13.02.2017.

12. In the order dated 25.07.2022, the
co-ordinate Bench also recorded that as per
the Scheme of Administration, the term of
Committee of Management is five years
and one month, which is undisputedly over,
therefore,
outgoing
Committee
of
Management cannot be permitted to hold
fresh elections and it is only the District
Inspector
of
Schools
or
Authorized
Controller, appointed by him, who is
empowered to hold fresh elections as per
law.

13. In the meantime, respondents filed
Writ C No. 28466 of 2022 (Yogesh Chandra
Mishra and 15 others vs State of U.P. and 5
others) seeking a direction from this Court that
finality be attached to list of 29 members of
General Body, however this Court, while
disposing of the writ petition on 26.09.2022,
observed that the proceedings under section 4B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 for
registration of list of members were pending
before the Assistant Registrar, therefore, a
direction was issued to the Assistant Registrar
to decide the said proceedings.

14. It is contended by learned counsel
for the petitioners that regarding forgery
and fabrication committed by Shri Ram
9 All. C/m Intermediate College, Babusarai, Bhadohi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1007
Rekha Shastri in the year 2014 when list of
29 members was fraudulently finalized, the
proceedings were pending before the
Assistant Registrar and the petitioners had
requested the Assistant Registrar to nullify
the said fabricated proceedings but till
today, the same have not been finalized
and, in the meantime, by order dated
29.12.2022, finality has been attached to
the very list of 29 members relied upon by
the respondents.

15. It has also come on record that the
petitioners held elections on 18.09.2022
pursuant to some direction issued by the
District
Inspector
of
Schools.
Even
approval was granted by the District
Inspector of Schools to such elections on
20.09.2022. The said elections were
assailed by Yogesh Chandra Mishra and
15 others by filing Writ C No. 3997 of
2023, which was allowed by this Court
by order dated 15.03.2023 taking note of
the previous order dated 25.07.2022
passed in Writ C No. 16556 of 2022 and
the approval granted by the District
Inspector of Schools to the elections held
by the petitioners was set aside. The
District
Inspector of Schools was
directed to ensure faithful compliance
of the order dated 25.07.2022 passed in
Writ C No. 16556 of 2022.

16. Even thereafter, two sets of
elections were held, one by the petitioners
on 23.05.2023 and other by the contesting
respondents on 01.06.2023. Reference has
also been made to the proceedings of a civil
suit being Original Suit No. 319 of 2022
(Nirbhay Kumar and others vs Assistant
Registrar and others) filed by certain
members against the Assistant Registrar
and few others, in which District Inspector
of Schools has taken a stand in his written
statement that 74 members were valid.

17. In sum and substance, the
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners in Writ C Nos. 15412 of 2023
and 11662 of 2023 is that at every stage of
proceedings, list of 74 members has been
found to be valid and, therefore, any claim
made by respondents on the basis of 29
members has no legs to stand on. It has
further been argued that the only finding
recorded by the Assistant Registrar is that
since the list of 29 members was submitted
under the joint signatures of Yogesh
Chandra
Mishra
in
the
capacity
of
President and Anil Kumar Baranwal in the
capacity of Manager, the same is entitled to
be approved as per section 4-B of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860. It has
further been argued that though certain
infirmities have been recorded in relation to
the proceedings relied upon by the
petitioners
in
connection
with
the
submission of bank drafts etc. and nonproduction of original records, identical
findings have been recorded against the
respondents also that there was no record
produced in relation to enrollment of 29
members and that a register was prepared
afresh and was placed before the Deputy
Registrar,
showing
enrollment of
29
members. The entire thrust is on the aspect
that the proceedings placed on the basis of
fabrication and forgery, in which Ram
Rekha Shastri was instrumental, have been
given a seal of approval, which could not
be done, particularly when the proceedings
in relation to the said fabrication have not
yet been finally decided.

18. It has further been argued that
even the respondents do not stick to their
stand and some times they press list of 29
members, but before the Deputy Registrar
when the said enrollment was opposed, the
respondents came up with the stand that out
of 29 members only 22 members are valid
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and list of such 22 valid members be
registered. The submission ,therefore, is
that the operative portion of the order
impugned
is
contrary
to
the
observations recorded in the body of the
order and, hence, the same is liable to
be set aside. It has been additionally
argued by Shri Prabhakar Awasthi that
his clients were not provided any
opportunity in the matter before passing
the order impugned dated 16.12.2022
and that the determination is in teeth of
section
4-B
of
the
Societies
Registration Act, 1860.

19.

On
the
point
that
any
Administrative Officer exercising quasi
judicial powers or administrative power
must record a cogent and valid reasoning
while passing an order, and on the point of
power of this Court to judicially review any
such order, learned counsel for the
petitioners has placed reliance upon the
following authorities:

(i) Central Industrial Security Force
and others vs Abrar Ali, reported in 2017
(4) SCC 507;

(ii) Krishna Rice and Dal Mill and
another vs Food Commissioner/Food
Secretary and others, reported in 2002 (3)
AWC 2466;

(iii) The Secretary and Curator,
Victoria
Memorial
Hall
vs
Howrah
Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others,
reported in AIR 2010 SC 1285;

(iv) Union of India and others vs P.
Gunasekaran, reported in 2015 (2) SCC
610;

(v) S. Sreesanth vs Board of Control
for Cricket in India and others, reported in
2019 (4) SCC 660.

Case and Contention of Contesting
Respondents

20. On the other hand, Shri G.K.
Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Shri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for
the contesting respondents, in opposition to
both the writ petitions, has argued that any
stand taken by the petitioners in support of
enrollment of additional members over and
above 29 members is contrary to the
registered bye-laws of the Society. He has
referred to clauses 3 and 6 of the bye-laws,
which provide that for the purpose of
membership, Bank Drafts of Rs. 11,000/-
and 5100/- depending upon the categories
of members, would be obtained in the name
of the Manager and as per clause 6-E, such
drafts shall be placed in the meeting of the
Committee of Management and, once the
same are accepted and approved and
substantiated by the General Body, it is
only
thereafter
that
the
concerned
applicants can be enrolled as members. He
has also referred to clause 9 of the byelaws, which says that the term of the
Committee of Management elected is five
years, but the term of every office bearer
elected shall remain valid until his
successor takes charge. By placing reliance
upon the aforesaid bye-laws, the order of
District Magistrate dated 13.02.2017 has
been referred to, which is based upon the
stand taken by the petitioners in relation to
the enrollment of some members in the
meeting dated 28.06.2014.

21. A copy of counter affidavit filed in
the aforesaid pending Writ C No. 29385 of
2017 ( Yogesh Chandra Mishra and 9
others vs State of U.P. through Principal
Secretary, Secondary Education, Govt. of
U.P. Lucknow) has also been placed before
the Court which is taken on record. The
said counter affidavit was filed on behalf of
the petitioners of Writ C No. 15412 of
2023, in paragraph No. 56 whereof,
reliance was placed by the petitioners on
9 All. C/m Intermediate College, Babusarai, Bhadohi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1009
the minutes of meeting dated 28.06.2014
and the rest stand taken by the other side
was denied. The minutes of the said
meeting dated 28.06.2014 have been
annexed as Annexure No. SCA-6 to the
supplementary counter affidavit filed in
Writ C No. 15412 of 2023, which contain
proceedings for granting approval to
addition of new 47 members so as to carry
the membership to the number 79.

22. It has further been argued by Shri
G.K. Singh that the present writ petition
has been filed by placing reliance upon the
minutes of meeting dated 29.06.2014,
which has been shown to have been jointly
conducted by the members of the General
Body, Committee of the Society and
Committee of the College, in which
previous proceedings dated 20.05.2014
have been approved and by making
reference of enrollement of certain new
members, the meeting is shown to have
been concluded. In this regard, reliance has
been placed upon a judgment of Division
Bench of this Court in the case of Ajab
Singh vs District Inspector of Schools,
Meerut and others reported in 1980
UPLBEC 308, in which this Court has held
that if outsiders take part in the meeting,
the meeting stands vitiated.

23. Shri G.K. Singh has, with
reference to the stand of forgery pressed by
the petitioners, also referred to an affidavit
of Anil Kumar Baranwal forming part of
Annexure No. SA-4 to the supplementary
affidavit filed by the petitioners in Writ C
No. 15412 of 2023, in paragraph No. 2
whereof, it has been deposed by Anil
Kumar Baranwal that he had submitted a
list of valid 79 members on 27.06.2014.
Shri Singh, therefore, submits that on the
date when Anil Kumar Baranwal claims to
have submitted the list i.e. on 27.06.2014,
neither meeting of 28.06.2014 nor of
29.06.2014 had taken place and, therefore,
the entire stand of the petitioners is
fallacious. He has also referred to various
Bank Drafts as well as receipts of making
deposit of membership fees and argued that
that by an advertisement published in two
newspapers, period in between 21.06.2014
and 27.06.2014 was specified for making
deposit of membership fees and, during the
said intervening period, the said Bank
Drafts were issued and the same were
deposited by the petitioners in an account,
which was newly opened on 20.06.2014.

24. Certain discrepancies in the
receipt numbers have also been pointed out
in co-relation with the dates of issuance of
receipts and Bank Drafts. The submission
is that once, as per the petitioners
themselves, the meeting was held on
28.06.2014 and then on 29.06.2014, the
submission of list by the petitioners on
27.06.2014, i.e. prior to holding of such
meetings, was contrary to the bye-laws as
the drafts were never placed before the
Committee of Management and they were
encashed by making deposit in a new bank
account, which was opened on 20.06.2016.
He has referred to dates of deposit of such
Bank
Drafts,
i.e.
25.06.2014
and
27.06.2014 with few other interesting
details of various Bills of 02.07.2014
describing credit of Rs. 5100/-, the same
amount which is fixed as membership fees.
He, therefore, submits that even if, any of
the meetings held on 28.06.2014 or
29.06.2014 is taken to be a valid meeting,
admittedly there were no Bank Drafts
before the Committee in the said two
meetings and, hence, any enrollment made
contrary to the bye-laws, as already
referred
to
herein-above,
invalidates
addition of members. Shri Singh further
submits
that
paragraph
19
of
the
1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
supplementary
affidavit
contains
an
admission of the petitioners of Writ C No.
15412 of 2023 to the effect that list of 74
members includes 26 names out of 29
given by the respondent Yogesh Chandra
Mishra and there is a dispute regarding
only three persons, namely, Ram Rekha
Shastri and his two sons, namely, Suyash
Pathak
and
Utkarsh
Pathak.
The
submission, therefore, is that once before
this Court, after various rounds of
litigations, challenging the determination
of valid membership, factum of 26
members
has
been
admitted,
no
objection
can
be
raised
regarding
validity of the list of at least 26 members
and the dispute with regard to addition
of members has to be decided on the
basis of the material placed, particularly
various meetings held by the petitioners.

Case and Contention of Petitioners
of Writ C No. 21573 of 2023

25. By Writ C No. 21573 of 2023,
Committee of Management of the College
elected pursuant to the elections dated
01.06.2023 has assailed the validity of
orders dated 02.06.2023 and it has been
argued that no body approached the Joint
Director of Education and though, there
were two sets of elections, in which on the
one hand, one Ganeshji Baranwal claims to
have been elected and on the other hand,
Yogesh Chandra Mishra claims to have
been elected, the elections relied upon by
Ganeshji Baranwal were held contrary to
the directions issued by the Writ Court in
the order dated 15.03.2023 passed in Writ
C No. 3997 of 2023 and also the order
dated 25.07.2022 passed in Writ C No.
16556 of 2022, inasmuch as the ultimate
direction of this Court was that elections
have to be held by the District Inspector of
Schools and not by outgoing Committee.
Shri G.K. Singh has referred to the election
proceedings, in which Yogesh Chandra
Mishra is said to have been elected and the
letter dated 01.06.2023 sent by the
Observer
appointed
by
the
District
Inspector of Schools has been shown to the
Court, as Annexure No. 18 to the writ
petition and it has been argued that the only
valid elections, as per the directions of the
Court, are dated 01.06.2023. Regarding
validity of the orders impugned dated
02.06.2023, it has been submitted that the
respondents appear to have moved some
application before the District Inspector of
Schools, a copy whereof was addressed to
the Joint Director of Education as per
paragraph No. 2 of the order passed by him
and, by referring to the said endorsement,
Joint Director of Education has himself
summoned the record of the District
Inspector of Schools for deciding the
dispute as per the Government Order dated
19.12.2000, although the said Government
Order does not contemplate any such
reverse procedure, rather
the correct
procedure is that once two sets of elections
are produced or placed before the District
Inspector of Schools, and he finds it
genuinely necessary to refer the matter to
the Joint Director of Education, it is the
District Inspector of Schools, who shall
make a reference.

26. Having heard the learned counsel
for the parties in all the writ petitions, I find
that the stand of the petitioners in Writ C
Nos. 15412 of 2023 and 11662 of 2023 is
based
upon
the
alleged
fabrication
committed by Ram Rekha Shastri. There is
no pleading in Writ C No. 11662 of 2023
regarding any such fabrication made by
Ram Rekha Shastri. Neither Ram Rekha
Shastri nor his two sons Suyash Pathak and
Utkarsh Pathak are parties to any of the
writ petitions. Moreover, the thrust is upon
9 All. C/m Intermediate College, Babusarai, Bhadohi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1011
fabrication made and reported in the year
2014 and the submission is that the said
proceedings have not yet been finalized.

27. The Court, in the present
proceedings, is concerned with the validity
of the order dated 16.12.2022 challenged in
Writ C Nos. 15412 of 2023 and 11662 of
2023 and the orders dated 02.06.2023
challenged in Writ C No. 21573 of 2023.
Considering the fact that the enrollment of
new members pursuant to the submission
of Bank Drafts in between 21.06.2023 and
27.06.2023 and submission of list before
the Deputy Registrar on 27.06.2023 as per
the affidavit filed by Anil Kumar Baranwal,
by which time, admittedly, none of the
meetings dated 28.06.2014 and 29.06.2014
had taken place, I find that the Bank Drafts
were never placed before the Committee of
Management and were deposited in Bank
on 25.06.2014 and 27.06.2014. Even
otherwise, the term of Committee of
Management
was
already
over
on
11.06.2014 and continuance of the term of
any office bearer as per the bye-laws would
not ipso facto mean that the Committee was
functional. The contradictory stand taken
by the petitioners in relation to the
meetings dated 28.06.2014 and 29.06.2014
by making reference to various pleadings
and record of the proceedings, persuades
this Court to form an opinion that the
petitioners have never stuck to their stand
in relation to the fresh enrollment of
members. Before the Court, there is no
such proceedings to which any clear
sanctity be attached insofar as fresh
enrollement is concerned, and there may be
some
reservations
with
regard
to
enrollement of Ram Rekha Shastri and his
two sons Suyash Pathak and Utkarsh
Pathak and there may be some force in the
stand taken by the petitioners that during
the continuance of his principal-ship, Ram
Rekha Shastri was not competent to
become a member in the General Body of
the Committee.

28. As regards various submissions
with regard to fabrication etc., I find that
neither Deputy Registrar nor District
Inspector of Schools nor District Magistrate
nor Joint Director of Education nor
Regional
Level
Committee
has
any
competence to determine the factum of
forgery as it is the sole prerogative of the
civil court to examine it and record findings
on the forgery aspects. This Court, in
exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot record any
finding as to whether signatures of anyone
were genuinely made on any document or
that the same were fabricated. There is
already a civil suit being Original Suit No.
319 of 2022 said to be pending in relation
to the dispute. Therefore, in view of the
admission made by the petitioners in
relation to 26 members as noted above,
irrespective of the fact that findings
recorded in the order impugned dated
16.12.2022 are contradictory in some
respect, there appears to be no dispute at
least regarding 26 members and enrollment
of three members, i.e. Ram Rekha Shastri,
Suyash Pathak and Utkarsh Pathak may be
invalid but in absence of three persons as
parties to the proceedings no specific
finding can be recorded in this regard.

29. Once, I find that meetings of
28.06.2014 and 29.06.2014 cannot attach
sanctity and validity to the enrollment of
members as per the bye-laws and as per the
stand taken by the petitioners themselves,
and that elections of 01.06.2023 were held
by the District Inspector of Schools by
appointing Observer in view of the two
orders passed by this Court, one dated
15.03.2023 passed in Writ C No. 3997 of
1012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2023 and other dated 25.07.2022 passed in
Writ C No. 16556 of 2022, the order of
Joint
Director
of
Education
dated
02.06.2023 is clearly unsustainable.

30. Regarding making of reference by
the District Inspector of Schools by the
order impugned dated 02.06.2023, it has
been argued that once the District Inspector
of Schools himself had held elections of the
petitioners by appointing Observer as per
directions issued by this Court, making a
reference mechanically to Joint Director of
Education
or
the
Regional
Level
Committee is not according to law.
Reliance in this regard has been placed on a
judgment of Division Bench of this Court
dated
06.07.2023
in
Special Appeal
Defective No. 335 of 2023 (C/M Dayanand
Inter College and another vs State of U.P.
and 5 others) on the point that reference
cannot be made mechanically but can be
made only when there is some genuine
dispute.

31. Once, I find that the petitioners'
elections dated 01.06.2023 have been held
pursuant to the directions issued by this
Court on two occasions while the order of
Joint
Director
of
Education
dated
02.06.2023
is
found
to
be
without
jurisdiction, the reference made by the
District Inspector of Schools also appears
to be unjustified.

32. As regards determination of
Electoral College by order impugned dated
16.12.2022, the petitioners may approach
civil court as per section 9 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 read with sections 31
and 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for
determination of their rights, if any, as the
entire
case
is
based
upon
alleged
fabrication
and
forgery
in
various
documents and neither any administrative
officer nor this Court can adjudicate such
issue as it requires dealing with oral and
documentary evidence and even expert
opinion as per section 45 of the Evidence
Act, if need arises.

33. Section 31 of the Specific Relief
Act, 1963 may be invoked before the Civil
Court when any instrument, void or
voidable, if left outstanding, may cause
serious injury to any person and, under
such circumstances, the said instrument
may be adjudged as void through a decree
of the Civil Court. As per section 34 of the
Specific Relief Act, any person claiming
any declaration as to his character may
obtain a decree from the Civil Court in that
regard. In any such proceedings, external
aid in the form of expert opinion under
section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
can always be taken by the Court. For a
ready reference, Sections 31 and 34 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963 are being quoted
herein-below:

"31. When cancellation may be
ordered.- (1) Any person against whom a
written instrument is, void or voidable, and
who has reasonable apprehension that such
instrument, if left outstanding, may cause
him serious injury, may sue to have it
adjudged void or voidable, and the court
may, in its discretion, so adjudge it and
order it to be delivered up and cancelled.

(2) If the instrument has been
registered under the Indian Registration
Act, 1908, the court shall also send a copy
of its decree to the officer in whose office
the instrument has been so registered; and
such officer shall note on the copy of the
instrument contained in his books of the
fact of its cancellation."

"34. Discretion of court as to
declaration of status or right. -Any person
9 All. Smt. Premlata Pandey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1013
entitled to any legal character, or to any
right as to any property, may institute a suit
against any person denying or interested to
deny, his title to such character or right,
and the court may in its discretion make
therein a declaration that he is so entitled,
and the plaintiff need not in such suit ask
for any further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any
such declaration where the plaintiff, being
able to seek further relief than a mere
declaration of title, omits to do so."

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872 is quoted herein-below:

"45. Opinions of experts.- When the
Court has to form an opinion upon a point
of foreign law or of science or art, or as to
identity
of
handwriting
[or
finger
impressions], the opinions upon that point
of persons specially skilled in such foreign
law, science or art, [or in questions as to
identity
of
handwriting]
[or
finger
impressions] are relevant facts.

Such persons are called experts."

34. Writ C Nos. 15412 of 2023 and
11662 of 2023 are, accordingly, dismissed
with the aforesaid liberty and Writ C No.
21573 of 2023 is allowed.

35. The orders dated 02.06.2023
passed by the Joint Director of Education,
Bhadohi and the District Inspector of
Schools, Bhadohi are hereby quashed.
----------
(2023) 9 ILRA 1013
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SALIL KUMAR RAI, J.
THE HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR SINGH
DESHWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 17575 of 2023

Smt. Premlata Pandey ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sudhanshu Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.