# C/M of Sri Ramdeo Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 3 ILRA 756
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-03-03
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 7611 of 2019
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-of-sri-ramdeo-sanskrit-mahavidyalaya-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53234
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860
-
Sections
3(A)(4)
&
15
-
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 -
Meeting of Election by President - Validity
of - Finding by Prescribed Authority that
Manager of Society Ram Chandra Pandey
of
which
Vijay
Kumar
Dubey
was
President had authority to call meeting for
election, hence, it was as per Clause 9(6)
of Bye-Laws of Society - All persons who
participated in election are valid Members
of Society - Quorum was complete for
convening meeting for taking decision for
holding election - Members of Society had
given prior notice of 15 days before
holding election, and 40 members out of
51 members had participated in election -
Thus,
election
of
respondent
dated
05.03.2006 was legal and subsequent
election of Committee of Management
held in accordance with law. (Para 33 to
37)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

756 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
favour or in favour of their assignee,
subject to its right of recovery of dues.
(c) The documentation work shall
be completed within four weeks from the
date, request is made in this behalf by the
Financial Institutions for which the outer
limit would be twelve weeks from the date
of the passing of the instant order.
(d) YEA would be entitled to retain
sum realized from JAL till the passing of
the cancellation order on pro-rata basis.
(D) The following amounts shall,
within six weeks, be returned by YEA to
JAL by transferring the same to the account
of RP appointed by NCLT: -
(i) Any amount deposited by JAL
in pursuance of orders passed in the present
litigation along with the prevailing interest
(SBI PLR) from the date of deposit till the
date of refund.
(ii) All other amounts received by
YEA so far from JAL in furtherance of the
allotment and lease whether prior to
cancellation or thereafter in proportion of
the area of land resumed. Thus, YEA shall
be entitled to retain proportionate amount
received for the area covered by sub-leases,
which stand excluded from the purview of
impugned order.

188. Subject to the above directions,
the impugned cancellation order dated
12.02.2020 is upheld.

189. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 756
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 03.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 7611 of 2019
C/M
of
Sri
Ramdeo
Sanskrit
Mahavidyalaya & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Ramesh Chandra Tiwari,
Vijay Kumar Singh (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Pankaj Kumar, Raj Mani Vishwakarma

Civil Law - Societies Registration Act,
1860
-
Sections
3(A)(4)
&
15
-
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 -
Meeting of Election by President - Validity
of - Finding by Prescribed Authority that
Manager of Society Ram Chandra Pandey
of
which
Vijay
Kumar
Dubey
was
President had authority to call meeting for
election, hence, it was as per Clause 9(6)
of Bye-Laws of Society - All persons who
participated in election are valid Members
of Society - Quorum was complete for
convening meeting for taking decision for
holding election - Members of Society had
given prior notice of 15 days before
holding election, and 40 members out of
51 members had participated in election -
Thus,
election
of
respondent
dated
05.03.2006 was legal and subsequent
election of Committee of Management
held in accordance with law. (Para 33 to
37)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-13)

List of Cases cited:

1. V.C. Charati Vs Hussein Nhanu Jamadar, 1998
(8) SC 120, (Para 9)

2. Mehandi Hasan & ors. Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2007 (3) AWC 3066 (All)
(Delivered by Hon'ble Hon'ble Saral
Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ramesh
Chandra Tiwari, learned counsel for the
3 All. C/M of Sri Ramdeo Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
757
petitioner, and Sri R.K. Ojha, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri R.M.
Vishwakarma, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. The petitioner through the
present writ petition has assailed the order
dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Prescribed
Authority/
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate,
Madhiyahu, District Jaunpur, whereby he
has held that the election of the petitioner's
Committee of Management of the Society,
namely, Ramdeo Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya
Bareri, District Jaunpur is valid.

3. It appears that there was a longstanding dispute between the parties, and
several litigations have been contested by
the parties. Lastly, the dispute between the
parties crystallized into the order dated
25.02.2009
passed
by
the
Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Varanasi. There was one more order dated
26.11.2010 passed by the Registrar, Firms,
Societies
and
Chits,
U.P.
Lucknow
accepting the application for renewal of the
Society based on documents submitted by
Hari Nath Dubey.

4. The order dated 25.02.2009
passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, Varanasi to the
extent it had accepted the claim of Ram
Chandra Pandey as Manager of the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Society and rejecting the claim of the
petitioner while maintaining the renewal
of certificate of the petitioner's Society
was assailed in Civil Misc.
Writ
Petition No.23641 of 2009 by Hari Nath
Dubey describing himself as Manager of
the Committee of Management, Ram
Deo Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Bareri,
District Jaunpur.

5. The Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.72367 of 2010 was filed by one Ram
Chandra Pandey for quashing the order
dated 26.11.2010 passed by Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits, U.P., Lucknow
accepting the application for renewal of
Society based on documents submitted by
Hari Nath Dubey, who was petitioner in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.23641 of
2009.

6. Both the writ petitions i.e., Civil
Misc. Writ Petition Nos.23641 of 2009 &
72367 of 2010 were decided together by
this Court by the judgement and order
dated 03.05.2012 whereby this Court
referred the matter to the Prescribed
Authority to decide the dispute between the
parties on the three issues framed by it in
the judgement dated 03.05.2012. The three
issues framed by the Court are reproduced
below:-

"(i) Person or group of
persons who convened the meeting,
had the authority to convene the
meeting and to hold the election;
(ii) Persons, who have
participated in the election are the
valid members in term of Section
15 of the Societies Registration Act
and entitled to participate in the
elections;
(iii) Elections, which have
been held, has been strictly held
under the provisions as contained
in bye laws of the society, preferably
within next six months and the order
dated 26.11.2010 shall abide by the
outcome of the order passed by
Prescribed Authority and the list
submitted under Sub-Section (4) of
Section
3-A
shall
be
amended/modified accordingly."
758 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. The Court further directed that
the order dated 26.11.2010 shall abide by
the outcome of the order passed by the
Prescribed Authority and the list submitted
under sub-section (4) of Section 3 (A) of
the Societies Registration Act shall be
amended/modified accordingly.

8. It appears that earlier, there was
a Society in the name of 'Sri Ramdeo
Dubey Sanskrit Pathshala, Bareri, Jaunpur
registered in the year 1954 (hereinafter
referred to as the 'Old Society'). One Ram
Deo Dubey was the lifelong President of
the Old Society. Raj Deo Dubey, Manager
of the Old Society, died in the year 1980,
and in his place, Surya Mani Dubey was
elected as Manager and Badri Narayan
Dubey
was
elected
as
President.
Subsequently,
the
election
of
the
Committee of Management of the Old
Society was held on 25.12.1981.

9. It transpires that an application
for renewal of the Old Society was filed in
January 1982. The Assistant Registrar
refused to renew the Society and asked
Suryamani Dubey, Manager, who applied
for renewal of the Society to get a New
Society registered. Thereafter, a New
Society was registered in the name of
"Ramdeo Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Bareri,
Jaunpur"
on
26.04.1982
(hereinafter
referred to as the 'New Society'). Badri
Narayan Dubey was shown to have been
elected as President and Suryamani Dubey
was shown to have been elected as
Manager.

10.

Thereafter,
subsequent
elections of the Committee of Management
of the New Society took place. However, in
the election of 1984, one Sabhapati
Upadhyay submitted an objection and
applied for renewal of Old Society, which
was allowed by the Assistant Registrar by
order dated 13.08.1986.

11. The Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.13289 of 1986 was filed by Suryamani
Dubey
challenging
the
order
dated
13.08.1986 in which an interim order was
granted by this Court on 25.03.1988.

12. In the meantime, it transpires
from the record that the Vice Chancellor of
Sampoornanand
Sanskrit
University,
Allahabad passed an order in favour of
Sabhapati Upadhyay as Manager and Badri
Narayan as President on 02.08.1990 which
order came to be challenged by Suryamani
Dubey by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.20536 of 1990. The said writ petition
was allowed by this Court vide order dated
12.12.1990
and
the
order
of
ViceChancellor dated 02.08.1990 was set aside
by this Court. Thereafter, several litigations
had taken place between the parties, details
of which are not necessary in the facts of
the present case, therefore, they are not
being
delineated
as
that
would
unnecessarily burden the judgement.

13. The Prescribed Authority in
pursuance of the judgement of this Court
dated 03.05.2012 decided the dispute by
order dated 08.12.2019 which is impugned
in the present writ petition.

14. This Court while remanding
the matter to the Prescribed Authority by
judgement dated 03.05.2012 framed three
issues which have been extracted above.

15. On Issue No.1 "person or
group of persons who convened the
meeting had the authority to convene the
meeting and to hold the election"; the
Prescribed Authority considered Clause 9
(6) of the Bye-Laws of the Society, which
3 All. C/M of Sri Ramdeo Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
759
provides that the President shall hold the
Office for life long, and he has authority to
appoint or nominate President who shall
continue as President of the New Society
life long. Clause 9 (6) of the Bye-Laws
further provided that in case, the President
does not appoint or nominate anybody as
President during his lifetime, the eldest son
or the son who stands in the seniority
would become the President of the Society.

16. By interpreting the said Clause
9 (6) of the Bye-Laws of the Society, the
Prescribed Authority returned a finding that
Vijay Kumar Dubey who was the son of
Late Badri Narayan Dubey, the erstwhile
President of the New Society, became the
President of the Society after the death of
his father. Hence, the meeting called by the
Manager of the Society of which Vijay
Kumar Kumar Dubey was the President
was as per the Bye-Laws of the Society.
Consequently, it held that the meeting
called by Ram Chandra Pandey, of which
Vijay Kumar Dubey was the President, was
the authorized person to call the meeting
for holding the election on 05.03.2006. It
further held that since under the Bye-Laws
of the Society, it is only the eldest son of
the President of the Society who could be
the President of the New Society, therefore,
the meeting called by him was as per law.

17. He further recorded a finding
with regard to the petitioner that in the list
submitted by Suryamani Dubey, Hari Nath
Dubey was not shown as a Member of the
Society. He further held that after the death
of Suryamani Dubey, petitioner no.2, had
submitted papers on the basis of incomplete
evidence. He further held that the register
submitted by Suryamani Dubey, who was
the alleged Manager of the Society, did not
reveal the name of Hari Nath Dubey,
therefore, the election which was submitted
by the petitioner had been submitted only
by changing the name of the Society and no
election was conducted.

18. On Issue No.2 framed by this
Court "persons who have participated in the
election are valid Members in terms of
Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act
and entitled to participate in the election"; it
held that the meeting has been convened by
proper person and no dispute has been
raised
in
respect
to
the
Members.
Accordingly, he held that all the Members
who participated in the election were valid
Members of the Society.

19. On Issue No.3 "Elections
which have been held, has been strictly
held under the provisions as contained in
the
Bye-Laws
of
the
Society";
the
Prescribed Authority returned a finding that
the election has been held in accordance
with the Bye-Laws of the Society as the
quorum of the meeting was complete and
due intimation about the election was given
to the Members of the Society 15 days
before the date of election, and 40 members
out of 51 Members had participated in the
election. Accordingly, it rejected the claim
of the petitioner and declared the election
dated 05.03.2006 of the respondents valid.

20. Challenging the aforesaid
order, the learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioner has contended that the Prescribed
Authority has committed manifest illegality
and has acted illegally in not deciding the
issues framed by this Court in the
judgement dated 03.05.2012 in the correct
perspective. He further submits that the
Prescribed Authority while deciding the
dispute had travelled beyond the reference
as the dispute has been referred to only
concerning the election of 2006, whereas
he has returned a finding on the subsequent
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
election which power he did not have,
therefore,
the
order
passed
by
the
Prescribed Authority is in the teeth of law
laid down by this Court in a judgement
reported in 2007 (3) AWC 3066 (All)
Mehandi Hasan and Ors. Vs. State of
U.P. and Ors.

21. Per contra, learned counsel for
the respondent would contend that the
finding
returned
by
the
Prescribed
Authority is a finding of fact based on
proper appreciation of law and evidence on
record, therefore, this Court may refrain
from interfering with the order passed by
the Prescribed Authority. He submits that
since Clause 9 (6) of the Bye-Laws of the
New Society provides that the President
shall continue to hold the office of
President till life long, and he has the
authority to appoint or nominate the
President during his lifetime, and in case,
he does not appoint/nominate the President
during his lifetime, his eldest son or senior
most son would be the President of the
Society, in such view of the fact the finding
returned by the Prescribed Authority on the
Issue No.1 is correct and based upon proper
appreciation of facts and evidence on
record.

22. He further submits that a
specific finding has been recorded on Issue
No.2 that there is no dispute regarding the
validity of the member, and in such view of
the fact, the finding on Issue No.2 is not
liable to interfered with by this Court.

23. Lastly, he contends that the
finding
returned
by
the
Prescribed
Authority
that
the
election
of
the
respondent's Committee of Management
dated 05.03.2006 was held as per the ByeLaws of the Society is based upon proper
appreciation of evidence on record and
being a finding of fact does not call for any
interference by this Court.

24. I have considered the rival
submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

25. Necessary facts have already
been delineated above, therefore, they are
not being reiterated.

26. At this stage, it would be apt to
reproduce Clause 9 (6) of the Bye-Laws of
the Society as under:-

" 9 (6)-अध्यक्ष आजीवन अपना
अदधकार ग्रहण करेगा परन्तु स्वेच्छा से अपने
उिरादधकारी की दनयुदक्त कर सकता है। तथा उसके द्वारा
मनोनीत उिरादधकारी को अध्यक्ष का पूरा अदधकार
प्राप्त होगा। यदि अपने जीवन काल में दकसी की दनयुदक्त
नहीं करता है तो यह क्रम वांश परम्परा के ज्येष्ठता क्रम
अथवा वररष्ठता क्रम में अनुसार माना जायेगा।"

27. Perusal of the aforesaid Clause
indicates that it provides that the President
of the Society shall continue to hold the
office of President during his lifetime. The
said Clause also confers the power upon the
President to appoint or nominate any
person as President who shall become the
President of the Society and shall have all
the powers of President, and in case, he
does not appoint any President during his
lifetime, his eldest son or senior most son
would be the President of the Society.

28. It transpires from the record
that earlier a dispute between the parties
arose, and an order dated 02.08.1990 was
passed by the Vice Chancellor in favour of
one
Sabhapati
Upadhyay
and
Badri
Narayan,
which
order
came
to
be
challenged by the petitioner by filing a
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20536 of
3 All. C/M of Sri Ramdeo Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
761
1990, which was allowed by this Court by
order dated 12.12.1990 and the order dated
02.08.1990 was set aside. While allowing
this writ petition, this Court observed as
follows:-

"Two
persons
cannot
constitute
a
committee
of
management of the general body. It
is also not justified to make life
long president and management of
the institution. The terms and
conditions of compromise, which
have been made part of impugned
order, being illegal and inconsistent
with the Act, Statute and the byelaws of the society, cannot be
sustained. It appears that the ViceChancellor
has
passed
the
impugned order mechanical on the
basis of the compromise without
ascertaining the legality of the
terms
and
conditions
of
the
compromise. The order of the ViceChancellor is, as such liable to be
set aside."

29. Much emphasis has been laid
by the learned counsel for the petitioner on
the aforesaid observation in the judgement
of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.20536 of 1990 to contend that once this
Court has held that it is not justified to
make
life
long
President
of
Management/Institution and the terms and
conditions of the compromise which have
been made part of the impugned order was
held illegal and inconsistent with the Act,
Statute and Bye-Laws of the Society,
therefore, the judgement of this Court
passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.20536 of 1990 is binding upon the
parties, and the parties cannot resile from
the judgement. In such view of the fact, the
finding
returned
by
the
Prescribed
Authority that Vijay Kumar Dubey
became the President after the death of his
father Badri Narayan is illegal. He submits
that the observation made by this Court in
the judgement dated 12.12.1990 in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No.20536 of 1990 has
virtually invalidated Clause 9 (6) of the
Bye-Laws of the Society. In this respect, he
has placed reliance upon the judgement of
the Apex Court reported in 1998 (8) SC
120 V.C. Charati Vs. Hussein Nhanu
Jamadar. Paragraph 9 of the judgement
is reproduced herein-below:-

"It is submitted by the
respondent that the Agricultural
Lands Tribunal was not right in
dropping
proceedings
under
Section
32-G.
Its
order
of
31.5.1961 is bad in law. He relied
upon a decision of the Bombay
High Court in the case of Nago
Dattu
Mahajan
Vs.
Smt.
Yeshodabai
Huna
Mahajan
reported in (1976) 78 BLR 427
where this Court has held that
under Section 31, the landlords
have a choice to avail of one of the
two
provisions
of
resumption,
namely, either Section 31(1) or
Section 31(3). No landlord can
avail
of
both
the
provisions.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent, therefore, contends that
in the present case, the appellant
having exercised his choice under
Section 31(1), could not have urged
in the proceedings under Section
32G his disability as a minor under
Section
31(3).
The
order
of
31.5.1961 of the Agricultural Lands
Tribunal,
however,
was
not
challenged by the respondent. The
order of 31.5.1961 has become
final and the decision rendered by
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the Agricultural Lands Tribunal as
between the appellant and the
respondent is binding on both the
parties. A decision simply because
it may be wrong, would not
thereupon become a nullity. It
would continue to bind the parties
unless set aside. The effect of the
decision of 31.5.1961 on the parties
therefore, cannot be ignored. In the
present case, since the tenant could
not complete his purchase by
reason of the proceedings under
Section 32G being dropped, he
cannot now contend that the
decision has no legal effect or that
the proceedings under Section 32G
ought to have been completed and,
therefore, he should be looked upon
as a purchaser."

30. In the opinion of the Court, the
aforesaid argument of learned counsel for
the petitioner does not stand to merit since
Clause 9 (6) of the Bye-Laws is specific
and unambiguously provides that the
President of the Society shall continue to
hold the Office during his lifetime, and he
shall appoint or nominate someone as
President who is authorized to discharge all
the powers of the President of the Society,
and in case, no nomination/appointment
has been made by the President during his
lifetime, his eldest son or senior most son
would become the President of the Society.

31. Clause 9 (6) of the Bye-Laws
which is the edifice of the claim of the
respondent was not placed before the Court in
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20536 of 1990.
There was no issue before the Court as to
whether Clause 9 (6) of the Bye-Laws of the
Society was against the Act/Statute of the
University, and therefore, the same is liable to
be struck down or declared invalid.
32. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition
No.20536 of 1990, the dispute revolved
around only in respect to the validity of the
order dated 02.08.1990 passed by the Vice
Chancellor which was passed on the basis
of the compromise entered into between the
parties and the Vice Chancellor after noting
the compromise between the parties passed
the order, this Court did not record any
finding as to whether Clause 9 (6) of the
Bye-Laws of the Society is against any
Statute or any provision of law.

33. Since the aforesaid dispute was
not before the Court in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.20536 of 1990, therefore, the
finding returned by this Court in the
judgement passed in Civil Misc. Writ
Petition No.20536 of 1990 will not be
binding upon the parties more so when
Clause 9 (6) of the Bye-Laws specifically
provides that the President of the Society
shall be the President of the Society life
long and validity of such Clause has not
been assailed by the petitioner in the writ
petition. In such view of the fact, the
finding
returned
by
the
Prescribed
Authority on Issue No.1 that the Manager
of the Society Ram Chandra Pandey of
which Vijay Kumar Dubey was the
President had the authority to call the
meeting for the election to be held on
05.03.2006
does
not
warrant
any
interference by this Court.

34. So far as the finding about the
claim of the petitioner returned by the
Prescribed Authority on Issue No.1 that the
petitioner by changing the name of the
Society has submitted the election and his
name does not find place in the record
submitted by Suryamani Dubey is a finding
of fact, which cannot be interfered by this
Court unless it is demonstrated that the
same is perverse or against the record. In
3 All. M/S Manoj Petroleum & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
763
such view of the fact, this Court
does not find any error committed by the
Prescribed Authority in deciding Issue
No.1.

35. So far as Issue No.2 is
concerned, the Prescribed Authority has
recorded a categorical finding that no
dispute had been raised about the Members
of the Society, accordingly, it returned a
finding
that
all
the
persons
who
participated in the election are the valid
Members of Society. The finding on Issue
No.2 is also a finding of fact and does not
call for any interference by this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

36. So far as Issue No.3 is
concerned, the Prescribed Authority has
recorded a categorical finding that the
record reveals that the quorum was
complete for convening the meeting for
taking a decision for holding the election. It
further held that all the Members of the
Society had been given prior notice of 15
days before holding the election, and 40
members
out
of
51
members
had
participated in the election. The finding
returned by the Prescribed Authority on
Issue
No.3
is
based
upon
proper
appreciation of evidence and material on
record.

37. Now, so far as the contention
of the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the Prescribed Authority has erred in law in
entering the dispute with respect to
subsequent election as he was referred the
dispute of the election of 2006 is
concerned, this Court does not find any
substance in the said argument inasmuch as
the Prescribed Authority after recording a
categorical finding that the election of the
respondent dated 05.03.2006 is legal and in
accordance with law has held that the
subsequent election of the Committee of
Management has also been held in
accordance with law. Therefore, this Court
finds that the Prescribed Authority has not
travelled beyond the reference inasmuch he
has categorically recorded a finding about
the election of 2006, and in such view of
the fact, the judgment of this Court relied
upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner of this Court in 2007 (3) AWC
3066 (All) Mehandi Hasan and Ors. Vs.
State of U.P. and Ors. is not applicable in
the facts of the present case.

38. Since this Court has held above
that the Prescribed Authority has not
committed any illegality in recording the
finding on the issues framed by this Court
in
the
judgement
dated
03.05.2012,
therefore, this Court is of the view that the
writ petition lacks merit and deserves to be
dismissed.

39. Consequently, the writ petition
is dismissed with no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 3 ILRA 763
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.03.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ C No. 8253 of 2022

M/S Manoj Petroleum & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Manish Gupta, Sri Punit Kumar Upadhyay, Sri
Arun Kumar Gupta (Sr. Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents: