# Committee of Management of Public Inter College Kerakat District Jaunpur & Anr v. State of U.P.& Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 996
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-09
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 23107 of 2025
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-of-public-inter-college-kerakat-district-jaunpur-anr-v-54839
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

C.S.C., Man Mohan Singh, Sudist Kumar

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the District Inspector of Schools was
justified in staying the election of the Committee
of Management on account of a disputed
General Body list and in directing single
operation of the institution's accounts pending
resolution of the membership dispute; and
whether an election held in defiance of the stay
order passed by the District Inspector of Schools
and in violation of the Scheme of Administration
could be recognised ?

HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Scope of writ
jurisdiction - Disputed questions of fact -
Election of Committee of Management - Rival
General Body lists - Writ Court does not
ordinarily act as a fact-finding forum where
disputes involve questions of membership,
factual inquiry or appreciation of evidence -
Registration or filing of list under S. 4 Societies
Registration Act, 1860 does not conclusively
determine membership - Until rival claims are
verified, no valid electoral college exists - No
finality attached to rival lists pending decision of
Assistant Registrar - DIOS, in face of disputed
electoral roll and conflicting claims, acted within
jurisdiction in staying election - Election held in
defiance of lawful order is illegal and void and
cannot be recognised - Election was held in
violation of Scheme of Administration which
mandates
holding
election
at
institution
premises under supervision of Observer -Order
of single operation held to be lawful interim
administrative measure under Payment of
Salaries Act, 1971 - Election dated 23.05.2025
declared illegal - Assistant Registrar directed
to decide rival lists and thereafter direct fresh
elections strictly in accordance with law and
Scheme of Administration - Writ petition
dismissed. (Paras 31-46)

HELD The writ Court does not ordinarily act as
a fact-finding forum nor substitute itself for
statutory authorities entrusted with decisionmaking powers, particularly where the dispute
involves questions relating to membership of the
General Body and verification of rival lists. Any
action taken in defiance of a lawful order of a
competent authority is illegal and void and
cannot be recognised in law. Registration or
filing of a list under Section 4 of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 does not, by itself,
conclusively
determine
disputes
regarding
membership.
Until
the
Assistant
Registrar
verifies and decides the rival claims, no valid
electoral college exists upon which an election
can
be
founded.
10 All. Committee of Management of Public Inter College Kerakat District Jaunpur & Anr. Vs.
 State of U.P.& Ors.
997
In the instant case, rival lists of members were
submitted and the Assistant Registrar issued
notice dated 21.05.2025 calling for explanations.
The DIOS, in the face of a disputed electoral roll
and conflicting claims, acted within his powers
in staying the election on 22.05.2025. Despite
having knowledge of the subsisting stay order,
the petitioners proceeded to conduct an election
on 23.05.2025 at the private residence of
petitioner no. 2. Apart from being held in
defiance of the stay order, the election was also
conducted in clear violation of the approved
Scheme of Administration, which mandates that
elections be held at the premises of the
institution and under the supervision of the
Observer appointed by the District Inspector of
Schools. An election held at a private residence,
without the presence of the Observer, is in the
teeth of the Scheme and cannot be recognised.
The election alleged to have been held on
23.05.2025 was declared illegal and void; the
impugned
orders
dated
22.05.2025
and
31.05.2025 were upheld; and the Assistant
Registrar was directed to decide the rival
membership
lists
and
thereafter
pass
appropriate directions for holding fresh elections
strictly in accordance with law and the Scheme
of Administration. (E-5)
(Paras 31, 35, 37, 38, 40)

CASE LAW CITED
Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen, (2010) 11 SCC 557

List of Acts

## Text

996 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
25. Hence, in the above facts and
circumstances the present writ petition is
allowed accordingly, the orders dated
24.4.2019 passed by the Special Secretary,
Geology and Mining, Uttar Pradesh,
Lucknow, and 4.6.2016 passed by the
District Magistrate, are hereby set aside.
26. It is further directed that the
amounts deposited by the petitioner no.2
and petitioner no.3 in the present writ
petition in pursuance to the interim orders
passed by this Hon?ble Court, shall be
refunded back to the petitioner no.2 and
petitioner no.3 along with 7% simple
interest per annum from the date said
amount has been deposited till it is paid
within two months from the date of
production of certified copy of this order.
27. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 996
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

Writ - C No. 23107 of 2025

Committee of Management of Public Inter
College Kerakat District Jaunpur & Anr.
...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P.& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Prakash Chandra Pathak, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Man Mohan Singh, Sudist Kumar

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the District Inspector of Schools was
justified in staying the election of the Committee
of Management on account of a disputed
General Body list and in directing single
operation of the institution's accounts pending
resolution of the membership dispute; and
whether an election held in defiance of the stay
order passed by the District Inspector of Schools
and in violation of the Scheme of Administration
could be recognised ?

HEADNOTE
Constitution of India - Art. 226 - Scope of writ
jurisdiction - Disputed questions of fact -
Election of Committee of Management - Rival
General Body lists - Writ Court does not
ordinarily act as a fact-finding forum where
disputes involve questions of membership,
factual inquiry or appreciation of evidence -
Registration or filing of list under S. 4 Societies
Registration Act, 1860 does not conclusively
determine membership - Until rival claims are
verified, no valid electoral college exists - No
finality attached to rival lists pending decision of
Assistant Registrar - DIOS, in face of disputed
electoral roll and conflicting claims, acted within
jurisdiction in staying election - Election held in
defiance of lawful order is illegal and void and
cannot be recognised - Election was held in
violation of Scheme of Administration which
mandates
holding
election
at
institution
premises under supervision of Observer -Order
of single operation held to be lawful interim
administrative measure under Payment of
Salaries Act, 1971 - Election dated 23.05.2025
declared illegal - Assistant Registrar directed
to decide rival lists and thereafter direct fresh
elections strictly in accordance with law and
Scheme of Administration - Writ petition
dismissed. (Paras 31-46)

HELD The writ Court does not ordinarily act as
a fact-finding forum nor substitute itself for
statutory authorities entrusted with decisionmaking powers, particularly where the dispute
involves questions relating to membership of the
General Body and verification of rival lists. Any
action taken in defiance of a lawful order of a
competent authority is illegal and void and
cannot be recognised in law. Registration or
filing of a list under Section 4 of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 does not, by itself,
conclusively
determine
disputes
regarding
membership.
Until
the
Assistant
Registrar
verifies and decides the rival claims, no valid
electoral college exists upon which an election
can
be
founded.
10 All. Committee of Management of Public Inter College Kerakat District Jaunpur & Anr. Vs.
 State of U.P.& Ors.
997
In the instant case, rival lists of members were
submitted and the Assistant Registrar issued
notice dated 21.05.2025 calling for explanations.
The DIOS, in the face of a disputed electoral roll
and conflicting claims, acted within his powers
in staying the election on 22.05.2025. Despite
having knowledge of the subsisting stay order,
the petitioners proceeded to conduct an election
on 23.05.2025 at the private residence of
petitioner no. 2. Apart from being held in
defiance of the stay order, the election was also
conducted in clear violation of the approved
Scheme of Administration, which mandates that
elections be held at the premises of the
institution and under the supervision of the
Observer appointed by the District Inspector of
Schools. An election held at a private residence,
without the presence of the Observer, is in the
teeth of the Scheme and cannot be recognised.
The election alleged to have been held on
23.05.2025 was declared illegal and void; the
impugned
orders
dated
22.05.2025
and
31.05.2025 were upheld; and the Assistant
Registrar was directed to decide the rival
membership
lists
and
thereafter
pass
appropriate directions for holding fresh elections
strictly in accordance with law and the Scheme
of Administration. (E-5)
(Paras 31, 35, 37, 38, 40)

CASE LAW CITED
Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen, (2010) 11 SCC 557

List of Acts
44. Societies Registration Act, 1860;
45. U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921;
46. U.P.
High
Schools
and
Intermediate
Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and
Other
Employees)
Act,
1971

List of Keywords
47. Committee of Management - Disputed
General Body - Rival membership lists - Stay
of election - Election in defiance of stay -
Violation of Scheme of Administration - Void
election - Powers of DIOS - Single operation
of accounts - Writ jurisdiction - Disputed
questions of fact.

CASE ARISING FROM
48. Orders dated 22.05.2025 and 31.05.2025
passed by the District Inspector of Schools,
Jaunpur
49.
Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Prakash Chandra Pathak,
Senior Advocate
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Man Mohan
Singh; Sudist Kumar

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari
Singh,J.)

1. The instant writ petition has been
filed with the following main reliefs:-

"i Issue a writ order or direction, in
the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned orders dated 22.05.2025 and
order
dated
31.05.2025
passed
by
respondent no. 2, District Inspector of
Schools, Jaunpur.

ii. Issue a writ order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus commanding the
District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to
accord the approval/recognition of election
dated 23.05.2025 of the Committee of
Management of Public Inter College,
Kerakat, Jaunpur."

Factual Matrix

2. The institution in question, Public
Inter College, Kerakat, District Jaunpur, is
managed by a registered society known as
Public Association, Kerakat. The society is
governed by the provisions of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 as applicable in the
State of Uttar Pradesh, and the college is
subject to the U.P. Intermediate Education
Act, 1921, together with an approved
scheme of administration.

3. As stated, the scheme prescribes
that elections of the Committee of
998 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Management shall be conducted from
amongst the valid General Body members,
at the premises of the institution, and under
the supervision of an Observer appointed
by the District Inspector of Schools,
Jaunpur (hereinafter DIOS).

4. The first undisputed election of the
Committee of Management, according to
the materials on record, was held in the
year 1991. Elections were subsequently
held from time to time.

5. On 26.06.2005, a list of 111 life
members of the General Body was filed
with
the
Assistant
Registrar,
Firms,
Societies and Chits, Varanasi. This list of
111 members was registered and accepted
as valid and is treated as the last undisputed
General Body list. The petitioners rely
upon this list as the foundation of their
claim, asserting it to be the authentic
electoral roll.

6. Controversy began thereafter. In
20082009, the then Manager, Shri
Shamsher Bahadur Singh, petitioner no. 2
herein, submitted an annual list showing
only 29 members. In 2010, an election was
purportedly
conducted
amongst
64
members, i.e., the earlier 29 members along
with additional inductees. Objections were
raised by one Sheo Nath Ram and by Shri
Sant Kumar Singh, respondent no. 3 herein,
alleging that the reduction from 111
members to 29, and the subsequent
enlargement to 64 by inclusion of new
names,
was
wholly
illegal.
It
was
specifically alleged that 31 members had
been inducted without authority and that
the electoral roll stood vitiated.

7. Complaints were made before the
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits,
Varanasi.
By
order
dated
17.12.2011,
the
Assistant
Registrar
recorded that the expulsion of 31 members
had
been
validly
carried
out
and
consequently rejected the objections of
Sheo Nath Ram and respondent no. 3.

8. Further orders were passed by the
Assistant
Registrar
on
12.12.2012,
reiterating that the names removed had not
been
challenged
by
the
concerned
individuals, and therefore the removal
stood confirmed. These orders were carried
in writ proceedings before this Court, being
Writ C No. 8868 of 2012, Writ C No.
36883 of 2012, and thereafter Special
Appeal No. 1561 of 2012.

9. Ultimately, Writ C No. 14410 of
2013 was filed, which squarely raises the
dispute regarding the 2005 list of 111
members and the alleged illegal induction
of 31 members. That writ petition remains
pending consideration before a Division
Bench of this Court. Thus, the controversy
over the sanctity of the 2005 list continues
to subsist and has not attained finality.

10. Meanwhile, elections were held
periodically. On 29.05.2020, an election
was conducted and the DIOS, Jaunpur
attested the signatures of the Manager on
01.06.2020. This was recognized as the last
attested election prior to the present
dispute.

11. For the session 2025 26, the
petitioners submitted their list of the
members
of
the
Committee
of
Management, which is stated to be
registered by the Assistant Registrar on
28.04.2025.
Shortly
thereafter,
on
19.05.2025, respondent no. 3, Shri Sant
Kumar Singh, filed another list.

12. Faced with these competing lists,
the Assistant Registrar issued a notice
10 All. Committee of Management of Public Inter College Kerakat District Jaunpur & Anr. Vs.
 State of U.P.& Ors.
999
dated 21.05.2025, calling upon the parties
to submit their explanations within fifteen
days. The notice records the existence of
two rival lists but does not purport to
finally adjudicate the dispute.

13. Pending receipt of explanations,
the DIOS, who had earlier granted
permission to the petitioners on 11.05.2025
to conduct the elections and appointed an
Observer on 16.05.2025, passed an order
dated 22.05.2025 staying the election that
had been scheduled for 23.05.2025. The
DIOS recorded that the membership list
was disputed and that an election in such
circumstances could not proceed.

14. The petitioners own pleadings
acknowledge that on 22.05.2025, the
Station House Officer of Police Station -
Kerakat visited the residence of petitioner
no. 2 and informed him that the election
stood stayed by the DIOS.

15. On the following day, 23.05.2025,
when the petitioners sought to proceed with
the election at the college premises, it is
stated by them that they were prevented
from entering the said premise by the
police,
who
cited
the
stay
order.
Notwithstanding
this,
the
petitioners
proceeded to conduct an election at the
residence of petitioner no. 2 on 23.05.2025.
Proceedings of this election were drawn
and submitted to the DIOS on 27.05.2025.

16. On 31.05.2025, the DIOS passed
an order directing single operation of the
institutions bank accounts, placing them
under joint signature to ensure continuity of
salary disbursement to staff and to prevent
administrative deadlock. This was done in
exercise of powers under the U.P. High
Schools
and
Intermediate
Colleges
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and Other
Employees) Act, 1971.

17. The petitioners, aggrieved, filed
the present writ petition challenging the
DIOS orders dated 22.05.2025 and
31.05.2025 and seeking recognition of the
election allegedly held on 23.05.2025.
Respondent no. 3 contests the same,
asserting that the election was illegal, being
held not only in contravention of the stay
order but also in violation of various
clauses of the approved scheme of
administration,
which
mandates
that
elections be held at the institution premises
under the supervision of the DIOS
Observer.

18. The entire factual backdrop
therefore discloses a continuing chain of
disputes: beginning with the undisputed list
of 2005, followed by the alleged illegal
reduction and induction of members in
20082010, the Assistant Registrars
orders in 20112012, the pendency of Writ
C No. 14410 of 2013 before a Division
Bench, and culminating in the two distinct
lists filed in AprilMay 2025, the Assistant
Registrars notice dated 21.05.2025, the
DIOS stay order dated 22.05.2025, the
petitioners
purported
election
of
23.05.2025 at a private residence, and the
subsequent single operation order of
31.05.2025.

Submissions

19. Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners urged that the list of the
members of the Committee of Management
for the year 202526 had already been
registered by the Assistant Registrar on
28.04.2025. It is contended that once the
list was registered, the petitioners were
entitled to hold elections and there was no
justification for the DIOS to stay the
process.
1000 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

20. It is vehemently submitted that the
membership under Section 4-B of the U.P.
Societies Registration Act, 1860 (here-inafter referred to as the Act, 1860) has
not been decided by the Assistant Registrar,
Firms, Societies Evam Chits, Varanasi till
date, therefore, right of the petitioners to
hold election cannot be withheld till
disposal of the membership under Section
4-B of the Act, 1860, particularly, when the
petitioners
have
fulfilled
all
three
ingredients for valid election: (a) the
persons have right to hold election. Here in
this case the petitioners are outgoing
Committee of Management, therefore, the
petitioners have right to conduct election
(b) the election has been held amongst the
valid members. Here in this case the
election was held amongst the valid
members who have already participated in
the election of 1990 and onward, except
dead or few members were excluded and
(c) the election was held as per provisions
of the scheme of administration.

21. Learned Senior Counsel further
submitted that in the instant case, election
was held absolutely in accordance with law
as per provisions of the scheme of
administration.

22. It is further submitted that the
election was duly held on 23.05.2025,
though at the residence of petitioner no. 2,
as the police obstructed the petitioners from
entering
the
college
campus.
The
petitioners
claim
that
the
election
proceedings, having been duly drawn and
submitted to the DIOS on 27.05.2025,
ought to have been recognised and the
signatures of the elected Manager attested.

23. It is also contended that the DIOS
acted without jurisdiction and at the behest
of respondent no. 3 in issuing the stay order
dated 22.05.2025 and the subsequent order
of single operation dated 31.05.2025. Thus,
it is prayed that the instant petition be
allowed and the reliefs be granted as prayed
for.

24. Per Contra, Mr. G.K. Singh,
learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of respondent no.3 has opposed the present
petition and submits that the petitioners are
not entitled to any relief. It is pointed out
that
the
Assistant
Registrar
himself
recorded the existence of rival lists by his
notice dated 21.05.2025, and that the very
foundation of the electoral roll is in dispute.

25. It is argued that under Clause 8 of
the approved scheme of administration,
elections can only be held on the basis of a
duly verified and undisputed General Body
list. Respondent no. 3 further contends that
Clause 9 of the scheme mandates that
elections be conducted at the institution
premises under the supervision of the
DIOS Observer, whereas the petitioners
admittedly conducted the election at the
residence of petitioner no. 2, without the
presence of the Observer and in defiance of
the stay order dated 22.05.2025. It is
therefore urged that the election is illegal
and void.

26. It is argued that the District
Inspector of Schools is vested with
Supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that
elections of the Committee of Management
of Institution are held strictly in accordance
with
the
approved
Scheme
of
Administration
and
the
statutory
provisions. If the foundational requirement
of a valid General Body does not exist, the
DIOS is legally justified in stopping the
election process vide his order dated
22.05.2025. It is further submitted that
conducting elections without a valid elected
10 All. Committee of Management of Public Inter College Kerakat District Jaunpur & Anr. Vs.
 State of U.P.& Ors.
1001
General Body would amount to violation of
both- Firstly, the provisions of the Societies
Registration Act, 1860 and Secondly, the
Scheme
of
Administration.
Such
an
election would be void ab initio and
incapable of recognition in law.

27. In the instant case, learned Senior
Counsel vehemently submitted that the
petitioners have themselves admitted that a
dispute
exists
with
regard
to
the
membership of General Body of the
Institution/Society, therefore, according to
the provisions of Scheme of Administration
of Institution, there is no valid and legal
undisputed
General
Body
of
the
Society/Institution and in absence of a valid
and recognized list of members, no lawful
election can be conducted.

28. It is vehemently submitted that
there
is
no
elected
Committee
of
Management in the Institution, hence, for
payment of salary, regularly and timely to
the employees of Institution, there is no
other option before respondent no.2 except
to pass order of single operation dated
31.05.2025 in the Institution. Therefore, it
is vehemently submitted that there is no
illegality or error in the impugned order.

29. Respondent no. 3 also relies on the
pendency of Writ C No. 14410 of 2013
before the Division Bench, wherein the
validity of the 2005 list and subsequent
inductions is under adjudication, to contend
that the matter of membership cannot be
decided by this Court in writ jurisdiction. It
is lastly submitted that the DIOS acted
within jurisdiction in passing the stay order
and the order of single operation to
safeguard the functioning of the institution
and protect the salaries of the staff. Since
the dispute regarding the 2005 list is still
pending for consideration before the
Division Bench and as the Assistant
Registrar has yet to decide the rival claims
pursuant to the notice dated 21.05.2025, the
present writ petition cannot be used as a
vehicle to secure recognition of an election
held on a disputed electoral roll. Thus, it is
prayed that the instant petition may be
dismissed being devoid of any merits.

Analysis and Conclusion

30. Heard Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Prakash
Chandra Pathak, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the petitioners, Mr. G.K.
Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Man Mohan Singh, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of respondent no.3, Sri
R.P. Tiwari, learned Standing Counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
Staterespondents and perused the material
available on record.

31. Before entering into the merits, it
is necessary to recall the scope of writ
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India. The writ court does
not ordinarily act as a fact-finding forum
nor substitute itself for statutory authorities
entrusted with decision-making powers.
Where matters involve disputed questions
of
membership,
factual
inquiry,
or
appreciation of evidence, the writ court
must decline to exercise jurisdiction and
leave such issues to be decided by the
competent authority in accordance with the
statute.

32. In the present case, it is not
disputed that the Assistant Registrar has
issued a notice dated 21.05.2025 requiring
explanations on the rival lists but has not
yet passed any final order. Similarly, the
DIOS intervention by the stay order dated
22.05.2025 and single operation order
1002 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dated
31.05.2025
were
interim
administrative
steps,
not
final
adjudications. Thus, there is no finality
either from the side of the Assistant
Registrar
or
the
DIOS.
In
such
circumstances, this Court, exercising writ
jurisdiction, cannot pronounce upon the
validity of membership or resolve the
deeper factual disputes.

33. At the outset, it is also relevant to
note the chronology of events, which stands
admitted on record. The petitioners list is
stated to be registered on 28.04.2025.
Another list is stated to be filed by
respondent no. 3 on 19.05.2025. The
Assistant Registrar, faced with these two
competing claims, issued a notice on
21.05.2025 requiring explanations. On
22.05.2025, the DIOS passed a specific
order staying the election scheduled for
23.05.2025. Notwithstanding this clear
stay, the petitioners proceeded to hold an
election on 23.05.2025 at the residence of
petitioner no. 2. This sequence itself
demonstrates
that
the
election
was
conducted in defiance of a subsisting stay
order. Thus, this Court is prima facie of the
view that the rival contentions require
examination in the light of the statutory
scheme and the facts as they stand on
record.

34. It is not in dispute that the DIOS
passed
a
stay order on
22.05.2025
restraining the conduct of the election
scheduled for 23.05.2025. The petitioners
themselves have pleaded that the police
authorities informed them of this order on
22.05.2025 and prevented them from
entering the institution on 23.05.2025.

35. It is therefore clear that the
petitioners were aware of the subsistence of
the stay order. The law is settled that any
action taken in defiance of a lawful order of
a competent authority is void and cannot be
recognised. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Manohar Lal v. Ugrasen, (2010) 11 SCC
557, held that acts done in contravention of
subsisting judicial or administrative orders
are a nullity.

36. Applying this principle, the
election said to have been held on
23.05.2025, despite the subsistence and
communication of the DIOS stay order, is
illegal and void.

37. Apart from the stay order, the
position brought before this Court, as stated
by the petitioners is that the petitioners
election was held at the private residence of
petitioner no. 2, without the presence of the
Observer.

38. Such an election, in the opinion of
this Court, is in the teeth of the scheme of
administration itself, and on this ground
also it cannot be recognised. Further, the
Assistant
Registrars
notice
dated
21.05.2025 records the existence of distinct
rival lists. Thus, there is a bona fide dispute
as to the membership of the General Body.
The aforementioned scheme requires that
elections must be held only on the basis of
a validly verified General Body list.

39. Until the Assistant Registrar
examines and verifies the rival lists, no
valid electoral college exists upon which an
election can be founded. The contention of
the petitioners that the registration of their
list on 28.04.2025 by itself concludes the
matter, cannot be accepted. Section 4 of the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 requires
annual filing of lists but does not provide
that
mere
registration
conclusively
determines membership disputes. That
being said, this Court is of the view that
10 All. Committee of Management of Public Inter College Kerakat District Jaunpur & Anr. Vs.
 State of U.P.& Ors.
1003
being a writ Court, it cannot become a
forum that deals with appreciation of facts
and evidence, that too when the competent
authority has itself not made any final
decision yet.

40.
Therefore,
in
view
of
the
preceding paragraph, in the instant matter,
the DIOS, in the face of a disputed electoral
roll and conflicting claims, acted within his
powers
in
staying
the
election
on
22.05.2025.

41. Furthermore, Under Section 5 of
the U.P. High Schools & Intermediate
Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers
and Other Employees) Act, 1971, the DIOS
is empowered to ensure payment of salaries
and to take necessary administrative
measures. The order dated 31.05.2025
directing single operation of accounts is an
interim protective measure to safeguard the
financial stability of the institution.

42. It is also a relevant circumstance
that the larger controversy relating to the
2005 list of 111 members and the alleged
induction of 31 members is sub judice
before a Division Bench in Writ C No.
14410 of 2013. This pending litigation
casts a shadow over the legitimacy of any
election sought to be held during its
pendency. This reinforces the conclusion
that disputed questions of membership
cannot be adjudicated in the present writ
proceedings.

43. Thus, both on account of violation
of the stay order, and on account of breach
of the scheme of administration, the
election
of
23.05.2025
cannot
be
recognised.

44. In light of the foregoing facts and
discussions, this Court is of the view that
there is no merit in the instant petition and
accordingly, the same is liable to be
dismissed with the following directions:

(i) The election alleged to have
been held on 23.05.2025 at the residence of
petitioner no. 2 is illegal and void, having
been conducted in contravention of the stay
order dated 22.05.2025.

(ii) The DIOS order dated
22.05.2025 staying the election, and the
order dated 31.05.2025 directing single
operation
of
accounts,
were
lawful
administrative measures taken in the
interest of the institution and are upheld.

(iii) The Assistant Registrar,
Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi is
directed to examine the rival lists submitted
by the petitioners and respondent no. 3,
verify the actual venue of the election, and
determine the valid membership list in
accordance with the Societies Registration
Act, 1860, the rules made thereunder, and
the approved scheme of administration.
The same shall be done within a period of
four weeks from the date of passing of this
order

(iv) Upon such determination, the
Assistant Registrar shall pass appropriate
directions for holding a fresh election
strictly in accordance with the verified list
and the scheme and with the duly appointed
Observer.

(v) Until such time, the stay order
dated 22.05.2025 and the order of single
operation
passed
by
the
DIOS
on
31.05.2025
shall
continue
to
be
in
operation, unless any such other order is
passed by any competent authority.

45. For the above reasons and
observations, the instant writ petition
stands dismissed.
1004 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

46. Pending application(s), if any,
stands disposed of.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 1004
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAVEEN KUMAR GIRI, J.

Writ - C No. 33632 of 2024

Regional Stressed Assest Recovery Branch
Bank Of Baroda ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Atul Dayal, Sr. Adv., Maneesh Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Ram Kishun Misra

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the secured creditors have priority over
the charge of unsecured creditors ?

HEADNOTE
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002 - Sections 13, 14, 26E - Recovery of
Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993, Section 31B -
Priority of charge - Secured creditor vs.
Government dues - Cash credit facility secured
by mortgage - Borrower default - Account
declared NPA - SARFAESI proceedings initiated -
Demand notice under Section 13(2) followed by
possession under Section 13(4) - Application
under Section 14 allowed - State authorities
issued recovery certificate for Food & Civil
Supplies dues and tax dues and attached
mortgaged property - Attachment order passed
by Sub-Divisional Magistrate - Objection by bank
asserting statutory priority - Contention that
Government dues preceded SARFAESI action
rejected - Sections 26E SARFAESI Act and 31B
RDB
Act
inserted
by
2016
Amendment
containing
non
obstante
clauses
granting
priority to secured creditors over all other debts
including
Government
dues
-
Subsequent
enactment with overriding clause prevails -
Revenue authorities have no jurisdiction to
obstruct SARFAESI recovery or attach secured
assets - Attachment order held illegal and
without jurisdiction - Impugned attachment
quashed.

HELD A secured crediter shall always have
precedence over an unsecured creditor. In cases
where two enactments refer to secured creditors
having charge over the property, the later
enactment would prevail. When two enactments
have competing non obstante provision and
there is nothing repugnant, then the non
obstante clause of the subsequent statute would
prevail over the earlier enactments. Priority
conferred under Section 26-E of the SARFAESI
Act that came into existence in 2016 would
prevail over an unsecured creditor even though
the unsecured creditor is the Government. If
there is a wrangle between secured creditor and
unsecured creditor, the former will have a
priority of first charge over the latter for
recovery
against
the
delinquent.
Secured
creditors will always have priority over the
unsecured
creditors.
Impugned
attachment
order passed by respondent no.4 for recovery of
dues of State Government quashed and set
aside. (Paras 19, 20)
Writ petition allowed. (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Punjab National Bank v. Union of India, (2022)
7 SCC 260;
Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. v. Girnar Corrugators
(P) Ltd., (2023) 3 SCC 210;
Central Bank of India v. Siriguppa Sugars &
Chemicals Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 353;
Union of India v. SICOM Ltd., (2009) 2 SCC 121;
Dena Bank v. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh &
Co., (2000) 5 SCC 694;

List of Acts
Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial
Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act,
2002;
Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993

50. List of Keywords
Secured
creditor
-
Priority
of
charge
-
Government dues - SARFAESI Act - Section 26E