# Dr. Sushil Kumar Sinha, President, Kayasth Pathshala, Prayagraj v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1411
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-04
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 1195 of 2025
- **Bench:** Arun Bhansali, C.J. Kshitij Shailendra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dr-sushil-kumar-sinha-president-kayasth-pathshala-prayagraj-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54150
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

2 All. Dr. Sushil Kumar Sinha, President, Kayasth Pathshala, Prayagraj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1411
notification has subsequently been issued than that of filing of the writ petition would have no
contrary effect.

18. The law rendered in the case of L. Chandra Kumar(Supra), it has been held that such
Tribunals have all jurisdiction from the day, they came into existence and even in paragraph 99, it
has been said that the tribunals created under Article 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India,
are possessed of the competence to test the constitutional validity of statutory provisions and rules
and even the vires of the act of the statutory legislation can also be looked into, by the Tribunals.

19. The law, relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners, rendered in the case of Leelavathi
N.(Supra), it has been held in paragraph 36, that where an efficacious alternative remedy is
available, the High Court should not entertain a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, in matters falling squarely within the domain of Tribunals. Counsel for the petitioners has
failed to substantiate his arguments that the case of the petitioners do not fall under the domain of
the Tribunals, constituted under the scheme of the Constitution of India.

20. Consequently, this Court finds force in the argument of learned counsel for respondents,
thus, preliminary objection sustains.

21. Ergo, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed as not maintainable.

22. Liberty is given to the petitioners to pursue the appropriate remedy provided under the
law.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1411
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, C.J.
THE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

Special Appeal No. 1195 of 2025

Dr. Sushil Kumar Sinha, President, Kayasth Pathshala, Prayagraj ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Scope of writ jurisdiction in interfering with the certificate dated 28.03.2025 granted by the Assistant
Registrar after recounting done in pursuance of the order of the Prescribed Authority dated 22.03.2025,
against which statutory appeal is pending before the Commissioner.

Headnotes
(A) Society law - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ - Scope - Election of society -
Recounting of vote - In pursuance of order of Prescribed Authority dated 22.03.2025, the
1412 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Assistant Registrar held recounting and issued election certificate dated 28.03.2025 declaring
respondent as President of society and cancelled the election certificate granted earlier to the
appellant - Statutory appeal against order dated 22.03.2025 was filed u/s 25(1)(d) proviso -
While appeal was pending, writ petition against certificate dated 28.03.2025 was filed - Against
refusal to grant interim relief, Special Appeal and Special Leave Petition was dismissed - Effect -
Jurisdiction of Assistant Registrar to grant certificate dated 28.03.2025 was challenged in writ
petition :
Held : Assistant Registrar was bound to obey the directions issued by the Prescribed Authority vide his order
dated 22.03.2025 'to get the recount done and declare its result' and, hence, questioning the nature of the
said direction or its consequence could only possibly be entertained in proceedings raising a challenge to the
order dated 22.03.2025 itself and not in the writ petition where the said order is not impugned - Admittedly,
the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority is not the subject matter of the writ petition
and a statutory appeal under Clause (d) of proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act against the said
order is still pending before the Commissioner concerned. Therefore, neither the writ Court nor this Appellate
Court can record a finding which may, directly or indirectly, result in either setting aside or upholding the
order passed or directions issued by the Prescribed Authority. The same, if done, would amount to going
beyond the scope of the writ petition and the appeal. [Para 20 and 21] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
All India Council and another vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi and
another, 1988 (2) AWC 1154 - referred to.

List of Acts
Society Registration Act, 1860 - Ss. 4(1) and 25(2); Representation of People Act, 1951.

List of Keywords
Election, Reference, Recounting of votes, Election certificate, Interim relief, Statutory appeal, Scope of the
writ petition, Legal status, Consequential act, Attestation of signature, Legal impediment, Interim relief, Two
parallel proceedings, Jurisdiction.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 15.11.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ C No. 9752 of 2025.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: Anil Tiwari, Sr. Adv.; Uday Pratap Singh, Anmol Bartaria, and Adiba Khatoon.
Advs. for the Respondents: Radha Kant Ojha, Sr. Adv.; Prabhakar Awasthi, Sr. Adv.; Ram M Kaushik, Anuj
Srivastava, Varad Nath; A.K. Goyal, A.C.S.C.; Jagdish Pathak, S.C.

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

1. Heard Shri Anil Tiwari, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Uday Pratap Singh, Shri
Anmol Bartaria and Ms. Adiba Khatoon Advocates appearing for the appellant, Shri A.K. Goyal,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel alongwith Shri Jagdish Pathak, learned Standing
Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 3 and Shri Radha Kant Ojha alongwith Shri Prabhakar
Awasthi, learned Senior Advocates assisted by Shri Anuj Srivastava and Shri Varad Nath
Advocates appearing for the respondent no. 4.

THE CHALLENGE
2 All. Dr. Sushil Kumar Sinha, President, Kayasth Pathshala, Prayagraj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1413

2. The present intra-court appeal has been filed challenging the final order dated 15.11.2025,
whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the Writ-C No. 9752 of 2025 which had been filed
by the appellant questioning the order (election certificate) dated 28.03.2025 issued by the
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Prayagraj, pursuant to an order dated 22.03.2025
passed by the Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sadar, Prayagraj on a reference
earlier made to him.

3. The dispute is regarding Kayasth Pathshala, Prayagraj, a Society registered under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860 ('the Act'). The appellant and the respondent no. 4 (in short 'the
respondent') contested the election for the post of President of the Society. Elections were held on
25.12.2023, counting of votes was done on 26.12.2023 and the appellant, having received highest
number of votes, was declared elected President on 26.12.2023, consequent whereupon a certificate
of his election was issued to him by the Returning Officer.

Reference before the Prescribed Authority

4. The respondent approached the Assistant Registrar questioning the election of the appellant.
The Assistant Registrar, by order dated 06.04.2024, referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority
who, by his order dated 22.03.2025, directed the Assistant Registrar to conduct recounting of votes
and declare the result. In pursuance of the said order, the Assistant Registrar, after getting the
recounting of votes done, issued an election certificate dated 28.03.2025 declaring the respondent
as President of the Society and also cancelled the election certificate dated 25.12.2023 earlier
issued by the Returning Officer in favour of the appellant.

Statutory Appeal before the Commissioner

5. Against the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority, the appellant has
filed an appeal under the proviso (d) of Section 25(1) of the Act before the Commissioner,
Prayagraj, which appeal is still pending.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THIS COURT AT INTERIM STAGE

6. Assailing validity of the certificate dated 28.03.2025 issued by the Assistant Registrar, the
writ petition giving rise to the present appeal was filed and interim relief was claimed requesting
the Court to stay effect and operation of the order dated 28.03.2025 and to restrain respondent no.
4, i.e. the elected President, not to interfere in the functioning of the appellant as President of the
Society during the pendency of the writ petition.

7. The writ court, by an order dated 25.04.2025, refused to grant interim relief to the appellant.
Challenging the said order, the appellant filed Special Appeal No. 388 of 2025, which was
dismissed by order dated 21.05.2025. The said order was carried to Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
form of S.L.P. No. 16985 of 2025, however, the same was also dismissed on 04.07.2025.
Thereafter, the writ petition was finally heard by the learned Single Judge and by the order
impugned dated 15.11.2025, the same has been dismissed.
1414 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has made following submissions:-

(i) The Learned Single Judge has failed to consider the mandate of Section 25(2) of the
Act and has proceeded on an erroneous premise that, after recounting under Section 25, one
candidate can simply be substituted by another in terms of declaration made by him and without
holding fresh elections.

(ii) The Learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate that the challenge in writ petition
was inter alia to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar who has no statutory power to cancel or
set aside election or to declare the respondent as elected and, therefore, the order passed by him is
contrary to the mandate of Section 25(2) of the Act which provides that where by an order made by
the Prescribed Authority under 25(1), the election is set aside and the office bearer is no longer
entitled to continue in office, then the Registrar may call a meeting of the General Body of the
Society for electing office bearers and such meeting shall be presided by the Registrar or any
officer authorized by him.

(iii) Although in the order of the Prescribed Authority, there is no indication or mention
that election of the appellant has been set aside, alternatively, if the Prescribed Authority is deemed
to have set aside the election of the appellant, the only consequence could be that the Assistant
Registrar, in exercise of powers under Section 25(2) of the Act, shall proceed to hold a fresh
meeting to elect the President, however the same having not been done, the order/certificate issued
by the Assistant Registrar becomes invalid as per the statutory scheme itself.

(iv) Only the Prescribed Authority could have decided the dispute in respect of the
election and continuance or removal of the appellant as the President of the Society and the
Assistant Registrar could not have cancelled the appellant's election or the certificate earlier issued
in his favour and, simultaneously, appoint the respondent as the President.

(v) The Prescribed Authority has, after passing order dated 22.03.2025, closed the
proceedings before him, whereas, even if he was of the view that recounting should take place, he
could have asked the Assistant Registrar to get recounting done and, then, to send the record before
him (Prescribed Authority). The same, having not been done, closure of proceedings by the
Prescribed Authority and leaving everything to the Assistant Registrar, amounts to illegal exercise
of power by the Prescribed Authority.

(vi) The Prescribed Authority and the Assistant Registrar, by declaring the losing
candidate as the winning candidate after recount, have assumed such power within themselves
which otherwise is available only to the High Court while entertaining an election petition under
the provisions of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (in short 'R.P. Act'), which analogy
could not be applied in society matters which are governed by the statutory scheme contemplated
under the Act of 1860. Reference was made to Sections 84, 98, 100 and 101 of the R.P. Act in this
regard.
2 All. Dr. Sushil Kumar Sinha, President, Kayasth Pathshala, Prayagraj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1415

(vii) Pleadings contained in paragraph 24 of the writ petition to the effect that, as per
Section 25 of the Act of 1860, it is only the Prescribed Authority who is authorized by the State
Government by notification to set aside the election of office bearers of the Society, having been
specifically admitted in paragraph 15 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Staterespondents, such admission, in itself, is sufficient to set aside the order/election certificate dated
28.03.2025.

9. Placing reliance on a co-ordinate Bench judgment of this Court in the case of All India
Council and another vs. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region,
Varanasi and another, 1988 (2) AWC 1154, submission has been made that the scope of Section
4(1) being different from the one under Section 25 of the Act, if a dispute of the nature covered by
Section 25 is raised before the Registrar in connection with the submission of annual list under
Section 4(1) of the Act, the same must be referred by him to the Prescribed Authority.

10. Accordingly, prayer has been made to set aside the order of the learned Single Judge and
to allow the writ petition granting reliefs claimed therein; alternatively, to direct the Assistant
Registrar to hold a fresh meeting to elect the President as per Section 25(2) of the Act.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE RESPONDENTS NO. 1, 2 AND 3

11. Learned Standing Counsel submits that the appellant, on the one hand, has challenged the
basic order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority by way of statutory appeal which
is pending before the Commissioner, on the other hand, challenge has been laid to the
consequential order/certificate issued by the Assistant Registrar by means of writ petition which
was not maintainable. It is further submitted that this Court, while dismissing the Special Appeal
No. 388 of 2025, has already found election certificate dated 28.03.2025 as of no legal status and,
therefore, dismissal of writ petition by the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 4

12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent has made following submissions:-

(i) In the elections held on 25.12.2023, 148 valid votes were not counted and, therefore,
the Prescribed Authority rightly directed recount of votes and, on recount having been lawfully and
fairly done, the appellant lost by 77 votes.

(ii) The result of recounting of votes having never been challenged by the appellant, the
writ petition against a mere election certificate dated 28.03.2025 was legally not maintainable and,
therefore, the same has rightly been dismissed.

(iii) Once the appeal against the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the Prescribed
Authority is still pending before the Commissioner, any indirect challenge to the said order by way
of challenge to the consequential act done by the Assistant Registrar, through the writ petition, is
untenable.
1416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iv) The Assistant Registrar, by his order dated 02.04.2025, has already registered the list
of office bearers under Section 4(1) of the Act and signatures of the respondent have also been
attested and there being no challenge to registration of list or attestation of signatures, no relief can
be granted to the appellant in these proceedings.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

13. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have
perused the material available on record.

Prayers in the writ petition

14. A perusal of the writ petition indicates that the first prayer made therein was to quash the
order dated 28.03.2025 passed by the Assistant Registrar which is in the form of a certificate.
Second prayer was to direct the respondents not to interfere in the functioning of the appellant as
President of Kayastha Pathshala, Prayagraj.

The impugned order/election certificate

15. It would be apt to reproduce the order/certificate impugned in the writ petition, which
reads as under:-

"भनर्वाभचन प्रमाण पत्र

सन्र्दिभ र्वार्द संखयााः 6998/2024, चौधरी राघर्वेंद्र नाथ भसंि बनाम आर ओ कायस्थ पाठशािा अंतगभत धारा 25(1) उत्तर
प्रर्देश सोसाइटीज रभजस्रीकरण अभधभनयम 1860 में भनयत प्राभधकारी/उप भजिाभधकारी सर्दर प्रयागराज द्वारा पाररत आर्देश भर्दनांक
22.03.2025 के अनुपािन में र्व माननीय भजिा अभधकारी द्वारा प्रेभषत पत्र संखया 3033 भर्दनांक 26.03.2025 के क्रम में समस्त मत
पत्रों की पुनमभतगणना के पश्चयात चौधरी राघर्वेंद्र नाथ भसंि कायस्थ पाठशािा के अध्यक्ष भनर्वाभचत घोभषत भकया जाता िै।

भर्दनांक 25.12.2023 को भनर्वाभचन अभधकारी कायस्थ पाठशािा श्री प्रमोर्द कुमार के िस्ताक्षर से जारी भनर्वाभचन प्रमाण पत्र
जो डॉ सुशीि कुमार भसन्िा के पक्ष में जारी भकया गया था एतद्वारा भनरस्त भकया जाता िै।"

16. When prayer to stay the effect and operation of the order/certificate dated 28.03.2025 and
to restrain the respondents from interfering in the functioning of the appellant as President of the
Society was declined by the writ court by order dated 25.04.2025, the appellant laid challenge to
the same by filing Special Appeal No. 388 of 2025. At that stage, the matter was extensively heard
on nature and significance of the election certificate and the appeal was dismissed by recording
following observations:-

"25. A perusal of above would reveal that the certificate indicated that pursuant to the
recounting, respondent no. 4 is declared as elected President of the Society and went on to cancel
the election certificate issued pursuant to the election dated 25.12.2023 in favour of the appellant.
As specifically stated by learned counsel for the appellant that in so far as the result of the counting
as declared by the Assistant Registrar is concerned, the appellant does not have any grievance in
2 All. Dr. Sushil Kumar Sinha, President, Kayasth Pathshala, Prayagraj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1417
the writ petition as his appeal against the order dated 22.03.2025 is pending. The grievance is qua
the cancellation of his election certificate.

26. Nothing has been pointed out that the Act/Rules requires issuance of any such
election certificate and, therefore, in our opinion, the same by itself, does not have any legal
status. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the recounting held and the declaration of result
on 28.03.2025, the Assistant Registrar by his order dated 02.04.2025 has registered the list of
office bearers in terms of Section 4(1) of the Act and it is claimed that signatures also have
been attested. The issuance of the certificate, whatever value can be attached to the said
certificate, does not empower the elected President in any manner, the power is derived based
on the registration of the office bearers under Section 4(1) of the Act and even the said order
is appealable under Section 4(1A) of the Act.

27. In view of above fact situation, the submissions made by learned counsel for the
respondent regarding the nature of challenge laid by the petitioner in relation to the election
certificate, which on its own does not have any legal sanctity appear to be justified and
consequently seeking of interim relief qua the working of the society despite passing of the
order dated 02.04.2025 under Section 4(1) of the Act appears to be wholly misplaced.

28. So far as the judgements cited by both the sides are concerned, in view of what has
been found, the same would have no application to the present circumstances.

29. In view of above, in the context of the submissions made, in a petition, seeking to
question a part of the election certificate i.e. only regarding cancellation of appellant's certificate
and seeking therein interim relief of restraint against the respondent no. 4 from working as
President of the Society, the prayer made, cannot be countenanced.

30. In view of above discussion, the order passed by learned Single Judge does not call
for any interference, though for different reasons.

31. Consequently, the appeal has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed."

17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on a further challenge laid on behalf of the appellant,
dismissed the S.L.P. by order dated 04.07.2025, which reads as under:-

"1. We are informed that the main writ petition is now listed for final hearing. In
this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order, which is
interim in nature.

2. The Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Needless to say, we have not expressed
any opinion on the merits of the case.

3. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of."
1418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. In light of aforesaid, if we proceed to examine the rival contentions of the parties, we first
find that the Prescribed Authority, by order dated 22.03.2025, had issued following directions:-

"उपरोक्त तथ्यों को दृभिगत रखते िुए सिी 9543 मतपत्रों की पुनभ मतगणना का आर्देश जारी भकया जाता िै। सिायक
रभजस्रार, फर्मसभ, सोसाइटीज एर्वं भचट्स प्रयागराज को यि भनर्देभशत भकया जाता िै भक 7 भर्दर्वस के अन्र्दर पुनभ मतगणना कराना तथा उसका
पररणाम घोभषत करना सुभनभश्चत करें। इसके साथ िी नायब तिसीिर्दार उत्तरी सर्दर प्रयागराज को यि भनर्देभशत भकया जाता िै भक मतगणना
की पूरी प्रभक्रया के र्दौरान मतगणना स्थि पर उपभस्थत रिकर सतत पयभर्वेक्षण करेंगे। आर्देश की र्दूसरी प्रभत co कनभिगंज को इस भनर्देश के
साथ िेजी जाय भक भनयत स्थान एर्वं समय पर पयाभप्त पुभिस बि तैनात करें। यि िी आर्देभशत भकया जाता िै भक पुनभ मतगणना की सर्मपूणभ
प्रभक्रया भर्वभडयोिाफी में कराया जाय।"

19. Assistant Registrar, accordingly, through the State Machinery, got the recounting done
and, then, issued the certificate dated 28.03.2025. The challenge to the said order/certificate is
primarily on the ground that the Assistant Registrar had no power or jurisdiction, either to declare
the respondent as President or to cancel the election of the appellant, which was earlier recognized
in terms of issuance of certificate dated 25.12.2023 issued by the Returning Officer.

20. Though the argument advanced on behalf of the appellant to the effect that in terms of
proviso to sub-Section (1) of Section 25 of the Act, election of an office bearer can be set aside
only by the Prescribed Authority, if one or the other contingency enumerated in Clause (a), (b)
and/or (c) occurs, is certainly in consonance with the scheme of the Act, the mere fact that the
Assistant Registrar had issued the certificate and that the Prescribed Authority, in its order dated
22.03.2025, had not specifically indicated setting aside the election of the appellant, by itself, is not
sufficient to grant reliefs, as prayed by the appellant. The reason is that the Assistant Registrar was
bound to obey the directions issued by the Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 22.03.2025 'to
get the recount done and declare its result' and, hence, questioning the nature of the said
direction or its consequence could only possibly be entertained in proceedings raising a challenge
to the order dated 22.03.2025 itself and not in the writ petition where the said order is not
impugned.

21. Admittedly, the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority is not the
subject matter of the writ petition and a statutory appeal under Clause (d) of proviso to sub-Section
(1) of Section 25 of the Act against the said order is still pending before the Commissioner
concerned. Therefore, neither the writ Court nor this Appellate Court can record a finding which
may, directly or indirectly, result in either setting aside or upholding the order passed or directions
issued by the Prescribed Authority. The same, if done, would amount to going beyond the scope of
the writ petition and the appeal.

22. We may add here certain aspects relating to the appeal against the order dated 22.03.2025
pending before the Commissioner. Therein also, the appellant moved an application seeking
interim relief pending appeal. The Commissioner, Prayagraj, while admitting the appeal by order
dated 11.09.2025, rejected the application observing that the said order would remain subject to any
order to be passed in the pending Writ-C No. 9752 of 2025, i.e. the writ petition giving rise to the
present appeal. Therefore, even in the appeal against the main order passed by the Prescribed
Authority, the appellant did not get any interim relief and nothing has been brought on record
2 All. Dr. Sushil Kumar Sinha, President, Kayasth Pathshala, Prayagraj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1419
before us to demonstrate that at any point of time, arising out of the appeal, the appellant has got
any interim relief.

23. Further, there is an order dated 23.11.2024 passed by this Court in another Writ-C No.
38500 of 2024 filed by the appellant wherein he had made certain prayers with regard to Reference
Case No. 6998 of 2024 during its pendency before the Prescribed Authority. The said writ petition
disposed of directing the Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj to decide the pending
appeal expeditiously preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of
certified copy of the order, if there is no legal impediment. As to what are the reasons for nondisposal of the pending appeal within the time fixed by this Court, is not a matter of concern of this
Court in these proceedings; however the fact remains that the appeal is still pending and without
any interim relief to the appellant.

24. Another significant aspect of the matter is that admittedly, list of office bearers pursuant to
the election result after recount, has already been registered under Section 4(1) of the Act on
02.04.2025 and signatures of the respondent as President have also been attested. In such view of
the matter, when basic order passed by the Prescribed Authority is under challenge in appeal before
the Commissioner and the order subsequent to issuance of certificate registering the list of office
bearers under Section 4(1) of the Act, has not been challenged in appropriate proceedings,
challenge to an intervening event in terms of issuance of certificate dated 28.03.2025, in our
opinion, has no substance.

25. We may reiterate that no provision under the Act or the Rules contemplates issuance of
any such election certificate and, therefore, the same by itself does not have any legal status. While
dismissing Special Appeal No. 388 of 2025, we have already held that issuance of certificate,
whatever value can be attached to the same, does not empower the elected President in any manner
and the power to act as such is derived based on the registration of the list of office bearers under
Section 4(1) of the Act, which order is appealable under Section 4(1-A) of the Act. If the appellant
chose not to challenge the same, we cannot restrain the respondent from acting as President and,
therefore, both the reliefs claimed in the writ petition cannot be granted.

26. As far as reliance placed on behalf of the appellant on the judgment in the case of All
India Council (supra), it would be necessary to refer paragraph 10 of the decision, much emphasis
whereupon was laid on behalf of the appellant. The same reads as under:-

"10. It was urged that the Registrar derives jurisdiction under this provision to determine
the dispute. We are unable to agree. In the first place, the dispute has not arisen in the' context of
the submission of the annual list of the managing body which is required to be filed under Section
4(1). Secondly, the power of the Registrar to decide objections filed under the proviso to Section
4(1) must be held to operate in a field not covered by Section 25 of the Act. Under the proviso to
Section 4(1), the Registrar deals only such matters as may arise in the context of the submission of
the annual list of the managing body. Further in the present case we are concerned here not with the
election of the managing body but with the election of the office-bearers of the Society. The
managing body here is the AH India Council which is different from the Pratinidhi Sabha. In any
case, insofar as the disputes relating to the election of the office-bearers of a society registered in
1420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Uttar Pradesh is concerned, the same has to be decided only in the manner prescribed under Section
25(1) on the principle that the 'special excludes the general'. This is the only way in which the
proviso to Section 4 can be harmonised with Section 25. Consequently if a dispute of the nature
covered by Section 25 is raised before the Registrar in connection with the submission of the
annual list under Section 4(1) of the Act the same must, in view of the Legislative mandate
embodied in Section 25(1), be referred by him to the Prescribed Authority. The Bench deciding
writ petn. No. 14879 of 1986 referred to above was also of the opinion that the proviso to Section
4(1) does not have the effect of whittling down the scope of Section 25( 1)."

27. We find that the controversy before this Court in the case of All India Council (supra) had
arisen from a situation where there was a Society namely, 'Bharat Dharm Mahamandal' registered
under the Act, whereas its management and control was in the hands of its general body, namely
'All India Pratinidhi Sabha'. Elections of office bearers of Pratinidhi Sabha were held and parallel
elections were also set up by the rival group and when two parallel proceedings and the decisions
thereof regarding continuance of the beneficiaries of such proceedings came before the Assistant
Registrar, he disposed of the proceedings, one pertaining to certain amendments in the by-laws
which he had disapproved and the other relating to the question of continuance of a person as Chief
Secretary after submission of his resignation. In that factual background, this Court had proceeded
to examine the competence of Assistant Registrar to pass an order of the said nature and observed
that such election dispute could only be referred by him to the Prescribed Authority under Section
25(1) of the Act.

28. The facts of the present case are totally different wherein there is no dispute regarding any
parallel elections having been set up, rather the case in hand has arisen from a situation where, after
the Assistant Registrar had made a reference to the Prescribed Authority, the latter exercised its
power in terms of Section 25 (1) of the Act and passed the order dated 22.03.2025, which itself is
under challenge in Appeal before the Commissioner. Therefore, the appellant cannot get any
advantage out of the decision cited.

29. Submission made by Shri Tiwari that closure of proceedings by the Prescribed Authority
after passing order dated 22.03.2025, and not requiring the Assistant Registrar to transmit record of
recounting done before him (Prescribed Authority) amounts to illegal exercise of power by the
Prescribed Authority, is essentially an attack on validity of the order passed by the Prescribed
Authority, which is under challenge in appeal before the Commissioner and does not form subject
matter of the proceedings before us or the writ court.

30. As far as alternative submission made by Shri Tiwari that if the election of the appellant is
deemed to have been set aside vide order of the Prescribed Authority, the only consequence would
be the one as provided under Section 25(2) of the Act requiring the Assistant Registrar to hold a
fresh meeting, we are not inclined to accept the same. The reason is that once the certificate dated
28.03.2025 is of no independent legal status or consequence, what remains of significance is the
order of the Prescribed Authority passed prior to issuance of certificate and registration of the list
under Section 4(1) by the Assistant Registrar subsequent to issuance of certificate. Challenge to the
order of the Prescribed Authority and registration of list by the Assistant Registrar having been
statutorily recognized under the scheme of the Act, 1860, we are not inclined to hold in these
2 All. Dr. Sushil Kumar Sinha, President, Kayasth Pathshala, Prayagraj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1421
proceedings that occasion for the Assistant Registrar to hold meeting as per Section 25(2) of the
Act has arisen, particularly when the appeal against the order of the Prescribed Authority is under
challenge in Appeal pending before the Commissioner.

31. In order to appreciate submissions made on behalf of the appellant with reference to the
provisions of R.P. Act, a composite reading of Sections 84, 98, 100 and 101 of the said Act makes
it clear that the High Court, in an election petition filed under the said Act, can entertain a
challenge to an election on various grounds and the relief that may be claimed by the election
petitioner or that may be granted to him, includes a declaration that he himself or any other
candidate has been duly elected. However to observe in this case that the declaration made in
favour of the respondent vide certificate dated 28.03.2025 would amount to borrowing/importing
powers from the Act of 1951, which otherwise are not available under the Act of 1860, the Court
has to see the nature of challenge in its entirety and not on piecemeal basis. Once we have arrived
at a concrete conclusion that the challenge laid to the certificate alone which has no independent or
separate legal status in itself, we are not inclined to quash either the certificate or any part thereof
or the order of learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.

32. The learned Single Judge, after taking note of the proceedings of previous round of
litigation in terms of declining to grant interim relief by the writ Court, unsuccessful challenge
made by the appellant in the Special Appeal and, then, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, came to
the conclusion that the writ petition is an indirect way to invoke jurisdiction of the writ Court to
pass comments or return finding qua the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the Prescribed Authority
on merits, despite a challenge having been laid to the same by way of appeal pending before the
Appellate Authority.

33. Although observation made by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no. 17 of the order
impugned that after the respondent was declared elected, the only legal consequence would be that
election certificate be issued in his favour and the election certificate already issued in favour of the
appellant has to be set aside and the same was done by the concerned respondent who was
empowered to do so, appears to be not in strict consonance with the scheme of the Act of 1860, the
same, in itself, would not suffice reversal of the ultimate conclusion drawn by the writ Court. We
are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has assigned cogent multiple reasons for dismissing the
writ petition in light of statutory appeal being pending before the Commissioner against the order
passed by the Prescribed Authority and no challenge having been laid to registration of the list
under Section 4(1) of the Act, either way.

CONCLUSION

34. Consequently, we do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and
without making any comment on the validity of the order dated 22.03.2025 passed by the
Prescribed Authority against which statutory appeal is pending before the Commissioner, or
registration of list of office bearers under Section 4(1) of the Act, we are not inclined either to upset
the order of the learned Single Judge or to grant any relief to the appellant.

35. The appeal has no merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
1422 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1422
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
THE HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ A No. 2736 of 2023

Alok Kumar Mitra ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Anr. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Permissibility of making plea of not getting approval of the Appointment Committee to challenge the order
of compulsory retirement passed by the President, being the appointing authority.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Compulsory retirement - Commissioner of Income Tax - Order of compulsory
retirement was issued by the President - No approval of Appointment Committee was taken
before compulsory retirement - Effect - Validity of compulsory retirement was challenged on
one more ground that Review Committee failed to consider the entire service record -
Permissibility : (E-1)
Held : Appointing authority of the petitioner is the President and the order of compulsory retirement has been
issued by the President. Hence, the claim of the petitioner that no approval was taken from the competent
authority before passing the order of compulsory retirement, is misconceived, as the President, being the
appointing authority of the petitioner, has passed the order dated 10.06.2019 - The Review Committee
considered the entire service record of the petitioner including his ACRs/APARs, charge memos communicated
as well as uncommunicated remarks, disciplinary cases etc. and recommended the compulsory retirement of
petitioner which was accepted by the Appropriate Authority i.e. the President - The contention of the
petitioner that the procedure prescribed under the Office Memorandums dated 10.05.1974, 21.03.2014 and
11.09.2015 has not been followed is also misconceived. [Para 25, 27 and 28]

Case Law Cited
State of Gujarat vs. Umedbhai M. Patel reported in (2001) 3 SCC 314; S. Ram Chandra Raju vs. State of
Orissa, (1994) 3 SCC 424; State of Gujarat and another vs. Suryakant Chunilal Shah, (1999) 1 SCC 529; Union
of India vs. Col. J. N. Sinha, (1970) 2 SCC 458; Gian Singh Mann vs. High Court of Punjab and Haryana,
(1980) 4 SCC 266; State of U.P. vs. Chandra Mohan Nigam, (1977) 4 SCC 345; Writ A No. 24856 of 2020,
Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India and another decided on 31.05.2022; Baikuntha Nath Das vs.
District Medical Officer, (1992) 2 SCC 299; Civil Appeal No. 6161 of 2022, Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs.
Union of India and another decided on 03.03.2023; State of Punjab vs. Gurdas Singh, (1998) 4 SCC 92;
Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and others vs. Babu Lal Jangir, (2013) 10 SCC 551; Ram Murti
Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and another reported in (2020) 1 SCC 801 - referred to.

List of Acts
Fundamental Rule 56(j); Office Memorandum dated 11.09.2015.

List of Keywords