# Ram Janam Mishra v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 3 ILRA 1860
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-02-23
- **Case number:** Writ -C No. 4382 of 2024
- **Bench:** Anjani Kumar Mishra, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-janam-mishra-v-state-of-u-p-ors-51562
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-the petitioner challenged the
electoral college's composition during an
ongoing
election
process
for
the
Committee of Management of the District
co-operative Federation Ltd-the petitioner
argued that the electoral college was
improperly
constituted
by
including
members
inducted
by
an
interim
committee
without
proper
authority,
violating
society's
bye-laws-Held,
the
court declined to interfere at this stage,
citing the proximity of the election date
and emphasizing the availability of postelection
remedies-The
petitioner
was
granted liberty to challenge the election
results if aggrieved by the composition of
the electoral college.(Para 1 to 14)

The writ petition is dismissed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

## Text

1860 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the order dated 18.03.2021 has been
decided by the appellate authority vide the
order impugned dated 18.01.2023. The
appellate authority while deciding the
appeal has considered the order of the
learned court dated 31.05.2022, by which
the petitioner has been acquitted. The
appellate authority was of the view that as
the petitioner has been acquitted by giving
him benefit of doubt as such it is to be
presumed that the petitioner is a man of
criminal tendency and that such a person
should not have an arms license and has
thus rejected the appeal filed by the
petitioner.

16. The aforesaid order of
dismissal of appeal is supported by learned
Standing Counsel on the basis of a
judgement of this Court in the case of
Indrajeet Singh (supra), wherein it has
been held that where the acquittal is not
honorable but due to grant of benefit of
doubt, the licensing authority would have
sufficient material to hold that it would not
be in the interest of public order and for
security of public peace for continuance of
the arms license.

17. There can be no doubt to the
aforesaid proposition of law as laid down
by this Court in the case of Indrajeet
Singh (supra). However, what has not
been considered by the court is that when it
is settled proposition of law that an arms
license cannot be cancelled on the basis of
the pendency of the criminal case,
obviously there cannot be any cancellation
in case a person has been acquitted in the
said criminal case be it on the basis of
benefit of doubt or an honorable acquittal.

18. Incidentally, this Court in the
case of Indrajeet Singh (supra) while
arriving at the said finding, has considered
the judgements of the Apex Court in the
case of Deputy Inspector General of
Police and another Vs. S. Samuthiram
2013 (1) SCC 598 and State of Rajasthan
and others Vs. Love kush Meena (no
citation
indicated
in
the
judgement,
however, the citation is (2021) 8 SCC 774).
Incidentally, both the cases of the Hon'ble
Supreme
Court
pertain
to
public
employment. The case in hand does not
pertain to public employment of any person
rather pertains to the right of a person to an
arms license.

19. Thus, keeping in view of the
aforesaid discussion, the judgement of
Indrajeet Singh (supra) would have no
applicability to the facts of the instant case.

20. Accordingly, keeping in view
of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition
is allowed. The impugned orders dated
18.03.2021 and 18.01.2023, a copies of
which
are
Annexure
Nos.1
and
2
respectively to the petition, are quashed.

21. Consequences to follow
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1860
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ -C No. 4382 of 2024

Ram Janam Mishra ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Abhishek Misra, Sri H.R. Mishra (Sr.
Advocate)
3 All. Ram Janam Mishra.Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1861
Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Abhishek mIshra, C.S.C., Sri Narendra Kumar
Giri

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article 226-the petitioner challenged the
electoral college's composition during an
ongoing
election
process
for
the
Committee of Management of the District
co-operative Federation Ltd-the petitioner
argued that the electoral college was
improperly
constituted
by
including
members
inducted
by
an
interim
committee
without
proper
authority,
violating
society's
bye-laws-Held,
the
court declined to interfere at this stage,
citing the proximity of the election date
and emphasizing the availability of postelection
remedies-The
petitioner
was
granted liberty to challenge the election
results if aggrieved by the composition of
the electoral college.(Para 1 to 14)

The writ petition is dismissed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Ramkant Singh & ors. Vs St.of U.P. & ors.
(2005) 3 AWC 2477

2. Ram Ji Mishra Vs St. of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy.
Co-opn. & ors.

3. Banwari Lal Kanchal Vs Dr. Bhartendu
Agarwal, (2019)12 ADJ 235

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anjani Kumar
Mishra, J & Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard Shri H.R. Mishra, learned
Senior Advocate for the petitioner, Shri
Narendra Kumar Giri for the U.P. State
Cooperative Election Commissioner, Shri
Shiv Nath Singh and learned Standing
Counsel for the respondents.

2. At the very outset, a preliminary
objection has been raised by Shri Shiv Nath
Singh regarding maintainability of the writ
petition. He has submitted that the election
process has already commenced and that
voting
to
elect
the
Committee
of
Management of the District Co-operative
Federation Ltd., Nadesar, Varanasi is to be
held tomorrow.

3. It is settled law that once the
election process has been set in motion
after the notification for holding elections
has been issued, the Court should not
interfere so as to stall the election. Reliance
has been placed upon paragraph 11 of the
decision of this Court in Ramkant Singh
and others vs. State of U.P. and others,
2005 (3) AWC 2477.

4. Shri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior
Advocate appearing for the petitioner has
filed a supplementary affidavit in Court,
which is taken on record. He has submitted
that the electoral college has been wrongly
determined including within it delegates of
newly added Societies, which Societies
come to the inducted by an interim
Committee of the Federation. It is settled
law that an interim committee had no
power to induct new members.

5. In support of this contention
reliance has been placed upon an order
dated 23.03.2018 passed by the Lucknow
Bench in Ram Ji Mishra vs. State of U.P.
Thru.
Prin.
Secy.
Cooperation And
Others, which in turned takes note of three
other judgments mentioned, therein.

6. It is submitted that it is admitted to
the parties that certain delegate members
for a part of the electoral college who have
been culminated by the societies, which
were indicated into the federation by the
Interim Management Committee, thereof.

7. Since the electoral college has been
wrongly determined the elections cannot be
1862 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permitted and this Court is liable to
interfere.

8. In response to the preliminary
objection raised by Shri Shiv Nath Singh,
Shri H.R. Mishra has relied upon the
decision in Banwari Lal Kanchal vs. Dr.
Bhartendu Agarwal, 2019 (12) ADJ235,
especially paragraphs 70 to 71. The said
paragraphs are extracted below:-

"70: We have examined the
judgments relied upon by the learned
counsel for the appellant in regard to the
maintainability of writ petition of initiation
of election process by finalizing the
electoral college. The law is very much
settled that the writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India to interfere
in the election process, ordinarily is not
maintainable when there are disputed
question of facts and the remedy is to avail
civil suit after holding of election. We are
with the full agreement that ordinarily
election process should not be interfered
with, but in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, the learned Single Judge
has recorded finding that the appellantrespondent has not been enrolled as
member as the provision contained under
the registered bye-laws laws of the society.
If the members who have been permitted to
participate in the election found their
induction to be in utter disregard of the
provisions contained under the registered
bye-laws of the society and they are not
able to establish their induction in
consonance with the provisions of the byelaws, it is always open to this Court in
exercise of discretionary power under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India to
examine the issue of membership and
holding of election on the basis of members
who are not legally enrolled as members.

71: In view of the provisions
contained under the registered bye-laws of
the society and in absence of material to
establish their induction as members, we
are with the full agreement of the finding
returned by the learned Single Judge in this
regard. We further hold that the electoral
college is the essence of an election. The
Deputy Registrar without considering the
provisions contained under the registered
bye-laws of the society, has proceeded to
hold four members to be valid members of
the general body of the society, therefore,
the finding returned in this regard is
perverse in nature and contrary to the
provisions contained under the registered
bye-laws of the society. Once this Court,
upon consideration of the point, came to
conclusion that members who are going to
participate in the forthcoming election are
not legally enrolled members, it is open to
this Court to interfere in the election
process, if the finalization of members who
have to participate in the election is found
to be not in consonance with the provisions
of the registered bye-laws of the society."

9. The afore-noted judgment was
rendered in a writ petition, which was
directed against an order passed by the
Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and
Chits, Lucknow, whereby he had finalized
the list of Members of a Registered Society
and notified the election schedule for
holding fresh elections thereto, in exercise
of power conferred by Section 25(2) of the
Societies Registration Act.

10. It would be relevant to note that a
dispute of membership in a registered
society is required to be decided by means
of a civil suit, which by itself is a long
drawn process. This reason, by itself, might
have weighed upon the Court to take the
view, which is being canvassed by learned
3 All. Alfiya Azmil & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1863
counsel for the petitioner. The election
which has been notified and the election
process that has been set in motion is for
holding an election in accordance with the
provision of the Co-operative Societies Act.

11. Although, it is not being disputed
that the electoral college consists also of
delegates of Co-operative Societies, who
were inducted into the Federation by an
interim committee of management and that
such delegates would prima-facie not be
eligible to participate in the election, yet,
since the election process has been notified
and the election itself is set to be fixed for
tomorrow and the election results are to be
declared on 28.02.2024, we do not consider
it a fit case for interference.

12. The Court therefore, declines to
interfere at this stage leaving it open for the
petitioner, in case aggrieved, to challenge
the election itself after the election result
has been declared on the ground that the
electoral
college
was
improperly
determined.

13. It is also expected that in case
such an election petition is filed, the same
shall be decided as expeditiously as
possible.

14. The writ petition stands dismissed
at this stage subject to the observations
made herein above.
----------
(2024) 3 ILRA 1863
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. RENU AGARWAL, J.

Writ-C No. 4717 of 2024
Alfiya Azmil & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Deena Nath, Sri Deepak Kumar, Sri Shubham
Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - Constitution of India,1950Article
226-the
petitioners
sought
protection against the respondent no.
4(his father) as the petitioners are living
in live-in-relationship for 5 to 6 months-In
the present case, none of the petitioners
has moved application for conversion of
religion in accordance with section 8 and
9-More so, the petitioner no.1 was below
18
years-no
proof
of
joint
account,
financial
security,
joint
property
is
produced before this court-no FIR has
been lodged by the parents of any of the
petitioner-no application is moved to SSP
for protection of their lives or liberty,
therefore no cause of action for petitioner
to seek protection against respondent no.
4-Therefore,
no
challenge
to
the
relationship of petitioners.(Para 1 to 21)

The writ petition is dismissed. .(E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Razia & anr..Vs St. of U.P. & ors. Writ-C No.
27338 of 2023

2. Kiran Rawat & anr..Vs St.of U.P Cr. Misc.
Writ Petition No. 3310 of 2023

3. Lata Singh Vs St. of U.P.& anr. (2006) 5 SCC
475

4. Shafin Jahan Vs Asokan K.M. & ors. (2018)
16 SCC 368

5. D.Velusamy Vs D. Patchjammal (2010) 10
SCC 469

6. Asha Devi & anr..Vs St. of U.P. & Ors Writ C
No. 18743 of 2020