# Ram Pyare Pal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 719
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-04-02
- **Case number:** C.M.W.P. No. 15797 of 2015
- **Bench:** Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-pyare-pal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43289
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

(A) Constitution of India, Art.-226-Writ
petition maintainability-petitioner being
member of general body-challenging
election
process
of
management-on
ground of not inclusion of name of 54
members-materially effect the resultadmittedly the petitioner already on role
of
election-no
individual
rights
of
petitioner-going to affected-not within
aggrieved person-petition on behalf of
petitioner-not maintainable.
Held: Para-9
In the judgments referred to above this
Court has taken the consistent view that
an individual member does not have a
right to assail the decision or action
taken
in
respect
of
a
society
or
association of which he was a member
unless his rights personally get effected
by the impugned action.
(B)Constitution of India, Art.-226-Writ
jurisdiction-scope of interference with
process of election-discussed-in view of
Apex
Court
decision-when
election
process started-either Civil Court or High
Court no jurisdiction to interfere.
Held: Para-14
This Court is of the clear opinion that any
interference in the matter at this stage
would clearly stall and affect the process
of elections which has already been set
in motion. This Court must necessarily
bear in mind the fact that the finalization
of a list by the Assistant Registrar by
virtue of exercise of powers under the
Act, 1860 is based upon a prima facie
view taken by him.
Case Law discussed:
2010 (1) ADJ 262; 2013 (10) ADJ 532; 2006
(6) AWC 6354; AIR 1980 SC 1612; 2000 (8)
SCC 216; 1997 (1) UPLBEC 415; 1997 (3) ESC
1807; 2010 (1) ADJ 262; 2004 (11) SCC 247;
2014 (5) ADJ 263.

## Text

2 All]
 Ram Pyare Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
719
find that the father has lodged a missing
report, which is being investigated by the
police. The petitioner has categorically
stated that she is living somewhere but
has not disclosed her residential address.
11. We, accordingly, dispose of the
writ petition directing the petitioner to
appear before the SHO, Brahampuri,
District Meerut within ten days from
today and disclose her residential address.
Upon such information being provided to
the police, the SHO will consign the
missing report to the records. In the event,
the petitioner feels that her father or any
of her relatives is subjecting her to any act
from which she feels threatened, it would
be open to the petitioner to move an
application before the appropriate forum
for redressal of her grievance.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.04.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.
C.M.W.P. No. 15797 of 2015
Ram Pyare Pal
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri B.K. Mishra, Sri H.N. Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shyam Kumar Gupta, Sri Sunil
Kumar Singh, Sri N.L. Pandey
(A) Constitution of India, Art.-226-Writ
petition maintainability-petitioner being
member of general body-challenging
election
process
of
management-on
ground of not inclusion of name of 54
members-materially effect the resultadmittedly the petitioner already on role
of
election-no
individual
rights
of
petitioner-going to affected-not within
aggrieved person-petition on behalf of
petitioner-not maintainable.
Held: Para-9
In the judgments referred to above this
Court has taken the consistent view that
an individual member does not have a
right to assail the decision or action
taken
in
respect
of
a
society
or
association of which he was a member
unless his rights personally get effected
by the impugned action.
(B)Constitution of India, Art.-226-Writ
jurisdiction-scope of interference with
process of election-discussed-in view of
Apex
Court
decision-when
election
process started-either Civil Court or High
Court no jurisdiction to interfere.
Held: Para-14
This Court is of the clear opinion that any
interference in the matter at this stage
would clearly stall and affect the process
of elections which has already been set
in motion. This Court must necessarily
bear in mind the fact that the finalization
of a list by the Assistant Registrar by
virtue of exercise of powers under the
Act, 1860 is based upon a prima facie
view taken by him.
Case Law discussed:
2010 (1) ADJ 262; 2013 (10) ADJ 532; 2006
(6) AWC 6354; AIR 1980 SC 1612; 2000 (8)
SCC 216; 1997 (1) UPLBEC 415; 1997 (3) ESC
1807; 2010 (1) ADJ 262; 2004 (11) SCC 247;
2014 (5) ADJ 263.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)
1. The challenge in the present
petition is to an order dated 4th March,
2015 in terms of which the electoral
college of the Society Sri Tilak Kisan
Laghu
Madhyamik
Vidyalaya,
Kamhariya, Post Padari Bazar, Tehsil
Salempur, District Deoria has come to be
finalized
and
an
election
schedule
720
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
announced
by
the
District
Basic
Education Officer, Deoria. As was
noticed by this Court in its order dated
26th March, 2015, the learned counsel for
the respondent No. 3 had raised a
preliminary objection with regard to the
maintainability of the writ petition and it
was on the said objection alone that the
learned counsel for parties were heard and
orders reserved.
2. The basic grievance of the
petitioner, who is a member of the
General Body of the Society, is the noninclusion of the names of 54 members in
the list finalized by the respondent No. 5.
Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel
appearing in support of the writ petition
has submitted that the said respondent is
patently illegal for that the non-inclusion
of the 54 members will materially affect
the results of the election. He has further
submitted that insofar as the State of U.P.
is concerned, the legislature by enacting
U.P. Act No. 23 of 2013, has consciously
added Section 4B to the Societies
Registration
Act,
1860
(hereinafter
referred to as the "Act, 1860") as a
consequence of which, it was incumbent
upon the respondent to undertake an
inquiry into the membership of the
General Body.
3. However, firstly this Court
necessarily
needs
to
consider
the
preliminary objection raised by Sri
Pandey. Sri Pandey, learned counsel
appearing for the contesting respondents
has submitted that the petitioner is a
member of the General Body of the
Society whose name stands included in
the list finalized by the Assistant
Registrar. He submits that the petitioner
would have no locus standi to challenge
or
assail
the
non-inclusion
of
54
members. He submits that if there be any
cause which may
exist against the
impugned order, the same would inhere
only in those 54 members and not in the
petitioner.
4. Learned counsel has further
submitted that this Court has on more
than
one
occasion
held
that
the
finalization of an electoral college and a
challenge
thereto,
should
not
be
entertained by this Court inasmuch as it
would clearly derail the election process
and in any view of the mater it is always
open to an aggrieved person to challenge
the elections as a whole after completion
of the process.
5. In support of his above
submission, Sri Pandey has relied upon
the following judgments of this Court: (i)
Ratan Kumar Solanki Vs. State of U.P. &
Others 2010 (1) ADJ 262; (ii) Comm. Of
Management Maharana Pratap Vidyalaya
Vs. State of U.P. 2013 (10) ADJ 532; (iii)
Uttam Nishad Vs. State of U.P. 2006 (6)
AWC 6354.
6. Responding to the above
submissions, Sri H.N. Singh, learned
Senior Counsel has submitted that the
petitioner being an active member of the
Society was clearly entitled to assail the
orders passed by the Assistant Registrar
finalizing the Electoral College and the
consequential order passed by the District
Basic Education Officer announcing the
election programme. Placing reliance
upon the judgments of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India in Bar Council of
Delhi Vs. Surjeet Singh and others AIR
1980 SC 1612, he submits that an
individual member does have a right to
challenge an order finalizing a voter list
as is sought to be done in the facts of the
2 All]
 Ram Pyare Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
721
present
case.
Responding
to
the
submission of Sri Pandey that this Court
should lay its hands off deciding upon the
validity of the orders impugned herein at
this stage. Sri Singh, learned Senior
Counsel has relied upon the judgment
rendered by the Apex Court in Election
Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar
and others 2000 (8) SCC 216. Referring
particularly to Para 20 of the report, Sri
Singh submits that as was held by the
Apex Court, the present challenge was not
designed to interfere with the progress of
elections but to accelerate the completion
of a valid election.
7. Having heard learned counsel for
parties, this Court finds that the fact that
the name of the petitioner finds mention
in the Electoral College finalized by the
Assistant Registrar is not disputed. What
has constrained the petitioner to approach
this Court is the non-inclusion of 54
members in the said list.
8. The issue of the locus of a
member of the Association drawing up
proceedings of this nature was earlier
considered by this Court on various
occasions and in fact as early as in 1951
in Indian Sugar Mills Association through
its President Shri Hansraj Swaroop Vs.
Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh
Labour Department and others; AIR 1951
All 1. Again this issue cropped up and fell
for consideration before a Division Bench
of this Court in Dr. P.P. Rastogi Vs.
Meerut University 1997 (1) UPLBEC 415
and Vimla Devi Vs. Deputy Director of
Education 1997 (3) ESC 1807.
9. In the judgments referred to above
this Court has taken the consistent view
that an individual member does not have a
right to assail the decision or action taken
in respect of a society or association of
which he was a member unless his rights
personally get effected by the impugned
action.
10. Noticing the above referred
judgments, a Division Bench of this Court
in 2010 (1) ADJ 262 summed up the legal
position in Paragraph 24 as under:
"24. What is discernible from the above
discussion is where the right of an individual
is affected or infringed, and, he has no other
effective remedy, if such rights of the
individual concerned are borne out from the
statute or the provision of bye-laws etc.
having the flavour of statute, a writ petition
at his instance may be maintainable subject
to attracting the condition where the Court
may decline to interfere namely availability
of alternative remedy, delay, laches etc. but
where a legal right of an individual is not
directly affected, a writ petition expousing
the cause of the collective body or other
members of the collective body would not be
maintainable at the instance of an individual
who himself is not directly affected. We may
add here that in a given case, if it is found
that an election was held by an imposter and
he is supported by DIOS or other
educational authorities, such an action of
DIOS as also the election can be challenged
by the individual member since it cannot be
said that he is not a person aggrieved but
whether a writ petition at his instance would
be maintainble or he can challenge the
election by filing a civil suit etc., would be a
different aspect of the matter and has to be
considered
in
each
and
every
case
considering the facts, relevant provision and
other relevant aspects of the matter."
11. In light of the above position,
this Court finds that in the facts of the
present case, the instant writ petition does
722
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not espouse the rights of the petitioner
individually. This petition admittedly
seeks to espouse and canvass the interest
of 54 members whose names have not
been included in the Electoral List. The
non-inclusion of these 54 members does
not directly affect any legal right inhering
in the petitioner. The Court must bear in
mind the law succinctly summarised in
Ratan Kumar Solanki (supra) where this
Court held that where a writ petition has
been preferred merely for espousing the
cause of the collective body or other
members of the collective body, by an
individual member, the same would not
be maintainable.
12. As noticed above, the name of
the Petitioner already stands included in
the electoral college. He is therefore not
directly affected by the order impugned.
In the opinion of the Court, therefore, the
Petitioner clearly lacks the locus standi to
maintain the writ petition.
13.
Insofar as the reliance placed by
Sri Singh on Bar Council of Delhi (supra) is
concerned, suffice it to state that the Apex
Court in the facts of the said case found that
the electoral list itself was null and void
having been prepared on the basis of a
proviso to rule 3 (j) which was found to be
invalid.
The
judgment
in
Election
Commission (supra) has no application to the
facts of this case inasmuch as this petition is
clearly not aimed at accelerating the process
of election.
14. Coming then to the second
aspect of the matter and that is whether
this Court should, in fact, interfere with
the order impugned at this stage. This
Court is of the clear opinion that any
interference in the matter at this stage
would clearly stall and affect the process
of elections which has already been set in
motion. This Court must necessarily bear in
mind the fact that the finalization of a list by
the Assistant Registrar by virtue of exercise
of powers under the Act, 1860 is based upon
a prima facie view taken by him. Even if
there be competing claims at this stage and
the Assistant Registrar proceed to finalise the
Electoral College, the authority is not really
adjudicating a dispute conclusively. He is at
this stage only accepting a list of members
which he finds to be prima facie constituting
the valid general body. In fact, it would be
apposite to notice what the Apex Court held
in this regard in A.P. Aboobaker Vs. Distt.
Registrar 2004 (11) SCC 247. In para 3 of
the report the Apex Court held as under:-
" ..........The Division Bench of the
High Court was right in taking the view
that the list accepted by the District
Registrar did not become final; if the
appellant was aggrieved, it was open to
him to establish his claim in a competent
court/forum. To us, it appears even the
District Registrar did not adjudicate any
dispute as such. It was only a question of
accepting, prima facie, the list of
members of the governing body. If the
appellant's claim was right and justified,
merely becauses the District Registrar
accepted the list of the governing body of
members by E.R. Aboobaker, it did not
prevent him from estbalishing his claim in
a competent court."
15. Following the above a learned
Single Judge of our Court in Gyan Bharti
Shiksha Sadan and another Vs. State of
Uttar Pradesh 2014 (5) ADJ 263 held as
follows in paragraph 34:
" ....Thus the dispute of the office
bearers are decided under S. 4 of the
Societies
Registration
Act
by
the
2 All] Saroj Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
723
Registrar on the basis of prima facie
satisfaction, as he has to deal with them
for
performing
his
administrative
functions under the various provisions of
the Act as detailed above. The aggrieved
parties are left open to adopt the remedies
available such as civil suit."
16. It is perhaps in the above
backdrop that this Court in Committee of
Management, Maharana Pratap Vidyalaya
(supra) held as follows:
"9. In order to avoid a large number of
writ petitions filed for quashing the orders
passed by the educational authorities during
the process of elections and in seeking
directions to them, we hereby declare that
the principles of law laid down by the
Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v.
Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64;
Harcharan Singh v. Mohinder Singh and
others, AIR 1968 SC 1500; Mohinder Singh
Gill and another v. The Chief Election
Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851; Jyoti Basu
and others v. Debi Ghosal and others, AIR
1982 sc 983; Harikrishna Lal v. Bau Lal
Marandi, (2003) 8 SCC 613 and Shyamdeo
Pd. Singh v. Naval Kishore Yadav, (2000) 8
SCC 46, restraining the Courts from
interfering in the process of election after the
elections are notified is equally applicable to
the elections of the office bearers of the
committee of management of the societies as
well as the Committee of Management to be
elected in accordance with the provisions of
the scheme of administration of the
educational institutions. The principles of
law that the Courts should keep their hands
off in electoral matters and that all election
disputes must be tried by the Election
Tribunal, is also incorporated in the
Constitution of India under Article 329 (b)
for the elections of the Parliament or to
the house or either house of the
legislature, under Article 243 O for the
elections of Panchayats and Article 243
ZG in the matter of elections of the
municipalities.
10. There is no reason as to why these
time tested and settled principles should not
be made applicable to the elections of the
office bearers of the societies and for the
Committee of Management under the scheme
of
administration
of
the
educational
institutions.
11. We have every reason to believe
that in future the Court will refuse to
interfere in the process of elections until
the elections are concluded and will
refuse to entertain election disputes and
relegate the parties to approach the
Election Tribunals or to file civil suit to
challenge the results of the elections."
17. Accordingly and in view of the
above, this Court declines to entertain this
writ petition and it is accordingly
dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.05.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MANOJ MISRA, J.
Application U/S 482 No. 19266 of 2014
Saroj Yadav & Ors.
 ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr.
...Opp. Parties
Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri I.N. Yadav, Sri Alok Kumar Yadav
Counsel for the Opp.Parties:
A.G.A., Sri M.C. Yadav, Sri Manoj Yadav
Cr.P.C.-Section 482-Quashing of criminal
proceeding-offence under Section 419
and 420 IPC-on ground in absence of