# The Allahabad High School Society & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 873
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-06
- **Case number:** Writ - C No. 26058 of 2024
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-allahabad-high-school-society-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54801
- **Pages:** 20

## Headnote

Bindeshwari
Prashad
Tiwari,
C.S.C.,
Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Karuna Shankar
Shukla, Prabhakar Awasthi, Sankalp Narain,
Subedar Mishra

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether, once there was an order of status quo
passed by the High Court, the Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, could have
directed that the accounts of the Institutions
shall be operated jointly by the Principals of the
Institutions and by a person claiming himself to
be the Bishop/Chairman of the Diocese of
Lucknow; and whether the impugned order
dated 03.08.2022, being an attempt to march
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
over an order passed by the High Court, is
illegal and liable to be set aside.

HEADNOTE
Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Status quo
order by High Court - Societies Registration
Act, 1860 - Interim order of status quo passed
by the High Court - Impugned order passed
by Assistant Registrar despite subsisting
status quo - Dispute relating to Committee of
Management of the Society - Rival claims by
different
Church
factions
-
Long-standing
dispute involving election of office bearers.
HELD:
Once there was an order of status quo passed
by the High Court, the Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, should have restrained
himself from entering into any dispute arising
out of dispute of Committee of Management -
Impugned order, being an attempt to march
over an order passed by the High Court, held
to be illegal and set aside - From 2011-12
there was no legal election for Committee of
Management - Disputed questions of fact
relating to merger, succession and control
between CIPBC and CNI cannot be finally
adjudicated in writ jurisdiction - Such disputed
questions of fact require exchange of pleadings
and evidence - Parties relegated to competent
Civil Court for crystallization of rights - Till rights
are crystallized, interim arrangement directed to
continue - Direction for joint operation of
accounts and appointment of Observer to
ensure smooth functioning and audit - All writ
petitions disposed of with directions. [Paras
13, 22, 24, 27] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Vinod Kumar M. Malviya and others v. Maganlal
Mangaldas Gameti and others, (2013) 15 SCC
394;
Christ
Church
McConaghy
School
Society,
Lucknow and another v. Registrar Firms,
Societies and Chits, Lucknow and others,
2015:AHC-LKO:19447;
Most Rev. John Augustine v. Christ Church
McConaghy School Society Lucknow and others,
2022:AHC-LKO:34457-DB;
All Saints College Society Nainital and others v.
State of Uttarakhand and others, decided on
19.03.2014;
Shailendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and
others, 2017 (6) ADJ 602 - referred to
List of Acts
Societies Registration Act, 1860.

List of Keyword
Society dispute; Committee of Management;
Status quo order; Power of Assistant Registrar;
Interim management; Disputed questions of
fact; Church of North India (CNI); Church of
India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon (CIPBC);
Merger of churches; Election of office bearers;
Relegation to Civil Court; Joint operation of
accounts;
Abuse
of
authority;
Interim
arrangement; Minority educational institution.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Prayagraj, as modified by order dated
11.08.2022

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Avnish Kumar Rai, Vibhu
Rai.
Advs For Respondents: Bindeshwari Prasad
Tiwari, C.S.C., Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Karuna
Shankar Shukla, Prabhakar Awasthi, Sankalp
Narain, Subedar Mishra.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,883 of 65,488. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39883 for what follows._

11 All. The Allahabad High School Society & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
873
these provisions authorize retrospective
reduction or revision of the rate of interest
already contracted in FDRs already issued.

35. We have considered the facts
carefully and observe that the bank has not
alleged any fraud, misrepresentation, or
irregularity on the part of the petitioners
while opening the FDRs. The higher rate of
interest was offered at the time of issuance,
and the subsequent reduction was the result
of a unilateral decision by the bank
officials. As held in the earlier common
order dated 24.02.2023 passed in the case
of Smt. Sarojni Jain (supra) and Smt.
Shalini Agarwal (supra), the petitioners
cannot be made to suffer for any error or
oversight by the bank in offering a higher
rate of interest. The same principle is
squarely applicable to the present petitions.

36. In the realm of contract, principle
of promissory estoppel is absolutely
attracted. Once it is found that beneficiary
has not made any misrepresentation and
cannot be held liable for suggestio falsi or
for suppressio vari, having promised a
particular rate of interest upon which
investor agreed to invest money by creating
FDRs, the bank cannot later on upon
maturity, deny the agreed/promised rate of
interest.

37. In light of the above discussion, it
is clear that the reduction of the contracted
interest rates on the petitioner?s FDRs was
neither authorized by law nor supported by
any regulatory or circular provisions. The
respondent?s reliance on RBI circulars and
further clarifications is misplaced, as those
directions relate only to the grant of
additional interest and do not empower the
bank to alter previously agreed contractual
terms.

38. Accordingly, these petitions are
allowed and the respondent bank is
directed to compute and pay the interest on
the petitioner's FDRs at the originally
contracted rates of interest as mentioned on
each FDRs, from the respective dates of
maturity of the FDRs, and deductions, if
any made in the interim shall be paid along
with interest thereon at the applicable FDR
rate.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 873
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - C No. 26058 of 2024
Connected with other cases

The Allahabad High School Society & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Avnish Kumar Rai, Vibhu Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
Bindeshwari
Prashad
Tiwari,
C.S.C.,
Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Karuna Shankar
Shukla, Prabhakar Awasthi, Sankalp Narain,
Subedar Mishra

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether, once there was an order of status quo
passed by the High Court, the Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, could have
directed that the accounts of the Institutions
shall be operated jointly by the Principals of the
Institutions and by a person claiming himself to
be the Bishop/Chairman of the Diocese of
Lucknow; and whether the impugned order
dated 03.08.2022, being an attempt to march
874 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
over an order passed by the High Court, is
illegal and liable to be set aside.

HEADNOTE
Constitution of India, Art. 226 - Status quo
order by High Court - Societies Registration
Act, 1860 - Interim order of status quo passed
by the High Court - Impugned order passed
by Assistant Registrar despite subsisting
status quo - Dispute relating to Committee of
Management of the Society - Rival claims by
different
Church
factions
-
Long-standing
dispute involving election of office bearers.
HELD:
Once there was an order of status quo passed
by the High Court, the Assistant Registrar, Firms,
Societies and Chits, should have restrained
himself from entering into any dispute arising
out of dispute of Committee of Management -
Impugned order, being an attempt to march
over an order passed by the High Court, held
to be illegal and set aside - From 2011-12
there was no legal election for Committee of
Management - Disputed questions of fact
relating to merger, succession and control
between CIPBC and CNI cannot be finally
adjudicated in writ jurisdiction - Such disputed
questions of fact require exchange of pleadings
and evidence - Parties relegated to competent
Civil Court for crystallization of rights - Till rights
are crystallized, interim arrangement directed to
continue - Direction for joint operation of
accounts and appointment of Observer to
ensure smooth functioning and audit - All writ
petitions disposed of with directions. [Paras
13, 22, 24, 27] (E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
Vinod Kumar M. Malviya and others v. Maganlal
Mangaldas Gameti and others, (2013) 15 SCC
394;
Christ
Church
McConaghy
School
Society,
Lucknow and another v. Registrar Firms,
Societies and Chits, Lucknow and others,
2015:AHC-LKO:19447;
Most Rev. John Augustine v. Christ Church
McConaghy School Society Lucknow and others,
2022:AHC-LKO:34457-DB;
All Saints College Society Nainital and others v.
State of Uttarakhand and others, decided on
19.03.2014;
Shailendra Singh and others v. State of U.P. and
others, 2017 (6) ADJ 602 - referred to
List of Acts
Societies Registration Act, 1860.

List of Keyword
Society dispute; Committee of Management;
Status quo order; Power of Assistant Registrar;
Interim management; Disputed questions of
fact; Church of North India (CNI); Church of
India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon (CIPBC);
Merger of churches; Election of office bearers;
Relegation to Civil Court; Joint operation of
accounts;
Abuse
of
authority;
Interim
arrangement; Minority educational institution.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Prayagraj, as modified by order dated
11.08.2022

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Avnish Kumar Rai, Vibhu
Rai.
Advs For Respondents: Bindeshwari Prasad
Tiwari, C.S.C., Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Karuna
Shankar Shukla, Prabhakar Awasthi, Sankalp
Narain, Subedar Mishra.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. Initially in present bunch of cases
there were in all thirteen Writ Petitions,
oldest being of year 2012 and latest being
of year 2024. Dispute in present bunch of
writ petitions is of a society named as
The Allahabad High School Society,
Allahabad, a registered Society under the
Societies Registration Act, 1860, probably
registered in the year 1888 (bye-laws were
registered in the year 1952), which runs
two
premier
institutions
situated
at
Prayagraj, namely Boys High School and
College and Girls High School and
College.

2. Writ-C No. 4121 of 2022 was
decided vide order dated 03.04.2025 and
11 All. The Allahabad High School Society & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
875
Writ-C Nos. 31962 of 2012; 29001 of
2022; 30896 of 2022; and, 11959 of 2024
were decided vide orders dated 30.10.2025
and Writ-C No. 38374 of 2023 was detagged with the bunch vide order dated
30.10.2025. The aforesaid orders passed in
respective writ petitions are reproduced
hereinafter:

 (I) Order dated 03.04.2025 in
Writ-C No. 4121 of 2022:

 "Sahi, Sankalp Narain, learned
counsel for the petitioner states that no
cause of action survives in the present
petition and he prays that the writ
petition
may
be
dismissed
as
infructuous.

 Consequently, the writ petition is
dismissed as infructuous."

 (II) Order dated 30.10.2025 in
Writ-C No. 31962 of 2012:

 "1.
Heard
Sri
Prabhakar
Awasthi,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners.

 2. Impugned order is limited to a
communication where some applications
filed by one of the respondents was
forwarded to Registrar and outcome of it is
not on record of this writ petition.

 3. It has been informed that some
orders were based on ancilliary issues,
which are subject matter of other writ
petitions, therefore, I find that present Writ
Petition is rendered infructuous.

 4. Accordingly, disposed of."

 (III) Order dated 30.10.2025 in
Writ-C No. 29001 of 2022:
 "1. Heard Sri Sankalp Narain,
learned counsel for petitioner.

 2. Petitioner, a Principal of
concerned School, has challenged a notice
dated 08.09.2022 issued by Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Prayagraj.

 3. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that notice was beyond jurisdiction
and by referring Sections 23 and 24 of
Societies Registration Act, 1860 he fairly
submits that an opportunity be granted to
petitioner to raise all grounds on facts as
well
as
on
law
before
concerned
respondent so that matter be decided
expeditiously in accordance with law.

 4. Considering the above referred
fair submission of learned counsel for
petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of
that in case petitioner files reply on facts
and law to concerned Registrar, the same
will be considered in accordance with law
including the issue of jurisdiction, if any.
This exercise shall be completed within a
period of three months from today.

 5. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated."

 (IV) Order dated 30.10.2025 in
Writ-C No. 30896 of 2022:

 "1. In this case following interim
order was passed on 14.10.2022:

 "The present petition has been
filed challenging the order dated 3.8.2022
passed by the Assistant Registrar Firms,
Societies & Chits, District-Praygraj as
modified
by
order
dated
11.8.2022
directing
that
the
accounts
of
the
Institutions named as Boys' High School &
876 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School
& College, Prayagraj managed by the
Allahabad High School Society, Prayagraj
shall be operated jointly by the respective
Principals of the said Institutions and Rt.
Revd. Edgar Morris Dan who claims
himself to be the Bishop/Chairman of the
Diocese of Lucknow. Previous to the order
dated 3.8.2022, the accounts of the said
Institutions were being operated singly by
the respective Principals of the Institutions.

 It appears from the arguments
advanced by the counsel for the parties and
from the records annexed with the petition
that the dispute relates to control over the
two Institutions named above and also the
elected office bearers of the Society who
claim themselves to control the two
Institutions named above. The said issues
are subjudice before this Court in Writ-C
Nos. 31962 of 2012, 34333 of 2015 and
4121 of 2022.

 In the circumstances, it would be
appropriate that the present petition is
heard alongwith the petitions referred
above.

 The Standing Counsel represents
respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Respondent No.
4 is represented by Shri Prabhakar
Awasthi, Advocate. Shri Raghav Dev Garg,
Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on
behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, which is
taken on record.

 The respondents may file their
counter affidavit within two weeks. The
petitioner shall have one week thereafter to
file his rejoinder affidavit.

 Connect with Writ-C Nos.31962
of 2012, 34333 of 2015 and 4121 of 2022
and list on 21.11.2022 in the additional
cause list at 2:00 p.m.

 As an interim measure, it is
directed
that
the
accounts
of
the
Institutions named as Boys' High School &
College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School
& College, Prayagraj shall be operated
jointly by the Principals of the respective
Institutions and any other officer not below
the rank of Additional District Magistrate
appointed by the Collector, Prayagraj.

 2. Today, learned counsel for
petitioners is not present.

 3. As referred above, an interim
order was passed and is still continuing,
therefore, purpose of this writ petition has
fulfilled. The writ petition is accordingly
disposed of and interim order will remain
in
currency,
subject
to
outcome
of
connected matters."

 (V) Order dated 30.10.2025 in
Writ-C No. 11959 of 2024:

 "1. None appeared on behalf of
petitioner to press this writ petition.

 2.
Dismissed
for
want
of
prosecution with cost of Rs. 5000/- to be
deposited in the Bank account of High
Court Legal Services Committee.

 3. Registry would accept any
application for restoration, if filed, only
with proof of payment of cost.

 4. Interim order, if any, stands
vacated."

 (VI) Order dated 30.10.2025 in
Writ-C No. 38374 of 2023:
11 All. The Allahabad High School Society & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
877
 "This writ petition is de-tagged to
the bunch of writ petitions led by Writ-C
No. 26058 of 2024

 3. Rest of Writ Petitions being
Writ-C Nos. 26058 of 2024; 34333 of 2015;
12640 of 2024; 2885 of 2024; 7447 of
2024; 26830 of 2024; and, 5337 of 2024
were heard on 30.10.2025 and judgment
was reserved.

4. Writ-C No. 34333 of 2015 was
filed by The Allahabad High School
Society through its Secretary, Gabriel Daud
wherein following relevant orders were
passed by this Court on 05.06.2015,
10.11.2021 and 10.02.2022:-

 Order dated 05.06.2015

 "Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners
and Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior
Counsel for the respondent no. 4.

 In
view
of
the
controversy
involved and in view of the fact that the
order impugned is an extremely lengthy
one, I consider it appropriate to call for a
counter affidavit. The counter affidavit may
be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder
affidavit may be filed within a week
thereafter.

 Put up this case in the additional
cause list on 15.07.2015.

 Till the next date of listing the
parties may maintain statusquo.

 Order dated 10.11.2021

 "Four counter affidavits to four
substitution applications have been filed
today by Sri Deepak Kumar, learned
counsel appearing for the respondent no.4.
It has also been pointed out that the Apex
Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.
15736 of 2021 has passed an order dated
25.10.2021 expecting all the parties to not
seek any adjournments and to assist the
Court on the date fixed i.e 10.11.2021 so
that the Court is able to take a final view of
the matter. For the sake of convenience, the
order dated 25.10.2021 is reproduced
below:-

 "Application for deletion of the
names of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 is allowed.

 We may have our reservations on
the conclusion arrived at by the Division
Bench qua the maintainablity of the appeal
but in the given facts of the case, the relief
being interim in nature, we are not inclined
to interfere, but do belive that the matter
cannot remain pending indefinitely before
the learned Single Judge.

 We are informed that the Writ C
No. 34333/2015, which is the concerned
case, is now listed on 10.11.2021 along
with pending application(s), including
substitution application(s). The pleadings
are stated to be complete. We expect all the
parties not to seek any adjournments and to
assist the Court on that date so that the
learned Single Judge is able to take a final
view of the matter in the proceedings to be
held on that date.

 The special leave is dismissed
with the aforesaid directions.

 Pending
application
stands
disposed of."

 Sri
Sankalp Narain,
learned
counsel for the petitioners informs that the
Apex Court had proceeded by indicating
878 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that the pleadings are stated to have been
completed. However, the objections to the
substitution application have been served
upon him on 08.11.2021 and have been
filed in Court today, as such it could not be
said that the pleadings are complete so as
to enable this Court to proceed further with
the matter.

 Sri Narain also prays that as the
objections/counter
affidavit
to
the
substitution application have only been
filed today as such, some reasonable time
be granted to him to file the reply to the
same and then the matter may proceed
further.

 Having heard the learned counsel
appearing for the contesting parties and
having perused the records what transpires
is that the Apex Court through an order
dated 25.10.2021 had expected the writ
Court to hear the matter finally on the
basis of the impression that was given by
the learned counsel appearing for the
contesting parties that the pleadings are
said
to
be
complete.
However,
the
substitution
application
was
pending
against
which
the
counter
affidavit/
objections have only been filed today in
Court.

 In this view of the matter, the
request on the part of the prospective
petitioners to file the reply to the said
counter affidavit/objections appears to be
genuine and in the interest of justice. As
such, Sri Sankalap Narain, learned counsel
for the petitioners is granted ten days time
to
file
the
reply
to
the
counter
affidavit/objections which have been filed
on behalf of the respondents.

 List this case in the week
commencing 13.12.2021.
 Interim order, if any, shall
continue till the next date of listing.

 Order dated 10.02.2022

 1. Despite earlier order, specific
pleadings with respect to substitution are
not complete. Matter has been expedited
upon order of the Supreme Court. At
present, rejoinder affidavit to the counter
affidavit filed in 1A Nos.18, 19 and 20 of
2021 are awaited. These affidavits are to
be filed by Sri Saurabh Tripathi appearing
on behalf of Mr Rakesh Kumar Chatri
(applicant
in
substitution).
Let,
the
aforesaid rejoinder affidavits, if any, be
filed within two weeks and no more.

 2. Put up in the additional cause
list on 03.03.2022.

 3. Interim order granted earlier is
extended till the next date of listing.

 4. It is made clear, failing filing
of the rejoinder affidavits, the substitution
application may be dealt with and decided
on the next date.

 5. Sri Sankalp Narain and Sri
Akash Deep Srivastava and Sri Deepak
Kumar may inform Sri Saurabh Tripathi
and other counsel appearing in this case,
about this order in writing by 14.02.2022.

5. Petitioner-Gabriel Daud, died on
20.03.2020 and thereafter six substitution
applications were filed alongwith delay
condonation applications. Details thereof
are mentioned hereinafter:-

 (I) Application No. 6 of 2020
filed on 18.06.2020 by Rakesh Kumar
Chattree, claiming himself to be Secretary,
Allahabad High School Society.
11 All. The Allahabad High School Society & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
879
 (II) Applications No. 14 and 15
of 2021 filed on 21.06.2021 by Dr. Lydia
Rajam Anthony, claiming himself to be
Secretary, Allahabad High School Society,
elected in the meeting held on 23.03.2020.

 (III) Applications No. 10 & 11 of
2021 filed on 15.03.2021 by Rt. Rev. Dr.
Peter
Baldev,
claiming
himself
as
Chairman of Allahabad High School
Society and elected Bishop of Diocese of
Lucknow, Church of North India by Synod
Church of North India vide appointment
letter dated 09.08.2015.

 (IV) Applications No. 18 & 19 of
2021, filed on 12.11.2021 by Rakesh
Kumar Chattree, claiming himself to be
Secretary, Allahabad High School Society,
elected in an election held on 04.03.2021
under the Chairmanship of Bishop, Morris
Edgar Dan.

 (V) Applications No. 29 & 30 of
2024, filed on 12.04.2024 by Dr. Deepak
Tudy, claiming himself to be Secretary,
Allahabad High School Society, elected in
an election conducted on 22.03.2024.

 (VI) Applications No. 31 & 32 of
2024, filed on 16.04.2024 by Rev. Bipin
John M. Masi, claiming himself to be
Chairman, Allahabad High School Society
and elected Bishop of Diocese of Lucknow
by the Church of North India Synod on
01.06.2023.

6. Out of aforesaid six applications,
Applications No. 6 of 2020 and 14 & 15 of
2021 are dismissed as not pressed.

7. Admittedly there was an interim
order dated 05.06.2015 to maintain status
quo, therefore, no election of Committee of
Management could take place, hence there
was no question of registration of alleged
elected office bearers including Secretary.
Therefore, Sri Rakesh Kumar Chattree and
Dr. Deepak Tudy who are claiming elected
Secretary could not be elected and their
claim
for
substitution
being
elected
Secretary has no legal basis. Applications
No. 18 & 19 of 2021 filed by Rakesh
Kumar Chattree, and Applications No. 29
& 30 of 2024 filed by Dr. Deepak Tudy,
are accordingly dismissed.

8. So far as other applicants, Rt.
Rev. Dr. Peter Baldev and Rev. Bipin John
M. Masi are concerned, they have claimed
to be Bishop, which is also highly disputed.
Otherwise also, an elected Secretary could
be substituted by other elected Secretary
alone. None of the applicants have filed
any independent writ petition and their
respective interest are also apparently
contrary to each other, therefore, they are
also not entitled to be substituted. The
Applications No. 10 & 11 filed by Rt. Rev.
Dr. Peter Baldev as well as Applications
No. 31 and 32 filed by Rev. Bipin John M.
Masi, are accordingly dismissed.

9. Accordingly Writ-C No. 34333
of 2015 remained uncontested. However,
learned counsels appearing for respective
parties are in agreement that said writ
petition be decided since findings and
observations of impugned order therein
may have bearing on stand of either parties
and of present principal of the Institution
concerned and manner of election of
Committee of Management since presently
it is run by a interim management as fixed
by this Court.

10. During pending of above
referred writ petition of the year 2015, the
Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and
Chits, Prayagraj has passed an order dated
880 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
03.08.2022 whereby despite this Court has
passed an order of status qua, following
direction was passed, which is reproduced
hereinafter:-

 "अतएव उपरोक्त पररजस्र्जतयों एवं जिला शासकीय
अजिवक्ता (जसजवल) से प्राप्त अजभमत जदनांक 07.02.2022 के
क्रम में जद इलाहाबाद हाई स्कूल सोसाइटी की अजन्तम पंिीकृत
प्रबन्ि सजमजत की सूची में वजणथत पदाजिकाररयों द्वारा सोसाइटी की
पंिीकृत जनयमावली के अनुसार पूवथवत् सोसाइटी द्वारा संचाजलत
जवद्यालय व्वायि हाईस्कूल एण्ड कालेि के प्रिानाचायथ के संयुक्त
हस्ताक्षर से खाता संख्या 700010100007861 एवं
700010100006183 का संचालन कराने तर्ा देयकों का
भुगतान करने का कष्ट करें। खाता संचालकों को यह जनदेश जदये िाते
हैं जक वह प्रत्येक जतमाही प्राप्त आय एवं व्यय का जववरण
अिोहस्ताक्षरी को प्रत्येक परजस्र्जत में प्रस्तुत करेंगे। यह भी जनदेश
जदया िाता है। जक जपछले एवं अजग्रम जवत्तीय वषों की सम्प्रेजक्षत
बैलेन्सशीट सो०पंिी०अजि० 1860 की िारा 4(2) के अन्तगथत
प्रस्तुत करें। यह जनदेश माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में योजित ररट
याजचका संख्या-34333/2015 के अिीन होगा।

 जवशप मौररस एडगरदान के प्रत्यावेदन िो माननीय
मण्डलायुक्त एवं जिलाजिकारी प्रयागराि द्वारा क्रमशः जदनांक
15.06.2022 एवं जदनांक 18.06.2022 को प्राप्त हैं,
तद््‌नुसार जनस्ताररत जकये िाते हैं।"

11. The said order was challenged
by Dr. Lydia Anthony, claiming Secretary
CNI in Writ-C No. 30896 of 2022 wherein
following order was passed on 14.10.2022,
which is reproduced hereinafter:-

 "The present petition has been
filed challenging the order dated 3.8.2022
passed by the Assistant Registrar Firms,
Societies & Chits, District-Praygraj as
modified
by
order
dated
11.8.2022
directing
that
the
accounts
of
the
Institutions named as Boys' High School &
College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School
& College, Prayagraj managed by the
Allahabad High School Society, Prayagraj
shall be operated jointly by the respective
Principals of the said Institutions and Rt.
Revd. Edgar Morris Dan who claims
himself to be the Bishop/Chairman of the
Diocese of Lucknow. Previous to the order
dated 3.8.2022, the accounts of the said
Institutions were being operated singly by
the respective Principals of the Institutions.

 It appears from the arguments
advanced by the counsel for the parties and
from the records annexed with the petition
that the dispute relates to control over the
two Institutions named above and also the
elected office bearers of the Society who
claim themselves to control the two
Institutions named above. The said issues
are subjudice before this Court in Writ-C
Nos. 31962 of 2012, 34333 of 2015 and
4121 of 2022.

 In the circumstances, it would be
appropriate that the present petition is
heard alongwith the petitions referred
above.

 The Standing Counsel represents
respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Respondent No.
4 is represented by Shri Prabhakar
Awasthi, Advocate. Shri Raghav Dev Garg,
Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on
behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, which is
taken on record.

 The respondents may file their
counter affidavit within two weeks. The
petitioner shall have one week thereafter to
file his rejoinder affidavit.

 Connect with Writ-C Nos. 31962
of 2012, 34333 of 2015 and 4121 of 2022
and list on 21.11.2022 in the additional
cause list at 2:00 p.m.

 As an interim measure, it is
directed
that
the
accounts
of
the
Institutions named as Boys' High School &
11 All. The Allahabad High School Society & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
881
College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School
& College, Prayagraj shall be operated
jointly by the Principals of the respective
Institutions and any other officer not below
the rank of Additional District Magistrate
appointed by the Collector, Prayagraj.

 12. Later on, said order was also
challenged in Writ-C No. 26058 of 2024
wherein following interim order was passed
on
23.10.2024,
which
is
reproduced
hereinafter:-

 "1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for
respondents No.1 to 3, Sri G.K. Singh,
Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.P. Sahi,
learned counsel for the respondent No.5
and Sri B.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the
respondent No.6.

 2. The present petition has been
filed challenging the order dated 3.8.2022
passed by the Assistant Registrar Firms,
Societies & Chits, District-Praygraj as
modified
by
order
dated
11.8.2022
directing
that
the
accounts
of
the
Institutions named as Boys' High School &
College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School
& College, Prayagraj managed by the
Allahabad High School Society, Prayagraj
shall be operated jointly by the respective
Principals of the said Institutions and Rt.
Revd. Edgar Morris Dan who claims
himself to be the Bishop/Chairman of the
Diocese of Lucknow. Previous to the order
dated 3.8.2022, the accounts of the said
Institutions were being operated singly by
the respective Principals of the Institutions.

 3. It appears that the order dated
03.08.2022
passed
by
the
Assistant
Registrar
modified
by
order
dated
11.08.2022 was challenged before this
Court in Writ-C No.30896 of 2022. The
order of this Court dated 14.10.2022 is
reproduced herein below:-

 "The present petition has been
filed challenging the order dated 3.8.2022
passed by the Assistant Registrar Firms,
Societies & Chits, District-Praygraj as
modified
by
order
dated
11.8.2022
directing
that
the
accounts
of
the
Institutions named as Boys' High School &
College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School
& College, Prayagraj managed by the
Allahabad High School Society, Prayagraj
shall be operated jointly by the respective
Principals of the said Institutions and Rt.
Revd. Edgar Morris Dan who claims
himself to be the Bishop/Chairman of the
Diocese of Lucknow. Previous to the order
dated 3.8.2022, the accounts of the said
Institutions were being operated singly by
the respective Principals of the Institutions.

 It appears from the arguments
advanced by the counsel for the parties and
from the records annexed with the petition
that the dispute relates to control over the
two Institutions named above and also the
elected office bearers of the Society who
claim themselves to control the two
Institutions named above. The said issues
are subjudice before this Court in Writ-C
Nos. 31962 of 2012, 34333 of 2015 and
4121 of 2022.

 In the circumstances, it would be
appropriate that the present petition is
heard alongwith the petitions referred
above.

 The Standing Counsel represents
respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Respondent No.
4 is represented by Shri Prabhakar
Awasthi, Advocate. Shri Raghav Dev Garg,
Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on
882 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, which is
taken on record.

 The respondents may file their
counter affidavit within two weeks. The
petitioner shall have one week thereafter to
file his rejoinder affidavit.

 Connect with Writ-C Nos.31962
of 2012, 34333 of 2015 and 4121 of 2022
and list on 21.11.2022 in the additional
cause list at 2:00 p.m.

 As an interim measure, it is
directed
that
the
accounts
of
the
Institutions named as Boys' High School &
College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School
& College, Prayagraj shall be operated
jointly by the Principals of the respective
Institutions and any other officer not below
the rank of Additional District Magistrate
appointed by the Collector, Prayagraj."

 4. It has been informed that now
the petitioners in Writ-C No.30896 of 2022
filed an application for withdrawal of the
writ petition.

 5. In such view of the fact, to
protect the interest of the institution, some
order needs to be passed on the Stay
Application.
Accordingly,
this
Court
provides that the arrangement made by this
Court in its order dated 14.10.2022 in
Writ-C No.30896 of 2022 shall continue till
further orders. It is made clear that in the
event, the Writ-C No.30896 of 2022 is
dismissed as not pressed even then the
arrangement made by this Court in its
order dated 14.10.2022 shall continue till
further orders.

 6. Issue notice to the respondents
No.4 and 7 to 10, returnable at an early
date.
 7. List this case on 18.12.2024."

13. There cannot be much legal
debate on a legal issue that once there was
an order of status quo by this Court, the
Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and
Chits, Prayagraj should have restraint
himself to enter into any dispute arising out
of dispute of Committee of Management of
Allahabad
High
School
Society,
specifically
when
he
was
a
party
respondent in other writ petitions and was
well aware of interim order. Therefore,
impugned order dated 03.08.2022 being an
attempt to march over an order passed by
this Court, is an illegal order and liable to
be set aside.

14. Crux of various submissions of
the Learned Counsels of rival parties can be
summarised in following manner:-

 (A) There are two group of
Churches who are claiming that they alone
are authorised to run the Management of
the School concerned. One is CIPBC
(Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and
Ceylon) and other is CNI (Church of North
India). There are fractions among the CNI.
Both
are
claiming
that
Institution
concerned
is
within
their
respective
DIOCESES. CNI is claiming unification
with CIPBC, whereas CIPBC is opposing it
on basis of observations made by the
Supreme Court in a judgment passed in
Vinod Kumar M. Malvia and others Vs.
Maganlal Mangaldas Gameti and others,
(2013) 15 SCC 394, that it being old one is
still independent.

 (B) Per contra, CNI is placing
reliance on a subsequent judgment passed
by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at
Lucknow in Christ Church McConaghy
School Society, Lucknow and another
11 All. The Allahabad High School Society & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
883
Vs. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits,
Lucknow
and
others,
2015:AHCLKO:19447, unsuccessful challenge before
A Division Bench in Most Rev. John
Augustine
Vs.
Christ
Church
Mcconaghy School Society Lucknow and
others, 2022:AHC-LKO:34457-DB and
challenge to it before Supreme Court
remained unsuccessful in Most. Rev. John
Augustine vs. Christ Church Mcconaghy
School Society Lucknow and others
(Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14338
of 2022), decided on 09.09.2022.

 (C) Another fraction in CNI has
placed reliance on a judgment passed by the
Uttarakhand High Court in All Saints College
Society Nainital and others Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others (Writ Petition
(M/S) No. 1173 of 2011), decided on
19.03.2014, which is challenged before a
Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in
Special Appeal No. 129 of 2014, All Saints
College Society & Others Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and others, 2014:UHC:4248,
and the Division Bench observed that in such
cases parties be relegated to Civil Court.

 (D) Learned counsels have placed
reliance on judgment passed by a Division
Bench of this Court in Shailendra Singh
and others vs. State of U.P. and others,
2017(6) ADJ 602 also.

15. I have heard Sri Gajendra Pratap
Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Deepak Kumar as well as Sri Adarsh
Singh, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sri Sankalp
Narain, Sri B.P. Tiwari, Sri Subedar Mishra,
Advocates and Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned
Standing Counsel, appearing for respective
parties in all matters.

16. First of all, it would be
appropriate to refer relevant part of
aforesaid judgments cited by learned
counsel for parties hereinafter:

 (I) Vinod Kumar M. Malvia
(supra):

 30. After analysing the facts
and the law in the matter, we have noticed
that it is the duty of the society to take steps
in accordance with Section 13 of the SR Act
for its dissolution. We have further noted
that unless the properties vested in the
Trust are divested in accordance with the
provisions of the SR Act and in accordance
with the BPTA, merely by filing the change
report(s), CNI cannot claim a merger of
churches and thereby claim that the
properties vested in the Trust would vest in
them. In our opinion, it would only be
evident from the steps taken that the
passing of resolutions is nothing but an
indication to show the intention to merge
and nothing else. In fact, the City Civil
Court has correctly held, in our opinion,
which has been affirmed by the High Court,
that there was no dissolution of the society
and further merger was not carried out in
accordance with the provisions of law. In
these circumstances, we hold that the
society and the Trust being creatures of
statute, have to resort to the modes
provided
by
the
statute
for
its
amalgamation and the so-called merger
cannot be treated or can give effect to the
dissolution of the Trust. In the matrix of the
facts, we hold that without taking any steps
in accordance with the provisions of law,
the effect of the resolutions or deliberations
is not acceptable in the domain of law. The
question of estoppel also cannot stand in
the way as the High Court has correctly
pointed out that the freedom guaranteed
under the Constitution with regard to the
faith and religion, cannot take away the
right in changing the faith and religion
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
after giving a fresh look and thinking at
any time and thereby cannot be bound by
any rules of estoppel. Therefore, the
resolution only resolved to accept the
recommendation of joint unification but
does not refer to dissolution."

 (II) Christ Church McConaghy
School Society (supra) (Single Bench):

 "The aforesaid Act received the
assent of the President of India on 20th
February, 2004. The conjoint reading of
the aforesaid provisions shows that what
was saved by Section 3 of Act 1960 was the
application of any statute repealed by it in
relation to India and to persons and things
in any way belonging to or connected with
India, in any country to which India
(consequential
provision)
Act,
1949
extended. Assuming that the said provision
saved the application of the Indian Church
Act, 1927, the same stood repealed with
effect from 20.02.2004. This aspect of the
matter was not considered by the Deputy
Registrar. Thus the finding recorded by the
Deputy Registrar is without sound legal
basis and is, therefore, unsustainable.
Moreover, the Deputy Registrar did not at
all consider the question as to whether the
Church of India (CIBC) was in existence
defacto. He merely presumed its defacto
existence based on the aforesaid statutory
provisions that too in ignorance of the Act
2004, which is not sustainable. He failed to
appreciate that neither the opposite party
no. 3 nor any other person claiming under
CIBC or CIPBC had staked any claim to
the management of the petitioner-society
since
1970,
therefore,
their
defacto
existence was seriously questionable. He
also failed to go into the question as to
whether the CIBC or CIPBC was actually
functional in India after its General
Council
passed
the
resolution
on
29.11.1970 for its merger with and
formation of CNI, specially as there was no
order or decree of any court nullifying such
merger or creation. In fact these issue were
beyond the scope of an inquiry under
Section 4. The dispute in question was
predominantly related to election and
continuance of officer-bearers of the
committee of management of the petitionersociety and not pertaining to the list of
officer-bearers. The claim of opposite party
no. 3 was to the management of petitionersociety. The Deputy Registrar should not
have ignored the admitted fact that
opposite party no. 3 and his associates had
not been in control and management of the
petitioner-society for the last 34 years. He
was neither an ordinary nor a life member
of the society whether prior or after 1970.
He claimed to be Bishop of Lucknow
Dioceses and ex-officio Chairman of
petitioner-society as per its bye-laws. He
claimed to have been elected or enthroned
as Bishop of Lucknow way back in the year
2005 but he never raised any claim or
expressed any willingness to function as exofficio Chairman of the petitioner-society.
This was a very relevant fact which should
have weighed with the Deputy Registrar for
the purpose of registration/acceptance of
the list of officer-bearers or members of the
society submitted by opposite party no. 3
but he failed to take it into account. He also
failed to appreciate that the list submitted
by opposite party no. 3 along with
application dated 14.08.2014 was also not
in conformity with the bye-laws of the
society as he did not include ex-officio
members in it. The list of general body
submitted therewith contained the names of
only 12 members. He also failed to
appreciate that the modified list submitted
by opposite party no. 3 along with his
application dated 15.12.2014 contained the
names of 18 members of the general body,
11 All. The Allahabad High School Society & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
885
including petitioner no.2 himself, who had
set up a rival claim in his objection dated
25.11.2014, which was at variance with the
earlier list, yet the Deputy Registrar
accepted the list of general body as also the
list of officer-bearers submitted by opposite
party no. 3 ignoring the aforesaid glaring
facts. Furthermore he directed the opposite
party no. 3 to constitute a committee of
management and submit a list before him
accordingly. It was clearly beyond the pale
of Section 4 of the Act 1860. To ask the exofficio
Chairman
to
constitute
the
committee of management was itself
unjustified.

 The merger of CIBC/CIPBC with
CNI on 29.11.1970 not being in dispute,
though its validity being disputed by
opposite party no. 3, considering the
indisputable fact that CNI being in control
of the petitioner-society since then, the
absence
of
amendment
in
bye-laws
replacing the reference to CIBC by CNI is
not very material specially as CIBC itself
subsequently became CIPBC which is also
not mentioned in the bye-laws by way of
any amendment.

 The finding recorded by the
Deputy Registrar that the appointment of
opposite party no. 3 as Bishop of Lucknow
was valid is also without jurisdiction. He
had no power under Section 4 to give such
a declaration. The General Council of
alleged Church of India or CIBC or CIPBC
which was the highest body had not staked
any such claim. It was only opposite party
no. 3 who claiming himself to be
Metropolitan of India had raised such a
dispute, that too after 34 years of the
creation of CNI and more than 9 years
after his alleged appointment as Bishop of
Lucknow and Metropolitan of India. His
entitlement could only be considered before
the civil court. Even the proceedings under
Section 25 (1) could not have been resorted
to by him as he could not have mustered the
requisite 2/3rd majority of the members of
the existing general body of the petitionersociety as he was claiming a separate
general body who belong to the Church of
India (CIBC) and not CNI.