HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Committee of Management M.P.P. Arya Kanya Inter College and another .....Appellant(s)

Versus State of U.P. and 3 others .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Appellant(s) : Durga Tiwari Counsel for Respondent(s) : Jagdish Pathak, S.C., Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Heard Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 and Shri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for respondent no. 4.

2. The present intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 12.11.2025 whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed four writ petitions being Writ-C Nos. 3829 of 2020, 53830 of 2015, 51267 of 2017 and 23375 of 2025.

3. The appellants have confined their challenge to dismissal of Writ-C No. 51267 of 2017, which stands reflected from the reliefs claimed in the memo of the present appeal wherein further prayer has been made to set aside the orders dated 24.06.2017 and 05.08.2017 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur (‘DIOS’), which were impugned in the said writ petition. Therefore, we would examine the challenge to the order impugned before us only with reference to the controversy involved in Writ-C No. 51267 of 2017 and not in relation to remaining three other writ petitions.

4. Writ-C No. 51267 of 2017 was filed by the appellants being aggrieved of the orders dated 24.06.2017 and 05.08.2017, both issued by DIOS, Gorakhpur. By the order dated 24.06.2017, signatures of one Utkarsh Pandey, through whom respondent no. 4 Committee of Management is represented, were attested in the capacity of Manager of the Committee and by the order dated 05.08.2017 also, same attestation was held valid with reference to certain proceedings of two other writ petitions pending before the High Court.

5. Learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition along with three other writ petitions taking note of pendency of a reference under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (‘the Act, 1860’) before the Prescribed Authority in pursuance of certain orders passed by this Court and a direction has been issued to the Prescribed Authority to decide the reference within a period of eight weeks. It has further been observed that all issues including whether the respondents are members of the concerned society, shall remain open.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants has made following submissions before us:-

(i) The Society was declared as defunct (time barred) on 24.12.2010 by an order passed by the Assistant Registrar, whereafter on 29.12.2010, 52 new members were inducted by the respondent no. 4, which could not be done and, therefore, the elections held by respondent no. 4 based upon the list of invalid members had no legal sanctity and, hence, attestation of signatures of the Manager so elected was bad.

(ii) By an order dated 02.03.2016, the Deputy Registrar attached validity to induction of 52 members, though the same was unlawful and, therefore, the appellants challenged the same by filing Writ-C No. 11194 of 2016, which was allowed by order dated 20.12.2016, whereby the order dated 02.03.2016 was quashed. Against the said order, aggrieved respondents filed Special Appeals No. 74 of 2017 and 75 of 2017, which were disposed of by order dated 08.02.2017 as not pressed and, therefore, once the membership of the persons inducted by respondent no. 4 stood discarded upto this Court, dismissal of writ petition merely on account of pendency of a reference under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 is not justified.

(iii) The reference under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 is not maintainable as the same can be entertained either on a reference made by the Assistant Registrar or by way of representation made by quorum provided under Section 25 but since the very membership of the persons inducted has been discarded upto this Court, pendency of reference and also direction