***

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 21.04.2026 whereby respondent No.4-Maharishi Dayanand University (hereinafter called as ‘University’) has stayed the election process without granting opportunity of being heard. It is also seeking direction to respondent No.4 to appoint and depute observer in terms of direction in CWP-6447-2026. It is also seeking direction to respondents to accept the election of the collegium No.30 dated 15.01.2026 in view of absence of challenge as well as report of respondent No.8-returning officer.

2. This is second round of litigation. The petitioner on the earlier occasion approached this Court by way of CWP-6447-2026 which was disposed of vide order dated 16.03.2026 with a direction to the University to appoint an observer for conducting the elections. The petitioner rescheduled the elections. The University raised objections which were addressed by returning officer. The petitioner approached this Court by way of COCP-1816-2026 against the action of the University which was disposed of as withdrawn vide order dated 21.04.2026 with liberty to avail alternative remedies. Respondent No.4 by way of order dated 21.04.2026 without granting opportunity of being heard to the petitioner has kept the elections in abeyance on the ground of non approval by District Registrar of the Bye Election held by the petitioner Society for Collegium No.30.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that election of Collegium No.30 was conducted on 15.01.2026. The election of aforesaid Collegium was conducted on account of death of Member of the Collegium. The election process of Governing Body of the College has already commenced. The respondents on one or another pretext want to delay the election. They are raising silly, unwanted and unsustainable objections. The District Registrar has no authority to declare election of Collegium as ‘invalid’.

4. Learned State counsel vide order dated 29.04.2026 was asked to clarify provisions which empower District Registrar to raise objection with respect to election of a member of a Collegium.

5. Learned State counsel submits that vide letter dated 10.02.2026 District Registrar returned result of the election of Collegium No.30 to the Society. It means result was not accepted by the District Registrar. The said authority vide memo dated 12.02.2026 has made a reference to State Registrar in terms of Section 40 of Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 (for short ‘2012 Act’). Section 40 empowers District Registrar to make reference to State Registrar if election of Collegium is doubtful. Matter as on day is pending before State Registrar. The District Registrar has not approved election of Collegium No.30, thus, as per Section 30(3), the election of Collegium is invalid and elected member cannot perform duties.

6. Learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that there are 105 collegiums and as per information received from Returning Officer, only 104 collegiums are approved by District Registrar. Collegium No.30 is not still approved, thus, election cannot be conducted.

7. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

8. The conceded position emerging from record is that petitioner is a registered society. It has more than 10,000 members. It has constituted 105 collegiums. As per applicable bye laws as well as 2012 Act, members of collegiums are elected by General Body who further elect governing body. The petitioner is having many schools/colleges which are imparting education to students. The colleges are managed by Governing Body elected as per Statute of the University. Elected member of Collegium No.30 passed away and society conducted election of said Collegium on 15.01.2026. The society submitted details of elected member to the District Registrar who refused to accept the same. He made a reference to the State Registra