SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 618043

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
MOHAN SINGH BISHT – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND – Respondent
WPMS 2505 / 2024



Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions

SL. No. Date COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS

and Registrar’s order with

Signatures

WPMS/ 2505/ 2024

Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Vishwast Kandpal, Advocate for the

petitioner.

Mr. N.S. Pundir, Deputy Advocate

General for the State

Mr. Digvijay Singh Bisht, Advocate for

respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

2. According to petitioner, he is serving as Tax Revenue Inspector in Zila Panchayat, Nainital and is member of Uttarakhand Zila Panchayat Karmchari/Adhikari Mahasangh (for short “Employees’ Association”). He is challenging a communication dated 10.09.2024, issued by Joint Director, Panchayati Raj Directorate, whereby outgoing General Secretary of the Employees’ Association was requested to hold meeting of the association on 18.09.2024, so that Executive Body of the association is elected

on the said date.

3. It was further indicated in the said letter that all officers/employees of different Zila Panchayats, who will be participating in the meeting, will be sanctioned leave as per

Government Order dated 10.10.2013.

4. It is an admitted position that election for reconstituting Executive Body of the association was held in 2024. Petitioner contends that election was held in violation of

clause (10) of the bylaws of the association, therefore election deserves to be set aside, and the concerned authorities be directed to conduct the election as per provisions contained in clause (10) of the bylaws of the association.

5. Learned State Counsel submits that writ petition would not be maintainable for the relief claimed by petitioner as the Employees’ Association is registered as a society and the society is neither owned nor controlled by State Government and it is also not receiving any financial aid from State or Central Government.

6. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned State Counsel.

7. Recognition to an Employees’ Association, if granted by State Government, will not upgrade its status. The association in question is neither funded nor controlled by the State and it is also not discharging any public function. Every society is formed with certain objects, as set out in its bylaws; however, every society is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court.

8. Even otherwise also, bylaws of a society cannot be termed as law within the meaning of Article 13 of Constitution of India and violation, if any, of the bylaws will not entitle

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top