Allahabad High Court
C/M Bhartiya Vidhyalaya ... vs The State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 13 July, 2021
Bench: Munishwar Nath Bhandari, Acting Chief Justice, Piyush Agrawal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 381 of 2021
Appellant :- C/M Bhartiya Vidhyalaya Bhaisroli Mainpuri District Mainpuri And Another
Respondent :- The State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Nitinjay Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vineet Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Munishwar Nath Bhandari,Acting Chief Justice
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
( Civil Misc. Exemption Application No. 1 of 2021)
Heard Sri Nitinjay Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant and learned standing counsel for the respondents.
This is an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 16.3.2021
Learned counsel for the side opposite submits that he has no objection if filing of the certified copy of the judgment of the learned single Judge is exempted.
In view of the aforesaid, the application is allowed.
The filing of the certified copy of the judgment dated 16.3.2021 is exempted.
Special Appeal
By this appeal a challenge is made to the judgment dated 16.3.2021 whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioners was dismissed.
The writ petition was filed to challenge the order dated 19th August, 2020 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firm, Societies and Chits, Agra. It was on a claim made by the petitioner against the recognition of the elections held on 8th November, 2020. The claim was not accepted on the application submitted after more than three years of the elections. No explanation to the delay was given and otherwise the Registrar has taken note of the list of Committee of Management for the years 2013-14, 2014-15 and subsequent years duly registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860. No challenge to the said list was made.
Learned counsel for the appellants has made a reference of one Rajesh Kumar Singh who is said to have died during the mids of the proceeding yet a return submission on his behalf was submitted. It was nothing but a fraud committed by a person. It is also stated that there was no delay in raising claim against the elections because all the documents were given to Rajesh Kumar Singh but he played fraud with the petitioners. He did not submit the application. Thus, delay should not have come in the way of the petitioners.
We have considered the submissions made above. There is nothing on record to show that papers were given to Rajesh Kumar Singh for the claim made by the petitioners thereupon. It has not been stated in the petition. Thus the challenge against the elections 2015 in the year 2018 suffered with unexplained delay. Learned single Judge, thus, dismissed the writ petition. It is more so when there was no challenge to the list of Committee of Management of the Society prior to the date of elections. Taking aforesaid into consideration, the writ petition was dismissed. We find no error in the judgment impugned herein rather learned counsel for the appellant failed to explain the delay to challenge the elections of 2015. The position is now that election is again due on expiry of five years tenure.
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 13.7.2021
samz
