The C/M Of The Seth B.R. Bhartiya Inter ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Madhyamik ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 1705 ALL

Allahabad High Court

The C/M Of The Seth B.R. Bhartiya Inter ... vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Madhyamik ... on 7 July, 2025

Author: Jaspreet Singh

Bench: Jaspreet Singh

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:38101
 
Reserved
 
Court No. - 8
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1005991 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- The C/M Of The Seth B.R. Bhartiya Inter College Pali And Anr
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Madhyamik Education And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pt. S. Chandra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.K.S. Chauhan,M B Singh
 
Alongwith
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1004628 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Muneshar Prasad And Others
 
Respondent :- Deputy Registrar Firms Societies And Chits Lucknow And Other
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- U.S. Sahai,Pt. S. Chandra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.K.S. Chauhan
 
Alongwith
 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1004614 of 2013
 

 
Petitioner :- The C/M Of The Seth Babu Ram Bhartiya Inter College And Anr.
 
Respondent :- The Regional Edu.Committee Lko.Headed By J.D.Of Edu.And Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pt.S.Chandra,Ajay Veer Singh,M.B. Singh,Munendra Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,D.K.S. Chauhan
 

 
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.
 

1. This judgment will decide three connected writ petitions which involve common question of fact and law. All three petitions relate to disputes between two rival Committees of Management of Seth Babu Ram Bhartiya Inter College Pali, District Hardoi (hereinafter referred to as the College).

2. In order to appreciate the controversy involved, it will be relevant to notice the chronology of facts giving rise to the three writ petitions.

3. Bhartiya Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Pali, Hardoi (hereinafter referred to as the Society) is the parent body and is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The said Society also runs an educational institution i.e. Seth Babu Ram Bhartiya Inter College Pali, District Hardoi (which has been referred to as the College as mentioned hereinabove)

4. The petitioners of the instant petition i.e. Writ-C No.1005991 of 2012 have challenged the alleged election dated 23.09.2012 in pursuance whereof Anand Kumar Mishra the respondent no.6 was elected as the Manager and the order dated 04.10.2010 passed by District Inspect of Schools (in short DIOS) whereby he attested the signature of respondent no.6 is also under challenge in the instant Writ-C No.1005991 of 2012.

5. Muneshwar Prasad in capacity of the President of the Samiti alongwith Shashi Kant Bajpai who in his capacity as Manager of the Samiti and the College, together, filed Writ-C No.1004628 of 2012 wherein they assailed the order dated 01.08.2012 passed by the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, whereby the Deputy Registrar while affirming the list of members of the Samiti submitted by Anand Kumar Mishra for the General Body of the Society for the year 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 and held that the petitioner Shashi Kant Bajpai was not a member of the Society.

6. The third Writ-C No.1004614 of 2013, has been filed by the Committee of Management of the College through its Manager Shashi Kant Bajpai and Muneshwar Prasad in his personal capacity seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus requiring the Regional Education Committee, Lucknow Region, headed by the Joint Director of Education, Lucknow to approve the Election of the Committee of Management of the College in terms of the Government Order dated 19.12.2000, and a further direction has been sought seeking recognition and approval of the Election of the Committee of Management of the College said to have been held on 01.05.2013 wherein the petitioners of the instant petition is said to have been elected as Manager and the signature of Shashi Kant Bajpai (as Manager) also be attested.

7. The record indicates that prior to the aforesaid three writ petitions, the petitioners had earlier filed writ petition bearing No.3631 (M/S) of 2012 seeking a direction for the Deputy Registrar Firms Society and Chits to provide a list of general body members of the Society for holding the election of the College. The said writ petition was disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 02.07.2012 directing the Deputy Registrar to decide the issue relating to the general body of the said Society. It is in furtherance of this order passed by the Court dated 02.07.2012 that the Deputy Registrar decided the issue relating to the general body members vide its order dated 01.08.2012 which is the subject matter of challenge in Writ-C No.1004628 of 2012.

8. The dispute between the two rival Committees of Management has a prelude. Sometime in the year 1997 since no election of the Managing Committee of the College was held, accordingly the DIOS submitted his report to the Joint Director of Education, Lucknow, who in furtherance thereof, vide his order dated 20.12.2004 appointed an Authorized Controller. The said Authorized Controller during his term got the elections held on 27.01.2006. The said elections were objected to by Muneshwar Prasad and other members by means of a complaint dated 30.01.2006. However, the election held on 27.01.2006 was examined by the Regional Committee, in terms of the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and it approved the said election dated 27.01.2006 and Anand Kumar Mishra was also recognized as the Manager of the College and his signatures were attested.

9. This order dated 01.05.2006 (by which the Regional Committee approved the election dated 27.01.2006) was the bone of contention and this order came to be challenged by means of the two writ petitions filed earlier bearing nos.2452 (M/S) of 2006 and 6104 (M/S) of 2007. Writ Petition No.2452 (M/S) of 2006 was dismissed as withdrawn while the other Writ Petition No.6104 (M/S) of 2007 was dismissed as infructous.

10. The record further indicates that the term of the Committee of Management of the College was three years, hence the election which were held on 27.01.2006 its terms came to an end in the year 2009 and thereafter Anand Kumar Mishra (private respondent no.6) went ahead and held another election. During this period, the petitioner Shashi Kant Bajpai also allegedly held a separate election on 21.06.2009 and at that point of time the DIOS, Hardoi accepted Shashi Kant Bajpai as the Manager.

11. Anand Kumar Mishra challenged the said order by filing Writ Petition No.3335 (M/S) of 2009 wherein a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed an interim order dated 23.06.2009 directing that Anand Kumar Mishra shall continue to remain as the Manager of the College and the order passed by the DIOS accepting Shashi Kant Bajpai as the Manager was stayed.

12. The present petitioners being aggrieved by the order dated 23.06.2009 and the consequential order dated 25.06.2009 filed an intra court appeal before this Court bearing Special Appeal No.469 of 2009. The Division Bench of this Court noticing the dispute between two rival Committee of Management observed that it would be in the interest of both the Society and the College that the disputes are settled and for that matter, the Regional Committee was directed to look into the election said to have been held both by the petitioners as well as by the private respondent no.6 (herein). It was also observed that till the decision is taken by the Regional Committee, the private respondent no.6 (herein) shall continue to act as Manager of the College and the decision of the Regional Committee shall be subject to the order passed in the writ petition.

13. In furtherance of the order passed by the Division Bench, the Regional Committee by its order dated 01.05.2010 approved the election of the petitioner, namely, Shashi Kant Bajpai. This order of the Regional Committee dated 01.05.2010 came to be assailed in Writ Petition No.2908 (M/S) of 2010. However, without any adjudication the said writ petition remained pending before this Court and the term of the said Committee which was elected on 01.05.2010 also came to an end.

14. Once again the respondent no.6 (herein) held an election on 23.09.2012 on the basis of the list of the general body members as available in the office of the Deputy Registrar Society Chits and Funds in supervision of an observer appointed by the DIOS, Hardoi. The observer submitted his report to the DIOS who vide order dated 04.10.2012 approved the signature of the respondent no.6 (herein) as the Manager of the College. This order dated 04.10.2012 came to be challenged in Writ-C No.1005991 of 2012.

15. In the meantime, the issue relating to the renewal of the Society also cropped up before the Deputy Registrar Society Chits and Funds. The Deputy Registrar on the basis of the election which were held in the year 2006 handed over the renewal papers to the private respondent no.6 (herein). This was challenged by Pawan Kumar Bajpai and the Deputy Registrar rejected the objections of Pawan Kumar Bajpai and accepted the list of the general body members as furnished by Anand Kumar Mishra for the year 2007-2008.

16. In this backdrop, Shashi Kant Bajpai filed another Writ Petition No.3631 (M/S) of 2012 with a prayer that the Deputy Registrar, Firms Society and Chits be directed to provide a certified copy of the list of general body members of the Society. The said writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Registrar to decide the issue in respect of the said list by its order dated 02.07.2012.

17. In furtherance of the order passed by this Court dated 02.07.2012, the Deputy Registrar Firms Society and Chits decided and approved a list of general body members of the Society comprising of 105 members vide its order dated 01.08.2012 which has been challenged by Muneshwar Prasad and Shashi Kant Bajpai by means of the connected Writ-C No.1004628 of 2012. It will be relevant to notice that Anand Kumar Mishra died on 28.01.2016 during pendency of these writ petitions and in his place Utkarsh Mishra who was elected as a Manager of the College has been substituted and impleaded as respondent no.7 (herein).

18. It is in the aforesaid factual matrix that the two rival committees are before this Court.

19. Shri Pandit S. Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has focused his submissions on the premise that once a dispute between two rival Committee of Management had occurred it was the duty of the DIOS to refer the dispute to the Regional Committee in terms of the provisions contained in the Intermediate Act and it was not open for the DIOS to have passed any order either way i.e. it could not have approved the signature of Anand Kumar Mishra or the subsequent Manager Utkarsh Mishra unless the dispute itself was decided by the Regional Committee which is the competent authority in law to decide such disputes.

20. Shri Chandra further urged that a Division Bench of this Court who in first point of time had taken note of disputes between the parties and had directed the Regional Committee to decide the same, but it was not done and as such the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.498 (M/S) of 2013 remained uncomplied with whereas the DIOS and the Regional Committee had violated the mandate of law.

21. It is further urged that once the DIOS approved the signature of Shashi Kant Bajpai as Manager of the College on 01.05.2010 and the tenure of the Committee being of three years which could have come to an end only in the year 2013, hence in the aforesaid backdrop, the DIOS could not have passed the order dated 04.10.2012 and tacitly give acceptance to an alleged disputed election said to have been held by the respondent no.6 on 23.09.2012.

22. It is further urged by the learned counsel for the writ petitioners that the petitioner no.2 further held election and submitted the same before the DIOS but he did not take any action as such the petitioners had to file Writ-C NO.1004614 of 2013.

23. It is further submitted that there is a clear distinction between the Committee of Management of a College which is its recognized body in terms of the Intermediate Education Act whereas the Committee of Management of the Society is a separate body which is recognized in terms of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

24. It is submitted that the authorities have blurred the distinction between the two and the order dated 04.10.2012 attesting the signature of the alleged Manager of a disputed Committee of the College is wholly without jurisdiction as the DIOS did not have the jurisdiction to decide the issue of election of either of two rival committees and the only course available with him was to refer the matter to the Regional Committee headed by the Joint Director under section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act.

25. It is also urged that vide order dated 02.05.2010 the DIOS had attested the signature of the petitioner no.2 as Manager of the College and he had worked as such upto 02.05.2013 and admittedly the term of the Committee was three years. It is also submitted that this term of three years is to be reckoned from the date the person takes charge and in this backdrop the actions of the DIOS in giving recognition to the respondent no.6 on the basis of an alleged election held on 23.09.2012 was completely without jurisdiction and is an act of fraud.

26. In this backdrop, it is urged that since much time has lapsed and both the rival committees are trying to claim their rights over the College. Hence, in such circumstances the Court may direct that the dispute relating to the Committee of Management of the College be appropriately decided by the Regional Committee within such time to be fixed by the Court.

27. It is in this context that the reference to the other two connected petitions have been made, that, the order by which the Deputy Registrar has decided the issue relating to the list of members of the Society, be set aside.

28. It is lastly urged that since the direction given by the Division Bench of this Court on 20.08.2013 to decide the controversy on merit has not been done so far, hence it cannot be said that the petitions have become infructous with passage of time. However, if the original dispute which occurred in the year 2012 is decided and as the election of 2012 is set aside then all subsequent elections which may have been held and claimed by the private respondent no.6 and now respondent no.7 would automatically be rendered meaningless hence the cause of the petitioners in respect of the instant petition continue to subsist and thus the petitions filed by the petitioners deserves to be allowed.

29. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the following decisions:-

(i) Smt. Gujrati Devi Singhal and others Vs. Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Division, Gorakhpur and another [1997 (15)-LCD 456]

(ii) Committee of Management, Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter College, Ramgarh, Barwan, District Jaunpur Vs. Deputy Director of Education Vth Region, Varanasi and others [2006 (24) LCD 1328]

(iii) Umesh Chandra and another Vs. Mahila Vidyalaya Society, Aminabad, Lucknow and others [2006 (24) LCD 1373]

30. Shri D. K. Singh Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for private respondent no.7 has controverted the aforesaid submissions and has urged that this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not like to enter into disputed questions of fact.

31. It is urged that the entire controversy which is sought to be projected by the petitioners indicates that a challenge was made to an election of the Committee of Management of the College and also the fact that Shashi Kant Bajpai was not a member of the Society. It is also submitted that once the Deputy Registrar held that Shashi Kant Bajpai could not bring any material on record to establish his membership, bonafide, of the Society, consequently he could not claim any right to be a member of the Committee of the Management of the College.

32. It was further submitted by Shri Chauhan that subsequent elections of the Committee of the College have taken place in the subsequent years during pendency of the petitions wherein apparently there was no order coupled with the fact that these three sets of elections which were held wherein Utkarsh Mishra was the elected Manager and he continues to act and be recognized as the Manager of the College and this has not been challenged either before any competent authority nor by amending the present writ petitions or by filing a fresh petition, accordingly these petitions have out lined their purpose and on this ground alone, all the writ petitions deserves to be dismissed.

33. Learned counsel for the respondent no.7 has further urged that it could not be disputed by the petitioners that the election which where held wherein at that point of time the respondent no.6 was elected as the Manager of the Committee, which was running the College, while an Authorized Controller was handling the affairs of the Committee and it was also held in presence of an observer.

34. As far as the alleged election upon which the petitioners have claimed, its term too came to an end in the year 2013, the fact remains that the said election were allegedly held by the petitioners without the presence of the observer. It is in this context that the Regional Committee did not find favour with the elections held and claimed by the petitioners. As a consequence, the elections held in presence and supervision of an observer, found favour with the Authorities and even the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.498 (M/S) of 2013 while requiring the Regional Committee to decide the dispute did not interfere with the interim order granted by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court whereby Anand Kumar Mishra was directed to continue as the Manager till the decision was taken by the Regional Committee.

35. It was lastly urged that in view of the overall facts where the dispute has already been decided and subsequent three elections have taken place and all three elections are were never challenges either before this Court or before any competent authority, consequently the petitions are devoid of merits and even otherwise with the passage of time they have become infructuous and for all the aforesaid reasons the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed.

36. In support of his submissions, Shri Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondent no.7 has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Qmar Rashid Khan Vs. Committee of Management, Azamgarh Muslim Education Society and others JT 2001 (10) SC 50, Nagri Pracharini Sabha Vs. Vth Additional District and Sessions Judge 1991 (Supp.2) SCC 36, Shiv Murti Verma Vs. State of U.P. and others [2011(3) ADJ 755], Kisan National Education Trust and others Vs. Prescribed Authority (Sub-Divisional Magistrate) and others [2019 (132) ALR 126], Committee of Management of Philanthropic Education Society, Gaumat, District Aligarh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others [(2005) 2 UPLBEC 1836] and Raj Nath Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. & others [(2006) 2 UPLBEC 1866]

37. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and also perused the material on record.

38. At the outset, it may be noticed that out of the three writ petitions, two writ petitions i.e. Writ-C No.1005991 of 2012 and Writ-C No.1004614 of 2013 are directed against the authorities constituted under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 wherein the primarily relief is a direct challenge to the election held on 23.09.2012. A challenge has also been laid to the order dated 04.10.2012 whereby the signature of the private respondent no.6 was attested.

39. In so far as the Writ-C No.1004614 of 2013 is concerned, the petitioners sought a direction for the Regional Educational Committee, Lucknow Region to grant approval to the elections claimed by the petitioners dated 01.05.2013 and in furtherance thereof, the signature of the petitioner Shashi Kant Bajpai may be attested as the Manager following the Govt. Order dated 19.12.2000. Thus, it would be seen that the relief claimed in Writ-C No.1004614 of 2013 is an ancillary relief and can be granted only if the election dated 23.09.2012 and the order of the attestation dated 04.10.2012 are set aside. Therefore, these two petitions will be taken up together for consideration.

40. The third petition bearing Writ-C No.1004628 of 2012 assailes the order dated 01.08.2012 whereby the Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits, Lucknow rejected the contentions of the petitioners and approved the list of members of the Society for the year 2009-2010 and 2011-2012. This issue may be connected with the other two mentioned petitions but for the sake of convenience, it can be considered separately as the said order has been passed by a different authority, who has domain over the Society and not over the College.

41. This Court for the sake of convenience first proposes to consider Writ-C No.1004628 of 2012.

42. Under challenge in the instant petition is the order dated 01.08.2012 whereby the issue regarding the list of members of the Society was under consideration and by means of the impugned order the Deputy Registrar has approved the list of members 2009-2010 and 2011-2012.

43. The core grievance of the petitioners is that the list as approved by the Deputy Registrar contains the names of 105 members which have been incorporated maliciously especially when the said members had not even deposited their subscription.

44. It was further submitted that the Deputy Registrar ought to have considered the membership register, the pass-book entries which would indicate the original members of the Society and the pass-book would indicate as to whether the said members had deposited their subscription or not. However, since the same was not considered, accordingly, the list approved is completely sham.

45. Considering the aforesaid aspect, this Court finds that even assuming the submissions made by the petitioners has some substance even then it was incumbent upon the petitioners to have placed the necessary documents on record to establish his case on his own strength. This assumes significance for the reason that in the impugned order dated 01.08.2012, there is a specific finding recorded by the Deputy Registrar that he has meticulously considered the original documents submitted by Shashi Kant Bajpai which related to the Management of the College and not to the Society.

46. Another specific finding was recorded by the Deputy Registrar that Anand Kumar Mishra had furnished the order dated 31.10.2007 (which remained unchallenged) and document relating to the renewal of the Society, alongwith the list of the members of the Managing Committee of the Society for the year 2010-2011 and its income and expenditure statements, the documents relating to the election of the Society held on 01.02.2009, inter alia, were produced. These were not controverted by the petitioners before the Deputy Registrar.

47. Once such categorical findings were recorded and in order to assail the said findings, it was incumbent upon the petitioners to establish that the said findings were perverse. In order to do so the petitioners could have brought the relevant documents on record, which they stated were submitted before the Deputy Registrar, to indicate that the Deputy Registrar either misread the said documents or ignored the same or relied upon certain documents which had no bearings with the case at hand.

48. However, this Court finds that the documents which have been placed on record by the petitioners from annexure no.5 to annexure no.18, they all relate to the College and not the Society. It is trite law that the Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits and Funds has domain over the Societies registered under the Societies Registration Act. However, in so far as the Committee of Management of the College is concerned, that is governed by its scheme of administration in terms of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Clearly, the documents placed on record are all relatable to the College and not the Society hence, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar were incorrect.

49. Even otherwise, while filing this writ petition the petitioners did not bring on record either the original register of members or the excerpts of the pass-book to buttress their submission that the list of 105 members approved by the Deputy Registrar by the impugned order dated 01.08.2012 was incorrect. Thus, on the face of the record, it cannot be said that the findings recorded by the Deputy Registrar are bad or perverse.

50. In absence of the requisite documents the nature of controversy raised by the petitioners becomes a question of fact which is to be ascertained on the basis of evidence to be led by the respective parties. Since on record of this case, there are no admitted documents upon perusal of which an inference can be drawn by the Court, hence in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not inclined to undertake any such exercise relating to determination of the membership. The petitioners shall be at liberty of approaching the appropriate Court for getting their rights of membership of the Society adjudicated and for the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to accept the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners. Consequently, Writ-C No.1004628 of 2012, subject to the liberty as granted, shall stands dismissed.

51. Now taking up the issues involved in Writ-C No.1005991 of 2012 and Writ-C No.1004614 of 2013, this Court finds that the primary grievance of the petitioners is in respect of the alleged elections held on 23.09.2012 relating to the Committee of Management of the College and the subsequent order dated 04.10.2012 passed by the DIOS attesting the signature of the respondent no.6, who was the then Manager of the College. In this regard, this Court apparently finds that a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No.469 of 2009 initially had passed an order dated 20.11.2009 directing the Regional Committee to consider the issue regarding the elections claimed by both the rival committees, one represented by the petitioners and the other represented by the private respondent no.6. However, at the same time, the Division Bench approved the arrangement made by the learned Single Judge in its order dated 23.06.2009 and permitted Anand Kumar Mishra to act as the Manager.

52. It cannot be disputed that the term of the Committee of Management of the College was three years and it also not disputed that whether the elections claimed by the petitioners said to be held on 01.05.2013 is taken to be valid or the elections claimed by the private respondent dated 23.09.2012 is taken to be valid yet the fact remains that the term of the member of the said committee either way came to an end after three years i.e. in the year 2016 or 2015 as the case may be. Subsequent thereto, fresh elections have been held as stated by the counsel for the private respondent, in the year 2015, 2018, 2021 and onward and none of the aforesaid elections have been challenged by the petitioners either before this Court or before any other competent forum nor the petitioners have sought any amendment in the instant petition assailing the subsequent elections.

53. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the fact that the subsequent elections have taken place relating to the Committee of Management of the College and earlier the Manager was Anand Kumar Mishra, who upon his demise, is now replaced with Utkarsh Mishra, who is the respondent no.7 and his signatures have been attested by the DIOS and he is acting as the Manager of the College. In these circumstances, without there being any challenge to the subsequent elections, the issue at hand as sought to be projected by the counsel for the petitioners looses its significance.

54. If the prayer made in the writ petition is seen, it would only indicate that the challenge is to the election of the year 2012 and as noticed above the term of the said committee expired in the year 2015. In so far as the alleged election claimed by the petitioners dated 01.05.2013 is concerned, the same has also outlived its term after three years in 2016. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioners after the term of the committee allegedly elected on 01.05.2013 had come to an end then since thereafter any further elections were conducted and that the petitioners were in effective control of the College.

55. In absence of any such material, this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not propose to enter into highly disputed facts, which after the end of the term of the Committee of Management of the College, has become otiose. Any academic issue raised by the petitioners is left open to be considered in an appropriate proceedings but the fact remains that even if at all the contentions of the petitioners are upheld yet no relief can be granted as admittedly three subsequent elections have taken place and their term too is over and all those elections were never challenged and in such circumstances, the Court is not inclined to decide any dispute which has lost its efficacy.

56. In light of the aforesaid facts, suffice to state that the decision cited by the learned counsel for the petitioners apparently based on the facts of the particular case may not be disputed but its applicability on the instant case is doubtful. Thus, for the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the decision cited by the counsel for the petitioners had no applicability in the instant case.

57. Once there is a clear admitted case of the parties that the term of the Committee of Management of the College was three years and the alleged elections held in the year 2012 which is assailed in the instant petition had come to an end in the year 2015. Subsequent further elections were held in 2015, 2018 and 2021 but they are not under challnege henced, the instant petition looses its efficacy and this Court finds that no relief can be granted to the petitioners. For the aforesaid reason, the order of attestation passed by the DIOS dated 04.10.2012 also has become ineffective with the changed circumstances and for the aforesaid reasons the relief in Writ-C No.1005991 of 2012 cannot be granted. Consequently, the relief prayed in the connected petition bearing Writ-C No.1004614 of 2013 seeking recognition of the elections claimed by the petitioners dated 01.05.2013 also cannot be granted as admittedly as per the petitioners the term of office has come to an end in the year 2016. There is nothing on record to indicate as to what transpired thereafter and whether the petitioners participated in any election and was elected and in effective control. Hence, the relief claimed in the two petitions are rendered otiose and no relief can be granted to the petitioners both in Writ-C No.1005991 of 2012 and in Writ-C No.1004614 of 2013 and they shall stand dismissed.

57. For the aforesaid detailed discussions, all the three writ petitions i.e. Writ-C No.1005991 of 2012, Writ-C No.1004628 of 2012 and Writ-C No.1004614 of 2013 are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 7th July, 2025

ank/-