Allahabad High Court
Satya Bhan Singh And 157 Others vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 19 March, 2025
Author: Jaspreet Singh
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. -2025:AHC-LKO:15780-DB
Reserved
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 72 of 2025
Appellant :- Satya Bhan Singh and 157 others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Finance Department. Lucknow and 24 others
Counsel for Appellant :- Sudeep Kumar,Anshuman Singh Rathore
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mahendra Bahadur Singh,Rakesh Kumar
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
(Per:- Jaspreet Singh, J.)
1. In this intra-court appeal, a challenge has been made to the order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the writ-court in Writ-C No. 11306 of 2024 (Pawan Kumar Singh & 15 Others Vs. State of U.P. and others) whereby the operation of the order impugned in the writ petition dated 04th December, 2024 was stayed, as a consequence, the elections of Sri Dulhe Rai Vidyalaya Bhadar Vikas Kshetria Bhadar Society (hereinafter referred to as "the Society) could not proceed as per the election programme declared by the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Ayodhya Region, Ayodhya (hereinafter referred to as "the Deputy Registrar").
2. The controversy involved in this intra-court appeal has a prelude.
3. The private respondent nos. 6 to 21 (the writ-petitioners) filed Writ-C No. 11306 of 2024 challenging the order dated 04.12.2024 passed by the Deputy Registrar whereby a corrected list of 345 of the General Body of the said Society was accepted and an Election Programme was issued for holding the elections on 29.12.2024 so that the affairs of the Society, which had been declared to be time-barred, could be handed over to its elected members at the earliest.
4. The record indicates that the said Society was renewed from time to time and each time on its renewal, a list of members were duly submitted with the office of the Deputy Registrar.
5. The record indicates that the bye-laws of the said Society were amended some time in the year 2006 and the term of the elected Committee of Management was extended to 5 years instead of 3 years.
6. The record further indicates that since 2015 onwards, there were certain resignations and inductions in the Committee of Management of the said Society and the same were also informed to the Deputy Registrar.
7. In the aforesaid backdrop, Sri Bhagwati Prasad Singh in the capacity of the Manager of the said Society had submitted a letter on 13.01.2017 enclosing therewith a list of the Committee of Management of the said Society as well as a list of the General Body members also indicating the persons who had resigned.
8. It is at this stage that the Deputy Registrar issued notices to the persons concerned and in response thereto, complaints were sent to the Deputy Registrar that there was no alleged meeting held on 31.12.2016 nor any elections were held as per the bye-laws.
9. Upon receiving the said complaints, the Deputy Registrar called upon the warring factions and passed an order on 20.06.2017 directing the members to hold an election of the Committee of Management by mutual consent on the basis of the undisputed list of General Body members for the year 2013-14.
10. Since no elections could be held in pursuance of the order dated 20.06.2017, hence, the Deputy Registrar required the warring factions to file their evidences in support of their respective claims so that the dispute regarding the membership and its impact of the alleged elections be decided.
11. It is at this stage Sri Yagya Narain Singh and 5 others moved an application before the Deputy Registrar stating that the issue relating to the membership of the General Body may first be considered and only then the election of the Committee of Management of the said Society may be held.
12. On the other hand, another faction led by Sri Sita Ram Singh made an application before the Deputy Registrar that the ongoing dispute may be decided in pursuance of a compromise entered between the warring factions as the parties who were aggrieved and had stated that the election were not held, had given up their claims.
13. In the aforesaid backdrop, one Sri Shiv Kumar Singh moved an application reiterating that fresh elections should be held after resolving the issue of the membership of the General body.
14. The Deputy Registrar noticing that there were conflicting claims and the issue of membership was required to be considered, hence, directed the parties, as a last opportunity, to submit their written submissions so that the core issue relating to the list of members of the General Body be decided.
15. The Deputy Registrar on 21.11.2020 finalized an interim list of 400 members of the General Body of the Society and further invited objections. It also noticed that the Committee had become time-barred w.e.f. 25.11.2018. Thereafter the Deputy Registrar noticing the objections filed regarding the said list, finalized a list of 345 members and also declared an election schedule appointing the Tehsildar as the Election Officer by its order dated 21.10.2021.
16. It is at this stage that the private respondent nos. 6 to 21 (herein) challenged the said order dated 21.11.2020 and 21.10.2021 by filing Writ-C No. 26363 of 2021 wherein the private respondents no. 6 to 21 had raised objections regarding the finalization of the list of 345 members as well as the election schedule. Even though, there was no interim order granted by the writ court in Writ-C no. 26363 of 2021 yet neither the list was considered to be final nor the elections to the said Society proceeded despite the fact that the Society had been declared as time-barred since 25.11.2018.
17. Sri Sitaram Singh moved an application before the Deputy Registrar informing him that though the writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 26363 of 2021 was pending before the High Court, yet there was no interim order, hence, the proceedings should be taken forward to its logical conclusion so that elections could be held and in the same vein the Deputy Registrar directed the members to publish the list of General Body members in Daily Newspapers inviting objections within 15 days. Even after due publication made in leading newspapers. However, no objections were received and thereafter the order dated 04.12.2024 was passed by the Deputy Registrar not only declaring the list of 345 members but also went ahead in declaring the election programme.
18. As the elections were scheduled to be held on 29.12.2024, once again the respondent nos. 6 to 21 filed a fresh writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 11306 of 2024 wherein the learned Single Judge by means of order dated 20.12.2024 stayed the operation of the order dated 04.12.2024, as a result elections, scheduled, to be held on 29.12.2024 came to a standstill.
19. Sri Sudeep Kumar, learned counsel assisted by Sri Anshuman Singh Rathore has urged that once the dispute regarding the list of General Body members which had gained acceptance and the same, though, assailed by the private respondent nos. 6 to 21 in the earlier writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 26363 of 2021 and there being no interim order staying the operation of the list, it was not open for the private respondent nos. 6 to 21 to have filed a fresh writ petition whereas the entire cause of action for the instant writ petition was nothing but a consequence of the earlier order which was passed by the Deputy Registrar and was the subject matter of the pending Writ-C No. 26363 of 2021 and without there being a restrain on the earlier order, it was not open to stay the consequential order.
20. The learned counsel for the appellants has further urged that the private respondent nos. 6 to 21 did not take any measure to get the earlier writ petition listed or decided but nevertheless filed a fresh writ petition and in any case, the Deputy Registrar in its order dated 04.12.2024 had already indicated that the same was subject to the outcome of the earlier Writ Petition bearing Writ-C No. 26363 of 2021, consequently, there was no justification for the learned Single Judge to have granted an interim order dated 20.12.2024, which in effect, has the impact of practically staying the operation of the impugned order dated 21.12.2020 which was assailed in earlier Writ-C No. 26363 of 2021.
21. The aforesaid principles were also relied upon by a Division Bench of this Court in Ram Janam Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others; 2024 SCC Online 2387. It is thus urged that the order impugned deserves to be set aside after allowing the instant intra-court appeal.
22. Sri M.B. Singh, learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 6 to 21 (the petitioners before the writ-court) submits that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the controversy and the very fact that the initial order by which the list had been accepted by the Deputy Registrar which was under challenge in Writ-C No. 26363 of 2021, till such time, the said list attained finality, there was no purpose of holding an election which in any case would be a futile exercise and in such circumstances, it was necessary to protect the rights as well as to minimize the litigation, hence, the passing of the interim order dated 20.12.2024 was only just and proper.
23. It is further urged that in any case the order impugned dated 20.12.2024 is only interim in nature which does not finally decide the rights of the parties, hence, an intra-court appeal against the said order may not be entertained by this Court and the matter can be decided by the writ court on merits.
24. It is further urged that the purity of an electoral college is sine qua non for a validly elected Committee of Management. In case if the source is polluted then the entire exercise cannot remain untainted.
25. It is urged that taking note of the aforesaid proposition, the writ court was justified in connecting the instant writ-petition with the earlier pending writ petition and it also permitted the appellants to file their counter and it is only till that time the interim protection was granted.
26. It is also urged that the appellants herein have ample opportunity to file their counter affidavit and get the writ petition itself decided before the learned Single Judge expeditiously, hence, the intra-court appeal be dismissed.
27. Moreover, Sri Anand Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State while referring to a copy of the counter affidavit filed by the State in Writ-C no. 26363 of 2021 submits that a specific stand has been taken by the State that as per the records available with them, General Body list of 401 members is available which has been approved after making the necessary corrections therein i.e. to state by deleting those members who have since expired and was the list to 395 members.
28. The Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material on record including the copy of the earlier writ petition bearing writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 26363 of 2021 as well as the counter affidavit filed by the State in the said petition which was provided to the Court for perusal in terms of order passed by this Court dated 17.02.2025.
29. In light of the facts as noticed by this Court, it cannot be disputed that the Society has been rendered time-barred. If the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner is taken note of, in that situation also, the last undisputed election took place in the year 2013 and the term of the elected Committee of Management came to an end in the year 2018.
30. On the other hand, if the contentions of the learned counsel for the private respondents nos. 6 to 21 is noticed and despite their allegations that the term of the Society was extended from 3 to 5 years which did not gain acceptance by the Deputy Registrar but the fact remains that the term of the Society had already come to an end and post the year 2018, no elections were held. Whether the term of the Committee was three years or five years but either way the term stood expired without any election.
31. In such circumstances, the only option before the Deputy Registrar was to get an election held and it is in furtherance thereof that the Deputy Registrar proceeded further to get an election held so that the affairs of the Society could be handed over to its validly elected Committee of Management.
32. Another fact that could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 6 to 21 that the list of members which had been accepted by the Deputy Registrar includes the names of the private respondent nos. 6 to 21. The Deputy Registrar had ordered the list of members to be published in a newspaper with sufficient particulars in so far as the names and addresses of the members were concerned and invited objections and despite the time allowed, no objections were received, hence, he went on to pass the order dated 04.12.2024 directing the elections to be held and also taking care of the fact that some disgruntled members had filed a writ petition bearing Writ-C No. 26363 of 2021, hence, it made its order dated 04.12.2021 subject to the outcome of the writ petition.
33. Another fact which could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the private respondent nos. 6 to 21 that the order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 20.06.2017 was never challenged by any of the members or by the Committee of Management of the Society.
34. It is also not disputed that the Society has been renewed from time to time. Taking into consideration the list of members of the year 2013 upon which the elections were held, whose term came to an end in the year 2018, yet this election or the list was never challenged at any point of time.
35. Now, after the said Committee which came into control of the affairs of the Society in the year 2013 and its term came to an end in the year 2018 was not made the subject matter of any challenge directly, hence, it cannot be done indirectly either.
36. In the aforesaid backdrop, this Court finds that even though the list of members was accepted and in order to bring in more transparency and certainty, the same was published in the newspapers along with the father's name and addresses so that any person aggrieved could respond but despite opportunity, no objections came forward, only thereafter the order dated 04.12.2024 came to be passed.
37. In the given circumstances where the Committee of Management of the Society had become time-barred, it was but essential for the Deputy Registrar to proceed and in this vein he has finalized the list of members and made it subject to the outcome of the pending Writ Petition No. Writ-C No. 26363 of 2021. Noticeably, the said writ petition remained pending without any interim order, hence, in absence of any restrain order, the matter could not be left in limbo, hence, the Deputy Registrar proceeded to get the elections held which now been stalled by the interim order passed in Writ-C No. 11306 of 2024, which is under challenge.
38. It is now too well settled that once the election process has been initiated, the writ court is loath to intervene to stall the elections. The Apex Court in Shaji K. Joseph v. V. Viswanath, (2016) 4 SCC 429 in paragraphs no. 15 and 16 has held as under:-
"15. In our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering with the process of election especially when the process of election had started upon publication of the election programme on 27-1-2011 and more particularly when an alternative statutory remedy was available to Respondent 1 by way of referring the dispute to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations. So far as the issue with regard to eligibility of Respondent 1 for contesting the election is concerned, though prima facie it appears that Respondent 1 could contest the election, we do not propose to go into the said issue because, in our opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without the court's order. Very often, for frivolous reasons, candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election.
16. This Court, in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer [N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, (1952) 1 SCC 94 : AIR 1952 SC 64] has held that once the election process starts, it would not be proper for the courts to interfere with the election process. Similar view was taken by this Court in Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra [Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha v. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509] .
39. Similarly, in W.B. State Election Commission v. Communist Party of India (Marxist), (2018) 18 SCC 141 wherein the Apex Court has reiterated the aforesaid principles and the same reads as under:-
"21. Moreover, the election process had already been initiated. The last date for the filing of nominations was over. The directions issued by the High Court are in the teeth of the settled principle of self-restraint which governs the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 once the election process commences. Moreover, such a direction would be contrary to the provisions of Article 243-O of the Constitution. In this view of the matter, we are of the view that the High Court was in error in issuing directions for the acceptance of nominations in the electronic form. The judgment of the High Court would accordingly have to be set aside.
*****
29. There is merit in the submission that the discipline which is mandated by the provisions of the Constitution and enforced by the enabling State law on the subject must be maintained. Any dispute in regard to the validity of the election has to be espoused by adopting a remedy which is known to law, namely, through an election petition. It is at the trial of an election petition that factual disputes can be resolved on the basis of evidence. This principle has been consistently adhered to in decisions of this Court. In Boddula Krishnaiah [Boddula Krishnaiah v. State Election Commr., A.P., (1996) 3 SCC 416] , a three-Judge Bench adverted to the decisions of the Constitution Bench in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, (1952) 1 SCC 94 and in Lakshmi Charan Sen v. A.K.M. Hassan Uzzaman, (1985) 4 SCC 689 . After referring to Ponnuswami , it was observed :
"8. In N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency (1952) 1 SCC 94 a Constitution Bench of this Court had held that having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognised to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time-schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted. In conformity with the principle, the scheme of the election law is that no significance should be attached to anything which does not affect the "election"; and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating the "election"; and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a Special Tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress."
The binding principle must be followed."
40. This exercise of stalling the elections in the given circumstances was not justified and in the aforesaid circumstances where the matter is yet to be considered on merits, hence, both the writ petitions which have been connected by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference, however, staying the operation of the order dated 04.12.2024 in effect amounts to staying the entire election process which in light of several decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court may not be in sound exercise of jurisdiction.
41. Since the matter is already engaging the attention of the learned Single Judge, this Court is of the view that any observations made by this Court may impact the rights of the respective parties before the learned Single Judge, hence, refraining from giving any conclusive findings on any issue, this Court is of the considered view that the order dated 20.12.2024 in so far as it stays the operation of the order dated 04.12.2024 was not justified and the same is accordingly set aside.
42. It is made clear that any observations made by this Court is only tentative for the purposes of examining the order dated 20.12.2024 in so far as it stayed the operation of the order dated 04.12.2024. The parties will be at liberty of raising their contentions before the learned Single Judge who is requested to decide the same expeditiously.
43. With the aforesaid, the instant intra-court appeal is partly allowed.
Order Date :- 19th March, 2025.
Asheesh/-
(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)
