Gaurav Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 12539 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Gaurav Pratap Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 15 November, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 



 

 

 

 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
LUCKNOW
 
WRIT - C No. - 10142 of 2025
 

 
Gaurav Pratap Singh
 

 

 
..Petitioner(s)
 

 

 

 

 
Versus
 

 

 

 

 
State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institution Finance Lko. and 4 others
 

 

 
..Respondent(s)
 

 

 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
 
:
 
Atharva Arya, Abhishek Singh, Anuj Kumar Gupta
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)
 
:
 
C.S.C., Awadhesh Kumar Pandey, Ayush Pandey, Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi
 

 

 
Court No. - 17 
 

 
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Abhishek Singh, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Devendra Mohan Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of U.P., Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.5 and perused the records.

2. By means of the writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 17.09.2025, passed by the Deputy Register, Ayodhya Division, a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner and Shri Vinay Kumar Singh, Smt. Madhumati Singh, Shri Mohammad Lukman, Shri Manish Kumar Singh, Shri Amarnath Singh, Smt. Seema Singh, Shri Utkarsh Singh, Late Ajay Kumar Singh and Shri Gajraj Singh that they are members of the general body of Hukum Singh Intermediate College, Kaiserganj, Bahraich has been rejected and the persons included in the list of 27 members of the general body finalized earlier, have been held to be eligible to participate in the election of the committee of management of the society.

3. The District Inspector of School, Bahraich, has been nominated as the Returning Officer to conduct the election of the management committee of the society under section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, and he has been directed to conduct the elections within one month.

4. The opposite party no.5 has filed a counter affidavit which has been taken on record.

5. Sri. Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, the learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 5 has raised a preliminary objection against maintainability of the Writ Petition and he has submitted that if the Deputy Register has determined the strength of general body and declared the election schedule in exercise of powers under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act, such order is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In support of this contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments in the cases of Basant Prasad Srivastava and Others versus State of U. P. and Others: 1993 SCC OnLine All 146, Rama Kant & Another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chit Funds, U.P. Varanasi and Others, 2005 SCC OnLine All 139, C/M Sheshnath Junior High School and Another v. State of U.P. and Others 2012 SCC OnLine All 3188, Fahim Ahmad and another Vs. State of U.P. and others: 2006 (24) LCD 1078, Shahabuddin Khan and others versus Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ayodhya and others: 2022 (40) LCD 1703, Umesh Shivappa Ambi v. Angadi Shekara Basappa, (1998) 4 SCC 529 and Tapash Majumder v. Pranab Dasgupta: (2004) 13 SCC 574.

6. Shahabuddin Khan and others versus Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Ayodhya and others: 2022 (40) LCD 1703 relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Opposite Party No. 5 is a judgment rendered by this Bench in which the earlier judgments in Basant Prasad Srivastava and Others versus State of U. P. and Others and Fahim Ahmad and another Vs. State of U.P. and others have been considered and this court has concluded that: -

"...there is no absolute bar against invoking this Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ affecting the election process after its commencement, it depends upon the facts of each case, whether the same makes out an exceptional case so as to warrant interference by this Court or not.

Thereafter the Court proceeded to examine the rival contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties regarding the merits of their respective claims and concluded as follows: -

24. Considering the submission made by the counsels for the contesting parties, I find that this Court cannot record finding regarding the petitioners being special members of the Society as their names were not included in the list of members finalized by the Deputy Registrar in the order dated 12.08.2011 which was passed under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act.

25. The elections are scheduled to be held tomorrow i.e. on 16.06.2022, it will be open to the petitioners to raise their claim in an appropriate proceedings challenging the elections and claiming a declaration regarding their membership status.

26. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed."

7. In Shahabuddin (Supra), this Court has relied upon a Division Bench judgment in the case of Banwari Lal Kanchal v. Bhartendu Agarwal: 2019 SCC OnLine All 4739, in which the following questions specific had been formulated for consideration: -

"(i) Whether the election process commenced with the finalization of electoral college can be challenged in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India?

(ii) Whether an individual member has locus to challenge the election process or the result thereof?

(iii) Whether this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India can examine the disputed question of facts in regard to induction of members of general body of the society or not?"

The Division Bench took into consideration various precedents, including Committee of Management, Maharana Pratap Vidyalaya Prabandh Samiti v. State of U.P.: 2013 (10) ADJ 532 (DB), Uttam Nishad v. State of U.P.: 2006 (6) AWC 6354, Fahim Ahmad v. State of U.P. (Supra) and Basant Prasad Srivastava v. State of U.P. (Supra) and held that: -

"70. We have examined the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant in regard to the maintainability of writ petition of initiation of election process by finalizing the electoral college. The law is very much settled that the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere in the election process, ordinarily is not maintainable when there are disputed question of facts and the remedy is to avail civil suit after holding of election. We are with the full agreement that ordinarily election process should not be interfered with, but in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned Single Judge has recorded finding that the appellant-respondent has not been enrolled as member as the provision contained under the registered bye-laws laws of the society. If the members who have been permitted to participate in the election found their induction to be in utter disregard of the provisions contained under the registered bye-laws of the society and they are not able to establish their induction in consonance with the provisions of the bye-laws, it is always open to this Court in exercise of discretionary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to examine the issue of membership and holding of election on the basis of members who are not legally enrolled as members."

8. The learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 5 has also relied upon the judgment in the case of Umesh Shivappa Ambi v. Angadi Shekara Basappa, (1998) 4 SCC 529, wherein the Honble Supreme Court held that: -

"4.It is now well settled that once an election is over, the aggrieved candidate will have to pursue his remedy in accordance with the provisions of law and this Court will not ordinarily interfere with the elections under Article 226 of the Constitution. (See in this connection para 3 in K.K. Shrivastava v. Bhupendra Kumar Jain [(1977) 2 SCC 494 : AIR 1977 SC 1703].) The Court will not ordinarily interfere where there is an appropriate or equally efficacious remedy available, particularly in relation to election disputes. In the present case, under Section 70(2)(C) of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959 any dispute arising in connection with the election of a President, Vice-President, Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Secretary, Treasurer or member of Committee of the Society has to be referred to the Registrar by raising a dispute before him. The Registrar is required to decide this in accordance with law.

9. The learned Counsel for the opposite party no. 5 has also relied upon the following passage from the judgment in the case of Tapash Majumder v. Pranab Dasgupta: (2004) 13 SCC 574: -

"3. The dispute relates to general elections of the East Bengal Club. The petitioners have filed a suit seeking corrections in the voters' list and appointment of a special officer for holding and conducting the elections. By order dated 5-7-2004, the learned Single Judge has refused to stay the holding of the elections and instead directed that the elections may be held and the result of the elections shall abide by the result of the application pending before him. The petitioners went in appeal which has been dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this special leave petition.

4. It is conceded at the Bar that the elections are fixed for Sunday, 8-8-2004. We are not inclined to stay the elections. However, we allow the petitioners the liberty of filing their objections before the learned Single Judge. Such objections filed before the learned Single Judge shall be heard and decided summarily without regard to the nature and scope of the suit before the learned Single Judge. If the learned Single Judge feels that proper elections have not been held and a case for holding elections afresh is made out, then the learned Single Judge would be at liberty to direct elections being held afresh and pass appropriate incidental and consequential orders."

10. Thus the legal position is well settled that there is no absolute bar against maintainability of a Writ Petition against an order passed by the Deputy Register determining the strength of general body and declaring the election schedule. Now this Court proceeds to examine the merits of the case.

11. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the society, Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Samiti, Kaiserganj, District Bahraich, was registered on 10.12.1958. This society runs an intermediate college under the name and style of Hukum Singh Inter College, Kaiserganj, Bahraich, which is covered under the grant-in-aid scheme of the State Government. On 26.12.1982, the name of the society was changed to Hukum Singh Intermediate College, Kaiserganj, Bahraich.

12. On 08.08.2005, the Deputy Registrar had finalized the list of 80 life members of the General Body of the Society. Byelaws of the Society were amended on 19.11.2008, so as to extend the tenure of the Managing Committee of the Society from three years to five years. Under the scheme of administration of the college run by the Society, the tenure of the Managing Committee of the college is three years.

13. An election to elect the office bearers and members of the committee of management of the Society was held on 08.09.2013 from amongst 80 members of the General Body of the Society, in which Vijay Kumar Singh (since deceased) was elected as the Manager and the opposite party no.5, Vishwa Pal Singh was elected as the Treasurer. On 16.05.2015, the opposite party no.5 and some other persons filed objections against the election of the Society held on 08.09.2013, but the objections were rejected by means of an order dated 17.02.2017, passed by the Deputy Registrar, who upheld the validity of the elections held on 08.09.2013. This order was not assailed by any party and it attained finality.

14. The petitioner's contention is that ten life members including the petitioner were inducted in the General Body of the Society on 05.07.2018 after approval of the General Body and each of them paid ₹2000 as subscription fee, which was deposited in the account of the Society. Thus, the strength of the General Body became of 90 members. On 05.09.2018, the last elections of the Managing Committee of the Society were held by the Electoral College consisting of 90 members of the General Body of the Society, in which Shri Vijay Kumar Singh (since deceased) was elected as the Manager, and the opposite party no.5 was elected as the Treasurer. On 19.10.2020, the then Manager of the Society, Late Vijay Kumar Singh, submitted an application to the Deputy Registrar for renewal of registration of the Society along with the relevant documents including evidence of deposit of subscription including the statement of income/expenditure of the Society for the year 2018-19, which mentioned the receipt of ₹2000 towards subscription fee of 10 newly inducted members. On 12.10.2020, the Deputy Registrar issued a certificate of renewal of the Society, which mentioned that the renewal of registration will be valid for the period up to 10.10.2025.

15. Shri Vijay Kumar Singh (the then Manager of the Society) and his son Ajay Singh (a member of the Society) died on 24.04.2021 due to the Covid-19 pandemic. On 24.05.2021, the elections were held to constitute the Managing Committee of the management of the Inter College, in which Shri Suresh Kumar Singh, who was the President of the committee of management of the Society, was elected as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the College which position was earlier held by Late Vijay Kumar Singh.

16. Shri Suresh Kumar Singh resigned, and a member of the Managing Committee, Shri Ram Dhiraj Singh died due to which elections were held again on 08.06.2022 to reconstitute the Committee of Management of the Inter College, in which the opposite party no. 5 was elected as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Inter College. The petitioner has specifically pleaded that the opposite party no. 5 was never elected as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Society.

17. On 09.06.2022, the Principal of the Intermediate College, who is also the ex-officio Secretary of the Managing Committee of the College, sent a letter to the District Inspector of Schools for verification of the signature of the opposite party no. 5. This letter was accompanied by a list of 90 members of the General Body, including the petitioner.

18. A public function was held in the college on 15.08.2022, in which felicitation certificates were distributed to the members of the society ceremoniously. A certificate was issued to the petitioner also stating that he was being felicitated for his immense contribution as a life member of the institution Hukum Singh inter College. Some photographs have been annexed with the writ petition depicting the ceremonial distribution of the felicitation certificates on a stage.

19. On 27.10.2023 the opposite party no.5 submitted a list containing the names of 31 members of the general body of the society to the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, which does not include the name of the petitioner. The letter written by the opposite party no.5 and the list annexed with the letter bear the signatures of the opposite party no.5 along with the seal describing him as "the Manager, Hukum Singh Enter College Kaiserganj, Bahraich (Uttar Pradesh)" whereas, the opposite party no.5 was a Manager of the committee of management of the college, and not of the society managing the College. On 18.01.2024, the Deputy Registrar, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya registered the list of members of the general body of the society submitted by the opposite party no.5, and the order specifically states that the list was being registered in the interest of the institution and in case any relevant facts have been concealed or any misstatement of facts has been made, the opposite party no.5 will be responsible for the same and the registration will be illegal, null and void since the date of inception.

20. On 06.05.2024, Smt. Madhumati Singh, who was inducted as a member of the general body of the society along with nine other persons, including the petitioner, submitted an application to the Deputy Registrar stating that the order dated 18.01.2024 registering the list of 31 members of the general body has been obtained on the basis of forged documents and by concealment of facts and she requested for recall/review of the order and she also requested for being provided with an opportunity of personal hearing.

21. Upon the aforementioned application filed by Smt. Madhumati Singh, a notice dated 16.05.2024 was issued to the opposite party no.5, giving him an opportunity to place his reply/documents/evidence. The opposite party no.5 did not file any reply and by means of a letter dated 11.06.2024, the next date for hearing was fixed for 27.06.2024 for hearing. On 27.06.2024, a vakalatnama was filed on behalf of the opposite party no.5. A notice was issued to the opposite party no.5, who submitted a written reply, stating that the names of 49 dead members have been deleted from the valid list of members of the general body existing in the year 2005 and a list containing the names of 31 members has been registered. Ten members have been added or said to have been inducted in the society in a fraudulent manner. These members are close family associates of the complainant Smt. Madhumati Singh. It was further stated in the objection that the election of the managing committee of the college was held on 08.06.2022 from amongst the living members, out of the 80 original members. No agenda had been issued for the induction of any new members, and no proceedings had been held in this regard. The alleged new members have not paid even a rupee towards subscription. Their membership is not proved and is liable to be canceled.

22. Regarding the felicitations letter, it was stated in the reply that the felicitation letter was prepared by Anand Kumar Singh, and he obtained signatures of the opposite parties on it amongst numerous other forms on the morning of 15.08.2022. He filed affidavits of 17 members in support of his contention. The Deputy Registrar thereafter passed an order dated 16.01.2025 rejecting the application submitted by Smt. Madhumati Singh upholding the objections of the opposite party no.5 and he published a tentative list of 31 valid members of the Society, and invited objections thereon.

23. On 08.04.2025, the Deputy Register passed an order deleting the names of five dead persons out of the tentative list containing 31 names and he published a final list of 27 members. The petitioner-Gaurav Pratap Singh and another member of the Society filed Writ-C No.2355 of 2025 and the complainant-Smt. Madhumati Singh filed Writ-C No. 2054 of 2025, holding that the order dated 16.01.2025 which were allowed by means of a judgement and order dated 02.05.2025, holding that the order dated 16.01.2025 had been passed without affording opportunity of hearing to the affected parties and it was quashed. It was left open for the Deputy Register to issue notice to the affected persons and to decide the matter afresh. The petitioner and six other persons filed affidavits before the Deputy Register stating their life membership subscription receipt numbers and dates, and they further stated that they had participated in the election of the Society held on 05.09.2018. On 19.08.2025 the aforesaid persons filed written submissions along with original membership subscription receipts. The opposite party no.5 also filed the written submissions on 18.08.2025. Thereafter, the Deputy Registrar has passed the impugned order dated 17.09.2025 wherein the version of the petitioner and the opposite party no.5 has been reproduced entirely. The opposite party no.5 has stated in his reply that interpolation has been made in the records to show induction of 10 members, after the death of the previous Manager Shri Vijay Kumar Singh and for this reason, page number 510/1 has been inserted. The Deputy Register held that in the receipts submitted by the alleged 10 members the name of the institution is written as "Hukum Singh Inter College, Kaisarganj, Bahraich" and it is written on it that सदस्यता शुल्क, साधारण सभा हुकुम सिंह उ. मा. विद्यालय,केसरगंज, बहराइच. Thus there is variance in the name of the society on membership receipts. No other document has been submitted to substantiate the claim of membership, as provided in Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act. The register of Members of the General Body and minute book thereof, cash book, receipt book of Membership Fee and Bank Passbook of the Society have not been produced it is clear that no meeting was held for induction of members and no approved document in this regard is available. Therefore, the claim of membership of 10 persons is not proved in absence of documents. Accordingly, the Deputy Register finalized the list of 27 members for election of the Committee of Management of the Society.

24. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Deputy Register has disbelieved the receipts merely on the basis of a slight discrepancy in the spelling of the Societys name mentioned on the subscription receipt without examining the subscription receipt of other undisputed members and comparing the same with the receipts issued to 10 members and without verifying the deposit of subscription made by the petitioner and other members. He had submitted that the Deputy Registrar has not taken into consideration the provisions contained in section 15 of the Society Registration Act and has passed the order keeping in view the provisions contained in Section 4-B of the Act. He has submitted that the Deputy Register has passed the impugned order after ignoring the subscription receipts of the petitioner and other persons, ignoring the fact that the petitioner's name finds place in the list of members of General Body, submitted at the time of renewal of registration of the Society on 09.10.2020, the statement of income and expenditure for the financial year 2018-19 submitted at the time of renewal and the list of General Body annexed to the letter dated 09.06.2022 sent by the Principal of the Institution to the DIOS, Bahraich for verification of signature of opposite party no.5.

25. The learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that as the Deputy Register had renewed the registration of the Society vide order dated 12.10.2020 after examining the records mentioned in Section 4-B (Register of membership of the General Body, minute book, cash book, receipt book and bank passbook), he could not have taken a contrary view while passing the impugned order.

26. The next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the felicitation certificate issued by the opposite party no.5 to the petitioner and other life members is an admission by the opposite party no.5 regarding membership of the petitioner and this document has been ignored by the Deputy Register while passing the impugned order. Further, in the para 21 of the objections filed by the opposite party no.5, he has not categorically denied the petitioner's induction as a life member of the Society.

27. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the relevant documents of the Society are in possession of the opposite party no.5 and the Deputy Register ought to have summoned the same from the opposite party no.5 for cross-verification of the claim of the membership of the petitioner and nine other members.

28. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the opposite party no.5 has created a semblance of membership dispute by getting a forged General Body list of the Society submitted by the Principal of the Society, whereas Section Four-B (3) required such a list to be submitted by two office bearers and two executive members of the Society.

29. Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.5, has submitted that the membership receipts dated 05.07.2018 are forged, fabricated and antedated documents. After a categorical finding was recorded by the Deputy Registrar in his earlier order dated 16.01.2025 had such receipts been in existence, the same might have been submitted before the Deputy Registrar prior to passing of the order dated 16.01.2025. The membership receipts had not been submitted before the Deputy Registrar till passing of the previous order dated 16.01.2025 and the same have been produced subsequently, which shows that the receipts have been forged, fabricated and antedated.

30. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.5 has drawn the attention of the court towards the pleadings contained in paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, wherein it is stated that, although the society was renewed for its period of five years with effect from 10.10.2020, the petitioner denies that the documents had been submitted along with the application for renewal of the society. The renewal was obtained by the petitioner and other members of his family and in collusion with some officials of the office of the Deputy Registrar, who have replaced the original record.

31. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioner's father Sri Anand Kumar Singh, used to work as a head clerk in the college, and he retired on 30.08.2022 and he was instrumental in fabrication of documents.

32. Regarding the list of members of general body for the year 2020-21, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.5 has submitted that it is also a forged and antedated document. Further, the list of general body submitted for the year 2020-21 has not been registered and therefore it is of no avail to any person.

33. Regarding the submission based on the letter dated 09.04.2022 sent by the Principal of the College/Secretary of the Managing Committee of the College for signature of the opposite party no.5 as Manager of the College, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.5 has submitted that there is no requirement under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the rules and regulations framed thereunder for submission of a list of members of the general body of the society and this document has purposefully been prepared to support the claim of the petitioner. This list of general body members is not registered in the office of Deputy Registrar and, therefore, it is of no avail. This letter dated 09.04.2022 does not contain any acknowledgment of its receipt in the office of DIOS.

34. Regarding the petitioner's claim of having participated in the last election of the society held on 05.09.2018, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.5 has submitted that that no election was held on 05.09.2018. Submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.5 is that the name of the petitioner and nine other persons does not find place in the agenda dated 30.05.2022 in respect of the mid-term election of the managing committee of the college.

35. The opposite party no.5 has denied that the records of the college are in his custody and the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the court towards the pleadings contained in paras 11 and 12 of the counter affidavit. The opposite party no.5 has stated that these documents were either in the custody of the petitioner's father Anand Kumar Singh, a head clerk of the college, or with the petitioner's uncle, late Vijay Kumar Singh, the then manager of the society.

36. The learned counsel for the opposite party no.5 has submitted that the list of members of the general body of the society, registered vide order dated 18.01.2024, passed by the Deputy Registrar under Section 4 of the Societies Registration Act, has not been challenged under Section 4 (1A) of the Act and it remains final and operative. Any claim against such list is unsustainable.

37. Regarding the felicitation certificate issued by the opposite party no.5 to the petitioner and other members ceremoniously, the submission of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.5 is that the petitioner's father, who was head clerk of the college, had surreptitiously got the certificate signed by the opposite party no.5, but the explanation regarding its ceremonial distribution given by the learned counsel for the opposite party no.5 is that it would have been awkward to deny to distribute the certificate in a ceremony, is apparently unreasonable and this court finds itself unable to accept the same.

38. Having considered the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and those of the learned counsel for the opposite party no.5, I am of the view that although voluminous facts and submissions have been advanced, the only reason assigned by the Deputy Registrar in the impugned order is that there is a difference in the name of the society and that of the institution in the membership receipts, in as much as the society is registered with the name "Hukum Singh Inter College, Kaisarganj Bahraich," whereas the receipt mentions सदस्यता शुल्क, साधारण सभा हुकुम सिंह उ. मा. विद्यालय, केसरगंज, बहराइच. This difference is inconsequential as the learned counsel for the petitioner has demonstrated that this name is used at some other places also.

39. The other reason assigned by the Deputy Registrar is that besides the membership receipts, no other documents mentioned in Section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act have been produced. Undisputedly, the petitioner claiming himself to be member of the general body of the society, was not entitled to custody of those documents and he cannot be penalized for non-production of documents regarding the custody of which he is not entitled. The Members could only have produced membership receipts, which they had. The Deputy Registrar has not disbelieved the genuineness of the receipts and has discarded the same only because of a slight difference in the description of the college.

40. The petitioner's name is mentioned in the list of the general body of the society for the year 2020-21 which bears the signatures of the then Manager, Shri Vijay Kumar Singh. Although, the opposite party no.5 has contended that the records of the society are not in his possession no complaint or FIR has been lodged regarding loss/theft of the records. In these circumstances, the petitioner and other members cannot be blamed for non-production of records.

41. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the view that the impugned order dated 17/9/2025 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Ayodhya Division, Ayodhya U.P. (annexed as Annexure No.1 to the writ petition) finalizing the list of 31 members and ordering elections to be held on that basis, is unsustainable in law. The petitioner and nine other members namely Shri Vinay Kumar Singh, Smt. Madhumati Singh, Shri Mohammad Lukman, Shri Manish Kumar Singh, Shri Amarnath Singh, Smt. Seema Singh, Shri Utkarsh Singh, Late Ajay Kumar Singh and Shri Gajraj Singh are also held to be members of the society. The Deputy Registrar is directed to hold fresh elections to constitute the Committee of Management of the society by including the names of the petitioner and nine other members in accordance with law.

42. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the petition stands allowed.

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

November 15, 2025

Ram.