HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 34298 of 2025 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for petitioners - Welfare Association and Ms. Rama Goel Bansal, learned counsel for respondent - 3. 2. Petitioner - 1 is SAC Resident Welfare Association (RWA), Sanfran Ashok City, Jhansi and Petitioner - 2 is claiming himself to be a President of said RWA whereas respondent-3 is Secretary of said RWA. 3. It appears that some complaints were made against petitioner-2 by respondent - 3 about working and conduct of petitioner - 2 before Registrar, therefore, a notice dated 21.08.2025 was issued to petitioner -2 to submit his reply and petitioner -2 was called to present his case on any working day. The petitioner -2 has filed a reply to said notice on 25.08.2025. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that on one hand, Registrar has asked the petitioner to submit his reply and on the other hand, on same day, the impugned order was passed whereby after taking note that petitioner -2 was allegedly removed from the post of President, a further direction was passed whereby bank account of RWA was seized. 5. It has also been brought on record by learned counsel for Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Gautam Baghel, Umesh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rama Goel Bansal, Shalini Goel S.A.C. Resident Welfare Association And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) respondent - 3 that aforesaid order was later on diluted to the extent that salary of employees of concerned RWA could be paid from said bank account by respondent - 3 as well as that term of present RWA is now coming to an end and fresh election is due in later part of October, 2025. 6. Learned counsel for petitioners further submits that finding returned in impugned order dated 21.08.2025 that petitioner has already been removed from concerned RWA was returned without giving any opportunity to hearing to petitioner-2 and further submits that said finding may not be considered as final opinion since petitioner - 2 may have a case that said action was contrary to procedure. 7. Learned counsel for respondent - 3, at this stage, submits that question is only whether bank account could be seized or not and by subsequent order, for necessary and essential payments, said respondent - 3 is directed to operate bank account, therefore, till fresh election is conducted, impugned order may not be interfered. 8. I have considered rival submissions and perused the records. 9. From perusal of impugned order, it appears that petitioner -2 was not heard before impugned order was passed. So far as findings returned in impugned order that petitioner - 2 was removed from RWA may not be considered as a final opinion since petitioner -2 has liberty to raise his claim before appropriate forum, if so advised. 10. Now question remains whether what would be the effect of order of seizure of bank account of concerned RWA? 11. As referred above, for essential payments, Registrar has permitted to operate the bank account and for that respondent - 3 is authorized. 12. In aforesaid circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with an observation that since Court has already observed findings WRIC No. 34298 of 2025 2 returned so far as removal of President from concerned RWA is not final since petitioner was not heard, therefore, even if bank account is seized and some permission is granted, it has to be granted to petitioner - 2 and respondent - 3 both since Regulations of concerned RWA also provide that bank account has to be operated by both persons i.e. President and Secretary and for that, petitioner - 2 and respondent - 3 shall move separate application within 2 days and that concerned Registrar will pass an appropriate order for operating bank account by both persons in necessity till fresh elections are conducted. October 9, 2025 N. Sinha WRIC No. 34298 of 2025 3 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIRMAL SINHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad