Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9395 Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1278 of 2025 Petitioner :- C/M Rashtriya Shaikshik Maha Sangh, Firozabad Thru. President, Dr. Nirmala Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance, Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinay Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Satyanshu Ojha Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J. 1. Heard Mr. Vinay Misra, learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no. 1 to 3 and Mr. Satyanshu Ojha, learned counsel for opposite party no.4 whose power filed today is taken on record. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 29.10.2024 whereby the Committee of Management of the Society has been declared to be time barred. Also under challenge is the order dated 09.12.2024 whereby the list of General Body of the Society has been approved. Petitioners have also challenged order dated 23.12.2024 finalizing the tentative list of General Body Members. Order/corrigendum dated 01.01.2025 as corrected vide order dated 13.01.2025 is also under challenge. A direction is also being sought to opposite parties to permit the current Committee of Management to function in terms of the bylaws of the society and no fresh elections may be forced upon the society. 3. Since the aspects on which the impugned orders have been passed are already discernible from the perusal of impugned orders themselves, the petition is being adjudicated upon at the admission stage itself without calling for a counter affidavit in terms of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Ors. versus Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 851. 4. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that in terms of Clause (च) of the approved amended bylaws of the society namely Rastriya Shikshak Mahasangh, U.P, the term of Committee of Management is five years from the date of first meeting. It has been submitted that elections to Committee of Management were held on 21.05.2019 but due to advent of Covid-19 pandemic, the first meeting could be held only on 16.10.2020 and therefore the term of Committee of Management of five years was required to be considered from 16.10.2020 and not 21.05.2019 as has been done by impugned order. 5. Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioners with the submission that no such plea was taken by petitioners before authorities concerned and such a plea is being taken for the first time in the writ jurisdiction, which cannot be permitted. 6. Learned counsel for opposite party no.4 has also adverted to the meeting held on 21.05.2019 as well as the meeting held on 12.01.2020 to refute the submission that first meeting of the Committee of Management was held only on 16.10.2020 and in fact at worst was held in January, 2020 due to which the Committee of Management has been rightly held to be time barred and consequential steps have been taken for holding fresh elections. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, particularly the relevant clause of approved amended bylaws, it is evident that the term of the Committee of Management of the Society is five years from the first date of meeting and would continue till a fresh committee is elected. 8. It is, therefore, evident that the Deputy Registrar was required to adjudicate upon the first date of meeting of the Committee of Management from which only the term of five years cannot be construed to be fulfilled. 9. However, from a perusal of impugned order dated 29.10.2024 it is discernible that the Committee has held to be time barred only on account of the fact that its elections were held on 21.05.2019 due to which its term has expired. There is absolutely no mention or consideration of the relevant bylaws applicable upon the society particularly with regard to the first date of meeting. 10. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the approved bylaws specifically provide for a term of the Committee of Management from the first date of its meeting and not from the date of its election, it was incumbent upon the Deputy Registrar to have adjudicated the issue pertaining to Committee being time barred in terms of its first date of meeting and not from the date of its election. 11. The aspect of such a plea not being raised by the petitioners looses its meaning since it is a statutory provision which was being considered by the Deputy Registrar and admittedly it there can't be any estoppel against law. 12. In view of aforesaid facts and the aspect indicated hereinabove, it is evident that the impugned order dated 29.10.2024 has not been passed considering bylaws applicable upon society and is therefore quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to the Deputy Registrar to pass fresh orders pertaining to the Committee of Management having become time barred but only in terms of the relevant provisions of amended bylaws applicable upon society, specifically pertaining to the first date of meeting of the Committee of Management. 13. The consequent impugned orders dated 09.12.2024 and 23.12.2024 as well as the orders/corrigendum dated 01.01.2025 and 13.01.2025 are also hereby by quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. In case the authority concerned comes to a conclusion that the society has become time barred, consequential orders may be passed afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to all concerned who may raise all objections available. 14. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 13.2.2025 Satish Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench