Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:15060 Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3032 of 2025 Petitioner :- Rajendra Prasad Gupta And 6 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Apurva Hajela,Pramod Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- Bachchu Lal Yadav,C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Apurva Hajela, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners by means of the present writ petition have assailed the two orders dated 01.10.2024 & 24.12.2024 passed by the respondent no.2-Deputy Registrar, Societies, Firms & Chits, Agra. 3. By order dated 01.10.2024, the Deputy Registrar has directed to hold the election under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act, 1860') of the Society namely, 'Shri Shyam Lal Sharma Siksha Samiti, Chakatal Aligarh', and has issued a provisional/tentative list of 115 members of the Society, and has invited objections on the aforesaid tentative list. 4. The Deputy Registrar by order dated 24.12.2024 has appointed one Narendra Pal Singh, Principal of Shri Bihari Lal Bharti Inter College, Pali Mukimpur, Aligarh as Election Officer and has also authorised him to decide the final list of the electoral college. 5. The Election Officer has notified the election programme, and according to the election programme, the voter list has been pasted on the notice board, and objections have been invited which were to be submitted by 11.01.2025. The voter list was to be finalised by the Election Officer by 13.01.2025. Thereafter, the election was to be held on 02.02.2025, and result of the same was to be declared on 03.02.2025. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any illegality in the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Agra by which he has proceeded to hold election under Section 25(2) of the Act, 1860, and has issued a tentative list of 115 members. 7. The grievance of the petitioners is that the Deputy Registrar has no power to relegate the Election Officer to decide the issue of membership, and therefore, the entire election based on membership/voter list finalised by the Election Officer is vitiated, and in such view of the fact, the order dated 01.10.2024 is illegal and does not sustainable in law. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that once election process has been set in motion, it is always open to the petitioners to challenge the election process after the election is concluded, therefore, the writ petition at this stage is misconceived, more so when learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality in the order dated 01.10.2024 by which, the Deputy Registrar has directed to proceed with the election under Section 25(2) of the Act, 1860. 9. Be that as it may, the Court has put a query to the learned counsel for the petitioners as to what is the status of the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners are the life members of the Society, and in this regard, necessary averments have been made in paragraph-5 of the writ petition, which reads as under:- "That the admitted facts of the matter are that all the petitioners herein are the life members of the said society which comprises of 4 founder members out of which 3 have already expired." 10. Only an averment with regard to the fact that petitioners are the life members of the Society, and no document has been placed on record to indicate that petitioners are the life members of the Society. 11. The law is no more res integra that if a fact is to be proved by document, it has to be established by necessary documents, and mere assertion in the writ petition is not sufficient to establish the fact. 12. Since, the petitioners have failed to demonstrate from the record that they are the life members of the Society, therefore, this Court is of the view that petitioners have no locus to file the writ petition. 13. It is further pertinent to note that learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality in the order dated 01.10.2024. The petitioners are aggrieved only by order of Deputy Registrar dated 24.12.2024 by which, he has authorised the Election Officer to decide the voter list. 14. The question as to whether the Deputy Registrar can relegate the power to decide the voter list upon the Election Officer can very well be considered after the election is concluded, as it is always open to the petitioners to challenge the election on this ground. 15. The law is settled that once the clock of the election has been set in motion, the Court should not interfere in the election process, and in the present case, no prejudice is caused to the petitioners if the election takes place, inasmuch as, it is always open to the petitioners to challenge the legality of the election if it has not been held in accordance with the procedure contemplated under the law. In such view of the fact, the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Union Territory of Ladakh and Others Vs. Jammu and Kashmir National Conference and Another 2023 Live Law (SC) 749 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is not applicable in the facts of the present case. 16. Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 4.2.2025 Sattyarth Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad