Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 13726 (ALL)

SHRI VIRENDRA KUMAR SARRAF @ PILLU v. STATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS

WRIC/3084/2025 · 2025-02-26

Ashwani Kumar Mishra, Donadi Ramesh

Public Interest Litigationbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27660-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3084 of 2025 Petitioner :- Shri Virendra Kumar Sarraf @ Pillu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Prabhakar Sinha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Prateek Rai Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J. This writ petition is directed against orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor and Chancellor of the respondent University; whereby petitioner's objection in respect of grant of recognition to the election of the committee of management of S.S.V. (P.G.) College, Hapur, has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bye-laws of the committee of management of the institution has been altered without obtaining any prior permission of the Vice- Chancellor as is required in accordance with the Clause 13.05 of the Statutes of the University. The representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the Chancellor after noticing the petitioner's objection itself that the bye-laws of the committee of management was never got approved by the Vice-Chancellor. In the event the bye-laws itself are not approved the question of obtaining any permission of the Vice-Chancellor before any change is made in it will apparently not arise. Changes in the bye-laws are allegedly made from 2000 to 2020 and several elections are held, thereafter. The Chancellor has otherwise observed that periodical election has been held in the year 2016, 2019 and 2022, as per bye-laws of the society. The order also records that only after petitioner has lost the election that he has raised a claim and that there is otherwise no dispute with regard to election of the committee of management of the institution itself. Though, learned counsel for the petitioner states orally that petitioner had not contested the election, but no such pleading is shown to exist in the writ petition. Even otherwise, at the instance of solitary member, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition, particularly when the outgoing committee has been re-elected in subsequent elections. The writ petition fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 Ranjeet Sahu Digitally signed by :- RANJEET SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad