Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22135 Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3359 of 2025 Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Anjuman Faizul Momaneen Helal, Mauja Lohata And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Irfan Raza Khan,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri N.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Irfan Raza Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 & 2 and Sri Santosh Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for respondent no.3. 2. Sri Santosh Kumar Chaubey, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 states that respondent no.3 does not propose to file counter affidavit and states that writ petition may be decided at this stage. 3. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 20.11.2024 passed by the respondent no.2- Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi in Appeal No.1690 of 2024. 4. A short submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that petitioner has raised objection that respondent no.3 is not a member of the Society, and therefore, he has no locus standi to file the appeal. It is submitted that petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.32427 of 2024 which was dismissed on the ground that at this stage it cannot presume that Commissioner shall not consider the objection of petitioner with regard to membership of respondent no.3. 5. It is further submitted that specific case was set-up by the petitioner before the Commissioner that respondent no.3 is not the member of the Society, and therefore, respondent no.3 has no locus standi to raise any objection against the rights of petitioner to continue as Commitment of Management. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents would contend that it is evident from the record that petitioner has failed to establish that their election dated 20.01.2020 was held in accordance with law. It is submitted that the members of petitioner's Commitment of Management have given affidavit to the effect that their election had not taken place. 7. Be that as it may, the petitioner has earlier approached this Court by filing Writ-C No.32427 of 2024 in which specific objection raised by the petitioner was that he apprehends that Commissioner shall not consider the issue of locus of respondent no.3 in filing the objection on the ground that respondent no.3 is not the member of the Society. This Court had dismissed the aforesaid writ petition stating that it cannot be presumed that Commissioner shall not consider the objection raised by the petitioner. However, in the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, it is manifest that Commissioner has failed to decide the specific objections raised by the petitioner that respondent no.3 is not the member of the Society, and he has no locus standi to file the objection. 8. Leaned counsel for the respondents also could not demonstrate from the impugned order that the Commissioner has considered the objection of petitioner while deciding the appeal. 9. In such view of the fact, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.2-Commissioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 10. For the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Sattyarth Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad