HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 10632 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Vasu Lavania and Sri Rakesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Khare, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of U.P./opposite parties no.2 to 5 and Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Sanjiv Mishra and Sri Ashish Raman Mishra, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.1. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has sought quashing of the entire election process of Committee of Management of Veer Inter College Dhanuhi, Village & Post Dhanuhi, District Bahraich that took place 27.09.2025, since inception, which has culminated on 27.09.2025 and the consequential list of members. 3. The petitioner has himself pleaded in para 12 of the writ petition that alleged illegality has been perpetrating for almost two decades which is the subject matter of this petition. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have raised preliminary objections against the maintainability of the petition stating that the election process already stands completed, result has been declared and signatures of Manager have been countersigned by the District Inspector of Schools on 14.10.2025. The writ petition was filed on 30.10.2025 and neither the declaration of result nor countersigning the signatures consequent to declaration of result have been challenged in this writ petition. They have further submitted that the dispute regarding the elections of Committee of Management should be Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rakesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Raman Mishra, C.S.C. Dihal Das Mishra .....Petitioner(s) C/M Veer Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya Thru. Alleged Manager Rana Aviral Singh And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) raised under Section 16-A(7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act before the Regional Deputy Director of Education and the writ petition is not maintainable in view of the availability of alternative remedy. 4. The next objection raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that the situation prevailing over two decades is being sought to be unsettled through this petition. For the first time the petitioner has raised objection through his letter dated 04.07.2021 but even after that the petitioner did not take recourse to the remedies provided under law and he has filed the writ petition more than four years since his first complaint. They have submitted that the petitioner is guilty of latches and the writ petition having been filed with unreasonable delay is liable to be rejected on this preliminary ground. 5. The last preliminary ground raised by the learned counsel for the opposite parties is that a thorough and deep factual scrutiny will be required for unsettling the position which is in existence for more than two decades and it would not be proper for this court to examine the disputed questions of fact which would need taking the evidence to decide the rival claims, which cannot be done by this court appropriately. 6. Confronted with the aforesaid objections, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not want to press the petition and he seeks liberty to institute appropriate proceedings before alternative forum. 7. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have no objection against the aforesaid limited prayer of the learned counsel for petitioner. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed leaving the aforesaid liberty open to the petitioner. November 20, 2025 Ram. WRIC No. 10632 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench