HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 20216 of 2016 Court No. - 6 HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J. 1. Heard Ms. Manju Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anurag Tyagi, learnd counsel for the respondent No.8 as well as the learned standing counsel for the State. 2. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the following relief, which read as under:- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 18.05.2016 passed by opposite party No.4 as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order of nomination passed by the State Government on 12.09.2015 by which the opposite party no.7 has been installed as the Upadhayaksh, Antarashtriy Bauddh Shodh Sansthan, U.P., Lucknow after calling the relevant records contained the Annexure No.1 para no.7. (iii) That a Writ Order or direction in the nature of mandamus may be issued there by directing the opposite party No.1 Principal Secretary of Cultural Department U.P., Lucknow to consider the nomination of petitioner on the post of Vice- President of Antarrashtriy Bauddh Shodh Sanshthan U.P. Lucknow having cancelled the nomination of Hargovind Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Diwakar Singh, Anil Kumar Mishra, Janardan Prasad, Manju Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C, Anuj Kudesia, Anurag Tyagi Rajendra Prasad Bauddh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P Thru.Prin.Secy.Awas And Shahari Niyojan Lko.And Ors .....Respondent(s) Kushwaha from the post of Vice-President of Antarrashtriy Bauddh Shodh Sanshthan U.P. Lucknow. (iv) That a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus may be issued thereby directing the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 to nominate the petitioner on the post of Vice President of Antarrashtriy Bauddh Shodh Sanshthan U.P. Lucknow having cancelled the nomination of Hari Govind Kushwaha." 3. The sole grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a follower of Buddhism. It is stated that in a society known as 'Antrashtriy Bauddh Sodh Sansthan', which is governed by its bye-laws, a copy of which is brought on record as Annexure No.8-A with the petition indicates that its Committee of Management comprises of ten Members. The post of Vice President is to be nominated and the person to be nominated must follow Buddhism. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that he was nominated by the State Government on the post of Vice President under the bye-laws in respect of the elections which were held in the year 2015. However, the nomination of the petitioner was cancelled and in the place of the petitioner Shri Umesh Kumar Dixit was nominated was duly nominated. However, during pendency of the proceedings, the nomination of Shri Umesh Kumar Dixit was also changed and it was made in the name of Shri Hargovind Kushwaha i.e. the respondent No.8. 5. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that an application for amendment was moved whereunder certain facts which were subsequent events were brought on record including adding some additional grounds and the reliefs, which have been noticed hereinabove. 6. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner had filed the instant petition assailing the impugned order of nomination made by the State Government dated 12.09.2015 in favour of Shri Umesh Kumar Dixit and thereafter Hargovind Kushwaha. 7. As per the record, it would indicate that the terms of the Society is for five years which if referable to the year 2015, it would come to an end in the year 2020. Any nomination, good, bad or indifferent, made by the State automatically come to an end in the year 2020. New elections for the term of the Society must have been constituted and it is in that context, it is noticed WRIC No. 20216 of 2016 2 that the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right that the petitioner would be nominated. It is the prerogative of the State to nominate any person. The only grievance relates to the year 2015 which as noticed above had already come to an end. 8. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that there is a representation filed by the petitioner, which has not yet been decided. 9. Taking note of the said representation, which is on record as Annexure No.6, which is addressed to Hon'ble the Chief Minister and has been sent by Shri Boddhiratan Thero and not the petitioner. There is nothing on record to indicate that the said representation has been moved by the petitioner or that he is the signatory thereto. 10. For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is absolutely clear in its mind that the relief as claimed cannot be granted as after the term of the Committee which expired in the year 2020 no cause arises or subsists. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed. 11. It is made clear that mere dismissal of the petition may not be taken an expression or opinion on merits regarding the status of the petitioner. November 10, 2025 Rakesh/- WRIC No. 20216 of 2016 3 (Jaspreet Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench