Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:27038-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 86 of 2025 Appellant :- Gyan Singh Yadav and 2 others Respondent :- State of U.P. and 31 others Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Awasthi, Devansh Misra, Prashant Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- Ankit Gaur, S.C., Anil Bhushan (Sr. Counsel), Gautam Baghel Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. Order on Delay Condonation Application 1. The appeal is barred by 11 days. 2. For the reasons indicated in the application seeking condonation of delay, the same is allowed. 3. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Order on Appeal 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 19.12.2024 passed in Writ-C No. 42459 of 2024 whereby learned Single Judge has passed interim order staying the election result and restrained the appellants from running the Society during the pendency of the writ petition. 2. The writ petition was filed by the respondent nos. 7 to 32 questioning the validity of election proceedings dated 06.12.2024 and election result dated 06.12.2024. The challenge was laid to the election with the allegations that initially, the elections of the Society were ordered to be postponed by the Assistant Registrar, against which Writ-C No. 22496 of 2024 was filed, wherein order was passed on 06.11.2024 directing that the elections would be conducted within one month. 3. Qua the elections held, it was contended that 37 members participated in the elections and 26 petitioners, who have filed their affidavits before the learned Single Judge, have not voted for the appellant nos.1 and 3, however, they have been declared elected under the influence of respondent nos. 5 & 6, who are the members of Legislative Council and the election result has been manipulated. 4. The appellants, who were appearing on caveat, contested the petition essentially on the ground that the respondents herein had remedy under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (for short 'the Act') whereby they can file proceedings before the Prescribed Authority and on account of availability of alternative remedy, the petition required dismissal. 5. Learned Single Judge, observed that normally the Court would have refrained from interfering with the subject matter, however, looking to the gravity of allegations made against the respondent nos. 5 and 6 in the present appeal, a prima facie case was made out and, accordingly, granted the interim order. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants made vehement submissions that the learned Single Judge was not justified in passing the interim order, inasmuch as there was no material available before the Court to come to the prima facie conclusion regarding correctness of the allegations made. Learned Single Judge was required to call for the record and only after going through the record, the nature of interim order impugned could have been passed. 7. Further submissions have been made that in view of the disputed questions of fact before the learned Single Judge, alternative remedy under Section 25 of the Act could not be bye- passed and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the order impugned. 9. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 10. The learned Single Judge, based on the averments contained in the petition, which averments essentially have not been contradicted so far, came to a prima facie conclusion that the matter required investigation. The allegations made in the petition, are quite serious, wherein 26 petitioners, who are admittedly members of electoral college out of total 37 members approached the Court inter alia claiming that they had not voted for the purported elected office bearers of the Society as declared by the Assistant Registrar. 11. Allegations were also made against the members of the Legislative Council to have interfered with the said elections process. 12. From the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it is apparent that the plea on behalf of the appellants has been pertaining to the availability of alternative remedy only. Apparently, at the stage when the order has been passed, it cannot be said that the disputed questions of fact were before the learned Single Judge as the allegations made by 26 petitioners were specific regarding having not voted for the purported elected office bearers and interference by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 during the election process. The stage with regard to the facts being disputed would only arise once the appellants file their counter affidavit to the petition. As such, the plea raised in this regard cannot be accepted. 13. The submissions made that the learned Single Judge should not have passed the order without calling for the record, also is premature, inasmuch as the stage of calling for record also would arise once the petitioners respond to the allegations made in the petition and Court prima facie comes to the conclusion with regard to requirement to call for the record. 14. So far as the availability of alternative remedy of filing the proceedings under Section 25 of the Act is concerned, it is well settled that the availability of alternative remedy by itself does not take away the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and in a given case, wherein the facts of the case require interference by the Court, the matter can be taken up, irrespective of availability of alternative remedy. 15. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.12.2024. 16. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. 17. The appellants would be free to file their response before the learned Single Judge and it is expected of the learned Single Judge to deal with the matter with appropriate expedition. 18. We make it clear that the dismissal of this appeal and observations made herein-before by this Court, are only in the nature of prima facie observations and would not influence the outcome of the writ petition. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 AKShukla/Sandeep (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad