HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1027 of 2025 Along with : 1. Special Appeal Defective No. 932 of 2025: Committee of Management, Aryan Education Trust and another Versus State of U.P. and 3 others Court No. - 2 HON'BLE ATUL SREEDHARAN, J. HON'BLE VIVEK SARAN, J. Order on Appeals 1. The present two appeals have been filed by the appellants against the impugned order dated 10.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge by which the order impugned in the said writ petitions were set aside. 2. The brief facts of the case essential to be stated herein are as follows: a. The two writ petitions being Writ C Nos.39295 of 2023 and 40788 of 2023 filed by the petitioners were disposed of by an order dated 09.02.2024 passed by learned Single Judge. The controversy relates to a society named as 'Aryan Educational Trust, Meerapur, District Prayagraj' whereunder Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Abhishek Shekhar Ojha, Anurag Kumar Ojha, Parmatma Nand Ojha, Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashima Goel, C.S.C., Manu Srivastava, Yogesh Kumar Saxena Pankaj Jaiswal, Member, Aryan Education Trust And 6 Others .....Appellant(s) State Of Up And 13 Others .....Respondent(s) Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') challenge was given to the election that was held on 12.11.2023 and 14.11.2023 electing R-3 in the aforementioned writ petition as Secretary of the Committee of Management of the Society. Challenge was given to the said election on the ground that the objection of the petitioners in the petition mentioned hereinabove filed under Section 4-B of the Act were pending before the Assistant Registrar an order notifying elections was made without testing the objections under Section 4-B of the Act. In paragraph-8 of the order dated 19.02.2024, the learned Single Judge transferred the case pending before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Prayagraj (hereinafter referred to as 'Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj') to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as 'Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh')with a direction that objections were to be decided within one month from the date of the receipt of the records and the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj was also directed to ensure the transmission of the records within one week of the order. 3. After the list of eligible candidates was prepared, the election was conducted by the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj and on 05.10.2025 the appellants herein were declined elected to the executive committee. On 06.10.2025 itself the writ petitions were filed before the learned Single Judge from which the present writ appeals have arisen. It is also necessary to mention here that before the elections on 24.09.2025 the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj published the election programme and on 25.09.2025 the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj had published the list of legitimate candidates and on 26.09.2025 the list of returned candidates to the Executive Committee was released. SPLA No. 1027 of 2025 2 4. When the matter was proceeding before the learned Single Judge the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj appeared in person and in paragraph-9 of the order under challenge admitted to an error on his part in conducting the elections. Upon the said submission, the order challenged in these appeals have been passed. 5. The preliminary argument putforth by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that material respondents were never even issued notice and neither were heard in this case. In other words, the learned Senior Counsel has argued that there was violation of principles of natural justice as the learned Single Judge did not gave an opportunity to those candidates who were returned elected and were respondents in the petition to appear before the learned Single Judge and forward a submission that the admission on the part of the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj notwithstanding, the same did not vitiate the result of the election. The admitted fact is that only one of the elected members, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Saxena was represented by his learned counsel, Sri Y.K. Saxena, before the learned Single Judge. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant before this Court has submitted that he appears on behalf of other elected members whose names are as follows: a. Mr. Pankaj Jaiswal, b. Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal, c. Mr. Narendra Prakash, d. Mr. Vinay Pratap Singh, e. Mr. Ravindra Nath Jaiswal, f. Mr. Ramesh Kumar Khanna, and g. Mr. Vijay Kumar Jaiswal. 7. There are other members also who were elected, who are 9 in number who the learned counsel for the appellant does not represent. SPLA No. 1027 of 2025 3 8. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has submitted that the error pointed out by learned counsel for the appellants is merely technical and that the proceedings that took place before the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj were murky, without bona fides and tainted with fraud. In order to substantiate his arguments, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the earlier order passed in the previous two writ petitions mentioned hereinabove dated 19.02.2025 had for this very reason transferred the preparation of the list of eligible candidates to stand for elections to the Executive Committee from the office of the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj to the Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh. Learned Senior Counsel has submitted that this Court had to deviate from the norm and pass such an order because it had taken into cognizance the wrong activities in this particular case in the office of the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj. He has also argued with great vehemence that the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj having appeared before the learned Single Judge and having admitted that he committed error by carrying out electoral process at Prayagraj which has been recorded by the learned Single Judge in paragraph no.9 of the order under challenge goes to establish beyond the shadow of doubt that the sanctity of the election was itself under doubt at Prayagraj and therefore, the order was rightly passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Senior Counsel also desired that this Court goes into the merits of the case in order to appreciate why this appeal should be dismissed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the order challenged before this Court passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. Undisputedly, it was only Mr. Sudhir Kumar Saxena who was represented before the learned Single Judge through his counsel, Mr. Y.K. Saxena who has categorically stated before this Court that he did not appear for the other respondents who were also elected members before the learned Single Judge. He has also not disputed the fact that no notice was issued to any of the elected members by SPLA No. 1027 of 2025 4 the Court of the learned Single Judge. As regards the submission putforth by learned counsel for the respondent that the proceedings in the case relating to Aryan Education Trust, Meerapur, Prayagraj lack bonafides and there were many misdemeanors being committed by the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj and that being the reason why on the earlier occasion that this Court had transferred the proceedings from the office of the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj to that of the Assistant Registrar, Azamgarh. The contention putforth by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents may be right but this Court is not required to comment upon the same at this juncture. As regards the submission putforth by the learned counsel for the respondents that this Court would be required to go into the merits of the matter notwithstanding the technical defect of the respondents not being noticed or given an opportunity on account of overwhelming material to show the misdeeds of the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj is concerned, this Court is of the considered opinion that violation of audi alteram partum moreso when rights have been generated in favour of those who were left out as they were elected through an electoral process, even if the same is challenged and found bad way through, had to be heard. Their absence before the learned Single Judge did not give them an opportunity to place a case before the learned Single Judge that the admission on the part of the Assistant Registrar, Prayagraj notwithstanding, the election process conducted at Prayagraj were nonetheless tainted. 11. If the appellants herein were heard by the learned Single Judge, this Court is unable to say whether the same would have made the learned Single Judge to pass an order different from the one which is under challenge before this Court. Therefore, this Court is of the view that it is in the province of the learned Single Judge to go into the merits of the case and examine misdemeanors, fraud etc. in detail and not with this Court to comment upon same at this juncture once it has been admitted that procedure established was not followed, as the said appellants were never noticed by the learned Single Judge. SPLA No. 1027 of 2025 5 12. Under the circumstances, this appeal succeeds. The order challenged is setaside and the writ petitions are remanded to the learned Single Judge for de novo hearing after ensuring the presence of the respondents. 13. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has submitted that he would appear before the learned Single Judge on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Jaiswal, Mr. Dinesh Kumar Jaiswal, Mr. Narendra Prakash, Mr. Vinay Pratap Singh, Mr. Ravindra Nath Jaiswal, Mr. Ramesh Kumar Khanna and Mr. Vijay Kumar Jaiswal. Under the circumstances, the necessity to issue notice to the aforementioned persons stands obviated. They shall appear through counsel on the date of hearing before the learned Single Judge. Sudhir Kumar Saxena will continue to be represented by his counsel Mr. Yogesh Kumar Saxena who is present before this Court today. As regards Mr. Rajendra Srivastava, Mr. Alok Chandra, Mr. Shailendra Kumar Srivastava, Mrs. Madhuri Saxena, Mr. Adarsh Srivastava, Mr. Ajeet Verma, Mr. Sohan Lal, Mr Akhil Kumar Srivastava and Mr. Ashok Srivastava are concerned, they are not being represented before this Court and therefore, the learned Single Judge would have to take a call on issuance of notice to the said persons mentioned hereinabove. 14. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents has voiced apprehension that the delay in issuing notices to the aforementioned persons may result in a delay of grant of interim relief. 15. As regards this submission putforth by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, the learned Single Judge is also the high court asmuch as this Division Bench. It is entirely within its domain and its discretion whether or not interim relief should be granted even before notice is served upon the aforementioned persons. Therefore, in view of what has been argued, considered and held as hereinabove, these appeals stands disposed of with the aforesaid terms. 16. Put up these cases as fresh before the learned Single SPLA No. 1027 of 2025 6 Judge. Re: Leave to Appeal Application No.02 of 2025 in Special Appeal Defective No.932 of 2025 17. As regards Special Appeal Defective No.932 of 2025 which has the leave to appeal, the appellants were not parties before the learned Single Judge but are still adversely affected by the said order, therefore, the leave to appeal application stands disposed of giving liberty to the appellants to move an application for impleadment in the writ petitions which have been disposed of by before the learned Single Judge. 18. The defects notwithstanding, in view of the order that this Court has passed hereinabove, the application is allowed giving liberty to the appellants to move an appropriate application for amendment in the writ petitions. April 2, 2026 Deepika SPLA No. 1027 of 2025 7 (Vivek Saran,J.) (Atul Sreedharan,J.) Digitally signed by :- DEEPIKA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad