Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 31615 (ALL)

BHUPENDRA SINGH AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

WRIC/19269/2020 · 2025-04-09

Saral Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19269 of 2020 Petitioner :- Bhupendra Singh And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Singh Yadav,Rohit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ram Sajiwan Mishra Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioners by mean of the present writ petition have assailed the order dated 12.02.2020 passed by the respondent no.2- Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Moradabad by which nine new members were added in General Body of the Kishan Vidhyalaya Jahangirpur, Post Dilari, District Moradabad. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have assailed the list of members on the ground that the General Body consisted of 64 members, and therefore,the addition of nine members in the General Body is illegal inasmuch as neither any Resolution with regard to induction of those members was passed nor any fee has been deposited by them for obtaining the membership, and therefore, the induction of nine members is illegal. 4. Be that as it may, the order sheet reveals that the case was instituted in the year 2020 and on 25.11.2020, the case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, and thereafter, the matter was listed on several dates i.e. 16.12.2020, 07.01.2021, 18.01.2021, 22.01.2021, 26.10.2021, 08.01.2025, 06.02.2025 and 03.04.2025, and on all the dates, the case was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the petitioners. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners was confronted with a query as to whether he has impleaded nine members whose membership is disputed by him, he submits that those nine members have not been impleaded as a party in the writ petition. 6. The law is settled that members, whose membership has been impugned, has to be impleaded as a party, therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought time for impleading those nine persons, but the Court is not inclined to grant time for the same inasmuch as since 2020 this writ petition is pending and was got adjourned time and again by the petitioners. 8. Since, nine members whose membership is under challenge have not been arrayed as party in the writ petition, therefore, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Order Date :- 10.4.2025 NS Digitally signed by :- NITIN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad