HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 6528 of 2025 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. The writ Court on 08.09.2025 while disposing of Writ-C No.29685 of 2025 had passed the following order:- "1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking for the following relief:- "a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the name of the petitioner in the voter list of St. Thomas Church, Meerut forthwith. b). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 3 to decide the representation dated 25.02.2025, submitted by the petitioner, forthwith." 2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner without entering into the merits of the case made innocuous prayer that he may be permitted to file fresh representation before respondent no.3 and a direction may be issued to him to decide the same in time bound manner. 3. Sri Ashish Kumar Dubey, learned standing counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents vehemently opposed the petition on merit, but has not opposed the prayer as made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri Ashish Kumar Dubey, learned Standing Counsel and perused the contents made in the writ petition. 5. Without entering into merits of the case, I am inclined to allow the Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashutosh Kumar Tiwari, Ram Bilas Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Santosh Yadav Smt. Sunita Rana .....Applicant(s) Shri Most. Rev. B.K. Nayak(Bishop) Diocese Of Agra And Another .....Opposite Party(s) innocuous prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner as no objection made by learned standing counsel. Petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation along with the present writ petition and certified copy of this order before respondent no.3 The DIOCESE of Agra of the Church of North India, through its Bishop/Administrative Head, Diocese Office, Agra, (U.P.) within 10 days. After receiving the said representation, the respondent no.3 is directed to decide the said representation in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the said representation. 6. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present writ petition is disposed of. " 2. Against the aforesaid order passed by the writ Court, opposite party preferred a Special Appeal Defective No.1113 of 2025 which was allowed on 16.12.2025 and following order was passed:- "Order on Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2025 1. The appeal is reported to be beyond time by 58 days. 2. Cause shown for the delay is found to be sufficient. Accordingly, delay is condoned. 3. Office is directed to allot a regular number to the instant appeal. Order on Memo of Appeal 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The present intra-court appeal is directed against an order of learned Single Judge dated 08.09.2025 by which writ petition filed by non- appellant no.4 (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner') has been disposed of directing the DIOCESE of Agra of the church of North India to decide the representation to be filed by the petitioner in pursuance of the liberty granted to her, within a specified time frame. 3. The writ petition was filed with the following prayers: "a) Issue a writ, order or direction int he nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to restore the name of the petitioner in the voter list of St. Thomas Church, Meerut forthwith. b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to decide the representation dated 25.02.2025, submitted by the petitioner, forthwith." 4. The learned Single Judge has observed that the prayer made by the CAPL No. 6528 of 2025 2 petitioner was of innocuous nature and was not opposed by the learned Standing Counsel and, consequently, direction was issued to the DIOCESE of Agra of the church of North India to decide the representation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the direction has been issued by the writ court without examining as to whether writ petition against the church is maintainable or not. He submits that the church is a private entity and is not registered even under the Societies Registration Act but is only governed by the Constitution for Pastorates framed by the Agra Diocesan Council, approved by C.N.I. Synod Executive Committee. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the petitioner had raised dispute regarding her expulsion from the electoral college for the pastorate election of the church. He submits that Constitution for Pastorates provides for court of the Pastorates. It has jurisdiction over its members and office bearers. It has taken decision on 24.02.2025 for removal of the name of the petitioner from the electoral roll as per by- laws clause (b) Pg-33 of the Constitution of Diocese of Agra as she was involved in misappropriation. Her membership has not been revoked, only her voting right has been taken away as per the said clause. He submits that the said action is not justiciable and for the said reason also the writ petition was not maintainable. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in St. Mary's Education Society and Anr. Vs. Rajendra Prasad Bhargava and Ors., (2023) 4 SCC 498, in support of his submission that the writ petition is not maintainable as the act complained of has no nexus with discharge of any public duty. In the instant case, there is no public duty element involved in the action complained of. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to dispute that the appellants are not registered under any statutory provision but are only governed by the Constitution of Pastorates framed by the Agra Diocesan Council, approved by the C.N.I. Synod Executive Committee. The Constitution for Pastorates whereunder the procedure for election of the Pastorate Committee is provided, as well as the electoral college, on basis of which election would be held, does not have any statutory force. Moreover, the dispute between the petitioner and the appellants does not CAPL No. 6528 of 2025 3 involve any public law element nor relates to discharge of any public duty by the appellants. It is purely in the realm of election dispute of a private body, therefore, in our considered opinion, the writ petition was not maintainable. The principles laid down by the Supreme Court in relation to the maintainability of the writ petition, particularly that stated in paragraph no. 68 (3) would squarely apply to the facts of the instant case. 9. Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. 10. However, we leave it open to the petitioner to avail such other remedy for redressal of her grievance, as may be advised." 3. From perusal of the order passed by the appellate Court, it is clear that the special appeal was allowed and the writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable. 4. Once, the writ petition has been dismissed as not maintainable, present contempt application is also not maintainable and the same stands dismissed . 5. Contempt notice stands discharged. May 6, 2026 SK Goswami CAPL No. 6528 of 2025 4 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad