HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1106 of 2026 Committee of Management Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College and another …..Appellant(s) Versus State of UP and 5 others …..Respondent(s) Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ashutosh Dwivedi, Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, Vinay Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : B.k. Singh Raghuvanshi, C.S.C. Chief Justice's Court HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J. 1. Heard Shri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent No.6. 2. This intra Court appeal is directed against the order dated 24.08.2026 whereby the learned Single Judge has disposed of Civil Misc. Review Application No.106 of 2026 (Shiv Shankar Singh v. Committee of Management, Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College and another) reviewing and recalling his earlier order dated 05.05.2026 with a direction that the matter, i.e., Writ C No.17384 of 2026 be placed before the Court having jurisdiction for further adjudication. 3. For deciding the present special appeal, this Court need not go into a detailed discussion of the facts and circumstances giving rise to filing of 2 SPLA No. - 1106 of 2026 Writ C No.17384 of 2026, inasmuch as the said writ petition, in view of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, is to be heard afresh. 4. The writ petition was filed by the appellants challenging the orders dated 10.04.2026 and 09.12.2025 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Varanasi, Region Varanasi in relation to an election dispute pertaining to Committee of Management of Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College, Reotipur, District-Ghazipur. 5. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge on 05.05.2026, the writ petition was disposed of by consent of all parties who were represented before the writ Court, i.e. to say that whereas the respondents No.1 to 5 were represented by learned Standing Counsel, respondent No.6 was represented by Shri Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi, Advocate. 6. Learned Single Judge, while disposing of the writ petition, issued various directions to the authorities to act and proceed in a particular manner; the directions issued need not be referred to in this order. Against the order dated 05.05.2026, Special Appeal No.691 of 2026 was filed by the respondent No.6, namely Shiv Shankar Singh, which was dismissed by this Court on 27.05.2026 leaving it open to the said appellant to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 7. Thereafter, a review application was filed by respondent No.6 herein alleging himself to be Manager of the Committee of Management and disputing the locus of the petitioner-appellant No.2 as member of the general body. A plea was taken on oath that the respondent No.6 had not given any power/Vakalatnama to any counsel to appear on his behalf in the writ petition nor had he given any instructions as such to anyone to file caveat application. 3 SPLA No. - 1106 of 2026 8. The learned Single Judge, based upon the stand taken by the review applicant, proceeded with the matter and on various dates fixed in those proceedings, rival stands of the parties in relation to filing of the caveat application, Vakalatnama, giving/not giving instructions to the counsel and making submissions etc. were elaborately dealt with so much so that the matter was also referred to Forensic Science Laboratory (‘F.S.L.’) for examining the genuineness of signatures on the Vakalatnama. 9. Based upon the proceedings held in review application and the report dated 27.07.2026 submitted by the F.S.L., Prayagraj, the learned Single Judge arrived at a concrete conclusion that signatures on record were forged/fabricated. The concept of professional misconduct in light of provisions of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Bar Council of India Rules, Advocates Act, 1961 as well as penal liability under the Criminal laws, i.e., Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, was also extensively penned down in the order. 10. Learned Single Judge also referred to various decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court to arrive at a conclusion that the case in hand involved features of professional misconduct vis-a-vis carelessness on the part of counsel representing before the Court and though learned Single Judge indicated in the order that, as a measure of self-restraint, the matter was not being referred to Bar Council or any agency for initiating criminal proceedings or even invoking contempt jurisdiction, cost of Rs.50,000/- was imposed each on the writ petitioner as well as the respondent No.6, i.e., the review applicant, for abusing the process of the Court. 11. After making extensive deliberations involving all aspects of the matter whereby process of law was abused, learned Single Judge 4 SPLA No. - 1106 of 2026 recalled the earlier order dated 05.05.2026 and directed that the matter be placed before the Court having jurisdiction for further adjudication. 12. We may observe here that the respondent No.6-Shiv Shankar Singh, against whom also cost of Rs.50,000/- has been imposed under the order impugned in this appeal, also filed Special Appeal No.1105 of 2026 against the same order dated 24.08.2026 only to the extent of challenging imposition of cost and the said special appeal was sought to be withdrawn on his behalf today itself with a prayer to grant some reasonable time to deposit the cost. The said appeal has been disposed of today itself by a separate order. 13. Learned counsel for the appellants in this appeal has made submissions that the order dated 05.05.2026 was not liable to be recalled, inasmuch as, on behalf of the appellants, submissions were made based upon the record only. Various documents on record were referred to by learned counsel during the course of hearing so as to convince the Court that disposal of the writ petition by order dated 05.05.2026 and issuance of directions by learned Single Judge was based upon correct interpretation of material available on record. Sanctity of proceedings held in relation to various elections of Committee of Management from time to time as well as litigation arising therefrom, was sought to be argued before us and it was vehemently contended that the respondent No.6, being a rank outsider and stranger to the Committee of Management, the orders impugned in the writ petition should not have been passed at his instance and, therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in earlier disposing of the writ petition by order dated 05.05.2026, which order should not have been reviewed/recalled. 5 SPLA No. - 1106 of 2026 14. Having heard learned counsel for the appellants, we find that since learned Single Judge has reviewed/recalled the order dated 05.05.2026 and has directed the Writ-C No.17384 of 2026 to be placed before the jurisdictional Bench for adjudication, in view of the detailed reasons assigned in the order under challenge in this appeal, we are not inclined to take a different view of the matter. The reason is that the findings recorded and observations made by learned Single Judge are based upon long drawn exercise and pain taken by him based upon the facts, circumstances and contentions, which arose and were raised before him so much so that in order to arrive at a concrete conclusion as to whether forgery was committed in the documents filed before the Court and whether instructions were given to the counsel representing the respondent No.6 to make submissions before the writ Court, the matter was referred to the F.S.L. also and the ultimate conclusion was drawn based upon the report sent by the F.S.L. 15. It is also apparent from the order impugned in this appeal that when the matter was taken up on 10.08.2026, learned counsel Shri R.C. Dwivedi, Shri B.K.S. Raghuvanshi and Shri S.C. Dwivedi made a statement before the learned Single Judge that they did not propose to file any counter affidavit or objections to the F.S.L. report and, consequently, learned Single Judge attached finality to the said report. 16. In view of the above discussion, nature of review application and findings recorded by learned Single Judge, this Court is not inclined to take a different view of the matter as there is no ground to differ. The Court also refrains itself from making any observations regarding merits of the challenge laid before the writ Court, as pressed by learned counsel for the appellants, for the simple reason that the writ petition is yet to be re-entertained and re-adjudicated upon by the jurisdictional Bench, as 6 SPLA No. - 1106 of 2026 already observed by learned Single Judge. Further, making such observations would be beyond the scope of this appeal, which is confined to examining validity of the order disposing of the review application and not the order deciding the writ petition or the orders impugned therein. 17. Consequently, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned Singe Judge. 18. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with the observation that the Writ- C No.17384 of 2026 shall be listed before the jurisdictional Single Bench on 15.10.2026 as a fresh case. 19. However, in view of order passed today in Special Appeal No.1105 of 2026, the appellants are granted time upto 05.11.2026 to deposit the cost, as directed by the learned Single Judge in the order impugned. 20. In case of failure to deposit cost, as directed, the same shall result in foreclosure of the right of the appellants to participate in the affairs of the Committee of Management, Nehru Vidyapeeth Inter College, Reotipur, Ghazipur and the litigation arising therefrom before any Court or forum including this Court. Apart from this, the amount of cost shall be recovered from appellant No.2 as arrears of land revenue by the Collector, Ghazipur within next one month on a letter sent by the Registrar General of this Court. (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) October 01, 2026 Jyotsana Digitally signed by :- JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad