COCP/1508/2025 of ARYA PRATINIDHI SABHA HARYANA Vs JITENDER KUMAR IAS
IN T
210
Arya Prat
Bhawan, D
Singh Shar
Jintender K
others
CORAM:
Present:-
NIDHI GU
order dated
Court in L
Haryana and
observation
COCP-1508-2025 (O & M)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA
AT CHANDIGAR
COCP No.1508 of
Date of decision :
Pratinidhi Sabha Haryana (Regd
an, Dayanand Math, Gohana Road, R
Sharma
Versus
nder Kumar, IAS, Director Secondar
AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH
Mr. Ashwani Bakshi, Advocate w
Mr. Tej Kanwar, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Naveen Kumar, Addl. A.G.,
I GUPTA J. (Oral)
Present contempt petition has be
dated 12.9.2013 (Annexure P -1) passed
in LPA -578-2011 titled as “Arya Pr
na and others”, whereby the LPA was d
vations :-
“….The learned Single Ju
passing the impugned ord
that there could not be an
elections as prayed for b
orders passed in the Let
the moot point was w
appellant society read w
envisage the election p
nomination of certain
committees of different in
1
UNJAB AND HARYANA
IGARH
508 of 2025 (O & M)
sion :-08.01.2026
(Regd.) Jagdev Singh Sidhanti
oad, Rohtak through Shri Umed
…..Petitioner
ondaryn Education Haryana and
…..Respondents
NIDHI GUPTA
ocate with
. A.G., Haryana.
has been filed alleging violation of
passed by a Division Bench of this
rya Pratinidhi Sabha vs. State of
was disposed of with the following
le Judge in the present case while
order dated 22.03.2011 has held
e any direction issued not to hold
or by the appellant in view of the
Letters Patent Appeal, however,
s whether the bye -laws of the
with the said rules necessarily
on process or could there be
ain members to the managing
nt institutions. We find that such a
VIJAY ASIJA
2026.01.09 17.08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
that the L
respondents
restored the
said fact an
whereby th
02.12.2025
for the petit
parties, the p
January 08
Vijay Asija
Whether spea
Whether Repo
COCP-1508-2025 (O & M)
nomination is envisaged
clearly and bye-l aws of
provides for the same.
We may, howev
nomination has to be as p
and we clarify at the requ
respondents that in terms
the members of the M
generally be upto 11 w
more…..”
At the very outset, learned coun
the LPA order dated 12.9.2013 sta
ndents have wit hdrawn the orders (An
ed the possession to the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the respon
fact and handed over a copy of Speak
by the needful has been done. Co
.2025 is taken on record. Copy thereof i
e petitioner.
Heard.
In view of the submissions mad
s, the present contempt petition has been
Rule stands discharged.
Pending application(s), if any, sh
ry 08, 2026
Asija
r speaking/reasoned Yes / No
r Reportable Yes / No
2
ged in the said Rules itself very
s of the appellant society also
owever, clarify that such a
as per the bye-laws of the society
request of learned counsel for the
rms of Clause (a) of bye-law 32.3
e Managing Committee should
11 which could be 15 but no
d counsel for the petitioner submits
3 stands complied with as the
rs (Annexures P -23 to P-25) and
respondents-State also affirms the
Speaking Order dated 02.12.2025,
Copy of the said order dated
ereof is supplied to learned counsel
s made by learned counsel for the
s been disposed of.
any, shall stand(s) disposed of.
( NIDHI GUPTA )
JUDGE
VIJAY ASIJA
2026.01.09 17.08
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document