WRIC/38228/2025 of JAGDISH AND 2 OTHERS Vs STATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 38228 of 2025 Court No. - 29 HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J. HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J. 1.  Petitioner no. 1 says, he is the Vice President of petitioner no. 2 society and petitioner no. 3 is said to have been appointed as Secretary. Mr. Bhagwan Dutt Pandey, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners. 2. Mr. Pandey submits, impugned is order dated 30th June, 2025 made by respondent no. 2 (the Director/Registrar) refusing to confirm appointment of petitioner no. 3 as Secretary. He refers to the bye law, paragraph 41 to submit, in absence of the President, the Vice President can take steps in respect of the society. He draws attention to resolution dated 12th June, 2024 taken by the members, for appointment of petitioner no. 3 as Secretary, taken in the meeting which the President did not participate, in spite of notice. On query Mr. Pandey submits, paragraph 31 in the bye laws provide for appointment of Secretary. 3.  Added by us respondent no.6 is the President.  Mr. Anil Kumar Bind, learned advocate appearing on his behalf relies on paragraphs 4, 6 and 9 of his client's counter, to oppose the writ petition. Dr. D K Tiwari learned advocate, Additional Chief Standing Counsel appears for State. 4.  Impugned order clearly mentions three notices were issued to petitioner no.1 but he did not appear. Mr. Pandey draws attention to paragraph 32 in the writ petition, on submission, no notice was ever served. Paragraph 32 is reproduced below :- "32.  That the finding recorded under the order impugned dated 30.06.2025 inspite of fixing 3 days for hearing the petitioners remained absent and failed to submit his version, is absolutely incorrect in as much as no notice as is mentioned under the order impugned dated 23.05.2025, 05.06.2025 and 13.06.2025 have been served to the petitioners by any manner and as such the petitioners have no knowledge of the date fixed for hearing as stated in the order impugned, hence  in absence of the date of hearing of the proceeding the petitioners could not appear and the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bhagwan Dutt Pandey, Kamlesh Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Jagdish And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) respondent authority acting in very arbitrary manner without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners passed the impugned order in the exparte manner and rejected the claim illegally." Respondents have not been able to demonstrate otherwise. 5.  Impugned order is set aside and the matter restored to respondent no.3.  On query Dr. Tiwari submits, Court fix the date. Petitioner(s) will appear before respondent no.3 on 24th March, 2026 at noon, armed with relevant documents to state their case. Added respondent no.6 may also present himself at the time and date. In event respondent no.3 is not in a position to hear petitioner(s), they be informed of adjourned date on acknowledgement obtained.  Upon hearing petitioner(s), respondent no.3 will pass order afresh. 6.  The writ petition is disposed of. March 19, 2026 VS WRIC No. 38228 of 2025 2 (Arindam Sinha,J.) (Satya Veer Singh,J.)