Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Ram Chandra Tiwari & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 1455 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 19998 (24 November 2006)


This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).


CJ's Court

Special Appeal No.1455 of 2006

Ram Chandra Tiwari and another


The State of U.P. and others

Counsel for the appellants: 1. Mr. Ashok Khare, Sr. Adv.

2. Mr. P.C. Pathak, Adv.

Counsel for the respondents: 1. Standing Counsel

2. Mr. R.K.Ojha, Adv.


Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, CJ.

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

The appeal from an interim order of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated the 6th of November, 2006 is taken up and summarily disposed of.

The respondent-writ petitioner conducted several proceedings against the appellant-Ram Chandra Tiwari in regard to the recognised elections of the year 2004. The elections were recognised on 5.4.2006, challenged in Writ Petition No.22437 of 2006, which was dismissed on 3.7.2006; the special appeal was also dismissed on the 25th of the same month, and the writ petitioner was relegated to a Suit. This Suit he has already filed.

The present writ petition is against the induction of the other appellant-Santosh Kumar Tiwari, who was allegedly inducted on 17.7.2006 on a consensus of the general body, and thereafter within a month, Ram Chandra Tiwari stepped down because of the advanced age of 75, and Santosh Kumar Tiwari has taken over as Manager.

The writ petitioner does not make any specific allegation that the meeting of the Committee of Management dated 17.7.2006 was not held at all; nothing disentitling Santosh Kumar Tiwari from the membership is pointed out, excepting it is said that he is the brother-in-law of a Minister. In law, that is neither a qualification, nor a disqualification.

The Hon'ble Single Judge has said as follows:- "Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has submitted that a rank outsider has been illegally inducted as member of the Society and it is a clear case of take over of a Society by outsiders by use of political and official force...in my view, the submission of the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has force..."

We respectfully disagree; whenever a new member comes in, he is an outsider, who joins from the outside. About the use of political force, there is no evidence, not even prima facie. About the official force, the only complaint made by the respondent before us is that he was not heard by the Assistant Registrar and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, who passed the two impugned orders dated 13.9.2006 and 30.9.2006 respectively. It is hardly a case of any official force.

The two Tiwaris are not fighting amongst themselves at all. The other members of the Committee of Management or the General Body do not seem to be ruffled in any manner. Prima facie, it is a clear case of the writ petitioner-Tripathi, being wholly out numbered, at least for the time being.

As such, the appeal is allowed; the interim order dated 6.11.2006 is set aside. Our order and observations, however worded, are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the writ, or in any other proceedings.




Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.