Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High School Society And ... vs State Of U.P. And 9 Others on 6 November, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Reserved on 30.10.2025 Delivered on 06.11.2025 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 26058 of 2024 The Allahabad High School Society and another ..Petitioner(s) Versus State of U.P. and 9 others ..Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Avnish Kumar Rai, Vibhu Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bindeshwari Prashad Tiwari, C.S.C., Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Karuna Shankar Shukla, Prabhakar Awasthi, Sankalp Narain, Subedar Mishra CONNECTED WITH Writ-C Nos. 34333 of 2015; 12640 of 2024; 12885 of 2024; 17447 of 2024; 26830 of 2024; and, 5337 of 2024 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Initially in present bunch of cases there were in all thirteen Writ Petitions, oldest being of year 2012 and latest being of year 2024. Dispute in present bunch of writ petitions is of a society named as The Allahabad High School Society, Allahabad, a registered Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, probably registered in the year 1888 (bye-laws were registered in the year 1952), which runs two premier institutions situated at Prayagraj, namely Boys High School and College and Girls High School and College.
2. Writ-C No. 4121 of 2022 was decided vide order dated 03.04.2025 and Writ-C Nos. 31962 of 2012; 29001 of 2022; 30896 of 2022; and, 11959 of 2024 were decided vide orders dated 30.10.2025 and Writ-C No. 38374 of 2023 was de-tagged with the bunch vide order dated 30.10.2025. The aforesaid orders passed in respective writ petitions are reproduced hereinafter:
(I) Order dated 03.04.2025 in Writ-C No. 4121 of 2022:
Sahi, Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for the petitioner states that no cause of action survives in the present petition and he prays that the writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous.
Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(II) Order dated 30.10.2025 in Writ-C No. 31962 of 2012:
1. Heard Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. Impugned order is limited to a communication where some applications filed by one of the respondents was forwarded to Registrar and outcome of it is not on record of this writ petition.
3. It has been informed that some orders were based on ancilliary issues, which are subject matter of other writ petitions, therefore, I find that present Writ Petition is rendered infructuous.
4. Accordingly, disposed of."
(III) Order dated 30.10.2025 in Writ-C No. 29001 of 2022:
1. Heard Sri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for petitioner.
2. Petitioner, a Principal of concerned School, has challenged a notice dated 08.09.2022 issued by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Prayagraj.
3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that notice was beyond jurisdiction and by referring Sections 23 and 24 of Societies Registration Act, 1860 he fairly submits that an opportunity be granted to petitioner to raise all grounds on facts as well as on law before concerned respondent so that matter be decided expeditiously in accordance with law.
4. Considering the above referred fair submission of learned counsel for petitioner, this writ petition is disposed of that in case petitioner files reply on facts and law to concerned Registrar, the same will be considered in accordance with law including the issue of jurisdiction, if any. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from today.
5. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(IV) Order dated 30.10.2025 in Writ-C No. 30896 of 2022:
1. In this case following interim order was passed on 14.10.2022:
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3.8.2022 passed by the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies & Chits, District-Praygraj as modified by order dated 11.8.2022 directing that the accounts of the Institutions named as Boys' High School & College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School & College, Prayagraj managed by the Allahabad High School Society, Prayagraj shall be operated jointly by the respective Principals of the said Institutions and Rt. Revd. Edgar Morris Dan who claims himself to be the Bishop/Chairman of the Diocese of Lucknow. Previous to the order dated 3.8.2022, the accounts of the said Institutions were being operated singly by the respective Principals of the Institutions.
It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from the records annexed with the petition that the dispute relates to control over the two Institutions named above and also the elected office bearers of the Society who claim themselves to control the two Institutions named above. The said issues are subjudice before this Court in Writ-C Nos. 31962 of 2012, 34333 of 2015 and 4121 of 2022.
In the circumstances, it would be appropriate that the present petition is heard alongwith the petitions referred above.
The Standing Counsel represents respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Respondent No. 4 is represented by Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, Advocate. Shri Raghav Dev Garg, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, which is taken on record.
The respondents may file their counter affidavit within two weeks. The petitioner shall have one week thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavit.
Connect with Writ-C Nos.31962 of 2012, 34333 of 2015 and 4121 of 2022 and list on 21.11.2022 in the additional cause list at 2:00 p.m. As an interim measure, it is directed that the accounts of the Institutions named as Boys' High School & College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School & College, Prayagraj shall be operated jointly by the Principals of the respective Institutions and any other officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate appointed by the Collector, Prayagraj.
2. Today, learned counsel for petitioners is not present.
3. As referred above, an interim order was passed and is still continuing, therefore, purpose of this writ petition has fulfilled. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of and interim order will remain in currency, subject to outcome of connected matters.
(V) Order dated 30.10.2025 in Writ-C No. 11959 of 2024:
1. None appeared on behalf of petitioner to press this writ petition.
2. Dismissed for want of prosecution with cost of Rs. 5000/- to be deposited in the Bank account of High Court Legal Services Committee.
3. Registry would accept any application for restoration, if filed, only with proof of payment of cost.
4. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(VI) Order dated 30.10.2025 in Writ-C No. 38374 of 2023:
This writ petition is de-tagged to the bunch of writ petitions led by Writ-C No. 26058 of 2024
3. Rest of Writ Petitions being Writ-C Nos. 26058 of 2024; 34333 of 2015; 12640 of 2024; 2885 of 2024; 7447 of 2024; 26830 of 2024; and, 5337 of 2024 were heard on 30.10.2025 and judgment was reserved.
4. Writ-C No. 34333 of 2015 was filed by The Allahabad High School Society through its Secretary, Gabriel Daud wherein following relevant orders were passed by this Court on 05.06.2015, 10.11.2021 and 10.02.2022:-
Order dated 05.06.2015 Heard Sri Radha Kant Ojha learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Ashok Khare learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no. 4.
In view of the controversy involved and in view of the fact that the order impugned is an extremely lengthy one, I consider it appropriate to call for a counter affidavit. The counter affidavit may be filed within three weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within a week thereafter.
Put up this case in the additional cause list on 15.07.2015.
Till the next date of listing the parties may maintain statusquo.
Order dated 10.11.2021 Four counter affidavits to four substitution applications have been filed today by Sri Deepak Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4. It has also been pointed out that the Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 15736 of 2021 has passed an order dated 25.10.2021 expecting all the parties to not seek any adjournments and to assist the Court on the date fixed i.e 10.11.2021 so that the Court is able to take a final view of the matter. For the sake of convenience, the order dated 25.10.2021 is reproduced below:-
"Application for deletion of the names of respondent Nos. 4 & 5 is allowed.
We may have our reservations on the conclusion arrived at by the Division Bench qua the maintainablity of the appeal but in the given facts of the case, the relief being interim in nature, we are not inclined to interfere, but do belive that the matter cannot remain pending indefinitely before the learned Single Judge.
We are informed that the Writ C No. 34333/2015, which is the concerned case, is now listed on 10.11.2021 along with pending application(s), including substitution application(s). The pleadings are stated to be complete. We expect all the parties not to seek any adjournments and to assist the Court on that date so that the learned Single Judge is able to take a final view of the matter in the proceedings to be held on that date.
The special leave is dismissed with the aforesaid directions.
Pending application stands disposed of."
Sri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners informs that the Apex Court had proceeded by indicating that the pleadings are stated to have been completed. However, the objections to the substitution application have been served upon him on 08.11.2021 and have been filed in Court today, as such it could not be said that the pleadings are complete so as to enable this Court to proceed further with the matter.
Sri Narain also prays that as the objections/counter affidavit to the substitution application have only been filed today as such, some reasonable time be granted to him to file the reply to the same and then the matter may proceed further.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties and having perused the records what transpires is that the Apex Court through an order dated 25.10.2021 had expected the writ Court to hear the matter finally on the basis of the impression that was given by the learned counsel appearing for the contesting parties that the pleadings are said to be complete. However, the substitution application was pending against which the counter affidavit/ objections have only been filed today in Court.
In this view of the matter, the request on the part of the prospective petitioners to file the reply to the said counter affidavit/objections appears to be genuine and in the interest of justice. As such, Sri Sankalap Narain, learned counsel for the petitioners is granted ten days time to file the reply to the counter affidavit/objections which have been filed on behalf of the respondents.
List this case in the week commencing 13.12.2021.
Interim order, if any, shall continue till the next date of listing.
Order dated 10.02.2022
1. Despite earlier order, specific pleadings with respect to substitution are not complete. Matter has been expedited upon order of the Supreme Court. At present, rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed in 1A Nos.18, 19 and 20 of 2021 are awaited. These affidavits are to be filed by Sri Saurabh Tripathi appearing on behalf of Mr Rakesh Kumar Chatri (applicant in substitution). Let, the aforesaid rejoinder affidavits, if any, be filed within two weeks and no more.
2. Put up in the additional cause list on 03.03.2022.
3. Interim order granted earlier is extended till the next date of listing.
4. It is made clear, failing filing of the rejoinder affidavits, the substitution application may be dealt with and decided on the next date.
5. Sri Sankalp Narain and Sri Akash Deep Srivastava and Sri Deepak Kumar may inform Sri Saurabh Tripathi and other counsel appearing in this case, about this order in writing by 14.02.2022.
5. Petitioner-Gabriel Daud, died on 20.03.2020 and thereafter six substitution applications were filed alongwith delay condonation applications. Details thereof are mentioned hereinafter:-
(I) Application No. 6 of 2020 filed on 18.06.2020 by Rakesh Kumar Chattree, claiming himself to be Secretary, Allahabad High School Society.
(II) Applications No. 14 and 15 of 2021 filed on 21.06.2021 by Dr. Lydia Rajam Anthony, claiming himself to be Secretary, Allahabad High School Society, elected in the meeting held on 23.03.2020.
(III) Applications No. 10 & 11 of 2021 filed on 15.03.2021 by Rt. Rev. Dr. Peter Baldev, claiming himself as Chairman of Allahabad High School Society and elected Bishop of Diocese of Lucknow, Church of North India by Synod Church of North India vide appointment letter dated 09.08.2015.
(IV) Applications No. 18 & 19 of 2021, filed on 12.11.2021 by Rakesh Kumar Chattree, claiming himself to be Secretary, Allahabad High School Society, elected in an election held on 04.03.2021 under the Chairmanship of Bishop, Morris Edgar Dan.
(V) Applications No. 29 & 30 of 2024, filed on 12.04.2024 by Dr. Deepak Tudy, claiming himself to be Secretary, Allahabad High School Society, elected in an election conducted on 22.03.2024.
(VI) Applications No. 31 & 32 of 2024, filed on 16.04.2024 by Rev. Bipin John M. Masi, claiming himself to be Chairman, Allahabad High School Society and elected Bishop of Diocese of Lucknow by the Church of North India Synod on 01.06.2023.
6. Out of aforesaid six applications, Applications No. 6 of 2020 and 14 & 15 of 2021 are dismissed as not pressed.
7. Admittedly there was an interim order dated 05.06.2015 to maintain status quo, therefore, no election of Committee of Management could take place, hence there was no question of registration of alleged elected office bearers including Secretary. Therefore, Sri Rakesh Kumar Chattree and Dr. Deepak Tudy who are claiming elected Secretary could not be elected and their claim for substitution being elected Secretary has no legal basis. Applications No. 18 & 19 of 2021 filed by Rakesh Kumar Chattree, and Applications No. 29 & 30 of 2024 filed by Dr. Deepak Tudy, are accordingly dismissed.
8. So far as other applicants, Rt. Rev. Dr. Peter Baldev and Rev. Bipin John M. Masi are concerned, they have claimed to be Bishop, which is also highly disputed. Otherwise also, an elected Secretary could be substituted by other elected Secretary alone. None of the applicants have filed any independent writ petition and their respective interest are also apparently contrary to each other, therefore, they are also not entitled to be substituted. The Applications No. 10 & 11 filed by Rt. Rev. Dr. Peter Baldev as well as Applications No. 31 and 32 filed by Rev. Bipin John M. Masi, are accordingly dismissed.
9. Accordingly Writ-C No. 34333 of 2015 remained uncontested. However, learned counsels appearing for respective parties are in agreement that said writ petition be decided since findings and observations of impugned order therein may have bearing on stand of either parties and of present principal of the Institution concerned and manner of election of Committee of Management since presently it is run by a interim management as fixed by this Court.
10. During pending of above referred writ petition of the year 2015, the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Prayagraj has passed an order dated 03.08.2022 whereby despite this Court has passed an order of status qua, following direction was passed, which is reproduced hereinafter:-
अतएव उपरोक्त परिस्थितियों एवं जिला शासकीय अधिवक्ता (सिविल) से प्राप्त अभिमत दिनांक 07.02.2022 के क्रम में दि इलाहाबाद हाई स्कूल सोसाइटी की अन्तिम पंजीकृत प्रबन्ध समिति की सूची में वर्णित पदाधिकारियों द्वारा सोसाइटी की पंजीकृत नियमावली के अनुसार पूर्ववत् सोसाइटी द्वारा संचालित विद्यालय व्वायज हाईस्कूल एण्ड कालेज के प्रधानाचार्य के संयुक्त हस्ताक्षर से खाता संख्या 700010100007861 एवं 700010100006183 का संचालन कराने तथा देयकों का भुगतान करने का कष्ट करें। खाता संचालकों को यह निर्देश दिये जाते हैं कि वह प्रत्येक तिमाही प्राप्त आय एवं व्यय का विवरण अधोहस्ताक्षरी को प्रत्येक परस्थिति में प्रस्तुत करेंगे। यह भी निर्देश दिया जाता है। कि पिछले एवं अग्रिम वित्तीय वर्षों की सम्प्रेक्षित बैलेन्सशीट सो०पंजी०अधि० 1860 की धारा 4(2) के अन्तर्गत प्रस्तुत करें। यह निर्देश माननीय उच्च न्यायालय में योजित रिट याचिका संख्या-34333/2015 के अधीन होगा।
विशप मौरिस एडगरदान के प्रत्यावेदन जो माननीय मण्डलायुक्त एवं जिलाधिकारी प्रयागराज द्वारा क्रमशः दिनांक 15.06.2022 एवं दिनांक 18.06.2022 को प्राप्त हैं, तद्नुसार निस्तारित किये जाते हैं।
11. The said order was challenged by Dr. Lydia Anthony, claiming Secretary CNI in Writ-C No. 30896 of 2022 wherein following order was passed on 14.10.2022, which is reproduced hereinafter:-
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3.8.2022 passed by the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies & Chits, District-Praygraj as modified by order dated 11.8.2022 directing that the accounts of the Institutions named as Boys' High School & College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School & College, Prayagraj managed by the Allahabad High School Society, Prayagraj shall be operated jointly by the respective Principals of the said Institutions and Rt. Revd. Edgar Morris Dan who claims himself to be the Bishop/Chairman of the Diocese of Lucknow. Previous to the order dated 3.8.2022, the accounts of the said Institutions were being operated singly by the respective Principals of the Institutions.
It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from the records annexed with the petition that the dispute relates to control over the two Institutions named above and also the elected office bearers of the Society who claim themselves to control the two Institutions named above. The said issues are subjudice before this Court in Writ-C Nos. 31962 of 2012, 34333 of 2015 and 4121 of 2022.
In the circumstances, it would be appropriate that the present petition is heard alongwith the petitions referred above.
The Standing Counsel represents respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Respondent No. 4 is represented by Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, Advocate. Shri Raghav Dev Garg, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, which is taken on record.
The respondents may file their counter affidavit within two weeks. The petitioner shall have one week thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavit.
Connect with Writ-C Nos. 31962 of 2012, 34333 of 2015 and 4121 of 2022 and list on 21.11.2022 in the additional cause list at 2:00 p.m. As an interim measure, it is directed that the accounts of the Institutions named as Boys' High School & College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School & College, Prayagraj shall be operated jointly by the Principals of the respective Institutions and any other officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate appointed by the Collector, Prayagraj.
12. Later on, said order was also challenged in Writ-C No. 26058 of 2024 wherein following interim order was passed on 23.10.2024, which is reproduced hereinafter:-
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, Sri G.K. Singh, Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.P. Sahi, learned counsel for the respondent No.5 and Sri B.P. Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.6.
2. The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3.8.2022 passed by the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies & Chits, District-Praygraj as modified by order dated 11.8.2022 directing that the accounts of the Institutions named as Boys' High School & College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School & College, Prayagraj managed by the Allahabad High School Society, Prayagraj shall be operated jointly by the respective Principals of the said Institutions and Rt. Revd. Edgar Morris Dan who claims himself to be the Bishop/Chairman of the Diocese of Lucknow. Previous to the order dated 3.8.2022, the accounts of the said Institutions were being operated singly by the respective Principals of the Institutions.
3. It appears that the order dated 03.08.2022 passed by the Assistant Registrar modified by order dated 11.08.2022 was challenged before this Court in Writ-C No.30896 of 2022. The order of this Court dated 14.10.2022 is reproduced herein below:-
"The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 3.8.2022 passed by the Assistant Registrar Firms, Societies & Chits, District-Praygraj as modified by order dated 11.8.2022 directing that the accounts of the Institutions named as Boys' High School & College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School & College, Prayagraj managed by the Allahabad High School Society, Prayagraj shall be operated jointly by the respective Principals of the said Institutions and Rt. Revd. Edgar Morris Dan who claims himself to be the Bishop/Chairman of the Diocese of Lucknow. Previous to the order dated 3.8.2022, the accounts of the said Institutions were being operated singly by the respective Principals of the Institutions.
It appears from the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and from the records annexed with the petition that the dispute relates to control over the two Institutions named above and also the elected office bearers of the Society who claim themselves to control the two Institutions named above. The said issues are subjudice before this Court in Writ-C Nos. 31962 of 2012, 34333 of 2015 and 4121 of 2022.
In the circumstances, it would be appropriate that the present petition is heard alongwith the petitions referred above.
The Standing Counsel represents respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Respondent No. 4 is represented by Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, Advocate. Shri Raghav Dev Garg, Advocate, has filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6, which is taken on record.
The respondents may file their counter affidavit within two weeks. The petitioner shall have one week thereafter to file his rejoinder affidavit.
Connect with Writ-C Nos.31962 of 2012, 34333 of 2015 and 4121 of 2022 and list on 21.11.2022 in the additional cause list at 2:00 p.m. As an interim measure, it is directed that the accounts of the Institutions named as Boys' High School & College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School & College, Prayagraj shall be operated jointly by the Principals of the respective Institutions and any other officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate appointed by the Collector, Prayagraj."
4. It has been informed that now the petitioners in Writ-C No.30896 of 2022 filed an application for withdrawal of the writ petition.
5. In such view of the fact, to protect the interest of the institution, some order needs to be passed on the Stay Application. Accordingly, this Court provides that the arrangement made by this Court in its order dated 14.10.2022 in Writ-C No.30896 of 2022 shall continue till further orders. It is made clear that in the event, the Writ-C No.30896 of 2022 is dismissed as not pressed even then the arrangement made by this Court in its order dated 14.10.2022 shall continue till further orders.
6. Issue notice to the respondents No.4 and 7 to 10, returnable at an early date.
7. List this case on 18.12.2024.
13. There cannot be much legal debate on a legal issue that once there was an order of status quo by this Court, the Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Prayagraj should have restraint himself to enter into any dispute arising out of dispute of Committee of Management of Allahabad High School Society, specifically when he was a party respondent in other writ petitions and was well aware of interim order. Therefore, impugned order dated 03.08.2022 being an attempt to march over an order passed by this Court, is an illegal order and liable to be set aside.
14. Crux of various submissions of the Learned Counsels of rival parties can be summarised in following manner:-
(A) There are two group of Churches who are claiming that they alone are authorised to run the Management of the School concerned. One is CIPBC (Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon) and other is CNI (Church of North India). There are fractions among the CNI. Both are claiming that Institution concerned is within their respective DIOCESES. CNI is claiming unification with CIPBC, whereas CIPBC is opposing it on basis of observations made by the Supreme Court in a judgment passed in Vinod Kumar M. Malvia and others Vs. Maganlal Mangaldas Gameti and others, (2013) 15 SCC 394, that it being old one is still independent.
(B) Per contra, CNI is placing reliance on a subsequent judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court at Lucknow in Christ Church McConaghy School Society, Lucknow and another Vs. Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow and others, 2015:AHC-LKO:19447, unsuccessful challenge before A Division Bench in Most Rev. John Augustine Vs. Christ Church Mcconaghy School Society Lucknow and others, 2022:AHC-LKO:34457-DB and challenge to it before Supreme Court remained unsuccessful in Most. Rev. John Augustine vs. Christ Church Mcconaghy School Society Lucknow and others (Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 14338 of 2022), decided on 09.09.2022.
(C) Another fraction in CNI has placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Uttarakhand High Court in All Saints College Society Nainital and others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others (Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1173 of 2011), decided on 19.03.2014, which is challenged before a Division Bench of Uttarakhand High Court in Special Appeal No. 129 of 2014, All Saints College Society & Others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and others, 2014:UHC:4248, and the Division Bench observed that in such cases parties be relegated to Civil Court.
(D) Learned counsels have placed reliance on judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Shailendra Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others, 2017(6) ADJ 602 also.
15. I have heard Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Deepak Kumar as well as Sri Adarsh Singh, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sri Sankalp Narain, Sri B.P. Tiwari, Sri Subedar Mishra, Advocates and Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned Standing Counsel, appearing for respective parties in all matters.
16. First of all, it would be appropriate to refer relevant part of aforesaid judgments cited by learned counsel for parties hereinafter:
(I) Vinod Kumar M. Malvia (supra):
30. After analysing the facts and the law in the matter, we have noticed that it is the duty of the society to take steps in accordance with Section 13 of the SR Act for its dissolution. We have further noted that unless the properties vested in the Trust are divested in accordance with the provisions of the SR Act and in accordance with the BPTA, merely by filing the change report(s), CNI cannot claim a merger of churches and thereby claim that the properties vested in the Trust would vest in them. In our opinion, it would only be evident from the steps taken that the passing of resolutions is nothing but an indication to show the intention to merge and nothing else. In fact, the City Civil Court has correctly held, in our opinion, which has been affirmed by the High Court, that there was no dissolution of the society and further merger was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of law. In these circumstances, we hold that the society and the Trust being creatures of statute, have to resort to the modes provided by the statute for its amalgamation and the so-called merger cannot be treated or can give effect to the dissolution of the Trust. In the matrix of the facts, we hold that without taking any steps in accordance with the provisions of law, the effect of the resolutions or deliberations is not acceptable in the domain of law. The question of estoppel also cannot stand in the way as the High Court has correctly pointed out that the freedom guaranteed under the Constitution with regard to the faith and religion, cannot take away the right in changing the faith and religion after giving a fresh look and thinking at any time and thereby cannot be bound by any rules of estoppel. Therefore, the resolution only resolved to accept the recommendation of joint unification but does not refer to dissolution.
(II) Christ Church McConaghy School Society (supra) (Single Bench):
The aforesaid Act received the assent of the President of India on 20th February, 2004. The conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions shows that what was saved by Section 3 of Act 1960 was the application of any statute repealed by it in relation to India and to persons and things in any way belonging to or connected with India, in any country to which India (consequential provision) Act, 1949 extended. Assuming that the said provision saved the application of the Indian Church Act, 1927, the same stood repealed with effect from 20.02.2004. This aspect of the matter was not considered by the Deputy Registrar. Thus the finding recorded by the Deputy Registrar is without sound legal basis and is, therefore, unsustainable. Moreover, the Deputy Registrar did not at all consider the question as to whether the Church of India (CIBC) was in existence defacto. He merely presumed its defacto existence based on the aforesaid statutory provisions that too in ignorance of the Act 2004, which is not sustainable. He failed to appreciate that neither the opposite party no. 3 nor any other person claiming under CIBC or CIPBC had staked any claim to the management of the petitioner-society since 1970, therefore, their defacto existence was seriously questionable. He also failed to go into the question as to whether the CIBC or CIPBC was actually functional in India after its General Council passed the resolution on 29.11.1970 for its merger with and formation of CNI, specially as there was no order or decree of any court nullifying such merger or creation. In fact these issue were beyond the scope of an inquiry under Section 4. The dispute in question was predominantly related to election and continuance of officer-bearers of the committee of management of the petitioner-society and not pertaining to the list of officer-bearers. The claim of opposite party no. 3 was to the management of petitioner-society. The Deputy Registrar should not have ignored the admitted fact that opposite party no. 3 and his associates had not been in control and management of the petitioner-society for the last 34 years. He was neither an ordinary nor a life member of the society whether prior or after 1970. He claimed to be Bishop of Lucknow Dioceses and ex-officio Chairman of petitioner-society as per its bye-laws. He claimed to have been elected or enthroned as Bishop of Lucknow way back in the year 2005 but he never raised any claim or expressed any willingness to function as ex-officio Chairman of the petitioner-society. This was a very relevant fact which should have weighed with the Deputy Registrar for the purpose of registration/acceptance of the list of officer-bearers or members of the society submitted by opposite party no. 3 but he failed to take it into account. He also failed to appreciate that the list submitted by opposite party no. 3 along with application dated 14.08.2014 was also not in conformity with the bye-laws of the society as he did not include ex-officio members in it. The list of general body submitted therewith contained the names of only 12 members. He also failed to appreciate that the modified list submitted by opposite party no. 3 along with his application dated 15.12.2014 contained the names of 18 members of the general body, including petitioner no.2 himself, who had set up a rival claim in his objection dated 25.11.2014, which was at variance with the earlier list, yet the Deputy Registrar accepted the list of general body as also the list of officer-bearers submitted by opposite party no. 3 ignoring the aforesaid glaring facts. Furthermore he directed the opposite party no. 3 to constitute a committee of management and submit a list before him accordingly. It was clearly beyond the pale of Section 4 of the Act 1860. To ask the ex-officio Chairman to constitute the committee of management was itself unjustified.
The merger of CIBC/CIPBC with CNI on 29.11.1970 not being in dispute, though its validity being disputed by opposite party no. 3, considering the indisputable fact that CNI being in control of the petitioner-society since then, the absence of amendment in bye-laws replacing the reference to CIBC by CNI is not very material specially as CIBC itself subsequently became CIPBC which is also not mentioned in the bye-laws by way of any amendment.
The finding recorded by the Deputy Registrar that the appointment of opposite party no. 3 as Bishop of Lucknow was valid is also without jurisdiction. He had no power under Section 4 to give such a declaration. The General Council of alleged Church of India or CIBC or CIPBC which was the highest body had not staked any such claim. It was only opposite party no. 3 who claiming himself to be Metropolitan of India had raised such a dispute, that too after 34 years of the creation of CNI and more than 9 years after his alleged appointment as Bishop of Lucknow and Metropolitan of India. His entitlement could only be considered before the civil court. Even the proceedings under Section 25 (1) could not have been resorted to by him as he could not have mustered the requisite 2/3rd majority of the members of the existing general body of the petitioner-society as he was claiming a separate general body who belong to the Church of India (CIBC) and not CNI.
For the aforesaid reasons the acceptance by the Deputy Registrar of the list of officer-bearers and members of general body submitted by opposite party no. 3 cannot be sustained nor can the direction to the said opposite party to constitute the committee of management of the petitioner-society be sustained.
(III) Christ Church Mcconaghy School Society (supra) (Division Bench):
78. So far as the plea of the appellant that CNI has no role to play in the management of the respondent no.1/Society in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in Vinod Kumar M. Malviya (supra) and further the CNI is not the successor of Society and also not entitled to manage the affairs of the Society, are concerned, it transpires from the judgment of Apex Court in Vinod Kumar M. Malviya (Supra) that the genesis of the Vinod Kumar M. Malviya (supra) was a dispute challenging the said merger of FDCB by filing objections by members of FDCB Gujrat Chapter before the Charity Commissioner regarding change of reports, before the Charity Commissioner under the Bombay Port Trusts Act. The questions before the Charity Commissioner were (i) whether the change was legal, (ii) whether the said change reports or any of the change reports are liable to be allowed. The Charity Commissioner answered both the questions in affirmative and dismissed the objections raised against the change reports, allowed the properties vested in FDCB to be vested in CNI. Against the order of the Charity Commissioner the objectors preferred an application before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad under Section 72 of the BPT Act alleging that there was no lawful merger of the trust and the property vested with the Property Committee continued to exist with it. The questions which arose before the learned City Civil Judge were as under:-- (i) Whether the society is dissolved and secondly, whether the Trust i.e. FDCB is also dissolved ?; (ii) Whether CNI is successor of the Trust i.e. FDCB?; and (iii) Whether by mere merger of FDCB into various other churches, the properties are by rules and regulations of the society ipso facto vested in CNI, without having to perform any other legal obligation or formality?. The learned City Civil Court opined that FDCB had not been dissolved as there was no proper proof of the same. Furthermore, as a trust and society are creations of statutes, they must be dissolved accordingly and the question of merger is a factual one, wherein the merging trust continues to exist unless specifically dissolved under the statute. Furthermore, without following Section 50-A of the BPT Act which deals with the dissolution of trust, FDCB property cannot be vested with CNI. Thus, the learned Civil Court Judge quashed and set aside the order of the Charity Commissioner. The matter went to the High Court of Gujarat. The basic issue before the learned Single Judge of the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat was to determine whether CNI is the successor and legal continuation of FDCB or not. The Gujrat High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Civil Court. In these backdrops, the matter went up to the Supreme Court which was decided in Vinod Kumar M. Malviya's case (supra). The primary issue enumerated in paragraph 13 of the said judgment for consideration before the Apex Court was 'whether the alleged unification of the First District Church of Brethren with Church of North India is correct or not and the same would answer all the ancillary issues raised before the Supreme Court'. The Apex Court held that FDCB being a Society registered under Act, 1860 also a trust under the BPT Act it could only be dissolved/merged as per the provisions of the said Acts and not otherwise. It also held that unless the properties vested in FDCB are divested in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1860 and BPT Act, merely by filing change reports CNI cannot claim merger of trust and thereby the properties would vest in them. The passing of the resolution in the year 1970 in this regard was nothing but an indication to show the intention to merge and nothing else. The Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the City Civil Court and the High Court on the ground that there was no dissolution of the society and further the merger was not carried out in accordance with the provisions of law. It further held that the society and the trust being creatures of the statute, have to resort to the modes provided by the statute for amalgamation and the so called merger cannot be treated or cannot be given effect to the dissolution of the trust without taking any steps in accordance with the provisions of law, the effect of resolutions or deliberations is not acceptable in the domain of law. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the instant case, it is quite clear that the dictum of the Apex Court in Vinod Kumar M. Malviya (supra) is not applicable in the instant case and the learned Single Judge had rightly came to the conclusion that neither the status of the respondent no.1/Society nor the validity of merger of Church of India (CIBC) with CNI was an issue nor was it decided by the Apex Court, hence the Deputy Registrar wrongly presumed that the Apex Court declared the creation of CNI as illegal. In fact the aforesaid issue is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in various suits including the suit filed on behalf of the appellant. Hence the plea of the appellant in this regard has no substance and it is rejected accordingly.
79. In regard to the plea of the Saving Clause in British Statutes (Application to India) Repeal Act, 1960, the learned Single Judge has opined that the British Statutes (Repeal) Act, 2004 received the assent of the President of India on 20.02.2004 and con-joint reading of the provisions of Section 3 of Repeal Act, 1960, sub-sections (1), (2), (3) and (4) of Section 1 of the Act, 1949 as well as Repeal Act, 2004 shows that what was saved by Section 3 of the Act, 1960 was the application of any statute repealed by it in relation to India and to persons and things in any way belonging to or connected with India, in any country to which India (Consequential Provision) Act, 1949 extended, therefore, assuming that the said provision saved the application of the Indian Church Act, 1927, the same stood repealed w.e.f. 20.02.2004 but this aspect of the matter was not considered by the Deputy Registrar. Moreover, the Deputy Registrar did not at all consider the question as to whether the CIBC was in existence defacto or not and further neither the appellant nor any other person claiming under CIBC or CIPBC had staked any claim to the management of the respondent no.1/society since 1970, hence their defacto existence was seriously questionable. In our view, these findings recorded by the learned Single Judge have substance as the aforesaid points are relevant for proper adjudication of the case and the Deputy Registrar has erred in not considering the aforesaid fact. Thus, the learned Single Judge has rightly remanded back the matter to the Deputy Registrar to take a decision afresh in the light of Section 4 and 4-B of the Act, 1860 keeping in mind the directions of the Apex Court in case of the A.P. Aboobaker Vs. District Registrar (G) Kozhikode and others : (2004) 11 SCC 247 and the observations made in the body of the judgment subject to any order or declaration by any court in favour of appellant in a pending or fresh suit, if filed by him or his associates.
80. The learned Single Judge has also clarified that the discussions made in the impugned judgment are only for the purpose of adjudicating the validity of the order of the Deputy Registrar and any observations made shall be prejudice the rights of the parties pending adjudication in any proceedings before any Court. Thus, the plea of the appellant that the observation of the learned Single Judge that the appellant was a stranger and if this finding of the learned Single Judge is not set-aside, the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss in a pending issue, has no substance and is also rejected.
(IV) All Saints College Society Nainital (supra) (Single Bench):
Therefore, in my considered opinion instead of asking the parties to raise their dispute under Section 25 of the Act, parties should be left to approach competent civil Court for the adjudication of their respective rights as to who are in the management and control of the society running both the schools or in other words who is legally entitled to manage both the schools.
In view of the finding recorded, learned Deputy Registrar (Societies) Nainital had no jurisdiction to decide the interse dispute between the parties. Therefore, impugned order does not sustain in the eyes of law. Consequently, writ petitions are allowed. Impugned orders are quashed.
Parties shall be at liberty to approach competent Civil Court for adjudication of their respective rights about the entitlement to run the society, membership and office bearers of the society running both the schools. Parties shall also be at liberty to apply before the competent Civil Court for interim relief. In the event of moving such application, learned Civil Judge shall decide the same on their own merit in accordance with law keeping in mind the welfare and smooth running of the schools. While deciding the right to interim management of both the schools, pending civil suit, learned Civil Judge shall take into consideration who has been managing both the schools for past long time.
(V) All Saints College Society (supra) (Division Bench):
2. While deciding the said writ petitions, the learned Single Judge, in our considered view has taken care of all the aspects, including disposal of such applications for interim relief. Therefore, presently no interference is called for in the matter. The special appeal is totally devoid of merit, and is hereby dismissed.
3. Towards the end, Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned counsel for the appellants has argued before this Court that he has apprehensions that certain elements who have no business to run the school would be interfering with the management of the school and, therefore, an interference is required by this Court.
4 If the appellants have such apprehensions, they are at liberty to seek relief before the civil court as already reflected in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
(VI) Shailendra Singh (supra):
24. The powers conferred under the aforesaid sections clearly demonstrate that the Registrar is the principal Executive Officer to exercise his power in respect of the affairs of the Society. Thus, his power under Section 4 cannot be divested only on the ground that under Section 25 he has the authority to refer the dispute pertaining to election and continuance of office bearers and, accordingly, even if some frivolous dispute is raised in respect of the election or continuance of the office-bearers, the same should be mandatorily referred. If there is a dispute of two parallel groups of the society, the Registrar can always examine whether the persons of rival group, who have raised the dispute, are member of the society or not. He can record his prima facie satisfaction in this regard as to who has the authority to convene the meeting and hold elections; persons who have participated are valid members of society; elections have been held as per bye-laws of society and if he is satisfied that the dispute is genuine and it is a dispute inter se between the members of the society, then he can refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority.
17. In order to facilitate the rival parties with the help of learned counsel for parties during hearing various part of order dated 26.05.2015, impugned in Writ-A No. 34333 of 2015, was referred.
18. I have also carefully perused the entire order dated 26.05.2015, which is running in 41 pages and is of the opinion that said authority has referred submissions made by various parties atleast upto the 38th page. There is a reference of a judgment passed by Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar M. Malviya (supra) as well as interim orders passed by this Court and finally within two and half pages reasons, whatsoever, are concluded. For reference relevant part of order dated 26.05.2015 is reproduced hereinafter:
"माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद ने आदेश दिनांक 05-07-2012 के द्वारा रजिस्ट्रार, फर्म्स सोसाइटीज एण्ड चिट्स, लखनऊ के आदेश दिनांक 14-05-2012 को स्थगित कर दिया। उक्त रिट याचिका माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद में विचाराधीन है। जॉन अगस्टीन ने माननीय मुख्यमंत्री को तत्कालीन सहायक रजिस्ट्रार के आदेश दिनांक 24-07-2010 के पुनरावलोकन के सम्बन्ध प्रार्थना पत्र दिया था। प्रस्तुत प्रकरण से माननीय उच्च न्यायालय, इलाहाबाद के आदेश दिनांक 05-07-2012 प्रभावित नहीं होता है। प्रस्तुत प्रकरण जी० दाउद द्वारा प्रस्तुत कार्यवाही दिनांक 17-10-2013 व एच०आर० मल्ल द्वारा प्रस्तुत कार्यवाही दिनांक 04-04-2013 एवं जॉन अगस्टीन के पत्र दिनांक 13-05-2013 के द्वारा संलग्न कार्यवाही व प्रबन्ध समिति की सूची के निर्धारण के सम्बन्ध में कार्यवाही संचालित की जा रही है।
इस प्रकार सुशील कुमार मिश्रा लीडिया अन्योनी, नीरा सिंह, डी इनिश, मौरिश एडगर दान एच०आर० मल्ल का सम्बन्ध चर्च ऑफ नार्थ इण्डिया एवं जी० दाउद द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रबन्ध समिति की सूची वर्ष 2013-14 से सम्बन्धित है और मौरिस एडगर दान, एच०आर० मल्ल, सुशील कुमार मिश्रा एल० अन्थोनी, नीरा सिंह, डी० इनिश ने अधोहस्ताक्षरी कार्यालय द्वारा निर्गत नोटिसों के क्रम में कोई लिखित अभिकथन प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है। जबकि उपर्युक्त सभी व्यक्ति चर्च ऑफ नार्थ इण्डिया के सदस्य एवं पदाधिकारी थे और है। इन व्यक्तियों से चर्च ऑफ इण्डिया पाकिस्तान, वर्मा, सिलोन (CIPBC) से कोई वास्ता, सरोकार व सम्बन्ध नहीं है।
जब दाउद द्वारा अधोहस्ताक्षरी कार्यालय में प्रस्तुत प्रबन्ध समिति व साधारण सभा की सूची में उल्लिखित सदस्य चर्च ऑफ नार्थ इण्डिया के है। संस्था के सदस्य व नियमावली के अनुसार चर्च ऑफ नार्थ इण्डिया के पदाधिकारी नहीं हो सकते है। इस प्रकार जी दाउद द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रवन्ध समिति व साधारण सभा की सूची एवं अन्य प्रपत्र संस्था की नियमावली में दिये गये प्राविधानों के विरूद्ध होने के कारण अमान्य किया जाता है और संस्था के नियमावली के अनुसार संस्था का कार्यकाल एक वर्ष का है। चर्च ऑफ नार्थ इण्डिया द्वारा पिछला चुनाव दिनांक 04-04-2013 को कराया गया था जो दिनांक 04-04-2014 को समाप्त हो गया। उक्त कार्यकाल समाप्त होने के बाद भी किसी भी पक्ष द्वारा कोई चुनाव कार्यवाही प्रस्तुत नहीं किया है।
उपर्युक्त विवेचना के आधार पर मैं इस निष्कर्ष पर पहुँचता हूँ कि जी० दाउद, लियाकत एम० खान, जानसन टी जान द्वारा प्रस्तुत प्रत्यावेदन संस्था की नियमावली एवं चर्च आफ इण्डिया, पाकिस्तान, वर्मा, सिलोन के डायसिस आफ लखनऊ से सम्बन्धित न होने के कारण अमान्य किया जाता है और संस्था दि इलाहाबाद हाईस्कूल सोसाइटी इलाहाबाद के प्रबन्ध समिति का गठन संस्था की नियमावली के अनुसार न होने के कारण चर्च आफ इण्डिया पाकिस्तान वर्मा सिलोन (CIPBC) के डायसिस आफ लखनऊ के बिशप मोस्ट रेव्ह० जॉन अगस्टीन जो संस्था दि इलाहाबाद हाईस्कूल सोसाइटी के पदेन सदस्य के साथ ही साथ चेयरमैन भी है, को निर्देश दिया जाता है कि संस्था की नियमावली (1952) में दी गयी व्यवस्था के अनुसार प्रबन्ध समिति का गठन कर कार्यवाही प्रस्तुत करें।"
19. From perusal of above part of order, which appears to be the only reasoning given by said authority, it is evident that three factors are taken note of. Firstly, the dispute was with regard to office bearers elected in the year 2013-14 and that the said office bearers belonged to CNI and they have no concern with CIPBC; secondly, the term of Committee of Management in the year 2013-14 came to an end on 04.04.2014 and thereafter none of the parties have come forward claiming election and submitted list of elected office bearers; and lastly, it was directed Mr. Augustine, an allegedly elected Bishop of Dioceses of Lucknow of CIPBC to commence procedure for Constitution of Committee of Management in view of bye-laws of year 1952 of the Society.
20. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court is of the view that the issue, whether CIPBC was merged in CNI was not considered substantially in referred order. A reference was though taken from the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar M. Malviya (supra). Therefore, there is no specific finding at present stage which could substantially establish the case in favour of either CNI or CIPBC and undisputedly and as referred by Sri Gajendra Pratap Singh, learned Senior Advocate appearing for Respondent-4 in Writ-A No. 34333 of 2015, that election, if any, is to be conducted only in terms of recognized Committee of Management as per registered bye laws and accordingly Dioceses and Church has to be interpreted. He also referred their respective definition from Blacks Law Dictionary.
21. In the order dated 26.05.2015 there is no finding with regard to amendments if any carried out in bye laws or their legal consequences. Therefore, all important legal issues are still open.
22. In aforesaid circumstances, the Court takes note of a judgment passed by Uttarakhand High Court in All Saints College Society (supra) where in similar circumstances the parties were relegated to file civil suit before Civil Court since such disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction.
23. So far as reliance placed on the judgment passed by Supreme Court in Vinod Kumar M. Malviya (supra) and on a judgment passed by Lucknow Bench of this Court in Christ Church McConaghy School Society, Lucknow (supra) by rival parties are concerned, it cannot be said to be a final conclusion to resolve the controversy raised during hearing, specifically a dispute between CNI and CIPBC, i.e. whether CNI is the successor of CIPBC or not?
24. The Court also takes note that from 2011-12 there is no legal election for Committee of Management though there are rival claim but are stayed by this Court and presently it is running by an interim measure as determined by this Court. Said interim measure cannot continue for indefinite period. Therefore, it is observed that rival parties be relegated to Civil Court to crystallize their right so that election may be conducted in terms of recognized bye laws and delay caused is only due to fight between two groups which still has not led to any logical conclusion and also led to exchange of various allegations amongst parties and it was told during hearing that there are criminal proceedings between parties, especially between persons of CNI Group and Principal.
25. An issue was also raised that Principal of Institution is aged about 70 years. Though admittedly there is no maximum age prescribed for Principal but it is always better to infuse young blood so that the flow of energy is utilized to its maximum for benefit of the Institution concerned.
26. It is told that Institution is a very old minority Institution and has produced many outstanding personalities who have reached upto higher post and position in their respective fields. Therefore, it is also advised to Principal to take steps to clear all allegations and for that he should come forward to declare his assets in public to remove any doubt that he has committed embezzlement or misappropriation of property of the School. Even the arguments raised on his behalf were against one group and in favour of other group as well as since he is a stranger to any dispute between the CNI and CIPBC, therefore, his all arguments have no force.
27. In aforesaid circumstances, all these writ petitions are disposed of with following observations and directions:
I. All affairs of the Allahabad High Schools Society are to be run in accordance of its Rules of the year 1952. The Chairman would be the Bishop of Lucknow.
II. Two facts remained uncontroverted since it were referred extensively in earlier litigations that:
(a) After partition of India in 1947, the erstwhile Church of India, Burma and Ceylon (CIBC) became Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon (CIPBC).
(b) On 27th November, 1970, some Churches of CIPBC merged into one entity and created Church of North India (CNI) under Indian Churches Act, 1927.
III. A section of Church (still claiming part of CIPBC) has claimed that they never merged with CNI and claimed Bishop of Diocese of Lucknow and have claimed real Managing Committee of said Society and hence there is a dispute. This section has not been able to claim with conviction that CNI atleast at some point of time was managing, the Committee of Management of said Society. Still the dispute is not finally decided and being in realm of disputed facts as well as requires exchange of pleadings, statement of witnesses, therefore, for a conclusive decision both fractions are directed to settle their dispute in competent Civil Court for once and for all.
IV. It appears that both fractions are hesitating to go before the Civil Court probably on a ground that, it may be in their interest that dispute remain pending before appropriate authority under the Society Registration Act, 1860, however, they are mislead and misinformed that such delay would only delay proper management of Committee of Management of Schools as since for last atleast one decade Management of School is run by an interim management as directed by the Court and due to that both fractions are at loss and this has given a chance for mismanagement and initiation of Criminal Proceedings between the groups and there are serious allegations against the present Principal also.
V. Therefore, till rival groups are able to crystallize their claim before the competent Civil Court, interim measure has to be continued. However, considering other factors such as allegations of management, allegation of long period of holding of post of Principals of respective colleges and to minimize any allegations of embezzlement, misuse of funds also, some change is required. Audit Reports of last decade is also not on record and State has also not come up with any stand on this issue. As referred above presently the interim measure is as follows:-
As an interim measure, it is directed that the accounts of the Institutions named as Boys' High School & College, Prayagraj and Girls' High School & College, Prayagraj shall be operated jointly by the Principals of the respective Institutions and any other officer not below the rank of Additional District Magistrate appointed by the Collector, Prayagraj.
VI. In view of above discussion, it is directed that the accounts of both Institutions i.e. CIPBC (Church of India, Pakistan, Burma and Ceylon) and CNI (Church of North India) shall be operated jointly by respective Principal, District Magistrate, Prayagraj and Commissioner of Police, Prayagraj. Court also appoints Justice Umesh Kumar, Former Judge, High Court, Allahabad (who has given his consent) as an Observer, who may inspect the record and in case of any error, he may direct District Magistrate or Commissioner to verify records. He will ensure that quarterly audit be took place by independent Chartered Accountant at Prayagraj. He will also ensure that Management of College be run smoothly. He will be at liberty to move an application before this Court, if circumstances so warrants to seek any direction from this Court. An Office be provided to him at the premises of both Colleges so that he on his own convenience may sit at Office. The Principal will provide necessary infrastructure and staff on his requirement, if any.
28. All writ petitions are accordingly disposed off.
29. Registrar (Compliance) to take steps.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) November 06.11.2025 AK