Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.66 seconds)
Documents citing Prem Prakash And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 25 May, 2015

Laxmi Narain Agarwal vs State Of U.P. Through Prin. Secy. ... on 19 August, 2019

57. If it is found that four new members had been inducted as in terms of the Act and the bye-laws or they could not have been inducted and they have participated in the election and come to occupy the post of its office- bearers based on an illegal election, it would amount to an impostor, usurping the society. Out of ten valid members declared by the Deputy Registrar, the membership of four is in dispute, which has an impressionable impact on the election. In the present case, as noticed above, the membership of the general body is a very small and one of them had died, leaving behind six members. Out of remaining six members, one is said to have resigned. The induction of as many as four members, without there being any provision, no date of their induction having been found on record nor any documentary proof to support the induction is available, it cannot be said that the petitioner, who is a life-time and founder-member of the Society or his son, who is also a life-time member, their rights are not being affected especially in view of the Division Bench judgment in Prem Prakash's case. This Court vide order dated 07.01.2016 has, therefore, rejected the submissions that the writ petition is not maintainable at their behest and the petitioners has no locus has been rejected. I am in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion arrived at in the order dated 07.01.2016 passed by this Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - D K Singh - Full Document

Banwari Lal Kanchal vs Dr. Bhartendu Agarwal & Ors. on 20 November, 2019

79: On perusal of the bye-laws, it is further established that the general body of the society has not been empowered to induct members of the general body of the society, therefore, the learned Single Judge, considering the entire aspect of the matter, maintained the writ petition by relying the judgment in the case of Ratan Kumar Solanki (Supra) as well as Prem Prakash & others Vs. State of U.P. & others passed in Special Appeal No.307 of 2015.
Allahabad High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 3 - I Ali - Full Document

Shiv Kumar Pandey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Agriculture & ... on 26 October, 2021

(4) The appellant, Shiv Kumar Pandey, and five others, namely, Prem Prakash, Diwakar Dube, Dilip Kumar, Harihar Prasad Pandey, Narendra Kumar Dube, have approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 6685 (S/S) of 2003 : Prem Prakash and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, stating therein that they were working on the post of Class-IV on daily wage basis against the sanctioned and clear vacant posts at Narendra Dev University of Agriculture & Technology, Kumarganj, Faizabad (hereinafter referred to as "the University") but their services were not regularized. This writ petition was dismissed as having become infructuous by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 26.03.2014. Thereafter, the appellant/writ petitioner no.4 (Shiv Kumar Pandey) has filed an application for recall of the aforesaid order dated 26.03.2014 (C.M.Application No. 100439 of 2021) along with an application for condonation of delay (C.M. Application No. 100434 of 2021). The learned Single Judge, vide order dated 14.09.2021, rejected both the aforesaid applications.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nadeem Iftekhar And 12 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 13 October, 2023

3. Shri Gulrez Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 submits that Joint Director of Education, being head of the Regional Level Committee, if he issued notices, the same cannot be termed as illegal and, even otherwise, since the matter has already been decided by the Regional Level Committee pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 22.08.2022 which also makes it clear that it was also left open for either of the parties to seek remedy by filing civil suit, as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 25.05.2015 passed in Special Appeal No.307 of 2015 (Prem Prakash And 3 Others v. State of U.P. And 4 Others), the writ petition is not maintainable and the petitioners may avail remedies as left open.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1