IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.1 of 2010 ANJUMAN TARAQQUI-E-URDU, BIHAR, SECOND FLOOR, URDU BHAWAN, MOHALLA CHAWHATTA, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT PATNA THROUGH ITS JOINT SECRETARY, DR. NAJEEB AKHTAR . . . . . . . Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SECRETARIAT BUILDING, PATNA-1 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, PATNA-1 4. THE UNDER SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF MINORITY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, SECRETARIAT BUILDINGS, PATNA-1 5. ABDUL QUAYUM ANSARI SON OF NOT KNOWN, RESIDENT OF ALAM MANZIL, SABZIBAGH, P.S. PIRBAHORE, DISTRICT PATNA. 6. THE ANJUMAN TARAQQUI-E-URDU, HIND, URDU GHAR MARG, 212, ROUSE AVENUE, NEW DELHI-110002 THROUGH ITS GENERAL SECRETARY 7. DR. KHALIQUE ANJUM, GENERAL SECRETARY, ANJUMAN TARAQQUI-E-URDU, HIND, URDU GHAR MARG, 212, ROUSE AVENUE, NEW DELHI-110002. . . . . . . . . Respondents. ----------- 9/ 18.08.2010 In the instant review application, the petitioner prays for review of order dated 30.11.2009, passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3117 of 2007, by which the case of the petitioner was disposed of with a direction that a fresh election of Anjuman Tarique-E-Urdu, Bihar be held within three months in accordance with bye-law. This Court further observed that till then, the committee as elected on 13.02.2008 under the supervision of respondent no.7 namely, Central Secretary of Anjuman Taraqqui-E-Urdu Hind, New Delhi would function by way of interim arrangement. The petitioner is a registered society having its head office at New Delhi with its branch at Patna. The Society has his own bye- laws, which is annexed as Annexure-1. According to the bye-laws, the working committee would constitute of ten members of the society to be elected by the members (Councilors) of the society in 2 the General Body (Council) meeting. In the writ petition, the petitioner prayed for quashing the office order dated 22.01.2007 issued by Minority Welfare Department, Government of Bihar under the signature of the Deputy Secretary of the Department, giving recognition to respondent no.5 as President and respondent no.6 as Secretary of the petitioner’s society. The Executive Committee is elected for six years. In the meanwhile, two successive Presidents died and there was allegation of defalcation against Abdul Quayum Ansari, respondent no.5. The election of the Executive Committee was held on 19.10.2003 and Mr. Abdul Moghni (now deceased) was elected as President and respondent no.6, Abdul Qaiyum Ansari is Secretary. It would appear from the bye-laws that the first election was held on 19.10.2003 and the next election was due after 19.10.2009. However, as per respondent nos. 5 to 7, a fresh election has been held on 13.02.2008, on account of various incriminating factors including death of two successive Presidents. It is the case of the respondents that as the operation of order dated 22.11.2007, as contained in Annexure-10 of the writ application issued by Minority Welfare Department of the Government of Bihar recognizing the President and Secretary was stayed, a fresh election was held under the supervision of Central body. The case of the petitioner was that the election was a mere paper transaction, as such in view of the aforesaid fact, this Court issued direction in the writ for holding fresh election of Anjuman 3 Tarique-E-Urdu, Bihar in accordance with bye-laws. This Court further observed that till fresh election, the committee elected on 13.02.2008 under the supervision of Central body would function by way of interim arrangement. The petitioner prays for review of the observation of Court that till fresh election is made, the Committee elected on 13.02.2008 would function by way of interim arrangement. Learned counsel submits that in 2003 election Abdul Quayum Ansari, who was respondent in the writ application has been elected as Secretary. He further submits that there are lots of allegations against Abdul Quayum Ansari and the petitioner had challenged the letter of the Minority Welfare Department, Government of Bihar dated 22.01.2007 whereby recognition was given to the election of Abdul Quayum Ansari as Secretary. Initially Abdul Quayum Ansari was made respondent not 6 in the writ application but on account of death of Haroon Rashid, respondent no.7, Abdul Quayum Ansari has been termed as respondent no.5. This Court by order dated 27.11.2007 had stayed the operation of the Government order recognizing one Haroon Rashid s President and Abdul Quayum Ansari as Secretary. Learned counsel submits that the effect of the order would be that respondent no.5 would again continue as Secretary by way of interim arrangement and would influence the election. This Court had stayed the order of the State Government dated 22.01.2007, as contained in annexure-10 of the writ application, as mentioned in brief in paragraph 1 of the order dated 4 27.11.2007 itself taking took into account that petitioner’s society is governed by its own rule and bye-laws and the challenge was made to assumption of jurisdiction by the State in this regard. Heard the counsel for the parties. It would appear from the affidavit of the Central body of Anjuman Taraqqui-E-Urdu Hind, New Delhi that the 2008 election was held in its supervision. In any view of the matter, the order of this Court was by way of stop the gap arrangement only, so that the day to day work of the society may not suffer. The respondents state that pursuant to the order of this court, a fresh election has been held and if the petitioner is in any manner aggrieved, it may challenge the said election under appropriate applications In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, this Court does not find that petitioner has made out any plausible case for review of the order passed by this Court on 30.11.2009 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3117 of 2007. The petitioner has raised one more issue that during the order of status quo dated 17.02.2010 passed in this Civil Revision, the District Administration handed over possession to respondents dispossessing the petitioner. The District Magistrate, Patna has filed counter affidavit that it was not a party to the proceeding and was not aware of day to day order of this Court. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that petitioner if aggrieved may file appropriate application in respect of 5 his grievance or may file claim for damages. With the liberty aforesaid, this application is disposed of. Uday/ (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.)