RAVI S. DHAVAN, J.

( 1 ) THIS special appeal is the third case relating to the same issues about elections within a society known as the Mahatma Gandhi Shiksha Pracharini Samiti, Kudari, district Jalaun. This society runs an institution known as the Mahatma Gandhi Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Khudari, district Jalaun. This institution is recognised under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the regulations framed under the Act, aforesaid. The institution has a scheme of administration which saw amendments and it is accepted that the scheme of administration together with the amendments had been approved by the Deputy Director of Education, Jhansi region, Jhansi, on 31st December, 1983. It was by an ad interim order dated July 17, 1992 in writ petition No. 28806 of 1992 that there was a direction, regard being had to certain circumstances that the District Inspector of Schools, Jalaun, was required to take over the institution forthwith and operate the accounts of the institution. Subsequently, by another order of October 10, 1993, a direction was issued to the District Inspector of Schools to take over the management of the institution. By the subsequent order he had also been required to conduct an election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management within one month in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of administration. The Court also directed that once the election is over, the management is to be handed over to the duly elected Committee of management. Not to be unnoticed is that the order was to the effect as indicated by the Court, even otherwise to be understood, that the election was to be carried out in accordance with law.

( 2 ) IN so far as the issue is concerned, there, apparently, is no dispute amongst the parties at Bar, whether appellant, the respondent or even the State respondents. The issue is that, while the conduct of an election was in process with the District Inspector of Schools sitting over as incharge to run the Management of the institution, could he induct new members ; in the instant case life members? Submissions have been made at the Bar on behalf of the appellant, Ranbir singh and the respondent. S. K. Misra, the respondent Committee of Management, whatever be its status, and the District Inspector of Schools. The issue as noticed remains. The contentions of parties are also in affidavits exchanged on the stay application of the appellants.

( 3 ) THE District Inspector of Schools in his affidavit. In paragraph 8 submits that the point involved is, to the effect, whether the District Inspector of Schools had powers to induct new members, while holding the charge of the institution as a Manager. Unfortunately, in this affidavit affirmed on 24 May 1996, the District Inspector of Schools required a petty clerk to make submission before the High Court. But, the District inspector of Schools seems to be conscious of the powers he may have been so vested with when the High Court appointed him to take charge of the Management of the educational institution.

( 4 ) HOWEVER, as between counsel for the appellant, Mr. A. P. Sahi and counsel for the contesting respondent, Mr. V. B. Singh, the contention has been that the matter may be seen as analogous to under Section 15d of the Act, aforesaid. On the proposition on whatever may be the powers which may vest In an Authorised Controller of an institution, until such time when a Committee of Management has been lawfully constituted to replace it, the powers of the District Inspector of schools, in the present case, could not be more unless spelled out by the High Court. The premises of the issue is accepted by the parties.

( 5 ) IN so far as the contention of the District Inspector of Schools is concerned, submitted through a clerk on an affidavit, the Standing Counsel, Mr. U. K. Pandey, has been more than fair to submit that the District Inspector of Schools can have no more powers than an Authorised controller may not have an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document