Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D. K. SETH
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, SRI.RATAN MUNI JAIN INTERMEDIATE COLLEGE.AGRA - Appellant
Versus
DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SECONDARY), ALLAHABAD - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 16725 Of 1995
Decided On : 05/24/1996
EDUCATION - U. P. Intermediate Education Act - Section 16-A (7) - Dispute between two rival groups of people - Committee of Management of the society and Committee of Management of the College - Held: The two Committees cannot be rival to each other since one is the Committee of the society and the other is that of the College and, therefore, outside the scope of Section 16-A (7) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose between two groups of people claiming to be the Committee of Management of Sri Ratan Muni Jain, Inter College, Agra. The petitioner claimed to have held an election in June 1991, while the respondent claimed to have held an election in July 1991. The Deputy Director of Education concluded that there was no dispute within the meaning of Section 16-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act (the Act), as the election held by the petitioner related to the Committee of Management of the College whereas the election claimed to have been held by the respondent was related to the society, which is different from the Committee of Management of the College. The respondent filed a writ petition challenging this decision, which was dismissed. The respondent then filed a Special Appeal, which was also dismissed. In the meantime, the respondent filed a suit for injunction restraining the District Inspector of Schools and the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, U. P. Agra, from interfering with the management of the School by the respondent's Committee of Management. The petitioner's application for impleadment in the suit was rejected. The Additional Civil Judge granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the management of the institution by the respondent's Committee of Management. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Additional Civil Judge, which was allowed. The respondent filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, which was dismissed. In the meantime, a fresh election was held, and the petitioner's Committee of Management was recognized by the District Inspector of Schools. The respondent's Committee of Management also claimed to have held an election, and the Additional Civil Judge allowed an application for substitution of the respondent's Committee of Management as plaintiffs in the suit. The District Inspector of Schools recognized the respondent's Committee of Management and attested the signatures of its Manager. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the orders of the Additional Civil Judge and the District Inspector of Schools.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the order of the Additional Civil Judge allowing the substitution of the respondent's Committee of Management as plaintiffs in the suit was erroneous, as the cause of action in the suit was completely different from the cause of action in the election dispute. The Court also held that the order of the District Inspector of Schools recognizing the respondent's Committee of Management and attesting the signatures of its Manager was illegal, as the dispute between the two Committees had been finally decided by the Deputy Director of Education and affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court. The Court further held that the order of the Additional Civil Judge granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the management of the institution by the respondent's Committee of Management was illegal, as the petitioner was not a party to the suit and had not been given an opportunity to be heard.
Issues: 1. Whether the order of the Additional Civil Judge allowing the substitution of the respondent's Committee of Management as plaintiffs in the suit was erroneous? 2. Whether the order of the District Inspector of Schools recognizing the respondent's Committee of Management and attesting the signatures of its Manager was illegal? 3. Whether the order of the Additional Civil Judge granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the management of the institution by the respondent's Committee of Management was illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The cause of action in the suit was completely different from the cause of action in the election dispute, and therefore the order of the Additional Civil Judge allowing the substitution of the respondent's Committee of Management as plaintiffs in the suit was erroneous. 2. The dispute between the two Committees had been finally decided by the Deputy Director of Education and affirmed by the High Court and the Supreme Court, and therefore the order of the District Inspector of Schools recognizing the respondent's Committee of Management and attesting the signatures of its Manager was illegal. 3. The petitioner was not a party to the suit and had not been given an opportunity to be heard, and therefore the order of the Additional Civil Judge granting a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the management of the institution by the respondent's Committee of Management was illegal.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the writ petitions and quashed the orders of the Additional Civil Judge and the District Inspector of Schools.
( 1 ) THESE two writ petitions are inter-connected with each other, based on common facts between the same parties excepting respondent No. 6 Writ Petition No. 16725 of I1)95 namely IV Additional Civil Judge, Agra, who is not a necessary party. The facts giving rise to the present case are summarised as hereinafter.
( 2 ) THE election of the Committee of Management of Sri Ratan Muni Jain, Inter College, Agra was alleged to be held by the petitioner on 21-6-1991, in which one Sri Moti Lal Jain was elected as Manager. The said election was recognised by the District Inspector of Schools and the signatures of the said Manager, Sri Motilal Jain, was attested by him on 22-6-1991. The respondent No. 7 claimed to have held election on 1-7-1991, in which Sri Kamal Kumar Jain, was alleged to have been elected as Manager. On the basis of a dispute raised by the respondents, a dispute under Section 16-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was referred to the Deputy Director of Education, who by his order dated 24-4- 1992 concluded that there was no dispute within the meaning of sec. 16-A (7 ) of the Act, inasmuch as he found that the election held by the petitioner related to the Committee of Management of the College whereas the election claimed to have been held by the respondent No. 7 is related to the society, which is different from the Committee of Management of the College. Against the said decision Writ Petition No. 23073 of 1992 was filed by the respondents. The said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 22/09/1992, passed by His Lordship Hon R. A. Sharma, J. inter alia, on the ground that the Committee of Management of the respondents had nothing to do with the educational institution. Special Appeal No. 485 of 1992, preferred against the said order was heard sometimes in December 1993 and the judgment was reserved. The said judgment was delivered on 6-41994 by dismissing the said Special appeal. Before the said judgment was delivered the respondents filed original suit No. 230 of 1994 before the learned IV Additional Civil Judge, Agra on 31/03/1994. In the meantime the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 23/03/1994, had granted recognition to the Committee of the respondents. The said recognition was cancelled on the same date by order dated 23-3l 994. As it appears from annexure-22 to the writ petition, being a copy of the plaint, the Regional Deputy Director of Education. Agra (defendant No. 1) District Inspector of School; Agra (defendant No. 2) and the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, U. P. Agra, were defendants in the said suit. The said suit was for injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 and 2 from giving effect or acting on the basis of second order dated 23-3-1994, by which the recognition of the Committee of Management of the respondents and attestation of the signatures of the said Sri Kamal Kumar Jain, given on 23-3-1994 was cancelled, and from interfering with the management of the School by the said Kamal Kumar Jain. The petitioner had lodged a Caveat. The said Caveat was rejected by the Additional Civil Judge on the ground that the petitioners were not parties to the said suit. Thereupon the petitioners filed an application for impleadment in the said suit. The said application was also rejected by order dated 5-4-1994. By order dated 4-4-1994 after rejecting the Caveat the learned Add. Civil Judge, granted temporary injunction restraining the defendants No. 1 and 2 from interfering with the management of the institution by the Committee of Management of the respondents and the functioning of Sri Kamal Kumar Jain, as Manager thereof. Against the said orders dated 4-4-1994 and 5-4-1994 passed by learned Civil Judge, a Writ Petition No. 12511 of 1994 was moved by the petitioner. By an order dated 22-4-1994 the writ Petition no. 12511 of 1994 was allowed by quashing the said order dated 4-4-1994 granting injunction and th
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
