Back
[2006(4) ADJ 381 (All)(DB)]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Division Bench)
BEFORE : S. RAFAT ALAM AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, GANGADIN RAM KUMAR INTER COLLEGE, JAUNPUR .....Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, V REGION, VARANASI AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Special Appeal Nos. 963, 964, 956, 538, 556 and 557 of 1997,
decided on 10th March, 2006)
(B) Writ petition—Judgment delivered by High Court—Cannot be said to be based on surmises and conjectures, if High Court has considered and decided petition keeping in view all the pleadings and points raised by parties—Mere delay in delivering judgment—Cannot be a ground in itself for setting aside that judgment. [Constitution of India, Article 226]. [Paras 17 and 18]
(C) Defacto doctrine—Principles thereof and applicability—This doctrine is based on public policy to save third persons in event of declaration of appointment or election as invalid—Thus, if Committee of Management functions under colour of its office, its actions cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings on ground that its election was subsequently set aside—Its actions will be saved by virtue of defacto doctrine—But this doctrine is not applicable when election of Committee of Management, itself is challenged directly and person in office contests that challenge—Defacto doctrine cannot save any action, if authority whose action is under challenge itself is party to such challenge. [Paras 20 and 24]
(D) Writ petition—Disputed questions of fact—Question of maintainability—Normally, disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated in writ proceedings—But when basic facts, which are foundation of controversy are present and matter to be adjudicated is based on it, High Court can decide matter in question after considering pleadings and materials on record—Relevant law related thereto—Elaborated. [Constitution of India, Article 226]. [Para 25]
(E) Adverse remarks—Made against any party or any person—Should not be made by High Court unless it becomes necessary for decision of case—In the instant case, High Court erred in making adverse remarks against an advocate when there was no need for making such remarks for decision of controversy in writ petition—High Court expunged those remarks. [Para 26]
(F) Educational Institution—Election of Committee of Management of College—Not conducted after finalising voters list, i.e. conducted in contravention of judgment of High Court dated 2-2-1993—As such, rightly quashed by High Court by its judgment dated 22-10-1997—High Court issued mandamus requiring D.D.E. to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak and get election conducted after finalising voters list—Election conducted not by Prabandh Sanchalak—Illegal and cannot stand in way of mandamus dated 22-10-1997 issued by High Court—This mandamus has to be complied with—But in last writ petition, High Court failed to examine these aspects and approved it, by its judgment dated 25-7-2000, which perpetuated illegality—Thus, in Special Appeal High Court set aside judgment dated 25-7-2000 and directed for holding election as per direction dated 22-10-1997. [Paras 29, 30, 32 to 40, 44 and 47]
Hon’ble Ashok Bhushan, J.—All these appeals have been together and are being decided by this common judgment. First four appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 22.10.1997 passed by a learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 88 of 1994 and writ petition No. 28384 of 1993. Last two appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 25.7.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 11857 of 1998 and writ petition No. 34814 of 1999. They can be conveniently referred to as ‘first set of appeals’ and ‘second set of appeals’.
2. We have heard Sri M. D. Singh Shekhar, learned counsel for the appellants in first set of appeals and for respondents in second set of appeals. Sri Sada Nand Shukla and Sri B. D. Mandhyan have appeared for the respondents in first set of appeals and Sri Sada Nand Shukla has appeared for the appellants in second set of appeals.
3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to both sets of appeals are :
Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter College, Ramgarh Barwan, District Jaunpur hereinafter referred as the college, is a recognised institution under the UP. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 hereinafter referred to as Act. An scheme of administration had been framed for the college under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 which has been duly approved and subsequently amended by the Deputy Director of Education. The Committee of Management of the college is constituted in accordance with the approved and amended Scheme of Administration of the college. The dispute in these appeals relate to constitution of Committee of Management of the college. One Arjun Mishra was elected as Manager of the college in the year 1977 and continued to be elected in periodical elections till the election dated 1.4.1990 when dispute arose. Arjun Mishra claimed that he was elected as Manager of Committee of Management on 1.4.1990 and other rival election of the same date was set up by Virendra Kumar Pandey who claimed himself to be elected as Manager of the college in the election. It was claimed that the number of members of the General Body in the year 1990 election was 321. The District Inspector of Schools finding a dispute referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-A (7) of the Act for decision. The Deputy Director of Education vide his order dated 20.12.1991 refused to recognise either of the claimants and appointed a Prabandh Sanchalak (Authorised Controller) under the Scheme of Administration to conduct the fresh election by valid members of the society according to the Scheme of Administration. The Deputy Director of Education further observed that the membership of the General Body is not verified. Both the claimants i.e. Arjun Mishra and Virendra Kumar Pandey filed writ petitions challenging the order dated 20.12.1991. The writ petitions filed by both the claimants were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide its judgment dated 2.2.1993. The order of the Deputy Director of Education appointing Prabandh Sanchalak was affirmed. This Court directed the Deputy Director of Education to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak to manage the affairs of the Institution and to hold fresh election of the Committee of Management. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 2.2.1993 the Deputy Director of Education appointed the District Basic Education Officer as Prabandh Sanchalak to conduct the election. Prabandh Sanchalak assumed the office on 5.3.1993. Prabandh Sanchalak claimed to have received a list of 87 members of the general body from Virendra Kumar Pandey, one of the claimants’ in election dated 1.4.1990, accepting the said list as valid list. Prabandh Sanchalak proceeded to hold fresh election by publishing an election programme on 15.6.1993. An unopposed election was declared on 21.6.1993 declaring Jai Narain Tripathi as Manager and Rameshwar Prasad Sharma as President. The proceedings were forwarded by the Prabandh Sanchalak to District Inspector of Schoo
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
