SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(All) 3433

[2012(3) ADJ 202]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : SUNIL HALI, J.
LAXMAN SINGH AND ANOTHER ....Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27144 of 2007, decided on 22nd December, 2011)

Advocates Appeared:
Chandan Sharma, Ranjit Saxena, U.N. Sharma, S.M.A. Kazmi, Saiful Islam Siddiqui and Tahira Kazmi for the Petitioners; C.S.C., C.B. Yadav, K.N. Mishra, S.K. Tyagi and Nesheeth Yadav for the Respondents.

Headnote:U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921—Section 16-A(7)—Society Registration Act, 1860—Section 4—Genuineness—List of members of General Body—Whether D.I.O.S. could examine validity of members constituting General Body of electoral college of society for election of Committee of Management—Issue with respect to determination of eligibility of members cannot be decided either by DIOS or by Joint Director (Education) in exercise of power under Section 16-A(7) of Act—If any such dispute arise same is required to be resolved by reference under Section 4 of Registration of Society Act—Therefore, determination made by DIOS on 1.6.2007 was without jurisdiction—Two fold prayer has been made by petitioner i.e. (1) for quashing impugned order dated 1.6.2007 passed by DIOS disapproving list of members submitted by petitioner and other for commanding respondent not to proceed with election process of Committee of Management which is scheduled to be held on 12.6.2007 on basis of impugned order dated 1.6.2007 approving list of members submitted by respondent No. 6—Two elections have been conducted one in year 2007 and other in year 2010 which is not subject-matter of challenge before the High Court—Election process stands over as such second prayer cannot be granted by High Court—Consequence of setting aside impugned order dated 1.6.2007 would be that voter list on basis of which elections were held which was affirmed by authority who was not competent to do so—Any election which had been conducted on basis of said list cannot be sustained—Petition can approach proper authority for seeking quashing of election based upon voter list dated 1.6.2007 which stands already quashed by this Court—With observation petition disposed of. [Paras 20, 21, 22 and 23]

       

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Sunil Hali, J.—Dispute in this writ petition relates to genuineness of the list of members of the General Body. Petitioners have questioned the order passed by the respondent No. 4 who vide his order dated 1.6.2007 has rejected the list submitted by the petitioners and affirmed the list submitted by the respondent No. 6. Question that fall for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the District Inspector of Schools (in short DIOS) could examine the validity of the members constituting the General Body of the electoral college of the Society for the election of the Committee of Management.

2. The Jawahar Inter College is an Educational Institution (hereinafter referred as ‘Institution’) which is run and managed by the Committee of Management elected in accordance with the scheme of Administration, which is duly approved by the Director of Education. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that he was elected as Manager of the Institution from 1996-03. Petitioner was elected as Manager on 16.10.2002 which was again subject-matter of challenge before the appropriate authority. Regional Committee after examining the rival contention of the parties accorded sanction for recognition of the Managing Committee of the Institution headed by the petitioner. It is from here the litigating process was set in motion at the behest of respondent No. 6. He questioned the order of the Regional Committee. First impediment in the Constitution of this Committee was initiated by the Joint Director who vide his communication dated 16.8.2003 in asking the petitioners to appear before him. This order was questioned by the petitioners in Civil Misc writ Petition No. 34956 of 2003. Appointment of the petitioner as Manager of the Committee was questioned by the respondent No. 6 in Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 34780 of 2003. An order of injunction came to be passed by this Court on 13.8.2003 staying the order dated 25.6.2003 passed by the DIOS in attesting the signature of the petitioners. Special Appeal bearing No. 806 of 2003 was preferred by the petitioners and the Division Bench of this Court directed the learned Single Judge to dispose of both the writ petition. Learned Single Judge vide his order dated 21.11.2006 dismissed both the writ petition as having become infructuous. It seems that one more writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 6 bearing Civil Misc Writ Petition No. 66992 of 2006 which was finally disposed of directing the DIOS to decide the representation of the respondent No. 6 filed on 26.4.2006. This direction of the learned Single Judge was considered by the respondent No. 4 who after inviting objection from both the parties issued the impugned order dated 1.6.2007. It is this order which is subject-matter of challenge before this Court.

3. During pendency of the present writ petition certain developments have taken place which are referred herein below for adjudication of the present case.

4. It appears that after the impugned order was passed a direction was issued by the DIOS appointing the Authorised Controller to hold the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution. The said order was challenged by the petitioner and was stayed by order dated 13.6.2007. A Civil Misc Writ Petition bearing No. 30219 of 2007 was filed by the Committee headed by respondent No. 6 seeking a direction for approval of the Committee of Management. The said writ petition was dismissed which was questioned in the Special Appeal. It was contended by the respondent No. 6 that the election was held on 12.6.2007 in which the Committee of management was constituted and was sent for approval to the Regional Committee. Division Bench of this Court held that the filing of the separate writ petition was uncalled for and it directed that the stay granted in the writ petition filed by the petitioner be taken up for consideration. Learned Single Judge on 2.4.2009 stated that since the matter for granting






























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top