Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
C/M Ram Bharose Maiku Lal Inter College – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (C) No. 164 of 2024
Decided On : 04-10-2024
(A) U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Sections 16-D(2), 16-D(3), and 16-D(4) - Appointment of authorized controller - The petitioners challenged the appointment of an authorized controller on grounds of bias and violation of natural justice, asserting that the order was passed without proper hearing and consideration of their submissions. The court found that the decision-making process was flawed as the authority who decided the case had previously conducted an inquiry, violating principles of natural justice. (Paras 16, 25, 30, 45)
(B) Natural Justice - The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice require that the same authority who hears a case must also decide it, to ensure fairness and impartiality. (Paras 30, 32)
(C) Bias - The court ruled that the impugned order was tainted by bias as the deciding authority relied on his own report without giving the petitioners an opportunity to contest it. (Paras 34, 45)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners challenged the appointment of an authorized controller for their educational institution, alleging that the process was marred by bias and a lack of fair hearing.
Findings of Court:
The court held that the impugned order was illegal and arbitrary, violating the principles of natural justice, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.
Issues: The main issues included whether the appointment of the authorized controller was justified and whether the principles of natural justice were adhered to during the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the decision-making authority must provide an opportunity for hearing and cannot rely on its own prior reports without allowing the affected party to respond.
Result: The impugned order dated 24/07/2024 was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the State government for fresh consideration.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Sri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri M.B. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order of the State Government dated 24.07.2024 wherein in exercise of powers contained in Section 16-D(4) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1921’) an authorized controller has been appointed to manage the affairs of the petitioner institution.
3. Two applications for impleadment have been filed on behalf of one Motilal Gupta who was the complainant in the present case and on whose complaint present proceedings have been initiated. While the second application has been filed on behalf of one Diwaker Sahu who is the member of Committee of Management claiming that he has sufficient interest to prosecute the said case against the petitioners.
4. Objections to the application for impleadment has been filed by the petitioner but after arguing the matter at some length, it was submitted that petitioner would not have any objection in case the applicants were heard as intervenors.
5. Accordingly, the applications are allowed to the extent that they are permitted to intervene in the present case. Accordingly, Sri L.P. Mishra, learned counsel as well as Sri Bhupendra Nath Tripathi, have been heard on behalf of the intervenors.
6. It has been submitted by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner that a show cause notice under Section 16-D(2) Act of 1921 was issued on 28.03.2022 wherein it was stated that certain commercial establishments were operating in the educational institution run by the petitioners and accordingly the same was contrary to the purposes for which recognition was granted to the petitioner.
7. The second allegation was in regard to the fact that the last elections to the petitioner society were held on 25.05.2018 and their term which is of three years was expired on 18.05.2021 and accordingly the Committee of Management has become time barred and cannot be permitted to run the affairs of the society and on these two grounds it was proposed that the authorized controller be appointed to run the affairs of the petitioner educational institution.
8. On receipt of the show cause notice the petitioner had submitted a reply dated 05.06.2022. Immediately after submission of the said reply, another show cause notice was received by him on 25.08.2022.
9. It has been stated that in the subsequent notice dated 25.08.2022, the petitioner was asked to respond with regard to the allegations against the petitioner society which according to the petitioner are proceedings which could not have been undertaken in exercise of powers under Section 1-D(3) of Act of 1921 which pertain only to the educational institution run by the petitioner society. The petitioners had submitted a detail reply on 12.10.2022. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that an order dated 15.11.2022 was passed in exercise of powers under Section 16-D(4) of Act of 1921 referring the matter to the State Government to initiate proceedings against the petitioners for appointment of an authorized controller.
10. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the Additional Director of Education, Uttar Pradesh preferred a representation to the State Government stating that the reply submitted by him has not been considered and the order has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing and accordingly the State Government concurred with the objections raised by the petitioners and by means of his order dated 16.02.2023 directing the Director of Education to pass a fresh order after giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. While remanding the matter to the Director of Education, specific directions were issued that the land records of the petitioner be duly inspected before any finding is returned on the allegations levelled against the petit
The appointment of an authorized controller under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring the decision-maker to provide a fair hearing and avoid bi....
The court affirmed that administrative powers under the Uttar Pradesh Education Act were exercised correctly, as the Committee of Management was given adequate opportunity for reply and the impugned ....
The failure to provide a hearing before terminating services violates principles of natural justice, rendering the decision invalid.
Special appeal maintainable against implied refusal of interim stay affecting vital rights; family relationship between managers irrelevant if absent from show cause/audit/appointment grounds; remand....
State or its instrumentality must not take any irrelevant or irrational factor into consideration or appear arbitrary in its decision. "Duty to act fairly" is part of fair procedure envisaged under A....
The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and complying with statutory rules in departmental proceedings, and the requirement of obtaining the approval o....
Executive orders cannot override statutory provisions, and appointments made outside prescribed authority are rendered void ab initio.
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
