The main legal point established is that there was no concealment of material facts, and the order granting recognition was valid as the earlier order was a nullity. The court also clarified the jurisdiction of the Chief Education Officer under Section 29 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006.

JUDGMENT :

Vipin Sanghi, J.

Issue notice.

Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 5.

Mr. Parikshit Saini, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No. 9.

2. With the consent of parties, we proceed to hear the present appeal at this stage, and we proceed to dispose of the same.

3. The present Special Appeal is directed against the order dated 25.07.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 1584 of 2022, preferred by the appellants. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition with costs of Rs.10,000/- upon the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners had approached the Court with concealment of relevant facts. The concealment alleged against the petitioners was in relation to earlier writ proceedings instituted by the petitioners, wherein the petitioners had raised a challenge with regard to the electoral college for conduct of elections to the Managing Committee of the Raja Mahendra Pratap Prem Vidyalaya Inter College, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar.

4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that, in fact, firstly there was no concealment of the earlier writ proceedings as aforesaid and secondly, in any event, the factum of the appellants having preferred an earlier writ petition to assail the composition of the electoral college for conduct of elections to the Managing Committee of Raja Mahendra Pratap Prem Vidyalaya Inter College, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar was not a relevant fact for the purposes of the present writ petition which has been dismissed by the impugned order. The submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that, in the present writ petition, the petitioners had primarily raised a challenge to the order dated 02.03.2022, passed by the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar, granting recognition to the Managing Committee which consists of the elected office-bearers of the said Committee in respect of Raja Mahendra Pratap Prem Vidyalaya Inter College, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar. The challenge was premised on the basis that the Chief Education Officer had earlier passed an order on 30.10.2021, holding that the elections which were held on 17.10.2021 were not regular with due notice to all the concerned members of the Society and, consequently, he had directed that fresh elections be held. The submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that, in the present writ petition, no issue with regard to the constitution of the electoral college was raised by the appellants/writ petitioners and, consequently, facts relating to the earlier challenge to the electoral college were, in any event, not relevant. The further submission of learned Senior Counsel for the appellants is that even as a matter of fact the writ petitioners had disclosed the filing of their earlier writ petition No. 2653 (M/S) of 2021, in para 23 of the writ petition, which reads as follows:-

“That the petitioner no.3 had filed the Writ Petition No. 2653 of 2021 with the prayer to delete the 1384 names of such ordinary voters whose term was expired in the year 2019 and 129 voters who have already died and 78 voters who have not paid their membership fee before the election is conducted. The respondent no. 9 has filed a Special Appeal No. 429 of 2021 “Manoj Kumar Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another” the Hon’ble Court has set aside the order dated 15.12.2021 passed in Writ Petition No. 2653 of 2021 merely on the ground that the respondent/petitioner has not annexed the report dated 17.10.2021 of the Election Officer but it was not intentional but it was a mistake and wrong advice that it was not annexed but respondent petitioner of the said appeal/petitioner no. 3 is not at fault. The master of the brief is responsible for it. The respondent no.9, who requested to fix next date of hearing, challenged the aforesaid order passed in writ petition 2653 of 2021 before t