Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 972394

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Ravindra Maithani, J
Committee of Management, Rashtriya Inter College, Rohalki, Bahadarabad – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1795 of 2024 (M/S)

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Parikshit Saini
For the Respondents: P.S. Bisht, Siddhartha Sah

Administrative authorities cannot reopen matters determined by a competent authority after they have attained finality. Election disputes in a registered society must follow the specific statutory mechanism provided, and administrative orders cannot be used to nullify validly elected management bodies.

Headnote:(A) School Education Act - Section 29(7) - Regulations, 2009 - Regulation 8 - Constitution of management committee - Induction of members - Finality of administrative decisions - When an inquiry into the induction of members is concluded by a competent authority and attains finality, subsequent attempts by another authority to reopen the issue without appeal are legally unsustainable. Administrative authorities cannot exercise jurisdiction in a manner that disregards settled determinations.

(B) Election Disputes - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Section 25 - Disputes pertaining to the election of office bearers of a registered institution must be resolved through the specific mechanism provided by statute. Administrative orders cannot be utilized to nullify elections or displace committees of management outside of established legal procedures.

(C) Statutory Interpretation - Directory vs. Mandatory - Provisions regarding the time frame for inducting committee members prior to term expiry are directory rather than mandatory, provided the primary object of timely administration is not defeated. Absence of stated consequences for non-compliance reinforces a directory construction. (Paras 6, 8, 10, 15 and 17)

Facts of the case:
The petition challenged orders passed by an educational authority which declared the constitution of a management committee invalid and appointed an authorized controller. After an initial inquiry by the competent educational officer cleared the induction of new members and the subsequent election of the committee, these proceedings were challenged again by a private individual through fresh complaints to a higher educational authority, leading to the impugned orders.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the initial inquiry by the competent authority had attained finality and the subsequent orders were passed without legal basis, as the authority lacked jurisdiction to re-agitate settled membership disputes. Furthermore, it held that the procedure for induction was directory and the appointment of an administrator was improper given that an elected committee was already in charge.

Issues: Whether an educational authority can reopen an inquiry into the induction of members once a competent authority has finalized the issue; whether the appointment of an administrator is permissible when an election has occurred; and whether election disputes of a society can be adjudicated through administrative orders.

Ratio Decidendi: An administrative order cannot supersede a finalized decision of a competent authority, nor can it bypass established statutory mechanisms for resolving election disputes of a registered body. Once a committee is duly elected and approved, its tenure cannot be disturbed except through the process mandated by law.

Result: Petition allowed; impugned orders quashed.

JUDGMENT

Per: Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

The challenge in this petition is made to orders dated 15.03.2024, 28.06.2024 and 29.06.2024, passed by the respondent no.3/ the Regional Additional Director, Higher Secondary Education, Garhwal Region, District Pauri Garhwal (“the Additional Director”). By its order dated 15.03.2024, the Additional Director has observed that the petitioner/Committee of Management (“COM”) has not been constituted in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, when 89 members were wrongly inducted. Again, by its order dated 28.06.2024, the Additional Director has reiterated the earlier order dated 15.03.2024. By a subsequent order dated 29.06.2024, Authorised Controller was appointed for running the Rashtriya Inter College, Rohalki, Bahadarabad, District Haridwar (“the college”), under Regulation 8 of the Regulations 2009 framed under the School Education Act, 2006 (“the Regulations 2009”).

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The COM runs the college as per the scheme of administration. The term of the earlier COM was to expire in the month of October, 2022, therefore, on 01.07.2022, a meeting of COM was called on 08.07.2022. In the meeting held on 08.07.2022, the General Body inducted new members, and forwarded the list for approval of the respondent no.4/Chief Education Officer, Haridwar (“CEO”). Meanwhile, the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, made various complaints to the CEO. Since the term of the COM had expired, Authorised Controller was appointed in the month of October, 2022, who started managing the affairs of the college. The Authorised Controller conducted an enquiry in respect of the induction of new members, and on 03.02.2023, submitted a report that the new members were validly inducted. The CEO, thereafter, on 07.02.2023, accordingly informed the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, that the complaints are closed and it was found that the members were validly inducted. Thereafter, the chronology of events is as follows:-

(i) On 10.02.2023, the CEO granted approval to the list of members of the General Body of the COM.

(ii) The election for constitution of COM of the college was held on 10.04.2023.

(iii) On 15.04.2023, the new COM took over the charge. It was approved by the CEO.

After approval of the new COM, once again the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, filed another complaint to the Additional Director, who called comments of the COM. On 06.03.2024, the COM replied to every point. The Additional Director had also called the comments of the CEO, who, on 07.03.2024, submitted its comments and maintained that the 89 members were validly inducted. But, by the impugned order dated 15.03.2024, the Additional Director held that the Scheme of Administration was not followed in the constitution of new COM; the members were not validly inducted. The petitioner again represented against it, but by the impugned order dated 28.06.2024, the Additional Director reiterated its order dated 15.03.2024, and by the order dated 29.06.2024, appointed Authorised Controller for the college.

Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents. According to the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, on 08.07.2022, the meeting was postponed, but, thereafter, the Manager still inducted new members, illegally.

The Additional Director, in its counter affidavit, has stated that the impugned orders have been passed in discharge of official duties, in accordance with the provisions of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 (“the Act”), specially under Section 29(c) of the Act; 89 members were inducted by violating the Scheme of Administration of the college. According to the Additional Director, the new members could have been inducted six months prior to the expiry of the term of the COM after approval of the CEO, but it was not done in the instant case. The information was not widely circulated for inducting the new members. Therefore, an enquiry was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 972394

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDRavindra Maithani, JCommittee of Management, Rashtriya Inter College, Rohalki, Bahadarabad – AppellantVersusState of Uttarakhand – RespondentWrit Petition No. 1795 of 2024 (M/S)

Cases Referred (3)

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Ravindra Maithani, J
Committee of Management, Rashtriya Inter College, Rohalki, Bahadarabad – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 1795 of 2024 (M/S)