Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M CHURCH CITY JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL SHIKSHA SAMITI & ANR. versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M Church City Junior High School Shiksha Samiti & Anr. v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 971 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 3048 (10 February 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.26

  Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 971 of 2006

Committee of Management, Church City Junior High School Shiksha Samiti

      and another

Versus

     State of U.P. and others

Hon.Shishir Kumar, J.

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order-dated 22.11.2005 passed by the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and consequential order passed by the respondent No.6 (Annexures 14 and 15 to the writ petition). Further issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to restore status quo ante as on 22.11.2005 and not to disturb the functioning of the petitioners.

The petitioners' Church City Junior High School Educational Society, Thaterwada, Underkot, Sadar, Merut, District Meerut, is a duly registered society under the Societies Registration Act and was also approved and recognized by the District Basic Education Officer Meerut and also by the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut. The Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow passed an order dated 31.5.2005 and renewed the registration certificate dated 10.2.2005.  The same have been filed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition.  On the basis of the said registration dated 10.2.2005 the respondent No.6 has cancelled the order of single operation dated 4.11.1999 and the respondent No.5 has attested the signature of the petitioner No.2 as Manager.  The General Body meeting of the Church City Junior High School was held under the Presidentship of Jagat Behari Lal Saxena on 31.1.2005 and in that meeting the petitioner No.2 was elected as a Manager.  It appears that on an complaint made by Sri S.K.Sharma, who alleged to be a ex-senator of Meerut University, Meerut who is neither the member of the society nor office bearer of the petitioner No.1 and has got no concern with the affairs of the society Church City junior High School Educational Society, Thaterwada, Underkot, Sadar, Meerut, District Meerut, the Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits. Notices were issued on 31.8.2005 to the petitioner No.2  asking him to produce the details of the membership and agenda register etc.  The petitioner has submitted a reply to that.  On 13.9.2005, the Registrar again issued a further notice to the petitioner No.2 and demanded the documents which she was not required to and on 20.9.2005 the petitioner No.2 sent a reply to the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, respondent No.2 that a Writ Petition No.41784 of 1999 was filed by one Sri Jagat Behari Lal Saxena. Because the Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut  on the basis of the order dated 29.6.1999 and Sri Jagat Behari Lal Saxena was  illegally removed from the post of President of the Society the Hon'ble Court stayed the operation of the order dated 29.6.1999 vide its order dated 29.9.1999.  The order-dated 29.9.1999 is still in operation.  

The Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Meerut refused to recognize the office bearers of the petitioners' society.  The petitioner No.1 filed a writ petition No.26333 of 2001 in which this Hon'ble court stayed the order passed by the Deputy Registrar (Firms). In the similar circumstances in Writ Petition No.72104 of 1999, this Court vide its order dated 10.5.2000 directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the Management of the petitioners' society.  It appears that on the basis of the letters sent by some aggrieved persons to the Basic District Education Officer, Meerut and also to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,  Meerut, who has passed orders dated 21.12.2000 and 21.6.2001 to the effect that the applicant is no longer President of the society. A Writ Petition No.26333 of 2001 was filed by the Committee of Management and this Court has stayed the operation of the said order and Sri Jagat Behari Lal Saxena is still working on the post of President.  After resignation of Miss J.Jacob as Manager of the Society, Smt. S.N.George was appointed by the Committee of Management to perform the duty of Manager for the time being but she was removed as Manager vide resolution of the society dated 26.2.1999 and thereafter she never performed the duties of Manager.  It appears that the complaint made by one Sri S.K.Sharma who is neither a member of the society nor any office bearer made a fabulous complaint to the Registrar, Firms,  Societies and Chits and he illegally initiated a proceedings against the petitioners in most arbitrary and illegal manner and passed an order dated 3.10.2005 and has stayed the order dated 31.5.2005.  It has been submitted that the Zila Basic Shiksha  Adhikari Meerut has received the copy of order dated 29.9.1999 and order dated 19.7.2001, but have willfully disobeyed the said order. When the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, respondent No.2 passed an order dated 5.10.2005 then the petitioners filed a Writ Petition before this Court bearing No.66456 of 2005 and vide its judgment and order dated 21.10.2005 this Hon'ble Court has quashed the orders dated 3.10.2005 and 5.10.2005. A copy of the same has been annexed as Annexure 11 to the writ petition.  This Hon'ble Court had directed the respondent No.2 to decide the matter after hearing the parties on 7.11.2005.  It has been stated that the petitioners' representative appeared before the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, but she refused to pass an order on 7.11.2005.  The reasons best known to the respondent No.2 initiated a fresh proceedings with new opposite parties and issued an order dated 8.11.2005. As the order dated 8.11.2005 was wholly illegal, petitioners filed a writ petition and  interim order was granted on 24.11.2004 in Writ Petition No.71919 of 2005 and the aforesaid order is still in operation and the same has been informed to the opposite parties.  The respondent No.2 was also informed regarding the order dated 24.11.2004 but the respondent No.2 in a most arbitrary and illegal manner without taking into consideration the order passed by this Court has passed ante dated order dated 22.11.2005 and has directed the respondent No.4 that the operation of the bank and salary account of the petitioner No.1 shall be singly operated till the finalization of the dispute.  A copy of the same has been filed as Annexure 14 to the writ petition and in that consequent of the aforesaid order the respondent No.4 has passed order dated 9.12.2005 directing the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Meerut that the operation of the bank and salary account of the petitioner No.1 shall be singly operated and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari has also passed the same order on the basis of the order passed by the respondent No.4.

The petitioners submit that in spite of the direction issued by this Court no notice and opportunity to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders has been given.  The order of single operation of the account can be passed only under Sections 5 and 6 of the U.P. Junior High School (Payment of Salary of Teachers and Other Employees ) Act 1978 and the Registrar Firms Societies and Chits has got no power and jurisdiction to pass an order dated 22.11.2005.  

Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioners have approached this Court.

It has been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the order passed by this Court in Writ petition No.66456 of 2005 decided on 21.10.2005 is very clear.  The Court has set aside the order dated 3.10.2005 passed by the Registrar, respondent No.2 and other consequential order was also set aside.  The option was given to pass fresh orders according to law after affording opportunity to the petitioners and other concerned parties if there be any and has directed the parties to appear before the respondent No.2 on 7.11.2005 but the respondent No.2 without taking into consideration the fact has issued a notice to the persons who are not member of the society on 8.11.2005 and in spite of the fact that the respondent No.2 was aware that order dated 8.11.2005 has been stayed by this Court has passed ante dated order 22.11.2005  without assigning any reason and without affording an opportunity to the petitioners.  The impugned order is a clear violation of order passed by this Court dated 21.10.2005.

It has further been contended on behalf of the petitioners that the respondent No.2 has got no power and authority to pass an order of single operation.  The power has been conferred only upon the educational authorities to pass an order of single operation even though after notice and opportunity.

The reliance has been placed upon a judgment of this Court reported in Committee of Management Raja Tej Singh Vidyalaya Aurandh, District Manipuri and another  Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri and others reported in (2000) 2 UPLBEC 993  and connected with other writ petitions.  Reliance has been placed upon Para 29 of the said judgment.  The same is being reproduced below-

"29.  The BSA had passed the order for single operation on 23rd October, 1999 under the second proviso to Section 5 of the Payment of Salary Act.  This was in pursuance of some letter of the JDE dated 22.4.1999.  It is admitted that neither the copy of the letter of the JDE was supplied to Sri Satya Pal Singh, nor was he heard before passing of the impugned order.  He was recognized by the BSA. It is admitted that no order for single operation of accounts can be passed without giving reasonable opportunity to the Committee of Management.  The order of the BSA dated 23.10.1999 for single operation is illegal.  It is quashed."  

In such circumstances, the petitioners submit that the order passed by the respondent No.2 and further consequential orders passed on the basis of the aforesaid order are liable to be set aside.  

The impleadment application has been filed by one Smt. S.N.George alleged to be the Manager.  The said application has been allowed and the newly impleaded respondent has also been heard and has submitted that she is the Manager and is in effective control and the petitioners have got no right to maintain this writ petition.

An objection has also been taken by the newly impleaded respondent that a Writ Petition No.77205 of 2005 was filed by the petitioners claiming the relief of quashing the order dated 12.12.2005 passed by the respondent No.2 and the said writ petition was got dismissed as withdrawn without taking liberty to file fresh writ petition, therefore, the petitioners cannot challenge the said order dated 12.12.2005 in the present writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed only on this ground.  It has also been submitted that the order dated 12.12.2005 is a consequential order on the basis of the order passed by the Registrar Firms, as such, unless and until a liberty is given to the petitioners to file another writ petition the present writ petition is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.C.Srivastava, who appears for the newly impleaded respondents and the Standing Counsel.

As the counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged with the consent of the parties the writ petition is being disposed of finally .  From the record it is clear that the petitioners filed a Writ Petition before this Court against the order dated 31.5.2005 passed by the respondent No.2 Registrar, Firms, Societies  and Chits. This Court after hearing both the parties has set a side the said order dated 21.10.2005 giving liberty to the respondent No.2 to pass the fresh orders according to law after affording an opportunity to the petitioners and other concerned parties, if any, and the Court has also directed that the petitioners will appear through their counsel on 7.11.2005.  No orders were passed and on 8.11.2005 the respondent No.2 has issued a notice to various persons including new persons for submission of documents on 22.11.2005.  It is also not in dispute that the said order dated 8.11.205 has been stayed by this Court on 24.11.2005 in Writ Petition No.71919 of 2005 and that is still in operation.  There is no denial by the respondents that whether the order dated 24.11.2005 was not communicated to the respondent No.2.  From the order it clearly appears that the petitioners have not been afforded an opportunity as it is apparent that on 7.11.2005 no orders were passed.  The petitioners have  submitted that as there was no intimation regarding the date and no opportunity to the petitioners have been given by the respondent No.2 when the order dated 22.11.2005 was passed.  The petitioners' further contends that a finding to this effect regarding passing the order of single operation on the request of the petitioners is also not correct.  No consent was ever given even the petitioners were not present when said order was passed.  From the order it also appears that the respondent No.2 under the act cannot pass the order of single operation.  The Registrar has only power under the Act to decide the dispute of the membership of the society, registration and other things. Under the Society Registration Act, the Registrar has got no power to pass an order of single operation as held (Supra).  From the perusal of the  order dated 22.11.2005 it is also clear that the order has been passed without assigning reasons and appears to be an order of non application of mind.  From the perusal of the relevant provisions it is also clear that the respondent No.,2 has got no jurisdiction to pass such order.  The Registrar Firms has no jurisdiction to direct the educational authorities to pass an order under single operation.

In view of the aforesaid fact, in my opinion, the order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 22.11.2005 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed.  As the order-dated 22.11.2005 is hereby quashed in view of the aforesaid fact, the subsequent order passed on the basis of the order-dated 22.11.2005 cannot be treated to be valid.  

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.  It is, however, open to the respondent No.2 to decide the dispute between the petitioners and other interested persons after affording an opportunity and personal hearing and will pass a detailed and reasoned order according to law taking into consideration the observations made above.

 There shall be no order as to costs.

24.1.2006

SKD  


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.