Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


C/M. Punja Shiksha Samiti v. State Of U.P.And Others - WRIT - C No. 44862 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 405 (6 January 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).


                                                                                       Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44862 of 2004

Committee of Management, Punja Shiksha Samiti, Punja, District Etawah through its Secretary Budhi Prakash Dixit & others


State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard Sri Y.K.Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent no. 3. Counter and rejoinder affidavits between the contesting parties have been exchanged and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.

Although this case has a chequered history but for the purposes of this writ petition, it may be sufficient to mention that an order dated 5.11.2003 had been passed by the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Etawah, respondent no. 2 whereby the signatures of the petitioner no. 3 had been attested as Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution. Challenging the said order, the respondent no. 3 filed Writ Petition No. 38149 of 2004 in which no interim order had been passed. However, by another order dated 7.10.2004, the Basic Shiksha Adhikari cancelled the order dated 5.11.2003. Aggrieved by the said order dated 7.10.2004, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.

A perusal of the order dated 7.10.2004 would clearly show that it is a simple four line order whereby the earlier order dated 5.11.2003 has been cancelled without giving any reasons. It is the clear case of the petitioners that prior to the passing of the impugned order, the petitioner was not given any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing. Specific averments to that effect have been made in paragraphs 24 and 27 of the writ petition, to which there is no denial in the counter affidavit. It is well settled law that once a right has accrued in favour of a person, the same can be withdrawn only after following the principles of natural justice. In the present case, by an order dated 5.11.2003 certain rights had accrued in favour of the petitioners and as such the same could have been withdrawn only after the petitioners had been given adequate opportunity of hearing prior to the passing of any such order withdrawing the benefit. Since admittedly the impugned order, besides being unreasoned, has been passed without following the principles of natural justice, the same deserves to be set aside.

Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 7.10.2004 passed by respondent no. 2 is quashed. However, it shall be open to the respondent no. 2 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and other concerned parties, if there be any.

No costs.




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


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 |

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