Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M RAJASTHAN INTER COLLEGE THRU' MANAGER & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' PRINCIPAL SECY. & ORS.

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M Rajasthan Inter College Thru' Manager & Others v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 46038 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 5063 (3 March 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

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ petition No.46038 of 2005

Committee of Management,

Rajasthan Inter College, Mirzapur

and others

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.

Petitioners have approached this Court questioning the validity of order dated 03.06.205 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur as well as consequential order dated 06.06.2005 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur.

Brief facts, as mentioned in writ petition, are that in the district of Mirzapur, there is an institution known as Rajasthan Inter College, Mirzapur, which is governed by the provisions as under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and Regulations framed thereunder. For constituting Committee of Management, there is Scheme of Administration framed in exercise of powers vested under Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. In the institution concerned last election of the Committee of Management was held on 30.01.1999. Tenure of the Committee of Management as per Scheme of Administration is five years. Prafulla Kumar Singhania had been elected as Manager. He took proceedings for enrollment of members of the general body of the society and pursuant thereto 72 persons are alleged to have been enrolled as members of the general body of the society. No resolution had been passed for accepting them as members. Out of these 72 members, 3 were minor. It has been contended that in the proceeding dated 08.11.2003 forgery has been committed by inserting four pages in place of only 2 pages. It has been contended that as tenure of the  Managing Committee was coming to an end, meeting of Managing Committee was convened for holding elections. Petitioners have contended that induction of 72 members was wholly unjustifiable, and as various irregularities have been committee by the Manager, urgent meeting was convened and on 30.12.2003 resolution was passed removing him, and in place of  Prafulla Kumar Singhania one Neeraj Newatia  was asked to function as Manager. The Joint Director directed the District Inspector of Schools to attest the signature of said Neeraj Newatia as Acting Manager, but no financial power was assigned to him. Thereafter, meeting was convened and it was resolved to hold fresh election. Two writ petitions were filed; one being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2673 of 2004 filed by Prafulla Kumar Singhania, requesting therein that the directives be issued  not to interfere in the election process scheduled to be held on01.02.2004. The other writ petition No.3231 of 2004 was filed by Om Prakash Singhania with prayer commanding respondents not to create any obstruction or disturbance in peaceful holding of elections. Both the writ petitions were dismissed on 29.01.2004 with direction to the Regional Committee to decide the matter. In the meantime District Inspector of Schools on 10.02.2004 wrote letter to the Joint Director of Education for attestation of signature of Prafulla Kumar Singhania. The Joint Director of Education on the said recommendation of the District Inspector of Schools on 25.01.2004 gave his consent for attestation of signature of Prafulla Kumar Singhania. The said order was challenged before this Court and this Court on 25.03.2004 set aside the order and remanded the matter back to the decided afresh. Thereafter, the impugned order has been passed, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.

On presentation of writ petition, Sri Vikas Budhwar has entered appearance on behalf of contesting respondent and filed short counter affidavit to indicate that the decision in the present case has been taken by the Regional Committee. This Court had directed on 29.08.2005 after hearing the matter at some length for production of original record on the basis of which impugned decision had been taken. Pursuant to direction issued by this Court original record has been produced. Thereafter, with the consent of the parties, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal.

Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended with vehemence that in the present case Regional Committee has not adverted itself to the issues which had been raised and on mere surmises and conjectures claim of respondent No. 5 has been accepted, as such the impugned order is not sustainable.

Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, on the other hand, countered the said submission by contending that the members have been enrolled as per provisions as contained in the Scheme of Administration and the elections have already been held as per the said provisions, as such no interference is warranted by this Court.

After respective arguments have been advanced and original record has been perused, it is clearly reflected that the dispute had arisen inter se parties on account of induction of 72 persons as members of general body of the society. Precise contention of petitioners has been that there has been tampering in the resolution dated 08.11.2003 and pages have been added to the same. This aspect of the matter, which has been raised by the petitioner and qua which affidavits had also been filed and which are available on record, Regional committee has not at all adverted to, and proceeded on assumption that the resolution dated 08.11.2003 was valid resolution, and with this presumption in mind that resolution dated 08.11.2003 was valid resolution, has held that subsequent resolution dated 30.12.2003 was motivated one. Once precise claim had been set up that resolution dated 08.11.2003 was motivated and procured one one and majority of members were opposing the same, then much more obligation was cast upon the Regional Committee to see as to whether resolution has been passed on 08.11.2003 or not, and in the present case no endeavour or exercise has been undertaken by the Regional Committee to see as to whether said resolution was valid or invalid. At no point of time validity of resolution dated 30.12.2003 has been tested in correct perspective and on mere assumption said resolution has been ignored. Validity of the said resolution sent to the root of the matter, inasmuch as if the said resolution was valid one then Prafulla Kumar Singhania had no authority to proceed with the election. As all these aspects of the matter in the present case has not at all been adverted to, the decision making process is faulty. Coupled with this, unwarranted observations have been made that Prafulla Kumar Singhania is a Reader in local Degree College and is firm supporter of democratic value. All these unwarranted observations ought to have been avoided, and endeavour ought to have been made to decide the matter qua the issue raised and material available on record. All these observations give a different impression, that real issues were at back seat and other considerations were prevailing.

Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 03.06.2005 as well as consequential order dated 06.06.2005 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Regional Committee with direction to it to decide the same afresh in the light of the observations made above, after affording opportunity of personal hearing to Prafulla Kumar Singhania  as were as Sushil Kumar and Om Prakash singhania.

No order as to costs.

03.03.2006

SRY.


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.