Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M. G.R.I.C. RAMGARH BARAWAN THR.ITS MANAGER J.N.TRIPATHI versus D.D.E., VTH REGION VARANASHI & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M. G.R.I.C. Ramgarh Barawan Thr.Its Manager J.N.Tripathi v. D.D.E., Vth Region Varanashi & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 963 of 1997 [2006] RD-AH 5866 (10 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 ON 31.01.2006                    DELIVERED ON  10.03.2006

Special Appeal No. 963  of 1997

Committee of Management, Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter

College, Ramgarh Barwan, District Jaunpur through its

Manager Jai Narain Tripathi............................................Appellant

Versus

Deputy Director of Education, V Region, Varanasi

and others    ........................................................  Respondents

With

Special Appeal No. 964  of 1997

Committee of Management, Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter

College, Ramgarh Barwan, District Jaunpur through its

Manager Jai Narain Tripathi    .....................................Appellant

Versus

Deputy Director of Education, V Region, Varanasi

and others      .......... ..........................................  .Respondents

With

Special Appeal No. 956  of 1997

Daya Shankar Mani Tripathi ........................................appellant

Versus

Deputy Director of Education, V Region, Varanasi

and others  ........................................................    Respondents

With

Special Appeal No. 538  of 1997

Daya Shankar Mani Tripathi.................................... ..  Appellant

                    Versus

Deputy Director of Education, V Region, Varanasi

and others  ........................................................  Respondents

With

Special Appeal No. 556  of 2000

Committee of Management, Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter

College, Ramgarh Barwan, District Jaunpur through its

Ex-Manager Virendra Kumar Pandey & another.........  Appellant

                Versus

Deputy Director of Education/ Joint Director of Education,

V Region, Varanasi and others   .........................  Respondents

                                              With

Special Appeal No. 557  of 2000

Committee of Management, Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter

College, Ramgarh Barwan, District Jaunpur through its

Ex-Manager Virendra Kumar Pandey & another   ........Appellant

Versus

Director of Education U.P.    

Lucknow and others                   .......................... Respondents

Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam      J.

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan , J. )

All these appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.   First four appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 22.10.1997 passed by a learned Single Judge in writ petition  No. 88 of 1994 and writ petition  No. 28384 of 1993 .  Last two appeals have been filed against the judgment dated  25.7.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge in writ petition  No. 11857 of 1998 and writ petition  No. 34814 of 1999.  They can be conveniently referred to as ' first set of appeals'  and  ' second set of appeals' .

We have heard  Sri M. D. Singh Shekher, learned counsel for the appellants in first set of appeals and for respondents in second set of appeals.  Sri Sada Nand Shukla  and Sri B. D. Mandhyan have appeared for  the respondents in first set of appeals and Sri Sada Nant Shukla has appeared for the appellants  in second set of appeals.

Brief facts of the case  giving rise to both  sets of appeals are;

Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter College, Ramgarh Barwan, District Jaunpur hereinafter referred as the college, is a recognised institution under the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921 hereinafter referred to as Act.   An scheme of administration  had been framed for the college under the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921  which has been duly approved and subsequently amended by the Deputy Director of Education.  The Committee of Management of the college  is constituted in accordance with the approved and amended  Scheme of Administration of the college.   The dispute in these appeals relate to constitution of Committee of Management of the college.  One Arjun Mishra  was  elected as Manager  of the college in the year 1977 and continued to be elected in periodical elections till the election dated 1.4.1990 when dispute arose.    Arjun Mishra  claimed that he was elected as Manager of Committee of Management on 1.4.1990  and   other  rival  election  of the same date was set up by Virendra  Kumar Pandey   who claimeg  himself to   be

elected as Manager of the college in the  election.  It was claimed that the number of members of the General Body  in the year 1990 election was  321.  The District Inspector of Schools finding a dispute referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-A (7)  of the Act  for decision.  The Deputy Director of Education  vide his order dated 20.12.1991 refused to recognise either of the claimants and appointed a Prabandh Sanchalak  ( Authorised Controller )   under the Scheme of Administration to conduct  the fresh election by valid members of the society according to the Scheme of Administration .  The Deputy Director of Education further observed that the membership of the General Body  is not verified.  Both the claimants  i. e.  Arjun Mishra and Virendra Kumar Pandey  filed writ petitions challenging the  order dated 20.12.1991.  the writ petitions filed by both the claimants  were dismissed by a learned Single Judge  of this Court vide its judgment dated 2.2.1993.  The order of the Deputy Director of Education appointing Prabandh Sanchalak was affirmed.  This   Court directed  the Deputy Director of Education to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak  to manage the affairs of the Institution and to hold fresh election of the Committee of Management.  In pursuance of the order of this  Court dated 2.2.1993 the Deputy Director of Education appointed the District Basic Education officer as Prabandh Sanchalak to conduct the election.  Prabandh Sanchalak assumed the office on 5.3.1993.  Prabandh Sanchalak claimed to have received a  list of 87 members  of the general body  from   Virendra Kumar Pandey,  one of the claimants' in election dated  1.4.1990, accepting the said list as valid list .  Prabandh Sanchalak  proceeded to hold fresh election by publishing an election programme on 15.6.1993.  An unopposed election was declared on  21.6.1993  declaring Jai Narain Tripathi as Manager and Rameshwar Prasad  Sharma as President.  The proceedings were forwarded  by the Prabandh Sanchalak to District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 22.6.1993 which was approved  by the Inspector on 22.6.1993 recognising Jai Narain Tripathi as Manager of the institution.   Signatures of Jai Narain Tripathi were also attested on 23.6.1993 and Prabandh Sanchalak was withdrawn by the Joint Director of Education on the same date  i. e. 23.6.1993 which was given effect to by the Inspector on the same day.    Two  writ petitions were filed challenging the election proceedings  dated 21.6.1993 and the recognition  of the said election  one by Arjun Mishra being writ petition  No. 28384 of 1993 and another writ petition  No. 88 of 1994 by Virendra Kumar Pandey.     In both the writ petitions learned Single Judge issued notice and summoned original election proceedings from the Prabandh Sanchalak which were produced  before the  Court on 24.11.1994.  On 24.11.1994 learned Single Judge after perusing the original records produced by  the Prabandh Sanchalak recorded his observations in the order sheet dated 24.11.1994.  Both the writ petitions were thereafter heard and allowed vide  judgment and order dated 22.10.1997.    Learned  Single Judge quashed the election proceedings dated 21.6.1993 and the order recognising the election and issued a writ of mandamus to the District Inspector of Schools directing him to pass an order of single operation of account and to the Deputy Director of Education to appoint an officer of proven  honesty of the rank of District Inspector of Schools as Authorised Controller to hold election  within four months.  Against the judgment dated 22.10.1997 first two appeals being Appeal No. 963 of 1997 and 964 of 1997 have been filed by the Committee of Management through Jai Narain Tripathi as Manager of Committee of Management challenging the said judgment  and the other two appeals No. 956 of 1997 and 538 of 1997 have been filed by D. S. M. Tripathi Advocate praying for expunction of  observations made against him in the judgment dated 22.10.1997.

It is claimed that during the period when the judgment was reserved in the above two writ petitions ( Writ Petition No. 28384 of 1993 and writ petition No. 88 of 1994 ) and an unopposed election  was held on 4.6.1996 by the committee of management headed by Jai Narain Triapthi in which he was again  elected as Manager  of the Committee of Management which was also  approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education vide his letter dated  26.6.1996.  By the same order another election dated 7.6.1996  in which Bhanu Prasad Tiwari was shown as elected President and Kedar Nath Yadav as Manager  was not  approved.  After the judgment of this  Court dated 22.10.1997  it was submitted to the Deputy Director of Education for compliance.   The Deputy Director of Education by order dated 4.11.1997 took the view that  election dated 4.6.1996  having not been  held from the list of 87 members but having been held on the basis of list of 204 members, there is no occasion to de-recognise the election approved on 6.7.1996.  It was also held that there is  no necessity of appointing Prabandh Sanchalak.  The District Inspector of Schools on 11.11.1997  passed an order directing for single operation of the account as per judgment dated 22.10.1997.  The Deputy Director of Education  by her subsequent order dated 29.11.1997 made the earlier order dated 4.11.997 ineffective and   appointed District Inspector of Schools  as Prabandh Sanchalak to hold election of the Committee of Management.  Against the order dated 29.11.1997 a representation was submitted by Jai Narain Tripathi  on 18.12.1997 which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Education on 23.12.1997 by which order dated 29.11.1997 was recalled and the Committee of Management elected on 4.6.1996 was recognised to continue.  The Prabandh Sanchalak appointed by the Deputy Director of Education was removed.  The Deputy Director of Education , however, in his order dated 23.12.1997 stated that his order ( dated 23.12.1997 ) shall be continued till the decision of Special Appeals No. 963 of 1997 and 1964 of 1997 or any order passed therein   The writ petition  No. 11857 of 1998 was filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey  challenging the order dated 23.12.1997 and also praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the Deputy Director of Education  to comply the judgment of this  Court dated 22.10.1997.  Jai Narain Tripathi,  the Manager of the Committee of Management elected on 21.6.1993, and 4.6.1996  again claimed to have held an unopposed election on 18.4.1999 in which D. S. M. Tripathi  ( the son of Jai Narain Tripathi ) was elected as Manager which election was  also approved  by the District Inspector of Schools on 5.5.1999.  the writ petition  No. 34814 of 1999 was filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey claiming himself to be the Manager praying for quashing the orders of the District Inspector of Schools  dated 14.7.1998;  5.5.1999;  11.5.1999 and 29th June, 1999; a writ of prohibition was also  asked  for  commanding the respondents No. 1 to 3 not to continue to recognise Jai Narain Tripathi and D. S. M. Tripathi  as Manager of the Committee of Management .  Writ of mandamus was also sought commanding the respondents No. 1 to 3  to constitute the Committee of Management of Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter College, Ramgarh Barwan, District Jaunpur as per direction contained in the judgment dated 22.10.1997.  By the judgment dated 25.7.2000 the writ petition  No.11857 of 1998 and the writ petition  No. 34814 of 1999  have been dismissed against which  orders last two appeals have been filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey.

Before proceeding to consider various submissions  raised  by counsel for the parties it is necessary to note the grounds of challenge made in two writ petitions of Virendra Kumar Pandey and Arjun Mishra and the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 22.10.1997 for allowing  the  writ petitions filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey and Arjun Mishra.  As noted above rival elections were set up by Arjun Mishra and Virendra Kumar Pandey  on 1.4.1990 which elections were disapproved by the Deputy Director of Education on 20.12.1991,  against which order  the  writ petitions filed by both the parties were  dismissed by this Court on 2.2.1993.This  Court  affirmed the order of the Deputy Director of Education appointing Prabandh Sanchalak to hold fresh election.   The Deputy Director of Education vide his order dated 20.12.1991 directed for appointment of Authorised Controller  and further directed him to hold election from  valid members of the society .  Before the Deputy Director of Education a list of general body  of 321 members was claimed which was held by the Deputy Director of Education as not verified before  by appropriate materials.  Thus according to the order of the Deputy Director of Education the Prabandh Sanchalak was required to hold election from the valid members of the general body which direction pre-supposed determination  as to who are  the valid members of the Society.  The Prabandh Sanchalak appointed in pursuance of the order of this  Court dated 2.2.1993 assumed office  and claims to have received a list of 87 members of the general body from one of the contestants i. e. Virendra Kumar Pandey and treating the list  to be valid list  published the election programme on 15.6.1993 directing filing of nomination on 21.6.1993, scrutiny of nomination on the same day and withdrawal on the same day and  election, if any, on 23.6.1993.  It is the case of the Prabandh Sanchalak  that only one set of the nomination was filed and there being unopposed election.  In the election Jai Narain Tripathi was declared elected on 21.6.1993.   The learned Single Judge had  issued notice to the Prabandh  Sanchalak  who  was  called to appear  before the  Court along  with the original records.  Learned Single Judge  perused  the original records of the  election  and  made  following  observations which is recorded in the order sheet :-

".......................................  It is also borne out from a perusal of the file that the Authorised Controller did not publish any notice  before finalizing the list of electors.   According to the order passed by him for finalizing the electoral list, he has relied upon a list received  from Sri Virendra Kumar Pandey, the former Manager.  An application said to have been given by Sri Virendra Kumar Pandey to the Authorised Controller has also been perused.  The mode and manner in which  signature of Sri Virendra Kumar Pandey appears on this application raise suspicion.   At page 3 above some typed material had been scored out.  The scored material had been typed after the name the name of Virendra Kumar Pandey , Prabandhak.  Perhaps it was some address of Allahabad."    

Both the writ petitioners i. e. Arjun Mishra and Vrendra Kumar Pandey have pleaded in the writ petition  that no notice was given by the Prabandh  before Sanchalak of any election proceeding and they were not  aware of any election proceeding conducted by the Prabandh Sanchalak .  Virendra Kumar Pandey categorically stated  in the writ petition  that he never gave  the list of 87 persons  as  claimed by the Prabandh Sanchalak  to be given by Virendra Kumar Pandey.  The case of  Virendra Kumar Pandey further is that Sri D. S. M. Tripathi  Advocate has been his counsel in his  earlier  three writ petitions.  Virendra Kumar Pandey  further stated that Sri D. S. M. Tripathi Advocate for the purpose of filing Special Appeal against judgment  dated 2.2.1993   obtained  his signatures on one hundred blank papers  which papers were  utilized by Sri  Tripathi for preparing  alleged list of 87 members of the general body on the basis of which he got the election claimed on 21.6.1993 declaring his father Jai Narain Tripathi as Manager.   Sri Arjun Mishra  has also stated that he was rival claimant and was not issued any notice by the Prabandh Sanchalak .  Sri Arjun Mishra claimed that there were 321 members of the general body and list of 87 members is a fictitious list.  It was claimed that in 87 members list there are only twenty old members and rest of the members are all relations and associates of Jai Narain Tripathi  and D. S. M. Tripathi .  Learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 22.10.1997 recorded following finding :-

(1)  The first step in election process is the finalization of voters list.  The file of the Authorised Controller of election established that no notice was given to Arjun Mishra.  The list of 87members bearing the signatures of Virendra Kumar Pandey  is a suspicious document.

(2) The Authorised Controller did not take any steps to check the correctness  of the list.  He did not check as to when the 87 members were enrolled.  He did not make any effort to see whether they had paid  upto date membership fee and  constituted valid  electoral list.  Until this exercise was completed by the Authorised Controller he should not have passed  order of finalization of the list.   But like a willing and keen tool in the hands of forces who were interested in the election being held from this list, he accepted it as final and passed order.   This act and action of Authorised Controller puts his bonafides in the dock of suspicion,  his action in finalizing  the list cannot be termed honest and above reproach.

(3) The judicial  intent of this Court in judgment dated 2.2.1993 has not been followed by the Authorised Controller.

Thus learned Single Judge found that the intent of this  Court's  order dated 2.2.1993 was not followed by the Prabandh Sanchalak in conducting the election dated 21.6.1993.  It was found by the learned Single Judge that no steps were taken for finalizing the voter list which is the basic step for holding the election .  The  list of 87 persons is alleged to be given by Virendra Kumar Pandey one of the contenders whereas Virendra Kumar Pandey has denied giving of any such list and to the contrary his claim in his writ petition is that there are 250 members of the general body.   No notice was given by the Prabandh Sanchalak for finalizing the voter list nor any step has been taken for finalizing the voter list.  On the aforesaid finding the learned Single Judge has quashed the election proceedings dated 21.6.1993 and the recognition of the Committee of Management  of Jai Narain Tripathi  who claimed to have been elected  on 21.6.1993.  Learned Single Judge has also in the judgment made observation against the conduct of Sri D. S. M. Tripathi  Advocate who has appeared for Virendra Kumar Pandey in earlier three writ petitions as his counsel.

Sri M. D. Singh Shekher , learned  counsel  for  Jai Narain Tripathi and D. S. M. Tripathi has made various submissions challenging the order dated 22.10.1997 of the learned Single Judge.     By the impugned judgment dated 22.10.1997 infructuous writ petitions have been decided.  It is submitted that during the period when the judgment was  reserved fresh elections were held on 4.6.1996 which elections were not challenged.    Fresh elections having been  held by the Committee of Management elected on 21.6.1993,  the writ petitions had become infructuous and no order could have been passed.  There was unreasonable  delay in delivering the judgment, though arguments were concluded on 2nd April, 1996, the judgment could be delivered on 22nd October, 1997.  The impugned judgment dated 22nd October, 1997 is based on conjectures, surmises,  suspicion and on irrelevant consideration ignoring the points raised by the appellants.   Even if the judgment  dated 22.10.1997 is accepted for the sake of argument even then  the subsequent election of the year 1996 conducted by the Committee  of Management  will not be said to be illegal because the actions of the Committee of Management  functioning in the year 1993 which was duly recognised  shall be saved by  de facto doctrine.  Both the writ petitions raised highly disputed questions of facts which could not have been decided in proceedings under  Article  226 of the Constitution of India.  The findings and observations  made in both the writ petitions were based on surmises and conjectures which are based on irrelevant materials  hence are liable to be set aside in this appeal.   Many false facts have been alleged in the writ petitions.  The observations made against  Sri D. S. M. Tripathi  Advocate in the judgment dated 22nd October, 1997 are without any basis and proof rather based on surmises and conjectures.  The  petitioners failed to prove how the result of the election dated 21.6.1993 was materially affected due to holding of election from 87 members list.  In both the writ petitions although main prayer was to quash the election proceedings dated 21.6.1993 and the recognition  order but  the copy  of proceedings and the recognition order were not filed with the writ petitions. The question of validity of election involves many disputed questions of facts which require evidence oral and documentary  which could not have been done in writ proceedings  but by filing a civil suit .  Learned counsel for the appellants relied  on  various judgments of this  Court and the apex  Court which shall be referred to while considering the  submissions.

Sri Sadanand Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the respondents - writ petitioners refuting the submissions of counsel for the appellants contended  that the learned Single Judge rightly quashed the election dated 21.6.1993 and the recognition of the election.  Sri Shukla submitted that this  Court vide its order dated 2.2.1993 directed the Authorised Controller to hold election .  The Deputy Director of Education vide order dated 20th  December, 1991 had directed for holding an election from the valid list  which required determination of voter list  but  the Authorised Controller  did not take any step for determination of the voter list and on the basis of forged and fabricated  list of 87  members allegedly submitted by Virendra Kumar Pandey,  conducted the election.  He contended  that  Virendra Kumar Pandey  never gave the list of 87 persons.  The fact of the matter is  that the said list of 87 members was fabricated utilizing the blank signed papers  of Virendra Kumar Pandey which was given to  Sri D. S. M. Tripathi  Advocate for filing the Special Appeal against the judgment dated 2.2.1993.     The case of Virendra Kumar Pandey  is that there are 250 members  of the general body who were entitled to participate in  the election.   In 1990 election there were 321 members which was claimed by  Arjun Mishra.     Prabandh Sanchalak has manipulated the election dated 21.6.1993 in collusion  with Jai Narain Tripathi and D. S. M. Tripathi.  The  fact that the election was declared  unopposed on 21.6.1993 which was approved on 22.6.1993 by the District Inspector of Schools  and on the same day the Deputy Director of Education also withdrew the Prabandh Sanchalak also  proves that  the  Educational authorities were  unduly favouring Jai Narain Tripathi and D. S. M. Tripathi  and every thing  was manipulated  ex parte.  The election dated 21.6.1993  having been declared to be non est, the Committee headed  by Jai Narain Tripathi had  no jurisdiction to conduct any election  and the fresh election, if any, held  on 4.6.1996 is  void and non est .  Under the orders of this  Court dated 2.2.1993 the election was to be held by the Prabandh Sanchalak and the elections dated 21.6.1993  having  declared to be illegal,  it is Prabandh Sanchalak who alone is entitled to hold election and the Committee of Management whose election had been declared void  could not  have held election dated 4.6.1996.   After the order of this  Court dated 22.10.1997 the  educational authorities were duty bound  to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak  for holding fresh election but they did not comply  the judgment and illegally  continued the Committee of Management which is alleged to be  elected on 4.6.1996.  The order of  the Joint Director of Education dated 23.12.1997 reiterating the   view that the Prabandh Sanchalak need not be appointed in view of the order dated 22.10.1997, is illegal.   The fresh election alleged to be held on 10th April, 1999 by the same illegal committee of Jai Narain Tripathi  is also non est which was wrongly recognised by the educational authorities which was also challenged by Virendra Kumar Pandey before this  Court.  The learned Single Judge in its judgment dated 25.7.2000 has misinterpreted the order of this  Court dated 22.10.1997 and has erred in dismissing the two writ petitions filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey .   No election proceedings  of 1996, 1999 and again allegedly held in 2003 have been brought on record or have been  shown light of the day.  

Learned counsel for both the parties have relied on various  decisions which shall be referred to while considering the submissions.  

The first submission raised by the counsel for the appellants in first set of appeal is that by the impugned judgment  dated 22.10.1997 infructuous writ petitions  have been decided.  The submission is that after reserving the judgment and before delivering the judgment on 22.10.1997 fresh elections were held on 4th June, 1996 hence the writ petitions had become infructuous.  It is contended  that the election held on 4.6.1996 was not challenged by any one.  Reliance has been placed  by Sri M. D. Singh Shekher  on the judgment of the Division Bench of this  Court  1982 UPLBEC 43  Committee of Management of Sri  Ram Pura Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Taliya Kalan, District Deoria and another   Versus  The Deputy Director of Education , VII Region, Gorakhpur and others;  (1999) 4 Supreme Court cases 727  Punjab Communications Ltd.   Versus   Union of India and others;  1999 (4) A.W.C. 3279 Qamar Rashid Khan  Versus  Committee of Management , Azamgarh Muslim  Education Society, Azamgarh and others;   1996 (2) E.S.C. 588 (Alld.)     Committee of Management Shri Ratan Muni Jain Inter College, Agra and another  versus  Director of Eduction (Secondary ) U.P. Directorate of Education,Allahabad and others;  1992 A.W. C. (2) 1225 Committee of Management, Audyogik Vikas Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti, Bihara Bazar, Maharajganj, District Basti and another  Versus  Prescribed Authority, Basti ( Under U.P. Societies Registration Act No. XI of 1984) Sub Divisional Magistrate, Harriya, Basti and others; and the judgment  in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996  ( Vijay Narain Shukla and others  Versus Shri Radhey Lal and others ) decided on 22nd March, 2001.

In writ petitions filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey and Arjun Mishra  prayer was made to set aside the election dated 21.6.1993  and the recognition order.  It was also prayed in the writ petition  that direction be issued to the Deputy Director of Education to appoint Authorised Controller and the Authorised Controller be directed to hold fresh election.

The Deputy Director of Education vide his order dated 21.12.1991  declared the election dated 1.4.1990 of both the claimants i. e.  Arjun Mishra and Virendra Kumar Pandey   as not recognizable and directed that the Prabandh Sanchalak  be appointed for conducting fresh election from the valid list of members.  The list of members  which was claimed to be 321 was held not verified before him.    Learned Single Judge in its judgment dated 22nd October, 1997 has recorded categorical finding as noted above that the Prabandh Sanchalak did not take any step  for finalizing the voters list  before proceeding to hold election.   Prabandh Sanchalak did not give notice to Arjun Mishra  who was one of the claimants before the Deputy Director of Education.  Learned Single Judge  held that there is no material on the record of the Prabandh Sanchalak  pertaining to election in question of giving any notice before finalizing  the voters list.  Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the  finalization  of voters list is a basic step for holding any election.  Finalization of  the voters list for the purpose of present case was necessary in view of the specific finding of the Deputy Director of Education that the list of  321 members,  as  claimed  before him, is not verified.   The Deputy Director of Education directed the Prabandh Sanchalak to hold election from valid members of the general body.  It is implicit in the order of the Deputy Director of Education that the Prabandh Sanchalak had to undertake  the proceedings of finalization of the voters list  before proceeding to hold election.  Prabandh Sanchalak  is appointed as an independent public authority to conduct the election so that the dispute between the  warring factions may come to end and all concern may have  faith in conduct of election by independent person.  Learned Single Judge  did not  commit any error in setting aside the election dated 21.6.1993 which was held by the Prabandh Sanchalak without finalizing the voters list and without giving  any notice to the rival  factions.  Much emphasis has been laid down by Sri M. D. Singh Shekher  Advocate  that the learned Single Judge could not have proceeded  to act as hand writing expert in holding that the list of 87 members is suspicious list prepared on signed blank papers of Virendra Kumar Pandey.  The case of Prabandh Sanchalak as well as Jai Narain Tripathi in the writ court was that the election was held on the basis of list of 87 members which was supplied by Virendra Kumar Pandey former Manager.  It is relevant to note that Virendra Kumar Pandey was not recognised as Manager and the attestation of his signatures in pursuance of interim order of this  Court  passed in writ petition  filed by him of the year 1992  on the basis of 1.4.1990 election, came to an end when the writ petitions were dismissed on 2.2.1993.  Without entering into  the factual controversy as to whether actually Virendra Kumar Pandey gave list of 87 members to the Prabandh Sanchalak , it is sufficient  for the present case to proceed on the basis  that even if such list was given by Virendra Kumar Pandey that could not have formed the basis of election.  Virendra Kumar Pandey was one of the claimants before the Deputy Director of Education on the basis  of election dated 1.4.1990 which election was ultimately not recognised by the Deputy Director of Education  and the writ petition  against the said  order was also dismissed.  Arjun Mishra who was also a claimant  before the Deputy Director of Education was not given any notice  by the Prabandh Sanchalak  which fact was clear from the original record of the election proceedings  produced by the Prabandh Sanchalak before the learned Single Judge on 24.11.1994.  The election dated  21.6.1993 having not been held after finalization of voters list, learned Single Judge did not commit any error in setting aside the election and directing for appointing the Prabandh Sanchalak  for holding fresh election.  The order of this  Court dated 2.2.1993 directed for holding the election by the Prabandh Sanchalak ,  the election dated 21.6.1993 claimed to have been held by the Prabandh Sanchalak, having  been set aside,  the fresh elections are required to be held by the Prabandh Sanchalak .  The election dated 4.6.1996 of the Committee of Management claimed to be held  by the Committee of Management elected on 21.6.1993, cannot be said to have been held by the authority competent to conduct the election.  

 The submission made is that since the election was held on 4.6.1996 the writ petition  had become infructuous and the learned Single Judge committed error in allowing the writ petition.  The judgment dated 22.10.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge after recording finding that the order of this  Court  dated 2.2.1993 directing Prabandh Sanchalak to hold election, has not been complied with, the fresh election was required to be held by the Prabandh Sanchalak and the elections conducted by the Committee of Management  which has been declared void, cannot come in the way of the  learned Single Judge in directing flesh election by the Prabandh Sanchalak.  The writ petition  cannot be said to have become infructuous merely because  before delivery of  judgment the same office bearers  elected on 21.6.1993 had set up election by themselves.  The election dated 18.6.1996 has not been held by the Prabandh Sanchalak who alone was competent to conduct the election in view of the judgment of this  Court dated 2.2.1993.  The submission of the counsel for the appellants  that the writ petition   has become infructuous,  thus cannot be accepted.  There is one more reason for not accepting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants.  The Committee of Management which came into existence on 21.6.1993 has been held to be invalidly constituted and the said election has been quashed by this  Court.  If the subsequent election held by the Committee of Management is allowed to continue that will be perpetuating  the illegality and this  Court while exercising  jurisdiction under Article  226  has every jurisdiction to direct for fresh election by the Prabandh Sanchalak who was  competent to hold election by earlier order of this  Court dated 2.2.1993.

The Division Bench  judgment relied by the learned counsel for the appellants in Committee of Management of Sri  Ram Pura Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Taliya Kalan, District Deoria and another   Versus  The Deputy Director of Education , VII Region, Gorakhpur and others;   (supra ) was a case where the Authorised Controller appointed by the Deputy Director of Education has held election during the pendency of the writ petition  whereas in the writ petition  the provision of clause 21  of the Scheme of Administration which contemplated the appointment  by the Deputy Director of Education, was challenged .  The interim orders  passed in the writ petitions were vacated and thereafter fresh elections were held.  This  Court in paragraph 5 of the judgment also noticed that the petitioner Suresh Singh who had filed the writ petition  had also been subsequently  disqualified on the ground that he was teacher employed  in another institution which order had become final.  This  Court held that the petitioner thus cannot be continued as Manager due to disqualification incurred.  The Division Bench  held in the said case that no relief was claimed by moving an application for amendment in the writ petition for challenging the fresh election held by the  Authorised Controller.  The newly elected Manager was also not  party to the writ petition.  The present case is  distinguishable from the above case due to several reasons.  Firstly,  in the present case under orders  of the  High Court dated 2.2.1993 which had become final the fresh elections were required to be held by Prabandh Sanchalak.  The learned Single Judge has held that in the election dated 21.6.1993 the  High Court order dated 2.2.1993 is not complied with , hence the holding of fresh election on 4.6.1996  by the same committee cannot be said to be fulfilling the order of the  High Court dated 2.2.1993.  Thus even though fresh election was claimed by Committee of Management on 4.6.1996 this  Court have e very jurisdiction in ordering for fresh election to be conducted by Prabandh Sanchalak.  Secondly, in the present case the same Manager Jai Narain Tripathi  was elected in 1996 election who was elected on 21.6.1993 and was before  the  Court whereas   in the above Division Bench  case new office bearers were not before the  Court.     The judgment of the apex  Court in  Punjab Communications Ltd.   Versus   Union of India and others   (supra )  was a case where the apex  Court held that subsequent events before the apex  Court  would show that the issues which were live  when the writ petition  was pending in the  High Court have  lost all their relevance.  In above view of the matter the  Court observed that it was not necessary to go into the issues raised in the writ petition.  In the present case issues which were raised before the learned Single Judge  are still alive.  The case before the apex  Court was that   ADB  loan on which tender was passed stood withdrawn.  The tender was given for installing 38 thousands telephones for Eastern U.P.  was withdrawn and invitations for new tenders spread  over several rural areas in various States have now been made. New tenders were also submitted.  It was stated before the apex  Court  that the appellant had also participated in the new tenders.  In view of the aforesaid facts the apex  Court did not go into the issues which were raised in the writ petition.  The said judgment  is clearly distinguishable.  In the case of   Committee of Management Shri Ratan Muni Jain Inter College, Agra and another  versus  Director of Eduction (Secondary ) U.P. Directorate of Education,Allahabad and others  (supra )  the effect of the temporary injunction granted by the Civil Judge  in suit filed in the civil court on the basis of an election was being considered.  The  Court took the view that the injunction order  issued by the trial court was passed on particular cause of action and the said injunction in no  manner  operate in respect of  subsequent cause of action.  The said judgment  has no application in the facts of the present case.  Another judgment relied by the counsel for the appellants  is  Committee of Management, Audyogik Vikas Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti, Bihara Bazar, Maharajganj, District Basti and another  Versus  Prescribed Authority, Basti ( Under U.P. Societies Registration Act No. XI of 1984) Sub Divisional Magistrate, Harriya, Basti and others; (supra ).  In the aforesaid case the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority deciding the dispute pertaining to election of Society on the ground that the term of Committee  of Management had expired.  The learned Single Judge also noticed  that an order was passed by the Deputy Director of Education to get the fresh election of the Committee of Management held of the College.  The Division Bench  noticed that it was admitted case of the parties that the Society in question runs only the College and that both the Committees of Management constituted under the Societies Registration Act and under the Scheme of Administration were the same.  The Division Bench  held that with the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management of the College the Committee of Management  constituted for the Society  also outlived its purpose.  The Division Bench , however , had accepted the contention that two Committees were different with different tenure but held that said question is only academic in that case.  The present  case   even if  the term of Committee dated 21.6.1993 came to an end but the relief  in the writ petition  for getting the election held by Prabandh Sanchalak had not become infructuous.  This case also  does not help the appellant.    

Reliance has   also been placed on the Division Bench  judgment in  the case of  Qanar Rashid Khan   Versus  Committee of Management, Azamgarh Muslim Education Society, Azamgarh and others   reported in 1999 (4) A.W.C. 3279 in which two writ petitions  which were decided by the learned Single Judge were held to have become infructuous by efflux of time  during pendency of the writ petitions.  An election schedule was notified by the District Inspector of Schools on 29.10.1997 fixing  23.11.1997 as a date for poll.  A suit No. 227 of 1997 was filed in which Civil Judge rejected the application for temporary injunction on 15.11.1997 but on the same day the District Inspector of Schools has cancelled the election schedule.  The writ petition  No. 39006 of 1997 was filed by Qamar Rashid Khan challenging the order dated 15.11.1997 passed by the District Inspector of Schools  in which an interim order was granted on 21.11.1997 staying the operation of  of the order dated 15.11.1997.  As consequence of the interim order  the District Inspector of Schools issued fresh election schedule on 29.11.1997.   In view of the subsequent election schedule published on  29.11.1997 the writ petition  No. 39006 of 1997 was held to be infructuous.  In above facts the  Court held  the writ petition  No. 39006 of 1997 had become infructuous,  when the election  schedule  which was  earlier published on 29.10.1997 could not culminate  into election and before the date of poll the schedule was cancelled   and followed by another election schedule.  The writ petition  challenging the order dated 15.11.1997 has actually become  infructuous and there cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down by the Division Bench  in the aforesaid case.  The facts of the above case are based on entire different set of circumstances and the proposition laid down in the said case has no application in the present case.

The next submission raised by the  counsel for the appellants is that the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to beset aside only on the ground that there was long delay in delivering the judgment after close of hearing.  Reliance  has been placed on A. I. R. 1976 Supreme Court 2037  R. C. Sharma  Versus   Union of India and others and another judgment relied on is 200 (3) A.W.C. 2098 (SC)    Kanhaiyalal and others  Versus    Anup Kumar and others.   In  R. C. Sharma  Versus   Union of India and others, (supra ) the apex  Court had laid down that unreasonable delay  between hearing of arguments and delivery of a judgment unless  explained by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances is highly unreasonable even when written arguments were submitted.  In the present case the learned Single Judge has elaborately  dealt with all the pleadings of the parties and the submissions.  We are satisfied  that any submission worth substance  was not noticed by the learned Single Judge  in his judgment.   There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down by the apex  Court   that  there should not be any unreasonable delay in delivery of judgment  after hearing  but in the facts of the present case we are satisfied that the judgment of the learned Single Judge  does not deserve to be set aside  on this ground.   The appellants  before us have raised  elaborate submissions on all aspects of the matter running to hearing  given for  more than a week.  Learned Single Judge  also recorded his observations   which are part of the order sheet when the original record of the elections were summoned and perused by the  Court  on earlier occasion during the course of hearing.  In the second judgment relied by the appellants namely  Kanhaiyalal and others  Versus    Anup Kumar and others ( supra ) the apex  Court considered  the submissions on merits and was  satisfied that the judgment  was unsustainable on merits.  In the facts of the present case as noticed above we are satisfied  that the appellants are not entitled for  any benefit on the ground of delay in delivery of judgment.

The  learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that the judgment dated 22.10.1997 is based on conjectures and surmises  and on irrelevant  considerations.   Reliance has been placed  by the learned counsel for the appellants on the judgment of the apex  Court in  Dhirajlal Girdharilal  Versus  Commissisoner of Incoem Tax, Bombay reported in AIR 1955 S.C. 271.  The apex  Court in the said judgment held  that it is well established  that when a court of fact acts on material, partly relevant and partly  irrelevant, it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the court  was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its finding.   In the present case  we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has not based his finding on any irrelevant material or conjectures or surmises.  The issues before the learned Single Judge was conduct of election by the Prabandh Sanchalak  on 21.6.1993.    The   learned Single Judge has issued notice to the Prabandh Sanchalak  and has summoned him  along with the original record of the election dated 21.6.1993.  The Prabandh Sanchalak appeared before the  Court along with the original records which were  perused by the learned Single Judge .  The learned Single Judge on the basis of the original records  recorded its observations in the order sheet of the case on 24.11.1994 which  observations were relied by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition.   The submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the observations of the learned Single Judge that the  list of  87   members on the basis of which  Prabandh Sanchalak held election appears to be suspicious, is based on surmises and conjectures.  For coming to the conclusion that the list of eighty seven members on the basis of which the election has been held by the Prabandh Sanchalak , is not genuine list, the learned Single Judge  has relied on various relevant facts including eighty seven members' list itself  which was perused by the learned Single Judge.   The learned Single Judge  on perusal of the list observed that the list has been prepared on blank papers which bore  prior signatures of Virendra Kumar Pandey.  This  conclusion was drawn by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the  mode and manner  in which the signatures of Virendra Kumar Pandey appeared on the list.  Learned Single Judge observed  at page 3 that some typed  material has been scored out.  The scored material has been typed after the name of Virendra Kumar Pandey  Prabandhak.  Thus the findings cannot be said to b e based on irrelevant consideration, surmises and conjectures.        

The next submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants is that even if the judgment of this  Court dated 22.10.1997 is accepted to be correct with regard to election dated 21.6.1993 the election held on 4.6.1996 is saved under de facto doctrine.  It is contended that the Committee of Management which held the election on 4.6.1996 was recognised Committee of Management and all its actions are saved by colour of office although  its election dated 21.6.1993 was subsequently quashed.  Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the apex  Court  A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 1473   Gokaraju Rangaraju   Versus    State of Andhra Pradesh;  A.I.R. 1987 Supreme Court 2111  M/s. Beopar Sahayak (P) Ltd. , and others  Versus    Vishwa Nath and others   ; (1998) 1 UPLBEC 576  Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and others  Versus   Director of Higher Education , Allahabad and others   and  2005 (2) ESC 1522   Committee of Management , Sri Kashiraj Mahavidyalaya Inter Collector , Aurai and another   Versus    Joint Director of Education, Mirzapur and others.

There cannot be any dispute with the proposition as laid down by the apex  Court in  Gokaraju Rangaraju   Versus    State of Andhra Pradesh  (supra).  The de facto  doctrine  is based on public policy to save third persons in the event of declaration of appointment or election as invalid.  Thus  when the Committee of Management functions  under colour of office its actions cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings on the ground that its election is subsequently set aside.  For example the Committee of Management under its functioning may have made appointment, taken disciplinary actions, passed salary bills, granted promotions, taken various decisions regarding institution.  The said decision will still hold and shall not be affected and shall be saved by de facto doctrine.  However, this de facto doctrine cannot be applied when the election of Committee of Management is directly challenged and the person in the office contest the matter.  The election dated  21.6.1993 of the Committee of Management which claimed to have held subsequent  election dated 4.6.1996 was directly under  challenge in both  the writ petitions and the Committee of Management  elected on 21.6.1993 was party to the writ petition  and has contested the challenge.   The first reason for not accepting this submission is  that in view  of the judgment of this  Court dated 2.2.1993 after quashing the election dated 21.6.1993 fresh election was required to be conducted by the Prabandh Sanchalak and not by the Committee of Management whose election was set  aside.   The election dated 4.6.1996 was  conducted by the  Committee of Management elected on 21.6.1993 and not by Prabandh Sanchalak .  Thus the benefit of this argument  cannot be taken by  the petitioners.  Secondly the apex  Court in the same judgment of   Gokaraju Rangaraju   Versus    State of Andhra Pradesh  (supra) has laid down another rule providing that  defective appointment may be questioned directly  in a proceeding to which he may be  a party and in the said proceedings de facto doctrine  cannot be pressed into service. Following observation was made in paragraph 15 :-

"There is another rule also based on public policy.  The defective appointment of a  de factor Judge may be questioned directly in a proceeding to which he may be a party but it cannot be permitted to be questioned in a litigation between two private litigants, a  litigation which  is of no concern or consequence  to the Judge except as a Judge.  Two litigants litigating their private titles cannot be permitted to bring in issue and litigate upon the title of a  Judge to his office. Otherwise so soon as a Judge pronounces a judgment a litigation may be commenced for a declaration  that the judgment is void because the Judge  is no Judge.  A Judge's title to his office cannot be brought into jeopardy  in that fashion.  Hence the rule against collateral attack on validity of judicial appointments.  To question a Judge's appointment in an appeal against his judgment is, of course, such a collateral attack. "

In paragraph 11 also following was laid down :-

" No one is under obligation to recognise or respect the acts of an intruder, and  for all legal purposes they are absolutely  void.   But  for the sake of order and regularity, and to prevent confusion in the conduct  of public business and in security of private rights, the acts of officers de facto  are not suffered to be questioned because of the want of legal authority except  by some direct proceeding instituted for the purpose by the State or by some one claiming the office  de  jure, or except when the person himself attempts to build up some right, or claim some  privilege or emolument, by reason of being the officer which he claims to be.  In all other cases the acts of an officer de facto are as valid and effectual, while he is suffered to retain the office as though he were an officer by right, and the same legal consequences will flow from them for the protection of the public and of third parties.  There is an important principle, which finds concise expression in the legal maxim that the acts of officers  de facto  cannot be questioned collaterally."

Learned counsel for the appellant has further  placed reliance on Division Bench  judgment  of  this  Court reported in   (1992 ) 2 UPLBEC 1558  Mohd. Iqbal  versus   State of Uttar Pradesh and others.   In the aforesaid case two members were nominated by the State Government in the Board exercising power under proviso to Section 9 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 by notification dated 2.8.1991.  These two nominated members participated in the proceedings of no-confidence held on 12.8.1991 which was brought against the President of the Municipal Board Mohd. Iqbal.  The President filed writ petition  challenging  the proceedings dated 12.8.1991 and participation of aforesaid two nominated  members .   Two nominated members who  were earlier nominated vide notification dated 19.4.1990 also challenged the notification dated 12.8.1991.  The Division Bench  relying on an earlier judgment  of the Division Bench   held that the power of nomination  given to the State Government  was without providing any definite guide lines, thus the nomination dated  12.8.1991 was of no legal consequence.  Thus the notification nominating the two members  was held to be illegal.  It was contended before the Division Bench   that  their participation in the proceedings dated 12.8.1991 is saved by de facto doctrine  because on the date when they participated in the proceedings the nomination was subsisting.  The writ petition was filed even before the proceedings dated 12.8.1991 could take place seeking the interim relief  restraining the  nominated members to participate in the election.  The  Court did not grant any interim order staying the participation but only directed  that their participation shall be subject to result of the writ  petition.  The Division Bench in the aforesaid case  repelled the argument of saving the said proceedings dated 12.8.1991 on de facto doctrine.  Following was  observed  in paragraphs 7 and 8 :-

"7. ............................................ If the result of no-confidence motion proceeding is  subjected to the decision of a writ petition  and if the right to hold office is directly questioned as it has been done in the cases on hand, then de facto doctrine could not protect the illegal participation of respondent Nos. 4 and 5  and voting right exercised by them in the ab-initio void no-confidence motion proceeding. "

" 8................................... The Supreme Court lint he case of Gokaraju Rangaraju (supra ) clearly enunciated that a judgment delivered by a Judge cannot be questioned in a collateral proceeding like appeal or revision but his right to hold office of a Judge can be questioned directly.   The right to hold office of a member by respondents no. 4 and 5  under the notification  dated 2.8.1991 has not been challenged by the petitioner in the instant cases in a collateral proceeding but directly.   Therefore, reliance placed by Sri Ravi Kiran Jain  on the case of Gokaraju Rangaraju (supra ) is misplaced."

In the above case the Division Bench  did not accept the submission  based on de facto doctrine  for saving  of actions of illegally nominated members principally on the ground that the nomination of two members was  directly under challenge in the writ petition.  The Division Bench  applied  the judgment of the apex  Court in Gokaraju Rangaraju (supra ).  The above case does not help the appellant  in any manner rather support  the view which w e have taken in the present case. No benefit can be taken by the appellant of de facto doctrine.

In view of above the appellants are not entitled to any benefit of de facto doctrine  in saving the election held on  4.6.1996.

Learned counsel for the appellants next submitted that  in both the writ petitions highly disputed  questions of facts were involved  which could not have been gone in proceedings under Article 226 and appropriate remedy was to file a civil suit.  Several authorities of the apex  Court and this  Court have been relied for the above submission.  It is not necessary to refer to the various judgment relied by the counsel for the appellants for the above submission since it is well settled that normally this  Court  does not adjudicate highly disputed questions of fact in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  In the  two writ petitions  this  Court had not proceeded to adjudicate highly disputed questions of facts.  Learned Single Judge  did  not embark upon the inquiry as to who  are the valid members  of the society  nor it proceeded to adjudicate  the validity of the voters list and to decide the same.  The only question considered by the  Court was as to  whether in the election held on 21.6.1993  Prabandh Sanchalak took any step for finalizing the voters list or any opportunity  or notice  was given before finalizing the  voters list.  The  Court came to the conclusion that no steps were taken by the Prabandh Sanchalak  towards finalizing the voters list  which was primary  step for holding the election.  The  Court considered this basic fact which was foundation  for proceeding to hold any election.  It cannot be said  that the  Court entered into the disputed questions of fact or adjudicated the disputed question.  The said submission of counsel for the appellants  has also no substance.   The election dated 21.6.1993 was quashed on the basis of findings which were arrived at by the learned Single Judge after perusal of the original record of the Prabandh Sanchalak .  The findings were based on material on record and pleadings of the parties and cannot be said to be based on presumptions, surmises and conjectures.     Further submission of the counsel for the appellants  that several false facts have been alleged  by the petitioners in the writ petition,  also has no substance.   The allegation in the writ petition  that to the knowledge of the petitioner Prabandh Sanchalak never came to the college to take charge are only assertion  of the petitioner   in making such assertions by the writ petitioner it cannot be said that the petitioners have stated any false fact.   Further the submission of the petitioner that there was no material in support of the pleadings also cannot be accepted.  All the proceedings and steps taken by the Prabandh Sanchalak for conducting the election were brought on record, the original records of the election proceedings  were summoned by the  Court and were looked into.  The submission of the petitioners that the petitioners have not proved that the result of the election has been materially affected, also needs consideration.   In the present case the elections have been set aside on the ground that th Prabandh Sanchalak did not proceed to finalize the voters list.   The voters list have never been finalized  and it was never known as to who are the members  who are entitled to participate in the election.   Without first finalizing  the members entitled to vote the argument that the petitioners failed to prove that the elections were materially affected have no legs to stand.   Another submission which has been pressed by the petitioners is that in both the writ petitions main prayers were  to quash the election proceedings dated 21.6.1993 and the recognition order dated 22/23.6.1993 but the copies of the said proceedings and recognition order were not filed along with the writ petition.  Reliance has been placed on A.I.R. 1986 Supreme Court 2166  Surinder Singh  Versus  Central Government and others  and  1999 (4) A.W.C.  3481  Pramod Kumar and others  Versus   Sub-Divisional Officer, Khaga, Fatehpur and others.   There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down in the aforesaid cases  but in the present writ petitions although the proceedings and orders were not filed by the writ petitioners but they have specifically  prayed in the writ petition  for quashing the said orders.  In the writ petition  averment was also made that in spite of several requests the respondents  have not made available the copies of the orders to the petitioners.  However, in the  counter affidavit  filed by Jai Narain Tripathi himself  the copy of letter of the Prabandh Sanchalak  forwarding the entire election proceedings to the District Inspector of Schools  for approval  and the copy of the order of recognition by the District Inspector of Schools dated 22.6.1993 have been brought on record.   The  proceedings and the orders were on the record of the writ petition  although brought along with the  counter affidavit.  The proceedings being on the record, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in quashing the  said proceedings and orders.  

The last submission made by the counsel for the appellants is that serious observations have been against D. S. M. Tripathi Advocate in the judgment dated 22.10.1997.  Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the apex  Court in A.I.R. 1990 Supreme Court 1737   A. M. Mathur  Versus   Prfamod Kumar Gupta.  The apex  Court in the said judgment in paragraph 14  laid down as follows :-

      "14.         The Judges Bench is a seat of power. Not only do judges have power to make binding decisions, their decisions legitimate  the use of power by other officials.  The Judges have the absolute  and unchallengeable control  of the  Court domain.  But they cannot  misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified  banter or scathing criticism  of counsel , parties or witnesses.  We  concede that the  Court has the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter coming before it for adjudication, but  it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice  that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose  conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely  necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct. (See (i) R.K. Lakshmanan v. A. K. Srinivasan (1976) 1 SCR 204: (AIR 1975 SC 1741); (ii) Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhushan Kar, (1986) 2 SCR 569 at page 576: (AIR 1986 SC 819 at ;p. 824 )."

To the same effect  is  another judgment of the apex  Court  AIR 1995 Supreme Court 2113  K. Subramaniam  versus   Ponnusami and another.  We have carefully gone through the  judgment  dated 22.10.1997.  Although the allegations were made by Virendra Kumar Pandey  against D. S. M. Tripathi that the list of eighty seven members  alleged to have been submitted by Virendra Kumar Pandey was manufactured  on the blank papers signed by Virendra Kumar Pandey which were given to  D. S. M. Tripathi for filing Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2.2.1997  Virendra Kumar Pandey has categorically stated  that he never gave the list of eighty seven members to Prabandh Sanchalak as alleged by the Prabandh Sanchalak  and D. S. M. Tripathi who had hundred blank signed papers  of Virendra Kumar Pandey  had utilized the same for preparing the list.  As observed above, even if it is accepted that Virendra Kumar Pandey gave the list of eighty seven persons the said list given by one of the contenders  will not absolve the Prabandh Sanchalak from finalizing the voters list.  Sri M. D. Singh Shekher, learned counsel for the appellants  has also taken us to various proceedings of the Committee of Management including the  list of 321 members in which Jai Narain Tripathi and D. S. M. Tripathi are shown as members of the general body.  He further submitted  that D. S. M. Tripathi was elected as member of the Committee of Management since  the year 1990.   As observed by the apex  Court the adverse observation against a counsel or a party need not to be made unless it is necessary for deciding the case.  In the facts of the present case we are satisfied that it was not necessary to make observations  regarding the conduct of D. S. M. Tripathi as Advocate for deciding the controversy raised in the writ petition.  Without above comments on the conduct of D. S. M. Tripathi same result is achieved with regard to election dated 21.6.1993.  We are thus of the view  that the observations made against D. S. M. Tripathi as Advocate of this  Court were not necessary to be made for deciding the issues raised in the writ petition  and the writ petition  could have been decided without making such observations.  In view of above, we expunge the observations commenting on the conduct of D. S. M. Tripathi as Advocate of this  Court from the judgment dated 22.10.1997 .

In view of aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment  dated 22.10.1997.  The findings of the learned Single Judge that Prabandh Sanchalak  proceeded to declare  unopposed election on 21.6.1993 without taking any steps for finalizing  the voters list are confirmed.    The learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the election and directed for fresh election by Prabandh Sanchalak .  Fresh elections had to be conducted by the Prabandh Sanchalak in view of the earlier judgment of this  Court dated 2.2.1993. Thus we affirm the judgment dated 22.10.1997 of the learned Single Judge .

The second set of appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 25.7.2000 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the two writ petitions filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey as noted above.  The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25th July, 2000 is based on  interpretation of judgment dated 22.10.1997.  Sri Sadanand Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants appearing for the second set of appeals, has contended  that the Deputy Director of Education took erroneous view in passing the order dated 23.12.1997.  He further contended that the Committee of Management which was elected  on  21.6.1993 conducted the election dated 4.6.1996 which election was liable to be ignored having been conducted by the Committee of Management  which was not authorized .  The subsequent election of April, 1999 was also liable to be ignored on the same reasons.  It is contended that the Deputy Director of Education was obliged to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak for holding fresh election in pursuance of the order dated  22.10.1997 and in not doing so he acted contrary to the order dated 22.10.1997 in continuing illegal Committee alleged to be elected on 4.6.1996 giving occasion to the said Committee to again perpetuate the illegality by conducting another election in 1999 and 2003.  Sri M. D. Singh Shekher  refuting the submission has supported the order dated 25.7.2000 and the order of the Deputy Director of Education.   He submitted that  in the judgment of this  Court  dated 22.10.1997 this  Court directed that in case any further election of the Committee from the list of eighty seven members has been held then the District Inspector of Schools and the Deputy Director of Education has  to de-recognise the same.  He contended that fresh election held in the year 1996 was on the basis of the list of 204 members which list was finalized  after enrolling new members by giving notice  in the news paper,  hence in view of the judgment of this  Court  dated 22.10.1997 neither the Prabandh Sanchalak was required to be appointed nor the elected Committee on 4.6.1996 was required to be de-recognised.

Before considering the submissions of the parties it is relevant  to again note  the relevant findings and conclusions recorded by this  Court in its judgment dated 22.10.1997.  The learned Single Judge on 22.10.1997 has held that the election dated 21.6.1993 was conducted by the Prabandh Sanchalak  without finalizing the voters list .  The learned Single Judge has observed in the judgment  that Prabandh Sanchalak was appointed  to conduct the fair election which may inspire confidence of all including the contesting parties .  The learned Single Judge held in his order as follows :-

"   I, for what has been stated  above, hold that the election held by the Authorised Controller was contrary to the scheme of administration, dishonest , collusive and without notice.  The judicial intent of the  Court  in judgment dated 2 February, 1993 has not been followed by the Authorised Controller.  The election, its result in favour of Jai Narain Tripathi , the order of Authorised Controller declaring the result and consequential order dated 22.6.1993  of the District Inspector of Schools , Jaunpur approving the election in favour of Jai Narain Tripathi cannot be sustained in law."        

     

The learned Single Judge has observed that in the circumstances of the case it cannot be held that the object and purpose of the judgment dated 2.2.1993 of the  Court has been  achieved.  Thus according to the learned Single Judge the object and purpose of the judgment dated 2.2.1993 was still to be achieved meaning thereby the election was still required to be held by the Prabandh Sanchalak after  finalizing the voters list in fair manner in accordance with law.  It is necessary to quote the operative  portion of the judgment  for noticing  the  intent and purpose of the learned Single Judge.

         " I, therefore, find considerable merit in the two writ petitions for invoking  jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.  The writ petitions are thus allowed. The proceedings of election dated 21.6.1993 of the Committee of Management of the Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter College conducted  by the Authorised Controller , Basic Education officer, Jaunpur together with order dated 22/23/6.1993 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur  recognising the disputed election and on the strength of the recognition order the approval of Sri Jai Narain Tripathi as Manager of the Institution is/are  thereby quashed.  In case any further election of the Committee from the list of 87 members  has been held then the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur  and the Deputy Director of Education , Vth Region, Varanasi shall within three days from the receipt of a copy of this judgment derecognize  the same.  A writ of mandamus is issued to the District Inspector of Schools , Jaunpur to forthwith pass single operation order  under the U.P.  High School and Intermediate  College ( Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees ) Act, 1971 to ensure continued payment of salary tot he teachers and other employees till such time as fresh valid election of the Committee of Management is not held and recognised.  The Deputy Director of Education is commanded to appoint an officer of proven honesty of the rank of District Inspector of Schools  as Authorised Controller to hold election within four months from the date his  nomination as Authorised Controller.  He shall first finalize the list of members from those lists that are supplied to him by Sri Arjun Mishra and Virendra Kumar Pandey with reference to the provisions of the Scheme of Administration and also the Register of Members.  Then  the election shall  be held after notice to members both by registered post and publication in one Hindi language daily news-paper having good circulation in Jaunpur. The election shall be held in the presence of the District Inspector of Schools , Jaunpur in addition to the presence of Authorised Controller."

Much emphasis has been laid by Sri M. D. Singh Shekher   on the following observations made in the judgment by  the learned Single Judge :-

"In case any further election of the Committee from the list of 87 members  has been held then the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur  and the Deputy Director of Education , Vth Region, Varanasi shall within three days from the receipt of a copy of this judgment derecognize  the same."

The election held on 4.6.1996 by the Committee elected on 21.6.1993 could not be a reason for not giving effect to the mandamus issued by learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 22.10.1997 due to following reasons.

Firstly, the Deputy Director of Education vide order dated 20.12.1991 had appointed a Prabandh Sanchalak to conduct the election, which order was affirmed by this  Court vide judgment dated 2.2.1993.  Thus in view of judgment of this  Court fresh election was to be held  by Prabandh Sanchalak .  The election dated 21.6.1993 held by Prabandh Sanchalak having been set aside by learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 22.10.1997 , the fresh election was required to be held by Prabandh Sanchalak .  The election dated 4.6.1996 being not an election held by Prabandh Sanchalak could not stand in way of mandamus of the  Court vide judgment dated 22.10.1997 to the Deputy Director of Education to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak  to hold fresh election.  In judgment  dated 22.10.1997 following was held :-

" The  Court's role in the  above background of the case cannot thus be of a moot spectator. The collusion and fraudulent machinations cannot be allowed to go unchecked.  The judicial intent of the  Court in  its judgment dated 2nd  February, 1993 has to be upheld by this judgment."

  The above observations of the  Court have to be given due weight while looking to the election  4.6.1996.   As per earlier judgment dated 2.2.1993 of this Court which had attained finality the fresh election was required to be conducted by Prabandh Sanchalak.  Admittedly the election  dated 4.6.1996 was not conducted by Prabandh Sanchalak but by the office bearers of the Committee elected on 21.6.1993 which election has been held as illegal, thus for giving effect to earlier judgment dated 2.2.1993 of this  Court the election dated 4.6.1996 had to be ignored giving way for conduct of fresh election by Prabandh Sanchalak.

Secondly,  the election dated 21.6.1993 has been set aside on the main ground that no steps were taken by Prabandh Sanchalak for finalizing  the voter list before holding the election, it was further held that no notice was given to Arjun Mishra one of the contenders.  The judgment dated 22.10.1997 intended fresh election after determination of voter list  after notice to rival claimants  Arjun Mishra  and Virendra Kumar Pandey .  According to case of appellants the list of voters which was 87  on 21.6.1993 increased into 204 for 4.6.1996 election after a drive for enrolment of new members was started vide notice dated 29.10.1995 published by office bearers of 21.6.1993 election.  Thus before 1996 election  there is no determination of voter list.  If we accept the submission of appellant that since 1996 election has been held not by 87 members, no further action is to be taken as per mandamus issued by judgment dated 22.10.1997, the purpose and intent  of judgment be defeated.  Thus for compliance of the earleir judgment of this  Court dated 2.2.1993 the election was required to be held by Prabandh Sanchalak who had to first determine the voter list l;after notice to both rival claimants i.e. Virendra Kumar Pandey and Arjun Mishra.  To say that 1996 election having been held not by 87 members but by 204 members who were enrolled by Committee elected on 21.6.1993 the compliance of mandamus  dated 22.10.1997 was not contemplated is misconstruing the judgment dated 22.10.1997.

Thirdly,  in the election dated 4.6.1996 whether the list of 87 members on which list the election dated 21.6.1993 was held was utilized affecting the election dated 4.6.1996 or not  is also one of the issues.  In the judgment dated 22.10.1997 learned Single Judge had directed that in case any further election of the Committee from the list  of 87 members  has been held then the District Inspector of Schools and the Deputy Director of Education shall de-recognise the same. The submission raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the election dated 4.6.1996 was held on the basis of membership 204 hence the election not having been held from 87 members the election dated 4.6.1996 does not require de-recognization.  Learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 25.7.2000 has observed that no pleadings have been made in the  writ petition that election dated 4.6.1996 was held from the list of 87 members. In the  counter affidavit filed by Jai Narain Tripathi, the Manager, who is respondent in second set of appeals, a categorical case  was taken that after the election dated 21.6.1993 notice  was published in the news paper by the office bearers of Committee dated 21.6.1993 inviting applications for fresh enrolment of the members.  The said notice is said to have been published on 29.10.1995.  This fact has also been clearly noted in the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 26.6.1996 which is on record.  Thus it is after the fresh enrolment derive  initiated vide notice date 29.10.1995 that membership increased from 87 to 204.  Thus the membership of 204 was result of fresh  enrolment by the officer bearers of the Committee elected on 21.6.1993.  Can it be said that in the election held on 4.6.1996 the members who were included in 87 list did not participate?   Further  the membership of 204 was increased by the office bearers  who were in the same list of 87 members .  List of 87 members was foundation of  subsequent election held on 4.6.1996.  The mere fact that membership increased from 87 to 204 by fresh enrolment, will not remove illegality which had crept in 87 members list.   It was  held  by the learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 22.10.1997 that 87 list was prepared without determination of membership.  Thus it is apparent from the material brought  on record and the case taken by the respondent Committee of Management  that members who were included in the list of 87 members were foundation of subsequent increase in the membership and increase of 204 members was  on the basis of original list of 87 members  Thus vitiating factor which was present in 87 members  list was very much present in 204 members list.   The list of 204 members was not prepared after determination of membership by the Prabandh Sanchalak as was required to be done under orders of this  Court dated 2.2.1993.

In view of above the Committee elected on 4.6.1996 was not entitled to be continued  and recognized after judgment of this  Court dated 27.10,1997.  The Deputy Director of Education has committed error in continuing to recognise the committee elected on 4.6.1996 overlooking  all the important aspects.

          Further, the 1996 election was not brought before the  Court although judgment was delivered on 22.10.1997.  The  Court was not aware of aspects of  election 1996, nor the said election was  under consideration in that judgment . The observation of the court above quoted was a positive  indication that in event subsequent election  is held by 87 list  same  be de-recognised, thus de-recognition was mandatory  if subsequent election was held by 87 list.  But the judgment  dated 22.10.1997 cannot be utilized as shield for protecting 1996 election. The learned Single Judge has read the judgment  as if subsequent election has been held not from 87list the said election is not invalid and has to be continued to be recognised  and  mandamus in that situation need not be complied with.  The reading of judgment dated 22.10.1997 in  above manner is nothing but misreading of the judgment.   The  judgment dated 22.10.1997 cannot be read as protecting the 1996 election. The authorities  were obliged to act in a manner to give effect the mandamus in its true spirit.  The Deputy Director of Education committed error  in taking the view that 1996 election has to be continued since it is not affected by judgment dated 22.10.1997 not having been held on 87 members.  Taking into consideration  over all facts and circumstances of the election 1996, steps were required to be taken for getting fresh election held by Prabandh Sanchalak .

If the view of the learned Single Judge in judgment dated 25.7.2000 is accepted, it will mean that  the Committee  dated 21.6.1993 whose election has been set aside be allowed to perpetuate  the illegality and the  Court is powerless in setting right the infirmity found by judgment dated 22.10.1997 and to do complete justice.  It is  to be noted that in1996 election  also the same Manager was elected who was elected in election dated 21.6.1993 who is one of the respondents in these appeals.  When the fresh election is to be held by Prabandh Sanchalak  in view of judgment dated 2.2.1993 of this  Court , and the election held by Prabandh Sanchalak on 21.6.1993 has been  set aside the fresh election is required to be held by Prabandh Sanchalak , can the elections  held by Committee of Management dated 21.6.1993  which election has been set aside,   be allowed to continue  and  the illegality  found by this  Court be allowed to perpetuate.  The answer is obviously 'No'.  

Learned Single Judge  in its judgment dated 25.7.2000 while considering the  writ petition No. 34814 of 1999 filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey has taken the  view that in the above  writ petition election held in the year 1999 was not under challenge. The prayers made in the  writ petition No. 34814 of 1999 has also been noted by the learned Single Judge in his judgment.  Prayer was for quashing the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 11.5.1999 recognising the election held in the year 1999.  When the order recognising  the election has been challenged the election of 1999 was also put in issue.  The view of the learned Single Judge  that election of 1999 was not under challenge is erroneous.   Further, the election held   on 18.4.1999 was also conducted by the Committee of Management which was elected on 4.6.1996 and in view of the observations as made above the said election dated 4.6.1996 of the Committee of Management was not entitled to be continued or recognised, the   fresh elections were required to be conducted by the Prabandh Sanchalak after determining the voters list.   Obviously the election dated 18.4.1999 was by the Committee of Management of respondents which suffer from same infirmities as noted above with regard to election dated 4.6.1996 .   Thus the view of  the learned Single Judge with regard to election dated 18.4.1999 cannot be upheld.

   The Division Bench  judgment of this  Court  in 1998 (1) UPLBEC 379  Committee of Management. Sukhpura Inter College, Sukhpura, District Ballia and another  Versus   Alleged Committee of Management , Sukhpura Inter College, Sukhpura, District Ballia and others  do support  the submission made by Sri Sadanand Shukla.

In the above case the Division Bench  was hearing an Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge  disposing of three writ petitions.  Facts of the above case  needs to be noted.  The Committee of Management elected on 22.8.1981 challenged the order of the Joint Director of Education declining to recognise  the said Committee  by writ petition  No. 2375 of 1983 in which interim order was granted by this  Court  and the  Committee continued  to function.  The writ petition  was subsequently dismissed on 15.1.1991 having become infructuous by efflux of time and the  Court directed that the fresh  elections be held in accordance to law.   In the mean time the Scheme of  Administration  was amended  in 1985  providing that  after expiry of three years one month the Committee of Management  shall cease  and  if no fresh elections have been held during this period, the Deputy Director of Education shall appoint  Prabandh Sanchalak  for holding election of the Committee of Management .  After dismissal of the writ petition  the office bearer namely Jang Bahadur Singh, the Manager and President  of the earlier Committee of Management sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools for holding election and on permission being granted fresh election was held on 8.2.1992 electing one Jang Bahadur Singh as Manager which election was also recognised  by the District Inspector of Schools .  The matter was  taken up before the Deputy Director of Education.  The Deputy Director of Education vide order dated 29.1.995 upheld the election of Jang Bahadur Singh as Manager.   The Deputy Director of Education  had also permitted the office bearers  to hold election and consequently the fresh elections  were held on 5.2.1995 in which Ram Bilash Singh and Jang Bahadur Singh were elected as Manager and President respectively.  There being another set of election.  The District Inspector of Schools has referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Education.  The Deputy Director of Education vide his order dated 8.10.1995 recognised the  election  of Ram Bilash Singh as Manager and  Jang Bahadur Singh as President. .   The writ petitions were filed  challenging the order dated 8.10.1995 of the Deputy Director of Education  and the order dated 29.1.1995 of the Deputy Director of Education .  The learned Single Judge has held both the elections dated 8.2.1992 and 5.2.1995 as invalid on the ground that after dismissal  of the writ petition  as infructuous on 15.11.1991 the Committee had no authority to hold election.  Following was  observed by the Division Bench  in paragraph 5 :-

"5.   From the discussions made in the impugned judgment, it is clear that the reason, which weighed with the learned Single Judge to hold that both the elections held on 8.2.1992 and 5.2.1995 were invalid, was that on the dismissal of writ petition  No. 2375 of 1983 as infructuous on 15.11.1991, the  order of the Joint Director of Education holding the election held on 22.8.1981 as invalid revived and in the absence of any subsequent order of the competent authority or  Court to the contrary, the Committee of Management elected on 22.8.1981 was invalid and, therefore, the said Committee had no authority to to hold a fresh election.  It follows as a consequence that the election said to have been held on 8.2.1992 by the Committee of Management , which was held to be invalid, was also invalid and applying the same principle the further election  held on 5.2.1995 by the Committee of Management said to have been elected on 8.2.1992 was also invalid.  The correctness of the judgment is under challenge in this appeal."

Learned Single Judge after declaring both the elections dated 8.2.1992 and 5.2.1995 as invalid on the ground that election could be held only  under the supervision of Prabandh Sanchalak.   The Division Bench approved the judgment of the learned Single Judge . The Division Bench  further observed in paragraph 11 :-

"11.      Testing the case in hand on the touch-stone  of the well accepted principles laid down in the aforementioned decided cases, the position that emerges is that after the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 2375 of 1983 on 15.11.1991 as infructuous the fresh election was to be held only by a Prabandh Sanchalak appointed by the Deputy Director of Education of the concerned region.  The Committee of Management , whose election had been declared to be  illegal and invalid by the Joint Director of Education and whose term of office had come to an end, has no authority to hold such election.  Indisputably , the election  said to have been held on 8.2.1992 was not held by the Prabandh Sanchalak but was allegedly held by the Committee of Management  with Kuldeep Singh as President and Sri Jang Bahadur Singh as Manager.  Therefore,  the election was illegal and the Committee of Management  said to have been elected in that election was invalid. Such invalid  Committee had also no authority to hold the fresh election said to have been held on 5.2.1995.  The position  is not disputed that election, was also not held by a Prabandh Sanchalak appointed by the Deputy Director of Education.........."  

In the above case Division Bench  took the view that when the authority to  hold  fresh election was the Prabandh Sanchalak  the election held by the Committee of Management  on 8.2.1992 and 5.2.1995 were both invalid and were rightly held to be illegal  by the learned Single Judge .  In the present case also the election dated 21.6.1993 having been set aside  by the learned Single Judge the fresh election  were required to be held only by the Prabandh Sanchalak as per earlier order of the  High Court dated  2.2.1993.  Subsequent election dated 4.6.1996 held by the Committee of Management elected on 21.6.1993 was without authority and was liable to be de-recognised.

 

There remains one more fact to be noticed.  It is claimed by the appellants of the first set  of appeals that after

1999 election another elections were held by the Committee of Management on 18.5.2003 which was also an unopposed election.  The election dated 18.5.2003 was also not an election held by the Prabandh Sanchalak and was an election held by the Committee of Management which had no authority to conduct the election.   The same infirmity vitiates the election held on 18.5.2003 which vitiates the election dated 18.4.1999 and 4.6.1996.  The election of the Committee of Management dated 21.6.1993 having been quashed and declared to be void,  the subsequent elections one after the other claimed by the office bearers who are either Jai Narain Tripathi or D. S. M. Tripathi as Manager cannot be  allowed to continue since that will be perpetuating the illegality which was found in the election dated 21.6.1993.  As observed earlier  by  the order of this  Court dated 2.2.1993  the election  was to be held by the Prabandh Sanchalak, We have already upheld  the judgment dated  22.10.1997, the said judgment has to be given effect to upto its logical end.  The Deputy Director of Education is under obligation to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak  who is to hold fresh election after finalizing  the list of the members.

In view of above both the appeals No. 556 of 2000 and 557 of 2000 deserves to be allowed.

In the result, Special Appeals No. 963 of 1997 and  964 of 1997 are dismissed.   Special Appeal No. 936 of 1997 and 538 of 1997 filed by D. S. M. Tripathi Advocate, praying for expunction of remarks made against him are allowed.  The Special Appeals Nos. 556 of 2000 and 557 of 2000 are also allowed. The Writ petition No. 11857 of 1998 and the writ petition  No. 34814 of 1999 are allowed. The Deputy Director of Education is directed to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak  to manage the affairs of the college and to conduct  the elections as per direction of the learned Single Judge dated 22.10.1997 in writ petition No. 28384 of 1993 and writ petition No. 88 of 1994.  The said appointment  be made within one month  from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the Deputy Director of Education .  The District Inspector of Schools is directed to forthwith pay salary to teachers and other employees  by  ordering single operation  of account and to look  after day to day affairs of the college till Prabandh Sanchalak is appointed by the Deputy Director of Education.  The Deputy Director of Education shall ensure that entire process of electing the new Committee of Management is completed by Prabandh Sanchalak within a period of four months from the date of appointment  of the Prabandh Sanchalak.    Parties shall bear their own costs.

D/-10.03.2006

SCS  


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.