Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


The Bal Niketan Sabha Bulandshahr And Others v. State Of U.P. Thru' Its Principal Secy.Home & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 76543 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 9082 (5 May 2006)


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


                                                                                       Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.76543 of 2005

The Bal Niketan Sabha, Bulandshahr & others


State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

The petitioner no. 1 Bal Niketan Sabha is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The registration of the Society was last renewed on 18.12.2004 for a period of five years with effect from 10.10.2003. The said Society is running two institutions, one is an Intermediate College and the other is Gandhi Bal Niketan Montessari School (Junior High School). On 18.6.1994 the District Basic Education Officer, Bulandshahr had granted approval for appointment of an Administrator for both the institutions of the Society. Certain writ petitions were filed which remained pending. However, on 30.5.2004 the petitioner no. 3 was elected as Secretary of the Society as well as Manager of the Intermediate College of the Society. Thereafter the elections were duly approved by the Regional Joint Director of Education and with effect from 31.7.2004 the appointment of the Prabandh Sanchalak was withdrawn. However, the appointment of the Administrator over the Junior High School continued.  By an order dated 9.11.2005, the District Basic Education Officer, Bulandshahr has written to the District Magistrate, Bulandshahr that now there is no dispute with regard to the Committee of Management of the Junior High School of which the petitioner no. 3 is the Secretary/Manager and as such it was recommended by the District Basic Education Officer that the appointment of Administrator be withdrawn. Since even thereafter the Administrator is still continuing, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with the prayer for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no. 2, who is the Administrator of the Junior High School in question, to hand-over charge of the management of the Junior School to the petitioners.

I have heard Sri S.N.Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

By an order dated 16.5.2005 passed by the District Magistrate (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) it had been observed that in view of the pendency of the certain writ petitions mentioned therein, the appointment of Administrator could not be withdrawn. In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that although the said writ petitions have already been dismissed but since the decisions on the said writ petitions had not been made on merits but they have been dismissed in default, they cannot be treated as finally disposed of as the party concerned can always file an application for recall of the said orders.

Be that as it may, it is not for the respondent-authorities to preempt that an application for withdrawal would be filed by the petitioners in the said writ petitions. Once the writ petition have been dismissed whether on merits or in default, it cannot be said that those writ petitions are pending. Since admittedly, the writ petitions mentioned in the order of the District Magistrate dated 16.5.2005 are no longer pending and the District Basic Education Officer vide his order dated 9.11.2005 has already recommended for withdrawal of the Administrator and giving charge of the institution in question to the petitioners, in my view, this writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Accordingly, it is directed that respondent no. 2, who is holding charge of the Gandhi Bal Niketan Montessari School shall hand-over charge to the petitioners forthwith and the petitioners shall be entitled to manage the affairs of the institution in question.

This writ petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.




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


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

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