High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C/M Nav Jagran Junior High School Thru' Its Manager v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. - 13992 of 2007  RD-AH 15729 (19 September 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on 12.08.2007
Delivered on 19.09.2007
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 13992 of 2007
Committee of Management Nav
Jagran Junior High School, Peharara
District Etah & another
State of U.P. & others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.
Present writ petition has been filed by Abhay Singh Yadav claiming himself to be the Manager of the Committee of Management Nav Jagran Junior High School, Pephara District Etah, questioning the validity of the action taken by the District Basic Education Officer dated 23.02.2007 attesting the signature of Suresh Chandra Yadav.
Brief background of the case as mentioned in the writ petition is that in the district of Etah there is society known as Krishak Evam Mazdoor Samajik Samiti Pephara, District Etah (--"kd ,oe etnwj lekftd lfefr isgkjk ftyk ,sVk) which is registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 on 24.08.1983. Said society had established an institution under the name of Nav Jagran Junior High School, Pephara District Etah since 1982-83. Petitioners have contended that registration of the society was got renewed from time to time and at present its registration is valid uptil 24.08.2010. Petitioners have contended that temporary recognition has been accorded to the petitioners' Junior High School from 6th Standard to 8th Standard and thereafter in the year 1987 petitioners' institution has been accorded permanent recognition. Petitioner no. 2 has contended that all these exercise has been undertaken on the paper submitted by him. Petitioner no. 2 has contended that he is continues to function as Manager since 1982-83 up till and is managing the affairs of the institution and thereafter when institution in question was to be included in the grant-in-aid list of the State Government then at that juncture Suresh Chand Yadav has started manipulating the things to grab the institution and in this background he moved an application through his son before Sub-Divisional Officer, Etah under Sections 33/39 Land Revenue Act alleging therein that the name of the institution from the land over which it is existed be expunged and the land be vested to the Gaon Sabha so that institution in question may not be able to run in future. Petitioner no. 2 has contended that on 17.12.2005 Sub-Divisional Officer, Etah has rejected the application. Petitioners have contended that thereafter totally unwarranted order has been passed on 23.02.2007 by District Basic Education Officer attesting the signature of respondent no. 4. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.
Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Suresh Chandra Yadav and it has been contended that Krishak Evam Mazdoor Samajik Samiti Pephara, District Etah (--"kd ,oe etnwj lekftd lfefr isgkjk ftyk ,sVk) is not at all running Nav Jagran Junior High School, Pepahra, District Etah and the same has wrongly been shown rather to the contrary Nav Jagran Vidya Parishad Pipahara District Etah which is registered society sicne 15.01.1971 has been running and managing the affairs of the aforesaid institution and Krishak Evam Mazdoor Samajik Samiti Pephara, District Etah (--"kd ,oe etnwj lekftd lfefr isgkjk ftyk ,sVk) has no concern whatsoever. Contesting respondent has further contended that in the election dated 20.08.1991 he has elected as Manager and petitioner has been elected as Secretary and again in the year 2003 he has been elected as Manager and petitioner has been elected as Secretary. Contesting respondent has further contended that after the election of the year 1992 Basic Shiksha Adhikari attested the signature of respondent no. 4 as Manager on 06.07.1992 and same was countersigned on the same date by District Basic Education Officer. Thereafter signature have been attested on 24.07.2003. It has been sought to be contended that petitioner has tried to grab the institution and no authority has accepted the claim of the petitioner and Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits has rejected the claim which order has not been challenged and present action is merely follow up action as such claim, of the petitioner is totally misconceived.
Rejoinder affidavit has been filed disputing the statement of fact mentioned in the counter affidavit and it has been contended that papers filed by Suresh Chandra Yadav, are clearly manipulated papers and on the date shown on which counter signature by Sahayak Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Sub Deputy Inspector of schools was not designated and Assistant Basic Education Officer and for the first time by Government Order dated 10.05.1996 the post of S.D.I was re-designated as Sahayak Basic Shiksha Adhikari and much stress has been laid qua the entitlement of society to run and manage the institution and documents have been filed to show control over the affairs of institution.
After pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged, present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties.
Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri R.D. Tiwari, Advocate, contended with vehemence that in the present case entire proceedings set up by respondent no. 4 Suresh Chandra Yadav is outcome of fraud and manipulation and it has been contended that petitioners' are running and manning the affairs of the society which runs the institution and the affairs of the institution and without there being any adjudication exparte order has been passed as such impugned order in question is liable to be quashed.
Sri A. K. Singh, Advocate, on the other hand contended that claim of the petitioner is totally misconceived, devoid of substance, inasmuch as Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits has already adjudicated the matter on 10.01.2007 and said order has not been challenged any where and present action is nothing but consequential action as such writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging in the present case is that both the groups are claiming that they are running and managing the institution Nav Jagran Junior High School, Pephara District Etah. Petitioner has contended that aforesaid institution is being run and managed by Krishak Evam Mazdoor Samajik Samiti Pephara, District Etah (--"kd ,oe etnwj lekftd lfefr isgkjk ftyk ,sVk) whereas Suresh Chandra Yadav is claiming that Nav Jagran Junior High School, Pepahra, District Etah is being run and managed by Nav Jagran Vidya Parishad Pipahara District Etah which is registered society since 15.09.1971. Entire claim of Suresh Chand Yadav is that on order dated 10.01.2007 and it has been stated that thereafter consequent to the same this order has been passed.
Order passed by the Deputy Registrar Firms Societies and Chits has been perused. Said order does not reflect as to whether any adjudication has been done in respect of society in question qua which petitioner has been claiming to run and manage the affairs of the institution. Deputy Registrar Firms, Societies and Chits had entertained application for renewal of registration of Society Nav Jagran Vidya Parishad Pipahara District Etah, registered on 16.09.1971 and had accorded last renewal to the same on 14.12.2005, and list of Managing Committee of society for year 2006-07 was accepted under Section 4 of Societies Registration Act 1860 on 29.09.2006, on the paper of Suresh Chndra Yadav. Certainly Abhai Singh Yadav, on 09.10.2006 was not claiming his existence qua the society namely Nav Jagran Vidya Parishad rather through the society namely Krishak Evam Mazdoor Samajik Samiti Pephara, District Etah (--"kd ,oe etnwj lekftd lfefr isgkjk ftyk ,sVk) as to whether same exists with renewal of registration of society or not, specially where registration of the society has been renewed on 04.01.2006. District Basic Education Officer, Etah has based his order on said decision. Before the educational authorities entire document any evidence was there from which it could be very well ascertained, as to which society had applied for temporary recognition/permanent recognition and on whose paper, said temporary/permanent recognition had been accorded. Proceedings before District Basic Education Officer, are admittedly ex-party, as in counter affidavit, vague and evasive reply has been submitted on the said front. Record in question which has been filed before this Court shows that on various occasion signature of petitioner no. 2 has also been attested in capacity of the Manager and Suresh Chand is also claiming that his signature has attested. Once there was adverser litigation and both the parties have been claiming that their signature has been attested in the past then some adjudication ought to have been done by the District Basic Education Officer before proceedings to attested the signature of respondent no. 4, instead of proceeding to blindly follow the order.
Consequently, order dated 23.02.2007 passed by respondent no. 3 filed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition is hereby quashed and set aside. Matter is remitted back to the District Basic Education Officer to decide the question as to which one of two Societies had undertaken exercise for temporary/permanent recognition, and had been running and managing the affairs of the institution and once it is found that this particular society had established the institution and has been running and managing the affairs of the institution then before proceedings to attest the signature of the representative of said group of persons examination be also made that when last elections have been held and qua said election primafacie satisfaction be recorded on the following counts: (i)Person or group of persons who convened the meeting, had the authority to convene the meeting and to hold the election (ii) Persons, who have participated in the election are valid members and entitled to participate in the elections (iii) Elections, which have been held, has been strictly held under the provisions as contained in bye laws of the society and thereafter shall proceed to take decision in accordance with law. Decision be taken within next eight weeks by reasoned order, after affording opportunity of hearing to Abhai Singh Yadav, as well as Suresh Chandra Yadav. Till the matter is not decided status quo which existed prior to 23.02.2007 be maintained, qua the management of institution.
With the above direction present writ petition is allowed and disposed of.
Dated: 19th September,2007
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.