Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

CHANDRA PAL SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Chandra Pal Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. - 25116 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16021 (26 September 2007)

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 AT ALLAHABAD

Court No. 33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25116 of 2007

Chandra Pal Singh

Versus

State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

Chandra Pal Singh has filed present writ petition questioning the validity of the decision dated 22.08.2006 passed by Regional Level Committee and validity of the decision dated 22.02.2007 taken by the District Inspector of Schools, by means of which signature of Sri Triloki Nath Singh, respondent no. 4 has been attested as Manager.

In the District of Mirzapur there is recognized institution known as Janta Janardan Inter College, Bhudkuda, Mirzapur. Affairs of the aforesaid institution is to be run and managed strictly in consonance with the provisions as contained under the Scheme of Administration which has been framed in exercise of power vested under Section 16-A of U.P. Act No. II of 1921. Election of the Managing Committee of the institution was to take place for which election programme was notified on 13.07.2006, in daily "Amar Ujala". Petitioner was one of the candidate for the post of Manager. Petitioner contested the said election for the post of Manager and in the said election which was contested by the petitioner, voting took place, and therein he has received 86 votes whereas rival incumbent who was elected as Manager Sri Triloki Nath Singh, respondent no. 4 has received 514 votes and was declared elected. Regional Level Committee has proceeded to accorded recognition to the said election dated 30.07.2006 and thereafter consequential decision was communicated on 22.08.2006 by Regional Joint Director of Education informing and intimating that decision has been taken and signature of Sri Triloki Nath Singh, respondent no. 4 be attested and it was mentioned therein that in case any adverse fact comes to notice in future or any adverse order is passed by the competent authority or any Court of law then said recognition would be cancelled. Regional Level Committee will have the right to reconsider/review the matter. Petitioner who had contested the election and lost the election has made complaint against the said election. On the said complaint being made the District Inspector of Schools on 05.09.2006 asked the petitioner to submit his comments. Petitioner on 14.09.2006 submitted his comments. On 13.10.2006 District Inspector of Schools again wrote letter to the petitioner that documents have not been produced. Again letter was written on 23.10.2007 asking the petitioner that no documentary evidence has been produced. On 17.11.2006 Regional Joint Director of Education Vindhyachal Region Mirzapur asked the District Inspector of Schools to send clear cut comments. Thereafter District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur on 08.01.2007 submitted its comments. On 22.02.2007 the District Inspector of Schools Mirzapur has attested the signature of Sri Triloki Nath Singh, respondent no. 4. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed.

To the said writ petition counter affidavit has been filed and thereafter rejoinder affidavit to the said counter affidavit has also been filed and thereafter, after pleadings mentioned above have been exchanged present writ petition has been taken up with the consent of the parties for final hearing and disposal.

Sri R.K. Ojha, Advocate appearing with Sri R.C. Tiwari Advocate contended with vehemence confining his arguments on the fact that when inquiry was going on then there was no occasion to the District Inspector of Schools to attest the signature of Triloki Nath Singh without taking into consideration, the outcome of the said inquiry as such action of attesting the signature is unjustifiable.

Sri S.P. Singh, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Jai Singh Parihar, Advocate on the other hand contended that petitioner had contested the election and has received 86 votes whereas Sri Triloki Nath Singh, respondent no. 4 has received 514 votes and petitioner has badly lost the election, in this background the plea which has been sought to be raised by petitioner is not acceptable by any means.

After respective arguments have been advanced factual position which is emerging is to the effect that election of the Committee of Management had been notified and in the said election petitioner and one Sri Triloki Nath Singh, respondent no. 4 have contested the election for the post of Manager and therein petitioner was defeated with large margin of votes. Regional Level Committee which is the competent authority to accord recognition proceeded ahead to accord recognition to the said election. Petitioner after having lost the election has made complaint before the District Inspector of Schools. District Inspector of Schools on 05.09.2006, wrote letter to petitioner, asking him to appear on 14.09.2006, and submit his comments/evidence. On 14.09.2006, petitioner has filed his objections. On 13.10.2006, the District Inspector of Schools informed the petitioner, that he has not appeared with evidence. On 23.10.2006, letter was written by District Inspector of Schools again informing the petitioner, that he has not produced any evidence, in support of his submission. Thereafter Regional Joint Director of Education on 17.11.2006 has written letter to District Inspector of Schools that report submitted is of no consequence, as no opinion has been expressed qua the complaint in question. On 08.01.2007, District Inspector of Schools has submitted, its report, which is Principally in respect of electoral college. On 22.02.2007 signature of newly elected Manager has been attested. Once Regional Level Committee has proceeded to accord recognition to the said election then attestation of signature is a necessary consequence and as such in this background if signature has been attested then as far as petitioner is concerned, none his legal rights are infringed. Merely because complaint has been made and on the basis of same comments has been asked for same would not ipso-facto make the order passed by Regional Level Committee as redundant and otiose and till said order said order stands, District Inspector of Schools cannot be said to have committed any error in attesting the signature of Sri Triloki Nath Singh, respondent no. 4 as Manager who had won the election with huge majority of votes. The margin is so big, that even if members suggested by petitioners are included and all their votes are counted in favour of petitioner, then even petitioner will continue to be looser. In this background there is no occasion to interfere with the order dated 22.08.2006 passed by Regional Level Committee and the order dated 22.02.2007 passed by District Inspector of Schools. However passing of this order will not prevent the respondents authority to undertake inquiry and conclude the same which they undertaken on the complaint made by the petitioner, in case the authorities so deem fit.

Consequently, no interference is being made with in the impugned orders. Writ petition is disposed of with the above observation. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

No order as to cost.

Dated:-26th September, 2007

Dhruv


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.