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


Naushad Siddiqui v. State Of U.P. Through The Secretary & Others - WRIT - C No. - 31265 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16492 (9 October 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).


Court No. 33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.31265 of 2007

Committee of Management, Sri Devi

Kanya Inter College, Khatauli, District

Muzaffarnagar through its President, Sri

Pankaj Kumar Gupta


State of U.P. and others.

Hon'ble V.K. Shukla,J.

In the District of Muzaffarnagar, there is recognized institution known as Sri Devi Kanya Inter College Khatauli, district Muzaffarnagar. Affairs of the said institution is to be run and manage strictly in consonance with the provision as contained in the Scheme of Administration framed in exercise of authority vested under Section 16-A of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Decision was taken for holding fresh election of Committee of Management. Election programme was finalized. Objection had been raised. One Manoj Kumar Agarwal was appointed as Inquiry Officer. With regard to objection dated 28.2.1986, Inquiry Officer submitted report on 25.3.2006 and found the objection to be irrelevant and election officer was asked to complete election proceedings. Election Officer declared election programme and fixed 2.4.2006 for election. In between V.K. Agawwal filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18064 of 20067 for quashing of the election programme published in the news paper on 28.3.2006 and for issuing writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the complaint as made by the petitioner and other member of the general body. Petitioner claims that election took place as scheduled on 2.4.2006. Respondents on the other hand claim that no election has been held, as on 2.4.2006. D.I.O.S. had passed order postponing election process till complaints made were not rectified and in view of the order passed by the D.I.O.S., on 3.4.2006 writ petition filed was got dismissed as withdrawn. Petitioner submits that said elections have been held, papers were transmitted to the D.I.O.S. for further transmitting the same to the Regional Level Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of the Joint Director of education. Petitioner has contended that thereafter in the garb of the order dated 1.4.2006 and in the garb of order dated 3.4.2006 passed by this Court, order impugned has been passed. Petitioner submits that order dated 18.5.2006 is arbitrary unjustifiable order, inasmuch as election had already been held in the past, similar objections were found unsustainable and order dated 1.4.2006 had never been communicated as such there was no occasion for holding of fresh election.

This court on the presentation of the writ petition, on 1.6.2006 directed the respondents not to hold election pursuant to aforesaid publication dated 27.5.2006 pursuant to order dated 18.5.2006.

Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.6 therein it has been sought to be contended that no such election has been sought to be held on 2.4.2006 has ever been held and entire election proceedings are farce and fictitious, and in this background relief, which has been claimed for, cannot be accorded by any means. It has also been specifically stated that elections, which have been held, same cannot be termed as valid election.

Rejoinder affidavit has been filed rebutting the statements mentioned in the counter affidavit and reiterating that of writ petition.

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 R.B. Singhal, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended with vehemence that once valid elections have been held on 2.4.2006 from amongst valid member of general body of the society as per provision contained in Scheme of Administration, then D.I.O.S. had no authority to look into the matter and any action taken is unjustifiable, action, not subscribed by law and the Scheme of Administration.

Sri P.N. Ojha, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondents countering the said submission contended that no elections have taken place ,,election set up by the petitioner is farce and no credibility can be attached to the said proceedings.

After respective arguments have been advanced, undisputed factual, which is emerging is that elections had been notified on 25.3.2006 for 2.4.2006. Petitioners' claim that complaint, which was made , same had been enquired and said complaints were found to be un-true and thereafter valid elections have been held on 2.4.2006. On the other hand contesting respondents claim that on account of passing of order dated 1.4.2006 elections have not at all taken place and entire election proceedings are farce and whatsoever election has been set up same are contrary to the provision of Scheme of Administration. The allegations and counter allegations are coming forward before this court and this court cannot go into such disputed question of fact. After enforcement of Government Order dated 19.12.2000, all these factual controversy can be looked into and examined by the Regional Level Committee constituted under the Chairmanship of Joint Director of Education.

Consequently, liberty is given to respondent no.6 to file whatsoever objection, which he intends to file qua election dated 2.4.2006 and Regional Level Committee shall proceed to consider the said objection while considering the validity of the election dated 2.4.2006. The objection be considered and dealt with on merit. Apart from this Regional Level Committee shall at the point of time, when it proceeds to consider the matter of grant of approval, adverted itself on following three points:- (1) the person who had convened the meeting for holding of election, had the authority to convene the meeting (2) person who participated are valid members of general body of the society(3) elections have been held, strictly as per the provisions contained under bye-laws of the society/Scheme of Administration., preferably within period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

With these observations writ petition is disposed of.

Dt. 9.10.2007



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.