High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Atul Garg & Others v. Joint Director Of Education 1st Region, Meerut & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1377 of 2007  RD-AH 17009 (29 October 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 32
Special Appeal No. 1377 of 2007
Atul Garg and others
Joint Director of Education 1st Region, Meerut and others
Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
Heard Sri S.D. Kautilya, learned counsel for the appellants and learned Standing counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2.
This is an intra-Court appeal against the judgment dated 21.08.2007 passed by Hon'ble Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 50828 of 2005 whereby the Hon'ble Judge has disposed of the writ petition with the following direction:-
"In the facts and circumstances, the Writ Petition No. 50828 of 2005 is disposed of with direction that in case the petitioner or any other members of the society raises the objection to the validity of the elections including the validity of the list of members, eligible to elect office bearers, the same shall be referred to the Regional Level Committee, which shall decide the matter in accordance with law explained by the Five Judges Bench very expeditiously. It goes without saying that it is only after the elections are prima facie found to be held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, that the signatures of the office bearers of the Committee will be attested and the committee will start functioning. Any person aggrieved by the orders may approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievances."
Learned counsel for the appellants could not show any error in the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge warranting interference this appeal. However, he only contended that there is a dispute with respect to the membership of society and this dispute cannot be decided by the Regional Level Committee since the Full Bench judgment of this Court is silent on this issue.
However, we do not find any force in the submission. In para 35 and 36 of the judgment the Full Bench in Committee of Management Vs. Deputy Director of Education and others, 2004 (4) ESC 2257 has clearly held as under:-
"35. Control is a comprehensive term. Ordinarily it means the powers to govern, dominate, direct and supervise in some respect the conduct of another, the extent and degree of dominion depending upon the circumstances of the particular case. Where the enquiry is with regard to 'actual control' and the statute prescribes the method of the enquiry and the factors to be considered in determination of the dispute, the authority vested with the powers to decide the question must confine its powers to the relevant factors, keeping in view the object and purpose of such determination. We find that the purpose of determination under Section 16-A (7), is to find out as to who, prima facie, is entitled to manage and administer the educational institution. The 'Scheme of Administration' provides for the procedure for constituting the Committee of Management by periodical elections. It also provides for qualification and disqualification of the members and office-bearers and the terms of the office and the procedure to call and to conduct the meetings. In our view, the Deputy Director of Education in such matter must investigate about the validity of the election of the office-bearers. This enquiry, however, is to be summary in nature and is subject to the final decision of the Court of competent jurisdiction.
36. The third and last question posed before us is that where the Deputy Director of Education finds that the elections of both rival Committees are invalid, is he still required to proceed to decide the question of actual control, and to recognise one or other Committee of Management. We find that where the Committee of Management has not been lawfully constituted, the Director of Education has powers under Section 16-D, to recommend to the State Government to appoint an authorised controller in the institution. In Sheoraj Singh v. Deputy Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut, 1995 (Supp.) (4) SCC 78, the Supreme Court disapproved the interference of the High Court in the findings of the Deputy Director of Education that neither of two factions was in effective control of the institution, and directing the holding of fresh elections."
To the extent the scrutiny is required to be made under Section 16-A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 by the authorities, the incidental question can also be decided as held by the Full Bench in the aforesaid judgement and in our view, the controversy involved has already been settled by the Full Bench of five Hon'ble Judges of this Court.
In view of the above, we do not find any legal or factual error in the direction issued by Hon'ble Single Judge, warranting any interference in this appeal. The special appeal, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.