High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C/M Janta Adarsh Inter College Thru Its Manager v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 65579 of 2006  RD-AH 1743 (5 February 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65579 of 2006
Committee of Management, Janta Adarsh Inter College, Kapsar, Meerut
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner-Committee of Management has prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2, Joint Director of Education, Ist, Meerut Region, Meerut to pass appropriate order on the resolution of the Committee of Management by which an amendment has been sought for extending the term of the Committee of Management from 3 years to 5 years.
I have heard Sri N.L.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no.1, 2 and 3 and Sri S.P.Singh, learned counsel appearing for newly added respondent no.4.
Sri N.L.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has admitted that this case has chequered history and that there had been several litigation between the parties. No such disclosure regarding earlier elections of the Committee of Management and appointment of the authorized controller or order directing single operation have been given in the writ petition. It was only in the counter affidavit filed by the petitioner in reply to the impleadment application of respondent no.4 that the petitioner has given explanation with regard to the passing of the earlier order of single operation or appointment of authorized controller. It is not denied that the term of the Committee of Management according to the approved Scheme of Administration has already come to an end on 14.7.2006, as admittedly the last election, according to the petitioner, was held on 14.7.2003. The petitioner claims that since no fresh elections have been held, hence it would be the de facto committee of management till fresh election is held. On the other hand, Sri S.P.Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.4 has submitted that on 26.4.2005, an authorized controller had been appointed to manage the affairs of the institution, who has taken charge and is continuing as such. There is no disclosure of any such fact regarding the appointment of authorized controller in the writ petition. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with an innocuous prayer that respondent no.2 be directed to pass appropriate order on the resolution of the Committee of Management. The matter is not as simple as has been sought to be made out in the writ petition. Several writ petitions had been filed earlier, of which no details have been given in this writ petition and if respondent no.4 had not filed the impleadment application giving detailed facts, the correct position would not have come to the knowledge of this Court and the petitioner may have succeeded in obtaining an order from this Court, which would otherwise have been unjustified.
In the facts of this case which have come to light, admittedly the term of committee of management of petitioner has already expired and it cannot, thus, be permitted to continue to remain in charge of the affairs of the institution. According to respondent no.4, the authorized controller has already been appointed. If that be so, the authorized controller shall continue to manage the affairs of the institution and if no authorized controller has yet been appointed, the Joint Director of Education shall take appropriate action for appointment of authorized controller to manage the affairs of the institution. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the prayer made in this writ petition for considering the question of amendment with regard to extension of the term of the committee of management cannot be grarnted as the term has already expired. Since this writ petition has been filed without disclosing the relevant material facts for consideration of this Court and it was only after the disclosure having been made in the impleadment application, that correct facts have come before this Court, thus, in my view, the petitioner is certainly guilty of withholding material facts from this Court. As such, while dismissing this writ petition, in my view, the petitioner should also be liable to pay cost, which is assessed at Rs.3000/-.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed with costs, which this Court assesses at Rs.3000/-. The cost may be deposited by the petitioner with the Registrar General of this Court within one month from today, failing which the Registrar General shall get the same recovered from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue, through the District Magistrate, Meerut. On such cost being deposited by the petitioner, half of the amount shall be paid to respondent no.4 and the remaining half shall be deposited in favour of the "Allahabad High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre."
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.