Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M, KISHAN SAHAI GOKUL CHAND INTER COLLEGE & OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M, Kishan Sahai Gokul Chand Inter College & Others v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 17749 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 8623 (8 May 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 OF ALLAHABAD

Court No. 33

^^^^^^

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 17749 of 2007

!!!!!!!!!!

Committee of Management, Kisan Sahai Gokul Chand Inter College, Dhanauri Khurd, Gautam Budh Nagar through its Manager Jitendra Kumar Sharma & Another vs. State of U.P. & Others

~~~~~~

Hon. Arun Tandon, J.

Heard Sri  Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri S.D. Shukla, Advocate on behalf of petitioner, Sri Shailendra, Advocate on behalf of respondent nos. 5 and 6, and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondents.

Kishan Sahai Gokul Chand Inter College, Dhanauri Khurd, Gautambudh Nagar is an institution recognised under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 . The said institution is run and managed in accordance with the approved scheme of administration. Under the approved scheme of administration the term of the Committee of Management is provided as three years.

Undisputed elections for constituting the Committee of Management of the institution took place on 10th November, 2002, in which Ram Babu Sharma was elected as the President while Sri Sateyndra Kumar  Sharma was elected as the Manager. The said elections were approved by the education authorities and the elected Committee of Management, continued in effective control over the institution.

It appears that at the fag end of the term of elected Committee of Management, the President and Manager parted company. The Manager,  Sateyndra Kumar Sharma convened a meeting for holding fresh elections of the Committee of Management on 20th August, 2005. In the meeting a decision was taken to appoint an Election Officer. Papers pertaining to the decision so taken for grant of necessary approval to the appointment of Election Officer were transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 16th September, 2005 refused to accord approval to the appointment of the Election Officer on the ground that the President of the Committee of Management, namely, Ram Babu Sharma has raised certain objections with regard to the meeting convened on 20th August, 2005. This order of the District Inspector of Schools has been enclosed as Annexure-10 to the present writ petition. In the said order itself it was provided that valid proceedings may be held and fresh resolution be forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools.

According to Sateyndra Kumar Sharma a fresh meeting of the Committee of Management was convened for finalizing the elections programme on 26th September, 2005 and on 6th October, 2005 a meeting was convened to appoint Election Officer. Papers were  transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools for appointment of Election Officer. The District Inspector of Schools did not pass any order on the papers so transmitted by the Manager of the Institution. In absence of any order having been communicated by the District Inspector of Schools, the Manager  proceeded to publish an agenda for holding fresh elections  for constituting the Committee of Management. It is stated that elections were held  on 27th November, 2005 in which  Jitendra Kumar Sharma was elected as the Manager of the Committee of Management. On the same day, papers pertaining to the elections so held were transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools for being placed before the Regional Level Committee  constituted under Government Order dated 19th December, 2000.

While the said papers were pending consideration, Parallel proceedings  were initiated at the behest of the President of the Committee of Management, namely, Ram Babu Sharma. According to respondent no.7, Ram Babu Sharma, since the Manager, S.K. Sharma (petitioner) was not convening a meeting for finalization of the election programme, certain members of the Committee of Management made an application dated 20th August, 2005 before the President stating therein that  a meeting for finalizing the election programme be convened. A copy of the application so made has been enclosed as Annexure-4 to the Counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.6. The President instead of taking a decision on his own forwarded the application so made to the District Inspector of Schools for grant of permission for requisitioning a meeting of the general body. The District Inspector of Schools under his order dated 29th September, 2005 accorded approval for a requisitioning a meeting  for finalization of the election programme. Meeting is alleged to have taken place on 5th October, 2005 in which not only the election programme  was finalized, as many as 116 new members were inducted and included in the electoral college of the institution. Further agenda for election was finalized and  Election Officer appointed. Papers  were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for grant of approval to the appointment of the Election Officer. The District Inspector of Schools under the order dated 15th October, 2005 accorded approval to the appointment of the Election Officer. It is stated that election took place on 12th November,    2005,  in which Ram Babu Sharma was elected as the President while Raj Kumar Sharma was elected as the Manager of the institution. Paper pertaining to the said elections were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools for being placed before the Regional Level Committee.  

On record of the present writ petition is an order of the Regional Level Committee  dated 23rd December, 2005 wherein the Regional Level Committee  is alleged to have accorded approval to the elections dated 12th November, 2005 in which Raj Kumar Sharma  is said to have elected as the Manager of the institution.

Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the faction headed by Sateyndra Kuamar Sharma filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 234 of 2006. The writ petition was allowed vide judgment and order dated 26th May, 2006, the  order of the Regional Level Committee  was quashed. The dispute of rival elections was remanded to the Regional Level Committee  for decision afresh after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

This order of the Hon'ble Single Judge was subjected to challenge by way of Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India being Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. (s): 10165 of 2006. In the special leave petition initially an  order of status quo was granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on 19th June, 2006. However, the said Special Leave Petition was ultimately disposed of with a direction upon the Regional Level Committee  to re-decide the matter  in terms of the judgment of the High Court within the time specified and during this period the order of status quo as directed on 19th June, 2006, was to continue.

The Regional Level Committee  under the impugned order dated 24th March, 2007 has decided the dispute in respect of rival elections and has held that the election dated 12th November, 2005 have taken place in accordance with law and therefore, deserve to be approved. This order of the Regional Level Committee   is being questioned in the present write petition by the faction headed by Satendra Kumar Singh amongst others on the ground that  (a) a requisitioned meeting can be convened by the members of the general body/ office bearers of the Committee of Management only if the Manager of the institution fails to convene the meeting. According to Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate learned counsel for the petitioner,  failure to convene a meeting would arise only if the Manager  was asked to convene a  meeting which he refused. Since no application was ever made by the members of the general body or members of the Committee of Management to the Manager, for convening a meeting, there is no occasion for any presumption being drawn that the Manager had refused to convene the meeting. Even otherwise it is stated that  from the records of the present writ petition, it is amply demonstrated that the meeting for finalization of the elections programme in fact was held on 20th August, 2005 by the Manager, (although it was objected by the President). The District Inspector of Schools under his order dated 16th September, 2005 while refusing to accord approval to the election officer appointed in the meeting dated 20th August, 2005, directed the Manager to hold a fresh meeting in accordance with the scheme of administration and to submit proposal accordingly. Even before reasonable period could expire, same  member of the general body/cm  requested the President to continue  a meeting for finalization of the election programme. Such a  procedure is not contemplated by the scheme of administration. It is further stated that from the application made for requisition of the meeting as per Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.6 it is apparent that the same bears signatures of only 5 persons. However, in the letter which was forwarded by the President with reference to the application dated 28th September, 2005 (Annexure-5 to the counter affidavit),  mention has been made that the requisition has been made by 10 office bearers/members of the general body and their affidavits filed in support of application was also enclosed. It is therefore, stated that requisition as forwarded by the President  was not in accordance with the provisions of amended scheme of administration and could not have acted upon by the District Inspector of Schools. Even otherwise the request of the members was to the President to convene the meeting as per the authority vested in him under the scheme of administration and not for a requisitioned meeting to be convened with the approval of District Inspector of Schools.

Lastly it is contended that under Clause- 5 (6) of the amended scheme of administration requisition meeting can be convened only for the purposes of finalization of the election programme, no new members can be enrolled in a requisitioned meeting in support thereof it is stated that under the provisions of the scheme of administration list of members entitled to participate in the elections is to be notified at least 11 months prior to the date of elections.  A copy of the list so notified has to be forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools as well as to the Regional Joint Director of Education (reference Clause-9(3) of the scheme of administration). It is therefore, contended that induction of 116 members in the requisition meeting dated 5th October, 2006 is wholly without jurisdiction and such persons enrolled  were not entitled to participate in the elections. It is therefore, submitted that the elections dated 12th November, 2005 pleaded by respondent no.6 are liable to be rejected.

Shri Shailendra, learned counsel for respondent no.6 in reply submits that absolutely no meeting was convened by the Manager of the institution since the date earlier elections dated 10th November, 2002 had taken place. The averments made in that regard have gone uncontroverted. He therefore, points that members of the Committee of Management and members of the general body requested the President of the institution to convene a meeting as per their letter dated 20th August, 2005. It is stated that the President instead of convening the meeting himself forwarded the requisition to the District Inspector of Schools for permission being granted for convening of the requisitioned meeting for finalization of the election programme. After permission was granted by the District Inspector of Schools requisition meeting took place on 5th October, 2005. In the said meeting it was specifically considered that  116 persons, who had already deposited their membership fee along with their applications, were enrolled as members by  the Committee of Management inasmuch as the Manger had not convened the meeting. Therefore,  it was decided to enroll 116 members  as the members of the general body. He therefore, submits that such induction of 116 members has legal and valid. Sri Shailendra furher points out that the District Inspector of Schools has not accorded approval to the name of the election officer  appointed by the petitioner for holding fresh elections of the Committee of Management as per their recommendations of the meeting dated 16th November, 2005. Elections held by the petitioner in absence of approved election officer are nonest and therefore, rightly rejected by the Regional Level Committee .

Learned counsel for the respondents further states that there is no illegality in the elections as per the agenda finalized in the requisitioned meeting dated 5th October, 2005 and therefore, the order passed by the Regional Level Committee  does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the present writ petition.

For the purposes of appreciating the controversy raised in the present writ petition, it would be appropriate to reproduce Clause- 6 (2)  and (3) of the scheme of administration, which read as follows:

"6(2) Samiti ke nimnlikhit padadhikari avam sadasya hongey jo sadharan sabha dwara nirdharit chunav prakriya se chune jayengey.

(a) Padadhikari---

(1) Adhyaksha

(2) Upadhayksha

(3) Prabandhak

(4) Up-prabandhak

(5) Koshadhyaksha

(b) Sadasya.....sat

(3) Paden Sadasya:---Pradhanadhyapak/Pradhanacharya, tatha do adhyapak viniyamon ke anushar.

(4) Manonit Sadasya :---Teen (3) jo Mandaliye Up-Shiksha Nideshak dwara Jile ke shiksha  premi tatha vivavidon meyn se nirikshak ki sanstuti ya swavivek se manonit kiye jayengey athava arya pratinidhi sabha athava trust dwara un vidyalayon meyn manonit hongey jinka sambandh unshey hai."

The total members who will constitute the Committee of Management of the institution including the elected members/office bearers and nominated members, would work out to 18.

Clause-9(3) lays down the procedure for preparation of the electoral college in respect of elections to be held.

Cause- 5(5)  as amended under the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education dated 21st November, 2003 lays down the procedure for enrolment of new members. Clause 5(6) of the amended scheme of administration which lays down the procedure for convening a requisitioned meeting. From the aforesaid clauses of the scheme of administration, it is apparently clear that list of members entitled to participate in the elections has necessarily to be declared 11 months prior to the expiry of the term of the elected Committee of Management. A copy of the said list of members of the general body is to be forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools as well as to the Regional Joint Director of Education also.  Procedure for enrollment of new member as per the amended scheme of administration contemplates that a person, who desires to become a member of the general body, may make an application along with requisite fee through any of the member of the Committee of Management/office bearers of the Committee of Management to the treasurer. The treasurer inturn is required to forward the same to the President of the Samiti (Committee). The President will place the same before the Prabandh Samiti (Committee of Management). If Prabandh Samiti (Committee of Management)  accepts the membership of said person, requisite fee of membership shall be deposited in the concerned accounts.

Under Clause 11 (2) of the scheme of administration special meeting is to be convened by the Manager with the permission of the President.

In case the President is not available or he is not willing to convene the meeting, the   Manager can on his own convene a meeting. In case the Manger is not willing to convene a meeting, the President/Manager  has been conferred a power to convene a meeting. It is only if the President/Manager of Committee of Management do not convene a meeting, 2/3 members of the Committee of Management or 1/10 of the total members of the general body on a written request to the District Inspector of Schools, may obtain permission for convening a requisitioned meeting. This meeting can be requisitioned only for finalization of the election programme. The clause itself lays down the business to be transacted in such a meeting i.e. (a) an election officer to be appointed, (b) detailed agenda in respect of the elections to be finalized, (c) the  list of members to be forwarded to the officers of the education department, and (d) a  request to be made for appointment of supervisor in respect of elections to the District Inspector of Schools, Senior Superintendent of Police as well as to the District Magistrate. If the supervisor is not available the election officer shall convene a meeting for holding elections and the papers in respect of the elections so held   shall be forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools.

In the aforesaid background of the provisions of the scheme of administration this Court may examine the case pleaded by the parties.

So far as the elections set up by the present petition is concerned, this Court may record that since the elections set up by the petitioner had not been held by an election officer appointed with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools, there has been clear violation of Clause-9 (5) of the approved scheme of administration. In such circumstances the elections  set up by the petitioner cannot be approved of. If the  District Inspector of Schools had not taken any decision on the papers forwarded for grant of approval to the appointment of the election officer, proper remedy available to the petitioner was to approach the Higher Authorities or to this Court for suitable directions, which has not been done in the matter. Petitioner on his own could not have proceeded to get the fresh elections of the Committee of Management held without obtaining approval of the name  of persons appointed as the election officer from the District Inspector of Schools.

So far as the elections set up by respondent no.6 are concerned, this Court may record that under clause 5(6) of the amended scheme of administration a requisition meeting can be convened only if the Manager is not available or that he has refused to convene the meeting for finalization of the elections programme.

From the records of the present writ petition it is apparently clear that a meeting was convened by the Manager of the institution on 20th August, 2005 wherein an election officer was also appointed. The District Inspector of Schools did not accord approval to the election officer so appointed on the ground that meeting which has been held was being objected to  by the President of the Committee of Management. However,  the factum of holding of meeting is not disputed. Although the some illegalities in  meeting were pointed out. The District Inspector of Schools under his order dated 16th September, 2005 while refusing  to accord approval to the election officer so appointed has provided that appropriate proceedings in accordance with law be taken place and communicated to the District Inspector of Schools.

Even before 15 days had expired from 16th September, 2006, the same District Inspector of Schools is alleged to have granted permission to respondent no.7 to convene a requisitioned meeting on an application said to have been forwarded by the President of the Committee of Management vide his letter dated 28th September, 2005. This application records that a meeting is being requisitioned by 10 office bearers/members of the general body and their affidavits in support thereof are being enclosed. The application, which has been brought on record by respondent no.6 as Annexure-CA 4 to the counter affidavit  dated 20th August, 2005 bears the signatures of only 5 persons and does not record as to why President himself could not convene the meeting under Clause- 5 (6) of the amended scheme of administration, even if  the Manager  was not available or had refused to convene the meeting for finalization of the election programme. It may be further recorded that there was absolutely no material before the District Inspector of Schools which could establish that application dated 20th August, 2005 said to be the requisition for convening a meeting as well as the affidavits of ten office bearers/members of the general body asking for requisition meeting being convened satisfied with the requirement of Clause 5(6) of the amended scheme of administration. It may be recorded that under the said clause a requisition meeting could be convened only if a request in that regard was made by 2/3 members of the Committee of Management or at least 1/10 members of the general body. From the records of the present writ petition it is apparently clear that on the date the requisition is said to have been submitted there were 224 members of the general body. In the impugned order it has been recorded that agenda in respect of election programme was published of 340 members, which included 116 new members enrolled under the  meeting dated 5th October, 2005. On a simple calculation, before induction of 116 members, on 20th August, 2005 there were 224 members of the general body.

The Committee of Management comprises of 18 members. 2/3 of the same would work out to 12. Similarly 1/10 of the members of the general body on the relevant date would work out to 22.4 in number. From the records it is established that the application dated 20th August, 2005 and the letter of the President (respondent no.7) dated 29th September, 2005 records signatures of only 5 office bearers and 9 affidavits of office bearers, the  total whereof would work out to 14 only, therefore, in no case can be said that the requisition for convening the meeting had been submitted before the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with Clause-5(6) of the amended scheme of administration.

It may also be noticed  that in the application made by 5 members of the Committee of Management  (Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit), there is no request addressed to the District Inspector of Schools for grant of permission for a requisitioned meeting as contemplated by Clause 5(6) of the amended scheme of administration. Request  as contained in the letter was to the President himself to convene a meeting as per his own power to convene the meeting under Clause-5 (6) of the amended scheme of administration. Absolutely no explanation has been furnished as to why the President could not have convene the meeting himself. This Court may notice that in the impugned order it has been recorded by the Regional Level Committee  that 5 members of the Committee of Management and 20 members of the general body had made an application dated 20th August, 2005 to the President pointing out that the Manager of the Committee of Management is not convening the meeting for finalization of the election programme and the President inturn vide letter dated 20th August, 2005 required the Manager to take appropriate action, since the Manager was not taken appropriate action for convening the meeting, President vide his letter dated 28th September, 2005 requested the District Inspector of Schools to grant permission to convene the meeting. Absolutely no material has been paled before this Court which could establish that any requisition for convening the meeting was submitted by 20 members of the general body. Documents appended along with counter affidavit namely Annexure Nos. 4 and 5, on a simple reading could at best lead to a total of 15 members only. Therefore, the Court hold that  the findings recorded in the impugned order to the effect that 20 members of the general body had made an application to requisition the meeting is based on no evidence and therefore, perverse. Further the Regional Level Committee  has failed to examine that a request for   requisitioning the meeting of the members of the general body for finalization of the election programme can be made to the District Inspector of Schools alone. As already recorded above the application enclosed as Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit is addressed to the President asking him to convene a meeting, under his own powers under clause 5(6) of the amended scheme of administration. There is no request for any meeting being requisitioned by the members of the general body with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools.

A requisition meeting under Clause 5(6) of the amended scheme of administration can be held only for the finalization of the election programme  and the business  mentioned in the clause itself can be transacted. No  new members can be enrolled for the purposes of participation in the elections of the Committee of Management in such meeting.

It is settled law that in a meeting requisitioned for a particular  agenda only the agenda for which the meeting has been convened alone can be transacted and no other business can be considered.

Consequently the induction of 116 new members as suggested by respondent nos. 6 and 7 in a requisition meeting dated 5th October, 2005 is not in accordance with the approved scheme of administration and therefore, cannot be approved of. Even otherwise, this Court may record that induction of such large number of members at the time of finalization of the election programme itself creates a doubt about the induction of such large number of new members.  

In such circumstances as noticed herein above, this Court is satisfied that the Regional Level Committee,   while according approval to the elections which held subsequent to the requisitioned meeting dated 5th October, 2005, had acted illegally.  

In view of the  aforesaid, the order passed by the Regional Level Committee  dated 24th March, 2007 in so far as it accords approval to the initiation of the election proceedings initiated under a requisition meeting dated 5th October, 2005, as well as elections which have taken place on 12th November,  2005 cannot be legally sustained and is hereby quashed.

Since the time of the earlier Committee of Management has expired,  the Regional Joint Director of Education may appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak for holding fresh elections of the Committee of Management in accordance with Clause-7 of the scheme of administration. The Prabandh Sanchalak so appointed shall publish a tentative list of members entitled to participate in the elections and shall invite objections. He shall,  thereafter, finalize the electoral college and shall hold fresh elections for constituting the Committee of Management in accordance with approved scheme of administration. The aforesaid exercise may be completed within four weeks from the date the Prabandh Sanchalak is appointed. Papers pertaining to the elections so held shall be transmitted to the Regional Level Committee  constituted under the Government Order dated 19th December, 2000 and at that stage of the proceedings parties shall be at liberty to file their objections both with regard to the electoral college as well as to the procedure adopted in respect of elections so held. The Regional Level Committee  after taking into consideration the objections, if any filed, shall examine the legality of the elections so held. If the elections are approved elected office bearers shall be handed over charge of the institution immediately thereafter.

Till the aforesaid, there shall be single operation of accounts in the institution.

Writ petition is allowed in part subject to the directions issued above.

08-05-2007

Sushil/


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.