Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M, DR.AMBEDKAR HARIJAN PURVA MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA & ANR. versus S.D.M. & ANOTHER

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M, Dr.Ambedkar Harijan Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya & Anr. v. S.D.M. & Another - WRIT - C No. 12100 of 2001 [2003] RD-AH 278 (14 August 2003)

 

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.5

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12100 of  2001

Committee of Management  of Deputy Registrar. Ambedkar Harijan Purva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Chandrawar Rasra, Ballia and another v. Sub Divisional Magistrate, Rasra/Prescribed Authority, Ballia and another.

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

By means of the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 21st March, 2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act.

Heard Sri A.P. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri I.R. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent.

Learned counsel for the contesting respondent raised two preliminary objections, namely, that the dispute of the Committee of Management relating to the election held on 29.9.1995, whose term has expired and fresh election has taken place on 29.9.2001, thus, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. He further submitted that in any event, the petitioners can vindicate their claim by filing a civil suit.  

Sri A.P. Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the election alleged to have  held on the 29th September, 2001 is on the basis of the impugned order dated 21st March, 2001 passed by the Assistant Registrar wherein Sri Raguvendra Kumar has been recognized as Manager and, therefore,  the writ petition has not been rendered infructuous.  According to him, the subsequent election held on 29.9.2001 is dependent upon the question as to who is competent to hold elections, which is subject matter of the present writ petition, therefore, the writ petition has not been rendered infructuous.  He further submitted that even though the petitioners can establish their right by filing civil suit but the order passed by the Prescribed Authority is manifestly erroneous as it has been passed after ignoring the objections raised by the petitioners.  He invited the attention of the Court to the averments made in paragraphs 41 to 45 of the writ petition.  He also invited the attention of the Court to the objections filed by the petitioners contained in Annexures 36 to 38 to the writ petition and submitted that these objections have not yet been considered and decided by the Prescribed Authority, therefore, the impugned order is manifestly erroneous and can be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Sri I.R.Singh, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent, however, submitted that all the objections raised by the petitioners had been considered by the Prescribed Authority and, therefore, the it does  not require any interference by this Court.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I find that the petitioners in their objections had specifically raised the question that Sri Raguvendra Kumar is not in effective control of the Committee of Management and further when the authorised controller was appointed by the District Magistrate, it was the petitioners, who had approached this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.22320 of 1999 and had obtained an interim order staying the operation of the impugned order appointing authorised controller.  According to him, at least till the year 1999 when the said writ petition was filed Sri Raghuvendra Kumar was not in effective control of the Committee of Management of the College as he had not come forward to challenge the said order appointing authorised controller and had he been in the effective control of the Committee of management, his rights would have been affected by the said order.  This objection had been raised by the petitioners before the Prescribed Authority.

So far as  the question of writ petition having been rendered infructuous is concerned, it appears that the election held on 29.9.2001 is on the basis of the impugned order dated 21st March, 2001 passed by the Prescribed Authority,  thus, the writ petition has not been rendered infructuous.

From the perusal of the impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority, it does appear that the Prescribed Authority has not considered the objection raised by the petitioners in correct perspective and the decision has been arrived at on wrong conclusion of the facts by it after ignoring the objections raised by the petitioners.  It is true that the order passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act is final between the parties subject to the remedy by filing civil suit for establishment of their rights but if the order passed by the Prescribed Authority suffers from manifest error of law if the order was passed ignoring the relevant material and not considering the objections raised by the parties, the said order can be interfered with in exercise of the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by this Court.  

Since the Court has already come to the conclusion that the Prescribed Authority has not considered the objections raised by the petitioners, which were subject matter of the dispute, the impugned order passed by the Prescribed Authority cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside.  The writ petition succeeds and is allowed.  The Prescribed Authority is directed to decide the objections afresh in accordance with law after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before it..

However, it is made clear that this court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioners on merit.

14.8.2003

mt


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.