Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT versus VICE CHANCELLOR PURVANCHAL UNIVERSITY & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Committee Of Management v. Vice Chancellor Purvanchal University & Others - WRIT - C No. 45079 of 2000 [2003] RD-AH 446 (14 November 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

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 45079 of 2000

Committee of Management of Swami Sahjanand

Post Graduate College, Ghazipur v. Vice Chancellor,

Purvanchal University, Jaunpur

Connected with

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 54989 of 2000

Committee of Management of Swami Sahjanand Post

Graduate College, Ghazipur and others v. The Deputy

Director of Education, V Region, Varanasi and others

And

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28253 of 2003

Committee of Management of Swami Sahjanand Post

Graduate College, Ghazipur and others v. Vice Chancellor,

Vir Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur and others

And

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48257 of 2003

Committee of Management of Swami Sahjanand Post Graduate College, Ghazipur and another v. Deputy Director of Education(Secondary) V Region, Varanasi and others

Hon'ble R.K.Agrawal, J.

All these four writ petitions relate to the Committee of Management of Swami Sahjanand Post Graduate College, Ghazipur and, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by a common judgment.

Briefly stated the facts giving rise to these writ petitions are as follows:-

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.45079 of 2000 has been filed by the Committee of Management of Swami Sahjanand Post Graduate College, Ghazipur, through its Joint secretary (working as Secretary), Ramji Rai, seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents no.1 and 2, namely, the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar, Vir Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur respectively, to produce the order passed by the Vice Chancellor contained in the communication of the Registrar of the Purvanchal University dated 9th September, 2000 filed as annexure 1 to the writ petition and on production thereof the same be quashed.  Vide order dated 9th September, 2000 the Registrar of  the Purvanchal University, Jaunpur had informed the Secretary of the Committee of Management of Swami Sahjanand Post Graduate Degree College that till the representation made by Sri Ramayan Rai and others under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 is decided by the Chancellor, the Committee of Management of which Kavindra Nath Sharma is the Manager and which had already been recognized shall perform  the function of the Committee of Management.  According to the petitioner, Swami Sahjanand Post Graduate College, Ghazipur is an affiliated College of Vir Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the University).  It is being run by a Committee of Management constituted in the election held on 19th April, 1999 in which Ajai Kumar Rai and Kavindra Nath Sharma were elected as the President and the Secretary of the Committee of Management.  A dispute was raised regarding the election of the Committee of Management. The Vice Chancellor vide order dated 17th August, 1999 recognised the Committee of Management of which  Ajai Kumar Rai had been elected as the President and Kavindra Nath Sharma as the Secretary.  One  Ramayan Rai made a representation under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), before the Chancellor.  According to the petitioner, some dispute arose regarding functioning of the President and the Secretary and a meeting was called by the members of the Committee of Management on 20th August, 2000 in which a resolution of no confidence motion was passed against the President and the Secretary.  It was resolved therein that the Joint Secretary of Committee of Management, Ramji Rai, would act as its Secretary/Manager until an elected person is available to hold the office. Vide letter dated 22nd August, 2000, the resolution was communicated to the Vice Chancellor.  However, Kavindra Nath Sharma, respondent no.3, by letter dated 23rd August, 2000 approached the Vice Chancellor stating therein that on 20th August, 2000 Ramayan Rai had proclaimed himself to be the President and Ramji Rai as Joint Secretary and is mounting pressure to operate the bank account of the Post Graduate College.  They are further causing disturbance in the management of the said College and necessary directions be issued to the administration and the bank of the College that till such time Chancellor does not decide the representation made by Ramayan Rai, the Committee of Management headed by Kavindra Nath Sharma as Manager and Ajai Kumar Rai as President be allowed to function and no hindrance be caused to their working.  On the said letter/application, the Vice Chancellor passed the impugned order, which was communicated to the petitioner by registered post. The impugned order has been challenged in the present writ petition on the ground that the said order has been passed without giving any show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing and, therefore, is in violation of the principles of natural justice.  Further the matter of removal of the office bearers from the Committee of Management by no confidence motion brought by the members of the Committee of Management is purely internal affairs of the Committee and neither the Act nor the Statute of the University give any authority to the Vice Chancellor to interfere in the internal affairs of the Committee of Management and further the aforementioned order has been passed on irrelevant and incorrect  facts.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.54989 of 2000 has been filed by the Committee of Management of Swami Sahjanand Post Graduate College through its Secretary/manager Kavindra Nath Sharma seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders dated 6.12.2000 and 7.12.2000 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, respondent no.1, and the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur, respondent no.2 filed as annexures 13 and 15 respectively to the writ petition and further consequential reliefs.

Vide order dated 6th December, 2000 the Deputy Director of Education had directed the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur to disburse the salary of the teachers and employees of the Post Graduate College on the basis of the signature attested by him till such time this Court or the Vice Chancellor, Purvanchal University passes an order to the contrary.  The District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 7.12.2000 had directed the Branch Managers of Bank of Baroda, Branch Mahuwabagh, Ghazipur and Union bank of India, Branch Gorababazr, Ghazipur to ensure payment only on the basis of signature of Ramji Rai.  It is alleged by the petitioner in this petition that after the order dated 9th September, 2000 passed by the Vice Chancellor was stayed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition  no.45079 of 2002, the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 24th October, 2000 attested the signature of Ramji Rai as Secretary.  On coming to know about this order, the petitioner no.2, namely, Kavindra Nath Sharma moved  an application before the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur on 13.11.2000 to the effect that this Court's order dated 24th October, 2000 did not intend to authorize the Joint Secretary, respondent no.3, to function as Secretary whereupon the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur vide order dated 14th November, 2000 had cancelled the attestation of signature of Ramji Rai, respondent no.3.  Ignoring the said order, the Deputy Director of Education had passed the order dated 6th December, 2000 directing the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur to ensure that the bank accounts are operated by a person whose signatures are duly attested  and the District Inspector of Schools had passed the consequential order.  The ground of challenge is that the Vice Chancellor had not recognised  Ramji Rai as Secretary and, therefore, his signature could not have been attested.

By means of an amendment application the resolution dated 20th August, 2000 in which the no confidence motion was passed against Ajai Kumar Rai, President and Kavindra Nath Sharma, Secretary, has also been challenged.

Civil Misc.Writ Petition no.28253 of 2003 has been filed by the Committee of Management of Swami Sahjanand Post Graduate College, Ghazipur through its President Ram Nagina Rai and Dr. Suresh Chandra Rai seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari commanding the Vice Chancellor, Vir Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, respondent no.1, to produce before this Court the order dated 21.6.2003 contained in the communication dated 21.6.2003 send by the Registrar of the University by which it has been stated that since the Chancellor had rejected the representation made by Ramayan Rai and others against the order passed by the Vice Chancellor dated 17.8.1999, the same has come into force once again and, therefore, the proceedings held on 11.11.2001 is being cancelled and the Committee of Management with Kavindra Nath Sharma as Manager shall function and manage the affairs of the Post Graduate College and other consequential reliefs.  The ground of challenge is that the resolution of no confidence passed against the President Ajai Kumar Rai and Secretary Kavindra Nath Sharma has not been challenged before any authority or Court of law and, therefore, the Vice Chancellor had acted illegally in permitting the Committee of Management with Kavindra Nath Sharma as Secretary/Manager to manage the affairs of the College.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.48257 of 2003 has been filed by the Committee of Management through its President Ram Nagina Rai seeking a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents no.1 and 2, namely, Deputy Director of Education, V Region, Varanasi and the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur to produce their respective orders dated 17.10.2003 and 18.10.2003 filed as annexures 1 and 2 and on production thereof the same be quashed and other consequential reliefs.  Vide order dated 17.10.2003 the Deputy Director of Education had withdrawn the order dated 29th April, 2002 by which the single operation of the bank accounts was directed. The District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur vide order dated 18th October, 2003 had given necessary instructions to the Branch Managers of Bank of Baroda and Union Bank of India where the bank accounts of the Post Graduate College are maintained.  The ground of challenge is that this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.28253 of 2003 had stayed the operation of the order dated 21st June, 2003 which had been extended from time to time till 4th August, 2003.  On 6th August, 2003 when the matter was being heard the interim order was not extended by the Court as the hearing was continuing and, therefore, the Deputy Director of Education was not justified in directing the District Inspector of Schools to ensure the operation of the bank accounts by Kavindra Nath Sharma.

Sri Gajendra Pratap also invited the attention of the Court to the judgment and order dated 28th October 2002 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.46058 of 2002, filed by the Committee of Management, Swami Sahjanand Post Graduate College, Ghazipur through its Manager Sri Ramji Rai and another against the Vice Chancellor, Vir Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, U.P. and others, wherein this Court has observed that the removal of the President and the Secretary has become final. Sri A.P.Sahi, learned counsel, submitted that the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by this Court at the admission stage itself without hearing his clients. Moreover, they were not made a party in the writ petition and any observation made by this Court will not bind them.

I have heard Sri Gajendra Pratap and Sri A.P. Sahi learned counsels for the contesting parties

Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned counsel, submitted that in the elections held on 19th April, 1999 Ajai Kumar Rai was elected as President and Kavindra Nath Sharma was elected as Secretary.  The Committee of Management was elected and was recognised by the Vice Chancellor on 17th August, 1999.   Ramayan Rai had made a representation before the Chancellor purporting to be under Section 68 of the Act wherein the recognition given by the Vice Chancellor vide order dated 17th August, 1999 was questioned.  In the mean time on account of certain actions taken by the President and the Secretary/Manager of the Committee of Management which were not in the interest of the Post Graduate College, the members of the Committee of Management lost faith and trust in these two office bearers and convened a meeting on 20th August, 2000 for considering the resolution of no confidence, which was unanimously passed.  In the said meeting it was also resolved that  Ramji Rai, Joint Secretary, shall act as Secretary/Manager till the Sectary is elected.  A copy of resolution was sent to the Vice Chancellor by registered post on 22nd August, 2000.  However, to frustrate the resolution Kavindra Nath Sharma made an application before the Vice Chancellor on 23rd August, 2000 with the allegation that  Ramayan Rai who has made a representation before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Act is mounting pressure on the bank authorities as also on  the administration not to permit him to function and is creating hindrance in his functioning. The Vice Chancellor without issuing any show cause notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing passed the order informing the Secretary of the College that till such time the Chancellor decides the representation made by  Ramayan Rai and others, the Committee of Management with Kavindra Nath Sharma as Manager shall function.  According to Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned counsel, the direction has been issued without giving any show cause notice or any opportunity of hearing and further without considering the resolution of no confidence having been passed against  Kavindra Nath Sharma and  Ajai Kumar Rai.  He submitted that a person against whom motion of no confidence has been passed cannot be allowed to function as Manager/Secretary and therefore, the directions issued by the Vice Chancellor are contrary to law and cannot be sustained.  He further submitted that the Vice Chancellor cannot go into the validity of the no confidence motion passed by the members of the Committee of Management and he has to act on the resolution so passed.  Thus, the direction that the Committee of Management headed by Kavindra Nath Sharma shall function could not have been issued at all.  According to him even after the rejection of the representation of Ramayan Rai and others by the Chancellor under Section 68 of the Act, the Vice Chancellor could not have issued any direction permitting the Committee of Management headed by  Kavindra Nath Sharma to function as he had already been removed from the office.  Thus, the communication of the Registrar dated 21.6.2003 is also liable to be set aside.

He further submitted that as the hearing of the writ petitions challenging the order dated 21st June, 2003 was going on before this Court the interim order passed on 9th July, 2003 staying  the operation of the order dated 21st June, 2003 was not extended by the Court after 6th August, 2003 and the Deputy Director of Education, V Region, Varanasi had acted in haste in giving the direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur to permit the Committee of Management with  Kavindra Nath Sharma as Manager to operate the bank accounts.  Thus, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, V Region, Varanasi is also liable to be set aside.

Sri A.P. Sahi, learned counsel, submitted that under the byelaws of the Society there is no provision for moving a no confidence motion against the office bearers and, therefore, the resolution dated 20th August, 2000 could not have been passed at all.  He further submitted that under the byelaws of the Society, the President alone is empowered to call for a meeting of the Committee of Management and in his absence the Vice President is entitled to preside over the meeting.  Thus, the meeting called on 20th August, 2000 is wholly without jurisdiction as neither the President nor the Vice President had chaired the meeting and it has been convened illegally.  Therefore, the resolution of no confidence motion is a nullity in the eyes of law.  He submitted that the Vice Chancellor vide order dated 17th August, 1999 had recognised the Committee of Management with its President Ajai Kumar Rai and Secretary Kavindra Nath Sharma.  The representation made by Ramayan Rai having been rejected by the Chancellor, the recognised Committee is entitled to function. Thus, the orders passed by the Vice Chancellor and the Deputy Director of Education calls for no interference.  He further submitted that the Vice Chancellor has yet to apply his mind on the letter dated 22nd August, 2000 sent by  Ramji Rai and others regarding removal of Ajai Kumar Rai and Kavindra Nath Sharma from the posts of President and Secretary of the Committee of Management and till such time the Vice Chancellor takes a decision there is no justification for not permitting Ajai Kumar Rai and Kavindra Nath Shamra to function as President and Manager/Secretary of the Committee of Management.  He referred to Statute 10.05(chha) which provides that the constitution of Committee of Management of every  Degree College shall provide for adjudication if any question arises whether any person has been duly chosen as, or is entitled to be a member or a office bearer of the Management or whether the Management is legally constituted by the Vice Chancellor whose decision shall be final.  

In reply Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned counsel submitted that under the aforesaid statute if there is a rival dispute about the Committee of Management only then the Vice Chancellor is entitled to adjudicate and he cannot adjudicate upon or decided the dispute in between the members or office bearers.  He relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Digamber Jain High School Association, Baraut, District Meerut and others v. The Chancellor, Meerut University, Meerut and others, 1983 UPLBEC 438 and Committee of Management, Sri Durgaji Post Graduate College, Chandeshwar, Azamgarh through its Manager Kanhaiya Singh v. Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur through its Registrar and others, (2003) 1 UPLBEC 462.

He further submitted that even in the absence of any specific provision in this behalf in the byelaws of the Society or memorandum of association the members of the general body are competent and fully authorized to elect and remove any member or the office bearer of the Committee of Management.  He relied upon the decisions in the cases of Ajai Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 1981 UPLBEC 286, Haji Anwar Ahmad Khan v. Punjab Waqf Board, AIR 1980 Punjab & Haryana 306 and Bar Council of Delhi v. The Bar Council of India, New Delhi and another, AIR 1975 Delhi 200.  

Sri Sahi relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of  Lakshmi Narain Misra v. Municipal Board and others, 1962 ALJ 113, wherein this Court has held that in the absence of any provision for removal of Vice President of a Municipal Board, no resolution removing him can be passed.  He further submitted that the question as to whether in every  constitution of every association of persons, which does not provide or prohibit removal of elected office bearer or representative through a no confidence motion, such a provision must be held to be always implied and if so what procedure should be followed for bringing and passing of a no confidence motion has been referred to a larger Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.14407 of 2002, Committee of Management of Hindu Degree College, Zamania, Ghazipur through its Manager v. Vice Chancellor, Vir Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur and another vide order dated 3rd January, 2003, which is still pending.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I find that the Vice Chancellor vide order dated 17th August, 1999 had granted recognition to the Committee of Management headed by Ajai Kumar Rai as President and Kavindra Nath Sharma as Secretary.  The Chancellor had rejected the representation made by Ramayan Rai and others against the aforesaid order.  The Committee of Management with Kavindra Nath Sharma as Manager had been functioning.   It is alleged that a meeting had been called by the rival faction on 20th August, 2000 and a motion of no confidence was passed against the President and the Secretary, a copy of which was sent to the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar on 22nd August, 2000. However, on an application being made by Kavindra Nath Sharma, the Vice Chancellor on 30th August, 2000 directed that the Committee of Management headed by Kavindra Nath Sharma as Manager shall function.  The motion of no confidence wherein Ajai Kumar Rai and Kavindra Nath Sharma are said to have been removed had not been considered by the Vice Chancellor so far.  In view of the provisions of Section 2 (13) of the Act it is only that Committee of Management,  which has been recognised by the Vice Chancellor is entitled to function and manage the affairs of the Post Graduate College.  Various orders which are the subject matter of these writ petitions except order the dated 17th August, 1999 appear to have been passed at the instance of one or the other rival faction.  It is not correct to say that under Statute 10.05 (chha) the Vice Chancellor cannot consider the question of removal of an office bearer of the Committee of Management which has been duly recognised by him.  Sub-clause (chha) of Statute 10.05 reads as follows:-

"YADI KOI AISA PRASHNA UTHE KI PRABANDHATANTRA KE SADASYA YA PADADHIKARI KE ROOP MEN KOI VYAKTI SAMYAK ROOP SE CHUNA GAYA HAI YA NAHIN ATHAVA USKA SADASYA YA PADADHIKARI HONE KA HAKDAR HAI YA NAHIN YA PRABANDHTANTRA BAIDHROOP SE GATHITHA HAI YA NAHIN TO KULAPATI KA VINISHCHAYA ANTIM HOGA."

From a reading of the aforesaid provision it is absolutely clear that a dispute as to whether a member or the office bearer is entitled to hold the office or not can be decided by the Vice Chancellor.   Here Ajai Kumar Rai and Kavindra Nath Sharma claim themselves to have been elected as President and Manager of the Committee of Management, which had been recognised by the Vice Chancellor.  The rival faction claims that these two persons have been removed vide resolution dated 20th August, 2000 from the posts of President and Secretary respectively. Thus, the dispute is pending as to whether these two persons are entitled to hold the office or not, which can only be decided by the Vice Chancellor.  In the case of Digambar Jain High School Association, Baraut(supra) this Court while considering the Statute 13.34 of the Meerut University has held that it applies only to the dispute between two managements.  Relying upon the proviso to the Statute 13.34, this Court had held that  providing of opportunity to the rival claimants contemplates the Managing Committee which asserts that actually, it is the Managing Committee which should be the management committee of the College and it does not apply to the case where there is a dispute amongst the office bearers of the same Managing Committee.  Statute 13.34 of the Meerut University is reproduced below:-

"13.34.   Whenever there is a dispute regarding the management of an affiliated college, persons found by the Vice-Chancellor to be in actual possession and control of the college properties may, for purposes of the Act and these Statutes be recognised to constitute the management of such college until a court of competent jurisdiction orders otherwise:

Provided that the Vice-Chancellor shall before making an order under this Statute, afford an opportunity to the rival claimants to make written representations.

Explanation.__ In determining the question as to who is in actual possession and control of the College properties the Vice-chancellor shall have regard to the control over the funds of the Institution and over the actual administration, the receipt of the income from the property of the institution and to other relevant circumstances which might have bearing on the question to be determined."

The Statute 13.34 is differently worded than Statute 10.05 (chha) of the Vir Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur.  Thus, the aforesaid decision cannot be applied in the present case. In the case of Committee of Management, Sri Durgaji Post Graduate College, Azamgarh (supra) this Court, while considering Statute 13.05 (f) of the Gorakhpur University which was applicable to the Jaunpur University and is similar to Statute 13.05 (chha) of the Jaunpur University reproduces hereinbefore , has held as follows:-

"15.......Statute 13.05 quoted above, is very widely worded.  The question which can be considered under Statute 13.05 may be, (i) whether any person has been duly chosen as, or is entitled to be a member or office bearer of the management and (ii) whether the Management is legally constituted.  Thus the aforesaid provision makes it clear that any question regarding election of a person as member or office bearer of the Management or whether the Management itself is legally constituted can be considered and decided by Vice-Chancellor in exercise of power under Statute 13.05 (f) read with the constitution of the College.  The Division Bench judgment cited by Dr. R.G.Padia in Committee of Management of Ambika Pratap Narain Degree College's case (supra) does support the contention raised by Dr. Padia.  In the aforesaid case, the order of Vice-Chancellor dated 4th March, 1986 refusing to recognise the Committee of Management represented by petitioners was challenged.  The question arose as to whether the said order is without jurisdiction or the Vice Chancellor in exercise of power under Statute 13.05 has jurisdiction to decide the question. The Division bench repelled the contention and held that Vice Chancellor has jurisdiction to decide the question.  It was held in Paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment which is quoted below:--

"4.    We are unable to agree.  The vice-Chancellor, derives his power to determine dispute pertaining to the constitution of the Committee of Management of the institution affiliated to State Universities primarily under Section 2(13) of the State Universities Act.  The next provision under which the vice-Chancellor gets authority to determine such a clause (f) of Statute 13.05 which reads as follows:

" If any question arises whether any person has been duly chosen as, or is entitled to be a member or office bearer of the Management or whether the Management is legally constituted, the decision of the Vice-Chancellor shall be final."

"16.  The dispute under Statute 13.05 (f) may arise in several contingencies.  An election is claimed by a set of persons which is challenged before the Vice Chancellor by a person that persons claming election of the Management are not legally constituted.  Any person having interest in the affairs of the institution may challenge the constitution of the Committee of Management before the Vice Chancellor.  Statute 13.05 (f) gives ample jurisdiction to the vice-Chancellor to enter into and determine a dispute.  Question pertaining to election of even only one office bearer or member of a Management may be raised which may also be covered by Statute 13.05."

In view of the aforesaid decision the dispute regarding the removal of a member or the office bearer of the Management is covered under the phrase "is entitled to be a member or the office bearer of the Management" and thus can be adjudicated upon by the Vice Chancellor under Statute 13.05 (chha).

This leads to the question of validity of no confidence motion said to have been passed on 20th August, 2000.  By means of the amendment application filed in writ petition no.54989 of 2000 Kavindra Nath Sharma and Ajai Kumar Rai had challenged the validity of the no confidence motion and have also sought relief of quashing the said resolution. It is a purely private dispute between the members of the Society.  The Court is of the view that in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India it would not be appropriate for the Court to entertain the prayer and  to go into the validity of the no confidence resolution alleged to have been passed by the members of the Society.  The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and others, JT 2003 (Suppl.1) SC 470 has held as follows:-

"25. From the decisions referred to above, the position that emerges is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State (Govt); (ii) Authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any Statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function."

"41.......But the difficulty in issuing a writ may arise where there may not be any non-compliance or violation of any statutory provision by the private body in that event a writ may not be issued at all.  Other remedies, as may be available may have to be resorted to."

At another place the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-

"47......A private body or a person may be amenable to writ jurisdiction only where it may become necessary to compel such body or association to enforce any statutory obligations or such obligations of public nature casting positive obligation upon it.  We don't find such conditions are fulfilled in respect of a private company carrying on a commercial activity of banking.  Merely regulatory provisions to ensure such activity carried on by private bodies work within a discipline, do not confer any such status upon the company nor puts any such obligation upon it which may be enforced through issue of a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution."

In view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court this Court in the case of Federal Bank Ltd. (supra), a writ petition challenging the internal dispute of a Society which is a private body is not maintainable and therefore the application seeking amendment by which the no confidence motion is sought to be challenged is rejected.  

No benefit can be derived on the observations made by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.46058 of 2002 in as much as Kavindra Nath Sharma and Ajai Kumar Rai were not made parties in the said writ petition and without hearing them, this Court made the observation that removal of the President and the Secretary have become final. Even if the resolution of no confidence motion has not been specifically challenged by these two persons in any Court of law and amendment application by which they have sought to challenge the same has not been allowed by this Court, yet it will be open to the Vice Chancellor to consider the question of their removal while determining the dispute regarding the entitlement of the office bearers of the management under Statute 13.05(Chha).

So far as the question as to whether in the absence of any provision in the bye laws or the memorandum of association regarding no confidence motion is concerned as this Court had declined to go into the question of validity of the no confidence motion, the question is left open.

Since under Section 2(13) of the Act, the Committee of Management which has been recognised by the Vice chancellor is entitled to manage the affairs of the College, till such time the Vice Chancellor takes a decision on the question of the two office bearers having been removed, the recognised Committee Management shall be allowed to function and manage the affairs of the Post Graduate College.

In view of the foregoing discussions, all the writ petitions except Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.54989 of 2000 are dismissed. However, Civil Misc. Writ Petition no.54989 of 2000 is partly allowed and the orders impugned in the said writ petition are set aside. The Court sends the matter back to the Vice Chancellor for deciding the question of removal of Kavindra Nath Sharma and Ajai Kumar Rai as communicated to him vide letter dated 22nd August, 2000 after giving opportunity of hearing to the affected parties within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him.  However, the parties shall bear their own costs.

November 14, 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.