Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM CHARAN SINGH versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Charan Singh v. State Of U.P. & Others - WRIT - C No. 47325 of 2003 [2005] RD-AH 2793 (13 September 2005)

 

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.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  47325 of 2003

Ram Charan Singh             Vs.        State of U.P. & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

The dispute in this writ petition is with regard to the extension of the term of the Committee of Management of Janta Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Khochawan, district Varanasi. The last election of the Committee of Management, which was recognized by the educational authorities, was held on 23.6.2000 in which the respondent no. 4 Daya Shanker Singh was elected as Manager. The petitioner also claims that another election was held on 17.8.2000 in which he was elected as Manager. However, the same was not recognized by the educational authorities. As such, the Committee of Management, of which respondent no. 4 was the Manager, was the only duly elected and recognized Committee of Management.

Admittedly, as per the bye-laws/scheme of administration of the society, the term of the Committee of Management was 3 years. The same was thus to expire on 22.6.2003. However, under the scheme of administration, in case if no fresh Committee of Management was elected, the term of the existing Committee of Management was to be extended for a period of one month, meaning thereby that at best the term of the Committee of Management under the then existing scheme of administration would be upto 22.6.2003 plus one month, i.e. 22.7.2003. However, allegedly before the said term could expire, on 27.4.2003 the Committee of Management passed a resolution to the effect that the term of the existing Committee of Management be extended for a period of two years. By the said resolution the Manager was required to take necessary steps and follow up action. In response thereto, after obtaining necessary comments from the District Inspector of Schools, vide his order dated 14.7.2003, the Joint Director of Education granted approval for the amendment to be made in the scheme of administration of the society in question, to the effect that the term of the Committee of Management was to be 5 years instead of existing period of 3 years. Aggrieved by the said order dated 14.7.2003 granting such approval the petitioner has filed this writ petition. A further prayer has also been made that the respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 may be directed to accord approval to the Committee of Management of the petitioner and recognize the petitioner as its Manager.

I have heard Sri G.K.Singh and Sri P.K.Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondents no. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 4 and have perused the record. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged between the parties, and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself.  

Sri G.K.Singh has pressed the first prayer alone and not the prayer for recognizing the petitioner as Manager of the Committee of Management. His submission is that under Clause 22 of the Bye-laws/scheme of administration of the society, the amendment in the bye laws could only be made by the general body of the society with the condition that more than half of the members of the society should be present in the meeting of the general body and the amendment should be passed by at least 2/3rd of the members present and voting. The submission of the petitioner thus is that admittedly there being no such resolution of the general body, no amendment could be said to have been passed in accordance with the bye laws and as such the approval granted by the Joint Director of Education was bad in the eye of law. It has further been submitted that even the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 27.4.2003 does not speak of any amendment to be made in the bye laws or scheme of administration with regard to the tenure of the Committee of Management. It has been urged that since, by the alleged resolution dated 27.4.2003, it had only been stated that the term of the existing Committee of Management be extended by 2 years, the same could not be read to mean that any amendment was sought in the bye laws of the Committee of Management, as the resolution was only confined to the term of the existing Committee of Management alone.

Sri Manoj Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondent no. 4 has, however, submitted that the amendment in the bye laws was made in accordance with the Government Order dated 30th March, 1998 which provided that on a resolution of the Committee of Management, the amendment could be made with regard to extension of the term of the Committee of Management from 3 years to 5 years. As such he contended, that since under the said Government Order it was permissible to extend the term on a resolution of the Committee of Management, the amendment made and subsequently approved by the Joint Director of Education for extension of the term of the Committee of Management from 3 years to 5 years, on such resolution of the Committee of Management, was perfectly justified and valid.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view, the approval granted by the Joint Director of Education to the amendment in the bye laws was not justified and is liable to be quashed.

The Government Order dated 30th March, 1998 was a general order. For the purposes of an amendment in the scheme of administration/bye laws of the society, it is the procedure as prescribed by the said bye laws which would be required to be followed. Clause 22 of the said bye laws categorically mentions that an amendment can be made in the bye laws only by a resolution of the general body of the society with at least half of its members present in such meeting and 2/3rd members present and voting in favour of such amendment. Admittedly, there was no meeting of the general body in which such resolution had been passed. The Government Order dated 30th March, 1998 only makes a provision that amendment for extension of term of the Committee of Management could also be made by a resolution of the Committee of Management, but unless the same is also provided for in the bye laws of the society concerned, such a clause in the Government Order for extension of the term of the Committee of Management by the resolution of the Committee of Management would not be permissible, as the procedure for amendment provided in the Bye-laws of the particular society would have to be mandatorily followed. Non compliance of the specific procedure provided in the Bye-laws governing the particular society would make the entire process of amendment bad in the eyes of law.

Even otherwise, in the present case,  from a bare reading of the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 27.4.2003, it would be clear that it had not been resolved that the bye laws were to be amended to extend the term of the Committee of Management from 3 to 5 years. The resolution was only to the effect that the term of the present Committee of Management be extended by 2 years which was, as explained in the resolution itself, for the purpose of completing certain works which had already been undertaken by the present Committee of Management. Such resolution cannot be termed as a resolution of the Committee of Management seeking amendment in the bye laws. On this ground also, even assuming that the Government Order dated 30th March, 1998 would prevail, no amendment could be made in the Bye-laws and approved by the Joint Director of Education.

For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 14th July, 2003 passed by the Joint Director of Education granting approval to the amendment sought in the bye laws of the society is wholly illegal and thus quashed. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.  

Dt/-13.9.2005

PS


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.