High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C/M Shri Bapu Intermediate College Thru' Manager & Anr. v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Deptt. Of Secondary Edu. & Ors. - WRIT - C No. 26660 of 2004  RD-AH 5769 (16 November 2005)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26660 of 2004
C/M Shri Bapu Intermediate College
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble D.P. Singh, J.
Pleadings are complete and the counsel for the parties agree that the petition may be finally disposed off under the Rules of the Court.
Heard counsel for the parties.
Following are the functional facts for the decision of this petition:-
Sri Bapu Uchchatar Madhiyamik Educational Society, Sohanpur in district Deoria is a duly registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It runs Sri Bapu Intermediate College, Sohanpur and is duly recognized and aided institution governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. A Committee of Management of society elected in accordance with the scheme of administration manages the institution and the term is three years. Admittedly, Ganesh Prasad Barnwal, petitioner no. 2, was elected as Manager and Sri Pashupati Nath Pandey, was elected as President of the Committee of Management in the elections held on 24.8.2000. In the alleged no confidence meeting of the committee of Management on 17.11.2002, Sri Burnawal was removed and Sri Markandey Chaubey was elected in his place. Difficulty in payment of salary to the teachers arose forcing the District Inspector of Schools to pass a single operation order dated 7.3.2003. After the enforcement of the said order, the petitioner challenged the single operation order through writ petition no. 34819 of 2003 and an order was passed that in case the order of single operation has not been acted upon, it shall remain stayed. It is not denied that by then the single operation had become effective. Subsequently, this writ petition was dismissed on 18.1.2004.The petitioner no. 2 alleges that vide letter dated 18.8.2003 he requested the District Inspector of Schools for appointment of a observer for the election scheduled for 7.9.2003. This letter was sent under certificate of posting. Sri Markandey Chaubey also sent a letter dated 20.7.2003 fixing 7.9.2003 as the date for election and demanded an observer. Both the parties alleged that their respective elections were held on 7.9.2003 and laid their claim for recognition. However, vide order dated 19.1.2004 the Joint Director recognized the respondent Committee of Management as the valid Committee having effective control over the affairs of the institution. This order was subjected to challenge in writ petition no. 8800 of 2004 which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 5.3.2004 quashing the aforesaid order on the ground that there were no reason given in the conclusion reached therein and remanded the matter to decide the rival claims afresh within three months. The Joint Director of Education by the impugned order dated 22.6.2004 has passed a detailed and exhausted order recognizing the respondent Committee of Management.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the impugned order is based on the reports dated 4.11.2003, 2.12.2003 and 12.5.2004 but neither a copy of the said reports were made available nor he was given an opportunity to rebut it. He goes on to contend that his removal by alleged no confidence was illegal and election of Markandey Chaubey in his place was never recognized by the District Inspector of Schools, thus, elections held by Markandey Chaubey were vitiated right from its inception.
From a perusal of the impugned order it is apparent that all the parties were present on 13.5.2004, the date fixed before the Joint Director. The private respondents filed their detailed claim on that date in the presence of the petitioner. Sri Chaudhari Prasad, an official of the District Inspector of Schools was also present on that date and he filed the letter of the District Inspector of Schools alongwith reports dated 4.11.2003 and 2.12.2003 of the observer in the presence of the petitioner The petitioner has not denied his presence on 13.5.2004 but in fact has admitted it so in paragraph no. 60 of the writ petition. As the arguments were not completed, 26.5.2004 was the next date fixed. The petitioner filed his detailed representation on 26.5.2004, as is admitted in paragraph no. 62 of the writ petition. In the representation filed on 26.5.2004 there is no demand of any document filed by the official of the office of District Inspector of Schools nor there is any demand of documents filed by the private respondents. These documents are formal reports of the proceedings. Assuming he did not know about the contents, he could have asked for a copy, but neither on 13.5.2004 nor on 26.5.2004 or in his representation he sought copies of the aforesaid documents. Rules of natural justice are not meant to be a trap to be used when the party fails. They are meant to provide a fair and reasonable opportunity before an order is passed. The impugned order categorically states that all the parties agreed on 26.5.2004 that they did not have any further arguments or representation to be made and they closed their arguments. In my view, the petitioner was given a fair and reasonable opportunity to put up his case, thus this argument cannot be accepted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has then urged that it was incumbent upon the Joint Director to have decided the validity of the resolution dated 17.11.2002 by which he was removed by motion of no confidence. It is not the case of the petitioner that he had ever challenged the resolution dated 17.11.2002 before any competent court or authority and as such the petitioner cannot make a grievance out of it. Proceedings under section 16-A(7) are summary in nature which are always open to challenge before a competent court. In these summary proceedings technical procedure as applicable in a suit like framing of issues etc. are not required. Once the authority found that elections were held under aegis of the observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools where majority number of members have participated, it cannot be said that the order is vitiated merely because the aforesaid issue was not decided. Even otherwise, legality of the elections can only incidentally be examined and the main thrust, while exercising powers under section 16-A (7), is upon the effective control. It is not the case of the petitioner that the respondents were strangers to the society and once prima facie the election appeared to be valid, there was no necessity to go deep into it for deciding the issue. Thus, this argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has also to be rejected.
For the reasons given above, this petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to cost.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.