Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M. M.I.C. & ANOTHER versus REGIONAL D.D.E. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M. M.I.C. & Another v. Regional D.D.E. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 120 of 1997 [2005] RD-AH 6121 (22 November 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

Reserved

                                                                          AFR      

Special Appeal No. 120 of 1997

 Committee of management & another         Appellants

Vs.

Regional Deputy Director

Of Education, Azamgarh & others.              Respondents

                 

                       *************************

Hon. S. Rafat Alam, J.

Hon. Vikram Nath,

                     (Delevered by Hon. Vikram Nath, J)

This intra Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 06.02.1997 passed in Writ Petition No. 26418 of 1996, Committee of Management Mubarakpur Inter College, Mubarakpur, Azamgarh vs. Regional Deputy Director of Education, (Secondary), Azamgarh and others, whereby the writ petition was dismissed.

Dispute relates to Committee of Management of Mubarakpur Inter College, Mubarakpur, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as the Institution). The last election of the Committee of Management was held on 13.10.1991. The term of the management is 3 years 1 month. The next election according to the petitioner-appellant was held on 11.09.1994 and in that election the District Inspector of Schools was present and attested the signatures of appellant no. 2 and there was no rival claim in the aforesaid elections. Subsequently, on 10.07.1995 it is alleged that the District Inspector of Schools attested the signatures of Sri Parvez Ahmad who claimed to have been elected in election proceedings held on 30.10.1994. The appellant no. 2 filed Writ Petition No. 2067 of 1995, challenging the order dated 10.07.1995. The said writ petition was however, dismissed on 06.09.1995. The appellant, thereafter, filed special appeal being Special Appeal No. 637 of 1995.  In the meantime, another writ petition was filed being Writ Petition No. 28020 of 1995 in which an interim order was granted on 29.09.1995. However, the special appeal filed against the same was allowed and the interim order was set aside. The matter was referred back to the Deputy Director of Education, who after hearing the parties passed an order dated 11.07.1996 again holding the elections dated 30.10.1994 to be valid. Against the said order the present Writ Petition No. 26418 of 1996 was filed in which the learned Single Judge affirmed the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 11.07.1996 and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.

Aggrieved by the same present special appeal has been filed.

We have heard Sri P. N. Ojha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Prakash Padia, learned counsel for the respondents and also learned Standing Counsel.

The special appeal apparently has lost its efficacy on account of  efflux of time and ought to be dismissed on the ground that the term of the Committee elected on 30.10.1994 which was granted approval on 10.07.1995 and 11.07.1996 has already expired and the subsequent Committee having been successively elected in 1997, 2000 and 2003.

Learned counsel for the respondent has also urged that subsequently at least three elections must have been held, which are not under challenge and, therefore, this appeal may be dismissed. However, learned counsel for the appellant has argued that this special appeal has not lost its efficacy on account of  efflux of time and still survives to be heard on merits in case if this Court finds that the elections of 30.10.1994 were held by a person not authorised to hold the elections or if it has been held after the expiry of the term of the Committee.

In view of the contentions as raised above we proceed to examine as to whether the special appeal has lost its efficacy due to efflux of time or there still survives something to be decided.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the election dated 30.10.1994 was held after the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management and, therefore, it was without any authority of law and in such a case  fresh elections should be held under the supervision of the State Educational Authorities. Having perused the record and having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties it is undisputed that the last election in which Mohd. Imran (appellant no. 2) was elected as the Manager was held on 13.10.1991. The said election of 13.10.1991 was recognized by the District Inspector of Schools and the signatures of Mohd. Imran were attested vide order dated 13.05.1992. The said order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 18081 of 1992. This Court vide judgment and order dated 28.01.1993 after setting aside the order dated 13.05.1992 directed the Deputy Director of Education to decide the matter relating to dispute of election within a fixed time and positively by 28.02.1993 and in the meanwhile the status quo would be maintained. The Deputy Director of Education vide order dated 02.03.1993 appointed Authorized Controller and permitted both the parties to produce original document etc.  in support of their claim. Thereafter, the Deputy Director of  Education sought extension of time from this Court in Writ Petition No. 18081 of 1992 and this Court vide order dated 13.04.1993 allowed time till 07.05.1993 for taking a final decision. Thereupon the Deputy Director of Education vide order dated 05.05.1993 held the election dated 13.10.1991 to be valid and accordingly recognized Mohd. Imran as the Manager of the Committee of Management and withdrew the appointment of Authorized Controller. Against the said order    Writ Petition No. 17220 of 1993 was filed by Hasmat Ullah, which was dismissed vide order dated 20.05.1993 and thus Mohd. Imran continued as Manager of the Committee of Management. Thus the Committee of Mohd. Imran continued to be in effective control. All the above facts lead to the inevitable conclusion that the last election was held on 13.10.1991 and, therefore, the next election of the Committee could be held before 12.11.1994 that is within three years and one month from the date of the previous election. It is not in dispute that the subsequent election of the respondents was held on 30.10.1994 which admittedly is within the time limit prescribed under the scheme of administration. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner-appellant that the election of the respondents was held after the expiry of the term of the Committee cannot be accepted as the same is contrary to the facts and material available on record.

The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon Division Bench Judgment of this Court in case of Committee of Management vs. Alleged Committee of Management reported in 1998 (1) UPLBEC 379 for the purpose that after expiry of the term of the Committee of Management the outgoing Committee cannot hold the elections and the election can be held only under the supervision of the State Educational Authorities. The said decision is of no help to the petitioner-appellant, in view of the finding recorded above that the election in question was held on 30.10.1994 well within the time period of the term of the Committee of Management from the date of previously held elections which is 13.10.1991.

The next submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that as the petitioner-appellant was in effective control from 1991 and, therefore, the said Committee alone could hold the election under the scheme of administration, also cannot be sustained for the reason that the election of 30.10.1994 was held under the Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools and thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools, the Deputy Director of Education as also the learned Single Judge have not found any fault with regard to the validity of the said election and have granted approval to the same. Since subsequent Committees have been elected and almost ten years have elapsed, it would be an exercise in futility in examining the validity of the elections..

No other point was pressed.

We, therefore, do not find any force in this special appeal. The special appeal is accordingly dismissed, however without any order as to costs.  

Dated: 22.11.2005.

Vk. updh. (119)


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.