Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M. BIJNOR INTER COLLEGE BIJNOR THRU' ITS MANAGER & ANR. versus JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M. Bijnor Inter College Bijnor Thru' Its Manager & Anr. v. Joint Director Of Education And Others - WRIT - C No. 72851 of 2005 [2005] RD-AH 6544 (29 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

                                                                                       Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 72851 of 2005

Committee of Management  & another

Versus

Director of Education (Madhyamik)

U.P. Allahabad & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

I have heard Sri V.M.Zaidi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 to 5. A caveat application has been filed on behalf of Parvez Aftab who is represented by Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla, Advocate, who has also been heard.

By means of this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the petitioners to continue and manage the affairs of the Bijnor Inter College, Bijnor till the office bearers of the newly elected Committee of Management join their office in place of the petitioners.

Brief facts relevant for the decision of this case are that the election of the Committee of Management, of which petitioner no. 2 Javed Aftab Siddique was elected as Manager, was held in September, 1998. Admittedly, the term of the Committee of Management was of 5 years, which could be extended by six months. The elections of the new Committee of Management were to be conducted by the outgoing Committee. According to the petitioners the fresh election was held on 18.3.2004 in which the petitioner no. 2 Javed Aftab Siddique was again elected as Manager. However, the District Inspector of Schools as well as the Joint Director of Education disapproved the said elections. Some writ petitions were filed against the said orders and on directions issued by this Court, the matter was again decided by the District Inspector of Schools and the Joint Director of Education against the petitioners, and the fact remains that till date the newly elected Committee of Management has not been recognized. The State-respondents thereafter appointed an Authorized Controller to manage the affairs of the college. Such order was challenged by the petitioners herein but in a separate writ petition. Sri Zaidi, however, submits that the said petition was filed by the petitioners in their capacity as the newly elected Committee of Management and not the outgoing Committee of Management, in which capacity the present petition has been filed by the petitioners. It is interesting to note that although the petitioners in both the writ petitions are the same but a fine distinction is sought to be carved out by Sri Zaidi that both the matters have to be dealt with separately and differently, as the petitioners, although the same, have approached this Court in different capacities. However, the fact remains that common purpose of both the writ petitions is to permit the petitioners, either in the capacity of newly elected Committee of Management or outgoing Committee of Management, to remain in power, for which two separate writ petitions have been filed.

On merits, the submission of the petitioners is that as per the Scheme of Administration, till new office bearers are elected, the erstwhile Committee of Management would continue in office. In the alternative, it has been submitted that the State Government cannot interfere in the management of the minority institution as has been held by the Apex Court in the case of P.A.Inamdar Vs. State of Maharashtra JT 2005 (7) SC 313 and by a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of St. Francis De Sales Education Society Vs. State of Maharashtra 2002 Vol. II Education and Service Cases 485.

The aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court and the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court, as have been relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners, are not relevant for the purpose of this writ petition. The same may be relevant only for deciding a matter relating to appointment of Authorized Controller, in which case it could be said that the State Government is interfering with the petitioner institution (which is a minority institution) but not in the present case, where the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus to permit them to continue in office on the basis of the election held in 1998.

Clause (4) of the Scheme of Administration, the extract of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition, provides that the term of the office bearers of the Committee of Management would be 5 years from the date of assuming charge and the office bearers shall continue till the next elections take place. In the second paragraph of Clause (5) of the Scheme of Administration it has been provided that if on expiry of five years term of the Committee of Management, no election is held within six months, then the term of the Committee of Management would come to an end on the expiry of such extended period of six months, and thereafter, the President of the Committee of Management will manage the affairs of the college. The combined reading of Clauses (4) and (5) of the Scheme of Administration (as filed by the petitioners) would show that the intention is to permit the office bearers of the outgoing Committee of Management to continue in office only upto a period of six months after the expiry of the term of five years of the Committee of Management, but still if no elections are held within the extended period, the term of the Committee of Management would automatically come to an end and the President of the Committee of Management alone would thereafter be entitled to manage the affairs of the college. In such view of the matter the prayer made in this writ petition by the Committee of Management, through its Manager, for permitting the petitioners to continue in office till new election is held cannot be granted. Thus, even on merits the petitioners have no case for grant of a writ of mandamus.

Even otherwise, it is not understood that when the same petitioners have already filed a petition challenging the order of appointment of Authorized Controller, then why the said prayer made in this writ petition, could not have been made in the earlier writ petition. The explanation for this, as has been given by Sri Zaidi, is that although the petitioners may be the same but the earlier writ petition challenging the order of appointment of Authorized Controller had been filed by the newly elected Committee of Management; whereas this writ petition, by the same petitioners, is being filed in the capacity of the erstwhile Committee of Management. The same is not worthy of acceptance. This is only to confuse the issue and would amount to bringing repeated petitions before this Court by the same petitioners for the same cause of action, but by making a fresh prayer which could have been made in the earlier writ petition also. As observed above, the purpose of the petitioners in both the writ petitions  is to secure an order to continue in power to manage the affairs of the College, and thus the second writ petition for the same cause would not be maintainable.  

It is also noteworthy that in this writ petition, no mention of the earlier writ petition filed by the same petitioners challenging the order of appointment of Authorized Controller has been made. It was only during the course of argument and on being pointed out by Sri Shukla, learned counsel for the caveator, that the learned counsel for the petitioners accepted that such writ petition had been filed in the previous week but was unable to give the number of the writ petition, although he has not denied that such writ petition has been filed by the same petitioners and affidavits in both the writ petitions have been sworn by the same person. In such view of the matter also, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of the petitioners not having brought this material information on record.

For the foregoing reasons, besides being not maintainable on the ground of the petitioners filing successive petitions for the same cause of action and for not disclosing material information, this writ petition is also devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.  

Dt/-29.11.2005

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.