Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

VINOD KUMAR & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Vinod Kumar & Another v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 967 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 10033 (22 May 2006)

 

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

CJ's Court

Special Appeal No.967 of 2004

Vinod Kumar and another

Vs.

State of U.P. and others

Connected with:

Special Appeal No.454 of 2006

Committee of Management, Shri Varshney College, Aligarh

Vs.

Girish Kumar Varshney and others

and

Special Appeal No.455 of 2006

Committee of Management, Shri Varshney College, Aligarh

Vs.

Rajendra Kumar Varshney and others

and

Special Appeal No.456 of 2006

Committee of Management, Shri Varshney College, Aligarh

Vs.

Dr. (Smt.) Nisha Varshney and others

and

Special Appeal No.457 of 2006

Committee of Management, Shri Varshney College, Aligarh

Vs.

Ashok Kumar Varshney and others

and

Special Appeal No.458 of 2006

Committee of Management, Shri Varshney College, Aligarh

Vs.

Dr. (Smt.) Nisha Varshney and others

Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray, CJ.

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan, J.

These appeals before us are disposed of by this common order. One of those appeals is from an earlier judgment of an Hon'ble Single Judge dated the 27th of July, 2004 and five of those appeals are from an order of an Hon'ble Single Judge dated the 27th of April, 2006.

The disputes are with regard to the Committee of Management of one Shri Varshney College, Aligarh, which is affiliated to the Agra University.

Pursuant to the orders of Court passed even earlier than those referred to above, the Deputy Registrar of Societies and Chits held elections and declared the present Committee of Management, which is appellant before us, as being validly elected. The elections were held pursuant to such earlier order on the 25th of June, 2004.

On a writ petition, which resulted in the earlier of the two orders mentioned above, the Court directed that the State Government should decide the objections and should consider the matter within two months from the date a certified copy of the said order dated 27.7.2004 is served.

It so happened that before the service of the order could take place, the State Government passed an order dated the 18th of August, 2004, wherein it was satisfied with the results of the elections and the manner of its conducting and it passed an order removing the authorised controller, who had been functioning till then, and also directed the handing over of charge to the newly elected Committee.

The said order of the State Government dated the 18th of August, 2004 was challenged in several writ petitions and five of those writ petitioners were successful in the Court below in obtaining the impugned order dated the 27th of April, 2006.

The Hon'ble Single Judge who passed the later order held that the decision of the State Government did not inspire any confidence at all; his Lordship directed the reconsideration of the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing. His Lordship went so far as to direct on 27.4.2006 that the status quo prevailing before the State Government's order dated the 18th of August, 2004 should be restored.

The result of this order has been that the authorised controller has again taken over charge just a few days ago, as we are informed, and had dispossessed the elected Committee of Management, which had been functioning for nearly past two years.

The aggrieved appellant-Committee submits that the election process took about one year to be completed and that nearly 1400 voters out of a possible maximum of about 2200 actually voted. Four of the writ petitioners offered themselves for election in posts, Secretary, Joint Secretary, Member etc. and that they lost by such margins as 484/683, 446/505, 376/454 and 73/195.

According to them, voluminous papers were sent to the State Government for substantiating the validity of the election; as already mentioned, that was held under the auspices of the Deputy Registrar, who is an official, and this fact was emphasised by the appellant.  According to them, the advertisements have been issued in a widely circulating Newspaper called Amar Ujala.  

Apart from this, it was their submission that certain earlier writ petitions in respect of the very same election dated 25.6.2004, had proved to be unsuccessful.

The dismissal order in those writ petitions was passed by this Court on the 6th of July, 2004 and affirmed in appeal on the 20th of the same month. No doubt the Court there gave permission to the aggrieved persons to ventilate their grievances before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, but in this case, according to the appellant, the writ Court has gone much further and has actually dispossessed the continuing managing Committee.

We have heard the respondents in support of their objections; we do not find any objections, which are not covered by Section 25 of the said Act, and which cannot be considered by the Prescribed Authority. The State Government in the instant case is not, strictly speaking, an authority to determine the validity of elections, but it is only permitted statutorily under Section 58 (1) second proviso of the State Universities Act, 1973 to remove the authorised controller once it is satisfied that a lawfully constituted Committee  has come into being.

Notwithstanding such satisfaction of the State Government, the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority still remains and aggrieved parties can approach such Prescribed Authority with adequate materials. We have heard objections of a very general nature before us, like notice not being given, voters not being allowed to participate and allegedly one person intending to contest not being allowed to do so. On the basis of such general allegations and doubtful submissions, like elections being held by the Deputy Registrar inspire the least confidence, we are not prepared to start another process of inquiry for the purpose of fishing out evidence and picking holes in the election process.

As such, with the greatest of respect, the appeals are all allowed.  The earlier order dated of July, 2004 is set aside, as the State Government has, in fact, considered the matter on its own; and the later order passed in April, 2006 is set aside because the consideration of the State Government does not appear to have been vitiated on account of lack of materials or any clear non-existence of a valid election process.

The appeals are thus, allowed and the writ petitions in question are all dismissed. The Committee of Management shall be put back in charge forthwith.

The prayer, that we continue the authorised controller until the respondents approach the Prescribed Authority, is turned down unhesitatingly; they have had the liberty years ago and never exercised it.  

Dt/-22.5.2006

RKK/-  


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.