Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MANAGING COMMITTEE OF GANDHI VIDYAPEETH AND OTHERS versus JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Managing Committee Of Gandhi Vidyapeeth And Others v. Joint Director Of Education And Others - WRIT - C No. 2531 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 12287 (26 July 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

                                                                               Court No.38

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2531 of 2004

Managing Committee of Gandi Vidyapeeth Intermediate College through its Prabandhak Shri Ganshyam Dixit and others

                                 

                                               Versus

Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur & others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard Sri Prabodh Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Standing counsel for Respondents no.1 and 3 and Sri H.C.Kharbanda for contesting Respondent no.2. Pleadings between the contesting parties have been exchanged and with consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

The dispute in this writ petition is with regard to the election of the Committee of Management of Gandhi Vidyapeeth Intermediate College, District Kanpur Dehat. The petitioners claim that after the term of the Committee of Management had expired, the elections had taken place on 29.12.2002 in which Petitioner no.3 was elected as Manager and Sri Shiv Baran Singh as President. On the contrary, the Respondent no.2 claims that elections were held by him as Manager of the Committee of Management on the same date i.e. 29.12.2002 in which he (Respondent no.2) was elected as Manager and Sri Mahesh Shukla as President. The matter was referred to the Joint Director of Education, Respondent no.1, who vide his order dated 7/8.1.2004 has rejected the claim of the petitioners and accepted that of the Respondent no.2. Aggrieved by the said order this writ petition has been filed.

A perusal of the impugned order dated 7/8.1.2004 would show that except for noting the contentions of the parties the authority has not discussed the contentions in his order nor has he given any reasons for arriving at his findings and has only abruptly recorded his findings that the meeting under the Managership of Shri Prakash Misra (Respondent no.2) was held on 24.11.2002 in which 60 new members had been inducted. There is no discussion whatsoever about any record. The authority has not even considered the fact that after the death of the erstwhile Manager Sri Krishna Avtar Tiwari on 3.9.2002, the signatures of the petitioner no.3 had been attested as Manager by the District Inspector of Schools on 4.10.2002 for the remaining period. If that was so, then how could the Respondent no.2 have called the alleged meeting on 29.12.2002 as Manager. Further from the annexures, which have been filed along with this writ petition, it is clear that at certain places the Respondent no.2 has signed as Secretary/Manager and in an advertisement which was issued after the alleged election by Respondent no.2, one Mahesh Shukla, who is said to have been elected as President according to the Respondent no.2, has been shown as Secretary (Mantri), whereas in the scheme if administration there is no post of Mantri/Secretary. The further contention of the petitioners is that as per the bye-laws, a person who has been a paid employee could not have been a member of the society and the Respondent no.2, who was the Principal of the institution till 1980 and thereafter transferred, would be categorized as a person who has been a paid employee and thus the respondent-authority ought to have taken this aspect also into consideration before deciding the case. According to the Respondent no.2, he became a member of the society in the year 1988 on which date, as alleged by the petitioners, although there is no finding of the educational authority in this regard, the Respondent no.2 was still in service and as such in any case the Respondent no.2 could not have become a member of the society in the year 1988.

In such view of the matter, since the order dated 7/8.1.2004 has been passed by Respondent no.1 without assigning any reasons, the same is liable to be set aside and is, accordingly, quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Respondent no.1 for taking a fresh decision in the matter, in accordance with law, after hearing and parties and considering their rival contentions.

The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated as above. No order as to cost.

Dt/- July 26, 2006

dps

               


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.