Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

BALWANT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY, AGRA THRU' SECRETARY & ANOTHER versus RAJA JITENDRA PAL SINGH & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Balwant Educational Society, Agra Thru' Secretary & Another v. Raja Jitendra Pal Singh & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 842 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 12869 (3 August 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

Chief Justice's Court

Special Appeal No. 842 of 2006

Balwant Educational Society Agra and another

Vs.

Raja Jitendra Pal Singh and others

******

Counsel for the appellants : Mr. Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.)

Mr. Shailendra

Counsel for the respondents : Mr. P.S. Baghel

******

Hon'ble Ajoy Nath Ray,CJ

Hon'ble Ashok Bhushan,J

This appeal from an interim order passed by an Hon'ble Single Judge in aid of the writ filed by the private respondent before us, Raja Jitendra Pal Singh dated the 13th of July, 2006 is taken up and summarily disposed of.

The institution in question, over which, by the interim order, the District Judge, Agra has been appointed as a Manager is the largest in North India and is a degree College with engineering courses.

The drastic order under appeal removes the managing committee from all power and substitutes the District Judge in its place.

The other side, i.e. the appellants were not heard when the order was passed.

His Lordship has recorded that an order dated 11.5.2006 which, read with a subsequent order of 15.6.2006 passed by the Deputy Registrar, Societies granted renewal certificate in favour of the appellants, will remain stayed "unless this interim order is modified or vacated earlier".

The appellants chose to come up directly in appeal before us without approaching the Hon'ble Single Judge. No point was raised before us that that was not a proper course to take; in any event, the appellants felt aggrieved by the drastic order which was passed without them being heard at all, and thus it would not be right to throw out the appeal, in these facts and circumstances of this case, on this single preliminary point.

On queries put to Mr. Baghel who appeared for the writ petitioner-respondent, it appeared that in the whole body of the writ petition, there is no allegation made of any financial irregularities or embezzlement in regard to the presently functioning management. The only allegation which he could point out was in para 33 of the writ petition which merely mentions that the committee of management was functioning and especially the Secretary, was functioning in an arbitrary and illegal manner. The allegations, obviously, are too vague.

It is not mentioned in the writ petition that on the 15th of March, 2005, on a writ petition bearing number 12959 of 2005, the appellants succeeded in having an order cancelled whereby an authorised controller was sought to be appointed by the State over the institution. Although Jitendra Pal Singh was not a party to that writ, he had appeared before the Court and the said order of Court mentions it.

These factors would be sufficient by themselves for setting aside of the impugned order and for relegating the parties to the first Court once again, on further affidavits, to carry on the proceedings in the presence of one another.

However, since the matter was argued before us at some length and the institution is a prestigious one which should not be lightly affected or impeded in its functioning, the basic controversy is set out here, only for the purpose of providing an aid for future persons or parties interested.

The main grievance of the writ petitioner seems to be that he is not in the committee of management although he is admittedly a descendant of Raja Balwant Singh, on whose property, numerous educational institutions came up including the present. The appellants submit that as per the approved rules of management, one member of the Raja's family is in the committee and he is Anirudh Pal Singh.

The writ petitioner complains that in 1998 certain amendments were made to the management rules and these were not to the interest of the institution and were not even brought about in a legal and valid way. One amendment was striking out of rule number 16 (page 68 of the paper book) which related to the manner of amendment of the rules and the necessity of having it approved by the State Government. The second amendment related to the removal of His Excellency the Governor from the position of being visitor (the appellants submit that His Excellency is now the Chancellor by virtue of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973). The third amendment compliant of is that each institution has been permitted to have a new Secretary elected and this has resulted, according to the writ petition, in one particular case, of a person being both Principal and Secretary of the same institution.

The details are not very material for our purpose. These are complaints regarding the personnel who are to be chosen for the purpose of management. If wrong rules have been followed then the elections would be perhaps, vitiated and the writ petitioner would have cause for grievance.

We need merely mention that pursuant to an order of the State Government dated the 30th of December, 1999, which referred the appellants to the Deputy Registrar for obtaining approval of the amendments, two orders were passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 26.9.2000 and 20.10.2000 which did not approve the amendments. A writ petition bearing number 53773 of 2001 was filed as against these orders and an interim order dated 3.5.2001 was passed staying the operation of the disapproval.

This is a clear order of the Court whereby the approvals, in substance are made sub judice and will be ultimately pronounced upon when the said writ would be heard. Nonetheless, orders have been passed by public authorities even thereafter from time to time. About the order of appointment of the authorised controller, we have already mentioned. Furthermore, an order was passed by the State Government on the 3rd of March, 2004 which does not approve of these amendments. On the 10th of July, 2003 a Court order, passed on a writ, set aside an order of 3.12.2001 which had earlier turned down approval of these amendments also. While setting aside the earlier turning down, the Court passed an order of reconsideration, which resulted in the 3.3.04 order.

In regard to these current developments, another writ bearing number 12475 of 2004 is pending, and in the interim order which is impugned before us, the present writ has been connected with the said writ.

It is not disputed before us that the said writ of 2004 had already been connected by order of Court with writ number 53773 of 2001, but there is no separate interim order passed yet in the 2004 writ.

It is eminently just and proper, therefore, that all these three writs should be heard out together and the main controversy pronounced upon in a final and authoritative manner. There seems to be no new current grievance which would support the obtaining by the writ petitioner of a snap interim order from the Court without giving notice to the other side.

Our order and observations, however worded, are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in further and future legal proceedings. These orders passed by us are only interlocutory in nature. The impugned order under appeal is set aside in so far as it seeks to give over management to the District Judge and in so far as  it stays the operation of the Deputy Registrar's order dated 11.5.2006. The rest of the order regarding giving of directions is maintained. As stated earlier, the parties will be at full liberty to go back before the writ Court for obtaining interim orders, if those should be thought to be necessary. The appeal is thus allowed without any order as to costs.

Dated:03.08.2006

RK/    


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.