Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

C/M PARMESHWAR PRASAD UCHCHATAR MADHYAMIK versus AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


C/M Parmeshwar Prasad Uchchatar Madhyamik V. And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 33869 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 17206 (5 October 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

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Parmeshwar Prasad Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya is a recognized High School and receives grant-in-aid from the State Government.

The petitioners claim that their Committee of Management was duly elected on 9.3.2004 but the respondent nos. 6 to 8 have set up a case of Farzi election allegedly held on 12.3.2006, which has been illegally recognized by Regional Joint director of Education vide order dated 20.5.2006.

In view of law laid down in Basant Prasad Srivastava and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1333 that where in the educational institution the election/finalization of election process of Committee of Management is challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution, the writ petition under Article 226 would not be maintainable and the only remedy in such cases is by filing election petition or filing civil suit. Same view has been reiterated in Special Appeal No. 1078 of 2005- Lal Munna Singh and another Versus State, of U.P. and others and Special Appeal No. 1394 of 2004- Committee of Management Vs. Regional Joint Director of Education and another.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himmat Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others- 2006 (109) FLR 223,  has held that only question of law can be raised and not statement of fact and it was further held that "whether statements of the appellants or the respondents were correct or not could not ordinarily be decided in a writ jurisdiction. It is well known that in writ petition ordinarily such a disputed question of fact could not be entertained.

          For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.

The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy.   No order as to costs.

Dt. 5.10.2006

Kkb


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.