High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
C/M Kisan Snatkottar Mahavidyalaya And Another v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 55633 of 2006  RD-AH 17344 (9 October 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 55633 of 2006
Committee of Management Kisan Snatkottar Mahavidyalaya, Tamkuhi Road, Shevarahi, District Kushi Nagar & another
State of U.P. & others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.
This writ petition relates to a dispute regarding the Election of the Committee of Management. The petitioner no.2, Vashistha Kumar Rai as well as the respondent no.3, Shambhu Rai both claim to have been elected as Manager of the Committee of Management of Kisan Snatkottar Mahavidyalaya, Tamkuhi Road, Shevarahi, District Kushi Nagar. The matter was placed before the Vice Chancellor for decision under section 2(13) of the U.P. State Universities Act. By an order dated 29.9.2006, the Vice Chancellor recognized the petitioner no.2, Vashistha Kumar Rai as Manager of the Committee of Management. On the same date, the Vice Chancellor subsequently stayed the operation of the first order dated 29.9.2006 and thereafter proceeded to pass a third order on the same date i.e. 29.9.2006, whereby the first order by which the petitioner no.2 was recognized as Manager was recalled and the election of respondent no.3, Shambhu Rai as Manager of the Committee of Management was duly recognized. Aggrieved by the subsequent two orders passed on 29.9.2006 by the Vice Chancellor, this writ petition has been filed.
I have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior counsel assisted by Sri Namit Srivastava for the petitioners; learned Standing counsel appearing for respondent no.1; Sri B.D.Pandey, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2-University; as well as Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Juned Alam on behalf of contesting respondent no.3 and have perused the record. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of without calling for a counter affidavit.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Vice Chancellor had no power to review his first order dated 29.9.2006 whereby the petitioner no.2 had been recognized as the Manager of the Committee of Management. It has thus been contended that the subsequent orders passed by the Vice Chancellor were without jurisdiction and the same having also been passed without notice to the petitioners, would be liable to be set aside. It was lastly contended on behalf of the petitioners that by the impugned order, no valid reasons had been assigned by the Vice Chancellor for recalling his earlier order, and as such also it is liable to be quashed.
On the other hand Sri Khare has submitted that the first order was neither dispatched nor communicated to the parties and as such the same never came into existence. The further contention is that since the first order dated 29.9.2006 was based on misrepresentation of facts, the same has rightly been recalled by the Vice Chancellor. It was lastly submitted by Sri Khare that while passing the initial order also, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the Respondent no.3 and as such the same was rightly recalled after the correct facts were placed before the Vice Chancellor .
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view both the orders dated 29.9.2006 (i.e. first order recognizing the petitioner no.2 as the Manager of the Committee of Management and the third order recalling the first order and recognizing the election of Shambhu Rai as Manager of the Committee of Management) are liable to be set aside.
The third order dated 29.9.2006 appears to be without jurisdiction as the law does not provide for the Vice Chancellor to review or recall his earlier order. Even otherwise, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to the passing of the said order. It is well settled principle of law that in case an order has been passed in favour of a party, the said party would be entitled to be given notice and opportunity of hearing before such order passed in his favour earlier is to be recalled. As such the same would be liable to be quashed and is hereby done so.
As far as the first order passed on 29.9.2006 is concerned, whereby the petitioner no.2 was recognized as Manager of the Committee of Management, the same appears to have been passed without taking the entire set of facts of the case into consideration. Besides several other material facts, the orders passed in the earlier writ petitions no. 49673 of 2006 and 52263 of 2006, which were relevant for the decision of the case before the Vice Chancellor, were not taken into consideration. The said order was also passed without granting opportunity of personal hearing to the parties. Strictly speaking, prior to passing an order under section 2(13) of the U.P.State Universities Act, 1973 it may not be necessary to afford personal hearing to the parties but in cases like the present one, where disputed questions of fact are involved, it would have been appropriate that for proper appreciation of the facts and adjudication of the dispute, the Vice Chancellor ought to have given opportunity of personal hearing to the parties before deciding the matter. Absence of such a provision of granting personal hearing to the parties could not be understood to mean that the party is not to be afforded such opportunity. The discretion always remains with the authority to grant opportunity of personal hearing even when such requirement may not be there in law. The same would be in compliance of the well established principles of natural justice. In the present case, as I have already held, that since disputed questions of fact were involved, the Vice Chancellor ought to have afforded opportunity of personal hearing to the parties lest a situation like the one which occurred subsequently, requiring the Vice Chancellor to recall his earlier order, would arise. Accordingly, the first order passed on 29.9.2006 also deserves to be set aside on the ground of having been passed without proper appreciation of facts and also without affording opportunity of hearing to the parties.
While setting aside the said orders dated 29.9.2006, the matter is referred back to the Vice Chancellor for taking a fresh decision, in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner no.2 Vashistha Kumar Rai as well as respondent no.3 Shambhu Rai and other concerned parties, if there be any, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month from today. Learned counsel for the parties agree that they shall appear before the Vice Chancellor at 10.00 A.M. on 18.10.2006 along with a certified copy of this order and their written submissions, if any, after giving copy of the same to the other party.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The orders dated 29.9.2006 passed by the Vice Chancellor are set aside. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, it is provided that Sri Ram Chandra Thakurai, the President of the society, shall manage the day to day affairs of the institution, till a fresh decision is taken by the Vice Chancellor.
The office is directed to issue certified copy of this order to the learned counsel for the parties within four days on payment of usual charges.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.