Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


C/M Janta Higher Secondary School Thru' Manager v. State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. & Others - WRIT - C No. 65400 of 2005 [2006] RD-AH 17817 (17 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).


                                                                               Court No.33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.  65400 of 2005

Committee of Management Janta Higher Secondary School, Jalalpur Behat through its Manager Madan Singh


State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J

Heard Sri N.L.Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel appearing for the State-respondents and Sri Vinod Sinha and S.P.Singh for Respondent no.6. Pleadings between the parties have been exchanged and with their consent, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 25.9.2005 passed by the Regional Level Committee,  whereby the earlier order dated 28.9.2002 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (and not by the Regional Level Committee as mentioned in the said order) has been recalled. The Regional Level Committee has come to the conclusion that there were 834 members of the society, whereas the election held on 18.8.2002 was on the basis of the membership list of 115 members only. The membership list of 115 members is said to have been finalized on the basis of a letter of the Joint Director of Education dated 25.6.2002. In the impugned order itself it has been categorically stated that the alleged letter dated 25.6.2002 is a forged and fabricated letter, which does not exist in the records of the respondent-authorities. Even the petitioner has not filed a copy of the said letter dated 25.6.2002 with the writ petition. The petitioner has also not placed any order on record by which the election held on 18.8.2002 was approved by the Regional Level Committee as is required by the Government Order dated 19.12.2000.

In  paragraph 2(g) and 2(i) of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondents no. 3, 4 and 5 it has been categorically stated that the District Inspector of Schools had approved the elections by his order dated 28.9.2002 without referring the matter to the Regional Level Committee. The dated 28.9.2002 also does not indicate that the matter was ever placed before the Regional Level Committee as required under the Government order. In paragraph 2(p) of the said counter affidavit it has been stated that "the records of office of Joint Director of Education and office of District Inspector of Schools it is quite apparent that then Associate District Inspector of Schools who was appointed as election officer had unduly favoured (because the petitioner has been made forged and manipulated documents) the petitioner in holding the election and get a approved from D.I.O.S. without referring to the Regional Committee".

In view of the fact that the elections dated 18.8.2002 were held on the basis of list of members finalized through a forged and fabricated letter, the withdrawal of the earlier approval dated 28.9.2002 is fully justified. A categorical finding of fact with regard to the forgery and fraud has been recorded by the Regional Level Committee by the impugned order, which the petitioner is disputing. The said question cannot be decided without the parties being given opportunity of adducing evidence, which cannot be done in writ jurisdiction. In case if the petitioner is so aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to approach civil court for redressal of his grievance, where issues can be framed and decided on the basis of evidence.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. The Regional Level Committee may, however, have fresh elections held on the basis of approved list of members of the society as expeditiously as possible. However, in case if a civil suit is filed challenging the order impugned in this writ petition, the observations made hereinabove shall not be treated as binding on the civil court, as the same have been made on the basis of the documents placed before this Court and not on the basis of the evidence of the parties which may be adduced before the civil court.

No order as to cost.

Dt/- 17.10.2006




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


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 |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.