Allahabad High Court
Nazimuddin vs State Of U.P. And Another on 9 August, 2010
Author: Dilip Gupta
Bench: Dilip Gupta
1
Reserved on 13.7.2010
Delivered on 09.08.2010
Court No. 39
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 27871 of 2010
Nazimuddin
Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.
~~~~~~~
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
Nazimmuddin claiming himself to be the erstwhile President of the Committee of Management of the Institution and member of the General Body, has filed this petition for setting aside the order 1 st January, 2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools by which the election of the respondent-Committee of Management with Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj as the Manager has been approved. The petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 3rd May, 2010 passed by the Regional Level Committee by which the representation dated 28th January, 2010 filed by the petitioner against the said election has been rejected and the Committee of Management of the Institution with Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj has been approved.
It is stated that Nehru Adarsh Inter College, Alapur, Distrtict Badaun (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institution') is an Institution recognised under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is run by a Society known as Nehru Adarsh Vidyalay Alapur, District Badaun. The Institution has its own Scheme of Administration. In the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 19th December, 2004, Fahimuddin was elected as the Manager, respondent No.5 Rajesh Kumar was elected as the President and the petitioner was elected as the Treasurer. This election was approved by the District Inspector of Schools by the order dated 1st January, 2005 on the basis of the recommendation made by the Regional Level Committee. It is also stated that since respondent No.5- Rajesh Kumar was acting against the interest of the Society/Institution he 2 was removed from the post of President of the Committee of Management by the resolution dated 27th April, 2006 and this decision was also intimated to the District Inspector of Schools and the Joint Director of Education. However, by the order dated 31st July, 2006, the Joint Director of Education appointed a Prabandh Sanchalak in the Institution. This order was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.43168 of 2006 which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 19th August, 2006 and the order dated 31st July,2006 was set aside. Subsequently, the signatures of Fahimuddin as Manager were attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 14th September, 2006.
It is further stated that by the resolution dated 21st September, 2006 respondent No.5 Rajesh Kumar was also removed as member of the General Body of the Society as well as member of the Committee of Management of the Institution and this decision was communicated to the District Inspector of Schools and the Joint Director of Education. The petitioner who was elected as the Treasurer claims to have been subsequently elected as the President of the Committee of Management and information of this fact was given to the District Inspector of Schools and the Joint Director of Education on 15th November, 2006. The District Inspector of Schools by the order dated 10th January, 2008 set aside the resolution dated 27th April, 2006 by which respondent no.5-Rajesh Kumar was removed as the President and also the resolution dated 21st September, 2006 by which respondent No.5 was removed as member of the General Body and also of the Committee of Management of the Institution and the petitioner was elected as the President of the Committee of Management of the Institution for the remaining period. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed a representation before the Joint Director of Education who by the order dated 18th January, 2008 set aside the order dated 10th January, 2008 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Thereafter, amendment was made in Clause 4(3) of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution by the Committee of Management of the Institution on 18th September, 2008 and the Joint Director of Education approved the said amendment made in the Scheme of Administration.
3It is also stated that earlier the process for enrolling new members in the General Body was initiated and the petitioner in his capacity as the President enrolled 25 life members and 26 ordinary members. This list was submitted by the petitioner before the District Inspector of Schools as well as the Joint Director of Education on 7th December, 2007. The term of the Committee of Management was going to expire on 19th December, 2009 and, therefore, the meeting of the Committee of Management was held on 16th September, 2009 in which the Manager was authorised to hold the elections. The election programme was published and by the letter dated 26 th October, 2009, the petitioner requested to the District Inspector of Schools to provide the Presiding Officer. The District Inspector of Schools provided the Presiding Officer for the elections to be held on 20th December, 2009 but subsequently passed an order on 19th December, 2009 for postponing the election to be held on 20th December, 2009 till the registered list of members was received from the office of the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Bareilly (hereinafter referred to as the 'Assistant Registrar'). The Assistant Registrar also passed an order on 19th December, 2009 approving the list of life members from serial nos. 1 to 79 and ordinary members from serial nos. 80 to 100 submitted by the President for the year 2008-09 and 2009-10. The District Inspector of Schools then sent a letter dated 29th December, 2009 to the Principal of the College mentioning that for the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution to be held on 30th/31st December, 2009 he has appointed the Election Officer and a list of members of the General Body submitted by the Assistant Registrar was also enclosed.
The order dated 19th December, 2009 of the Assistant Registrar approving the list of members of the General body of the Society was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No.71884 of 2009. It was, however, pointed out by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the elections had been held on 30th/31st December, 2009 and had also been approved by the District Inspector of Schools that 1st January, 2010. The 4 petition was, therefore, disposed of by the judgment and order dated 19th January, 2010 with the following directions :-
"In such circumstances, the petition is disposed of with a direction that for the redressal of the grievances raised in the present petition, the petitioner may approach the Joint Director of Education who shall pass an appropriate order on the basis of the recommendation made by the Regional Committee. The Regional Committee shall also decide the dispute about the list of members of the General Body independently without being influenced by any of the observations made by the Assistant Registrar in the order dated 19th December, 2009. Such exercise should be completed within a period of two months from the date the petitioner files an application before the Joint Director of Education alongwith a certified copy of this order.
It is made clear that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case which shall be examined by the Regional Committee in accordance with law."
The petitioner submitted a representation dated 28th January, 2010 before the Regional Level Committee. The Regional Level Committee has rejected the representation by the decision taken on 3rd May, 2010 and has approved the election held on 30th/31st December, 2009 from amongst the list of members submitted by the Assistant Registrar on 19th December, 2009 with Ashwani Kumar Bhardwaj as the Manager.
The petitioner has, accordingly, sought the quashing of the order dated 1st January, 2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools approving the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 30 th/31st December, 2009, the order dated 19th December, 2009 passed by the Assistant Registrar and the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 3rd May, 2010.
The Regional Level Committee in its decision taken on 3rd May, 2010 has made the following observations :-
1). In the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 18th /19th December, 2004, Rajesh Kumar was elected as the President and Fahimuddin was elected as the Manager.
On the basis of the recommendation made by the Regional Level 5 Committee on 30th December, 2004, the District Inspector of Schools approved the said election by the order dated 1st January, 2005.
2). A dispute between the Manager and the President arose and it is claimed by the Manager that the President was removed in the meeting held on 27th April, 2006 and he was also removed as a member of the Committee of Management and of the General Body on 21st September, 2006 in accordance with the provisions of Clause 25 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution.
3). Under the Scheme of Administration, it is provided that 3/4th members of the General Body can remove any member/office bearer for a fixed period after giving opportunity but opportunity was not provided to the President and without the approval of the General Body, the membership of the President in the Committee of Management of the Institution could not have been terminated.
4). The claim of Nazimuddin that the High Court by the judgment and order dated 19th August, 2006 also decided the controversy relating to the President is not correct since the issue involved in the petition was with regard to the order dated 31st July, 2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools by which the Prabandh Sanchalak was appointed in the Institution.
5). The claim of Nazimuddin regarding fresh enrollment of ordinary members and life members is not valid.
6). Nazimuddin was elected as a Treasurer and, therefore, proceedings taken by him as the President are not valid.
7). The Assistant Registrar by his letter dated 19th December, 2009 had recorded a categorical finding that the list of members of the General Body submitted by the President is correct and that by the Manager is not correct. From the records produced by the President it is clear that the list of members of the General Body submitted by him is correct.
8). The elections were validly held on 30th/31st December, 2009 in which Ashwani Bhardwaj was elected as the Manager.
69). The representation submitted by the petitioner on 28th January, 2010 has, therefore, to be rejected and the elections held on 30th/31st December, 2009 in which Ashwani Bhardwaj was elected as the Manager are valid.
Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the elections were held on 30th /31st December, 2009 on the basis of the list dated 19th December, 2009 submitted by the Assistant Registrar but the said list was prepared without giving any opportunity to the petitioner. It could not, therefore, have been relied upon and the approval to the election granted by the Regional Level Committee on the basis of the said list is bad. It is also his submission that since the order dated 10th January, 2008 passed by the District Inspector of Schools was set aside by the Joint Director of Education on 18th January, 2008 and the said order has attained the finality, the petitioner continued to be the President of the Committee of Management of the Institution and finding to the contrary is bad. It is also his submission that the election could not have been held on 30th /31st December, 2009 and in any case the Regional Level Committee instead of deciding the validity of the list of members has merely relied upon the order passed by the Assistant Registrar on 19th December, 2009.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Committee of Management submitted that the findings recorded by the Regional Level Committee in the impugned decision do not call for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is his submission that the Committee of Management elected on 30th/31st December, 2009 with Ashwani Bhardwaj as the Manager has not been impleaded as a respondent in the present petition and only Rajesh Kumar-respondent No.5 has been impleaded as President in his personal capacity. It is his submission that in the absence of the Committee of Management through the Manager, the present petition is liable to be dismissed since the President does not represent the Committee of Management of the Institution under the Scheme of Administration. It is also his submission that that a petition filed by a 7 single member of the General Body is not maintainable in view of the judgments of this Court in Dr. P.P. Rastogi & Ors. Vs. Meerut University & Ors., (1997) 1 UPLBEC 415 and Bhagwan Kaushik Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2006) 2 UPLBEC 1372. It is also his submission that the finding recorded by the Regional Level Committee that the President had wrongly been removed is a finding of fact based on evidence available on the record and does not suffer from any perversity. The District Inspector of Schools had rightly held by the order dated 10th January, 2008 that the removal of the President was bad in law and the order dated 18 th January, 2010 passed by the Joint Director of Education does not nullify the said order and in any case the Regional Level Committee had examined the position on merits. It is also his submission that the reasons mentioned by the Joint Director of Education that the judgment and order dated 19th August, 2006 passed by the Court in Writ Petition No.43168 of 2006 decided the controversy regarding expulsion of the President is not correct since by the said order the Court only set aside the order dated 31st July, 2006 passed by the Joint Director of Education appointing an Authorised Controller in the Institution. It is also his submission that the Regional Level Committee had rightly recorded a finding that under the Scheme of Administration of the Institution the election has to be held from the General Body of the Society and there is no separate General Body of the Institution.
I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
The first objection raised by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent is about the maintainability of the petition at the behest of one member of the General Body.
It is the contention of the respondent that the petition filed by a single member of the General Body for assailing the order passed by the Regional Level Committee and the District Inspector of Schools approving the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution should not be entertained. In Bhagwan Kaushik (supra) a learned Judge of this Court examined this position and while dealing with this issue observed :-
8"In pursuance of the Government Order dated 19.12.2000, the District Inspector of Schools had forwarded the papers with regard to the election of the Committee of Management held on 19.10.2003 to the Regional Committee headed by the Regional Joint Director of Education, Respondent no.2. By order dated 19.4.2004 the Regional Committee recognized the election and consequently the District Inspector of Schools attested the signature of the Respondent no.5. It is not the case that there was any dispute between two rival committees with regard to the said elections. The petitioner is merely an individual member of the general body of the society who has challenged the orders recognizing the elections and attestation of signature of Respondent no.5 as Manager.
A learned Single judge of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Janta Inter College vs. Joint Director of Education 1999(1) UPLBEC 170 has, while considering a case under section 16-A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, observed that "In case such dispute is stretched or extended to the right of each individual member, in that event, if any member raised such dispute then the whole administration is expected to collapse since the Joint Director would remain busy and pre-occupied with deciding such disputes which may be raised by any individual."
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. P.P. Rastogi vs. Meerut University, Meerut (1997) 1 UPLBEC 415 has, in a case filed by an individual member of the Committee of Management, held that "an individual member of the Committee of Management has no locus standi in such cases and it is only the Committee of Management alone which can appear as a party in the case. To permit individual members of the Committee of Management to appear before us would create a lot of problems because any individual member or several members may file applications at any time through his/their own separate counsel, resulting in confusion......."
In the present case, the petitioner is also an individual member of the general body of the society and has challenged the decision of the District Inspector of Schools whereby the signature of Respondent no.5 has been attested, after the approval has been granted by the Regional Committee. In such facts, this writ petition would not be maintainable on the ground that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to file this writ petition. In my view, if each 9 individual member of the general body is allowed to file writ petitions, without the law recognizing their right to raise such dispute, the same would open a flood gate of litigation, adding further confusion to the already existing situation where very often separate petitions are filed by different parties relating to the same election of the Committee of Management.
The decision of the Division Bench in the case of Yogendra Nath Singh vs. State of U.P. 1997(2) E.S.C.851 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In the said case, this Court has held that a teacher of the institution would have locus standi to question the order declaring the institution as minority institution, which is not so here. In the case in hand the approval to the election of the Committee of Management is involved, in which individual members of the society cannot be permitted to raise disputes and file writ petitions.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. However, this order shall not debar the petitioner from availing such other remedy which may be available to him in law."
(emphasis supplied) The objection raised by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, therefore, deserves to be accepted. The petitioner may have been the erstwhile Treasurer, but he has not been elected in the subsequent election and he can challenge the election held on 30th /31st December, 2009 at best as member of the General Body. In view of the aforesaid decision of this Court, the petition at his behest should not be entertained.
This apart, the Regional Level Committee, on a perusal of the evidence on record, has arrived at a conclusion that the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 30th/31st December, 2009 does not suffer from any illegality and is required to be approved. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has not been able to substantiate that the finding so recorded is perverse and in any case such disputed questions of fact cannot be decided in a writ petition as has been observed by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh Hit Vs. Delhi Sikh Gurdwara Management Committee & Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 487. Reliance 10 placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the order dated 18 th January, 2008 passed by the Joint Director of Education is not correct. The Regional Level Committee has found that the High Court in its judgment dated 19th August, 2006 in Writ Petition No.43168 of 2006 did not determine any issue with regard to the expulsion of the President and the only issue that was determined by the High Court was regarding the appointment of the Authorised Controller and so the Joint Director of Education was not justified in placing reliance upon the said order of the High Court in recording a finding in the order dated 18th January, 2008 that the High Court had determined the controversy regarding the expulsion of the President. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court does show that this finding of the Regional Level Committee is correct.
Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the Court declines to entertain this petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
Date:09.08.2010 SK/GS