Committee Of Management vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 30 December, 2025

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Committee Of Management vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 30 December, 2025

The challenge in this petition is made to orders dated 15.03.2024, 28.06.2024 and 29.06.2024, passed by the respondent no.3/ the Regional Additional Director, Higher Secondary Education, Garhwal Region, District Pauri Garhwal ("the Additional Director"). By its order dated 15.03.2024, the Additional Director has observed that the petitioner/Committee of Management ("COM") has not been constituted in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, when 89 members were wrongly inducted. Again, by its order dated 28.06.2024, the Additional Director has reiterated the earlier order dated 15.03.2024. By a subsequent order dated 29.06.2024, Authorised Controller was appointed for running the Rashtriya Inter College, Rohalki, Bahadarabad, District Haridwar ("the college"), under Regulation 8 of the Regulations 2009 framed under the School Education Act, 2006 ("the Regulations 2009"). 2

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. The COM runs the college as per the scheme of administration. The term of the earlier COM was to expire in the month of October, 2022, therefore, on 01.07.2022, a meeting of COM was called on 08.07.2022. In the meeting held on 08.07.2022, the General Body inducted new members, and forwarded the list for approval of the respondent no.4/Chief Education Officer, Haridwar ("CEO"). Meanwhile, the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, made various complaints to the CEO. Since the term of the COM had expired, Authorised Controller was appointed in the month of October, 2022, who started managing the affairs of the college. The Authorised Controller conducted an enquiry in respect of the induction of new members, and on 03.02.2023, submitted a report that the new members were validly inducted. The CEO, thereafter, on 07.02.2023, accordingly informed the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, that the complaints are closed and it was found that the members were validly inducted. Thereafter, the chronology of events is as follows:-

(i) On 10.02.2023, the CEO granted approval to the list of members of the General Body of the COM.

(ii) The election for constitution of COM of the college was held on 10.04.2023.

             (iii)    On 15.04.2023, the new COM took over the

                      charge. It was approved by the CEO.



4.            After   approval   of   the   new   COM,   once   again    the

respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, filed another complaint to the Additional Director, who called comments of the COM. On 06.03.2024, 3 the COM replied to every point. The Additional Director had also called the comments of the CEO, who, on 07.03.2024, submitted its comments and maintained that the 89 members were validly inducted.

But, by the impugned order dated 15.03.2024, the Additional Director held that the Scheme of Administration was not followed in the constitution of new COM; the members were not validly inducted. The petitioner again represented against it, but by the impugned order dated 28.06.2024, the Additional Director reiterated its order dated 15.03.2024, and by the order dated 29.06.2024, appointed Authorised Controller for the college.

5. Counter affidavits have been filed by the respondents. According to the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, on 08.07.2022, the meeting was postponed, but, thereafter, the Manager still inducted new members, illegally.

6. The Additional Director, in its counter affidavit, has stated that the impugned orders have been passed in discharge of official duties, in accordance with the provisions of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006 ("the Act"), specially under Section 29(c) of the Act; 89 members were inducted by violating the Scheme of Administration of the college. According to the Additional Director, the new members could have been inducted six months prior to the expiry of the term of the COM after approval of the CEO, but it was not done in the instant case. The information was not widely circulated for inducting the new members. Therefore, an enquiry was conducted and the following irregularities were found:-

i. That the Scheme of Administration for the school was not followed in constituting the new Management Committee.

ii. When the complaint was received regarding the illegal induction of new members in the General Body of the Committee of Management, the enquiry report was submitted by the investigating officer who happens to be the Managing Director and is the same person, hence the above process is also against the settled norms of administrative law and is inadmissible.

iii. In place of approved daily Newspapers with wide circulation for publication of advertisements for becoming members of the General Body of the Committee of Management, other less widely circulated Newspapers that were beyond the reach of the general public have been chosen for publication.

iv. Since the approval process for the induction of 89 new members of the General Body of the Committee of Management at that time and granting of membership, as stated above, was not proper and further the process of getting all members of the Management Committee elected unopposed is also doubtful.

7. The petitioner has also stated that earlier, multiple litigations were filed by the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, with regard to election of new members, and after being unsuccessful, 5 he made complaint to the Additional Director. Reference has been made to the following:-

a) Writ Petition (M/S) No.2403 of 2022, Anuj Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, ("the first writ petition"), whereby induction of new members was put to challenge. The first writ petition was dismissed on 12.12.2022, on the ground that a civil suit has been filed by the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, in the Civil Court.

b) Special Appeal No.50 of 2023, Anuj Singh Chauhan Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, ("the Special Appeal") against the judgment dated 12.12.2022 passed in the first writ petition, which was decided by this Court on 03.03.2023, wherein the Division Bench of this Court held that "the dispute with regard to membership and constitution of Management Committee squarely falls for consideration by the Civil Court."

c) Original Suit No. 53 of 2023, Anuj Singh Chauhan Vs. Rashtriya Inter College and Others, ("the Civil Suit") with the prayer that it may be declared that the newly elected members were illegally inducted. The Suit was withdrawn on 14.05.2024, after the impugned orders were passed.

d) Writ Petition (M/S) No.1198 of 2023, Shri Yogesh Kumar Vs. Rashtriya Inter College and Others ("the second writ petition"), wherein the election 6 held for the petitioner was challenged, and it was subsequently withdrawn on 23.10.2024, as stated by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, and it has not been rebutted.

8. With regard to these averments, the Additional Director stated that they were not party to those litigations and the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, has not denied about the above litigations.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after induction of 89 members by the COM in its meeting held on 08.07.2022, complaints were given by the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, which were enquired into, and, thereafter, on 07.02.2023, the CEO had held that the complaints have no basis and the members were duly inducted, and the list was also approved on 10.02.2023 by the CEO. Reference has been made to Annexure Nos. 7 and 8 to the writ petition. It is argued that, thereafter, the COM had already been constituted, which has taken over charge and was approved by the CEO on 15.04.2023. Reference has been made to Annexure No.9 to the writ petition. It is argued that the enquiry into the complaints and its decision dated 07.02.2023 of the CEO has attained finality. It was never challenged. The matter could not have been agitated in appeal before the Additional Director under the Clause 13(2) of the Scheme of Administration. But, this order dated 07.02.2023, passed by the CEO, whereby the enquiry was closed and it was held that the 89 members were validly inducted, was never challenged. It has attained finality. He also raises the following points in his submission:- 7

i) After enquiry was completed and informed by the CEO on 07.02.2023 that 89 members have been validly inducted, and the COM has already taken charge on 15.04.2023, another complaint was filed by the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, without revealing the earlier litigations filed by him. This complaint was given to the Additional Director, who issued a notice to the petitioner, which was duly replied, still the impugned order dated 15.03.2024 has been passed. It is argued that the Additional Director did not have any jurisdiction to entertain this matter, afresh.

ii) The impugned order dated 15.03.2024 did not cancel the election. It could not have cancelled the elections. Under Clause 13(2) of the Scheme of Administration, the jurisdiction with regard to the induction of members concurrently lies with the CEO and the Additional Director, and once the CEO had taken a call on 07.02.2023, the Additional Director could not have taken cognizance of it. He could have heard appeal against it, but appeal against the order dated 07.02.2023 of the CEO was never filed.

iii) By the impugned order dated 29.06.2024, the Authorised Controller has been appointed under Regulation 8 of the Regulations 2009, which, it is argued, is not applicable in the instant case because under that clause, Authorised Controller 8 may be appointed only if the election of COM could not be conducted on time. It is argued that in the instant case, elections were held under the supervision of the Authorised Controller appointed earlier, and the COM was approved by the CEO.

d) The election of COM cannot be disturbed in a manner, as has been done by the impugned order.

It could be done only under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 ("the Societies Act"). He has referred to the principles of law, as laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jaipal Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Others, 2011 SCC OnLine Utt 346, wherein, the Division Bench of this Court has held that, "In other words, as aforesaid, the scheme of administration does not provide any mechanism of sorting out election disputes, though the members of the managing committee, the Manager and the President are to be elected in terms of the mandate contained in the scheme of administration.

When the election of the managing committee of the institution is election of office bearers of a registered society and when a devise for sorting out disputes pertaining thereto have been provided specifically in a statute and the same has not been touched otherwise, the corollary would be that a person seeking to challenge election of such office bearers can do 9 so only through the mechanism provided in Section 25 of the said Act and not otherwise.

We, therefore, have no scope of interference."

10. Learned counsel for the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, submits that on 08.07.2022, 89 members were wrongly inducted, of which a complaint was made by the respondent no.5 on 09.07.2022; the list of newly inducted members was not approved twice by the CEO; the CEO, in its enquiry report dated 07.02.2023, has wrongly concluded that 89 members were validly inducted; in fact, on 10.02.2023, the list of members of the General Body was approved by the CEO, which is Annexure No.8 to the writ petition, with the condition that in case any fact is concealed, the approval shall automatically get cancelled; as per the Scheme of Administration, new members could have been inducted six months prior to the expiry of the term of the COM, which was expiring in the month of October, 2022.

11. Therefore, it is argued that, in fact, any new member could have been inducted prior to April, 2022, whereas, they were inducted on 08.07.2022, against the Scheme of Administration. Therefore, the induction was bad. Reference has been made to Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration, which, inter alia, provides that it shall be the responsibility of the Committee of Management that prior to completion of six months of the term of the Committee of Management, the process for making new members is complete so that timely elections for the Committee may be conducted and situation for appointment of Authorised Controller may not arise. He further submits that whatever approvals were given in the past, they were 10 conditional that in case any fact is concealed or any new fact comes to light, the approval would automatically gets cancelled.

12. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 further argued that the earlier approvals have no effect, because the induction of 89 members on 8.07.2022, per se, was illegal. He also submits that the Additional Director has passed the order under Section 29(7) of the Act; in case the impugned orders are set aside, it would perpetuate an irregularity by endorsing the induction of 89 members within six months from the expiry of the term of the COM, which would be against the Scheme of Administration. In support of his contention, learned counsel has placed reliance on the principles of law, as laid down in the cases of Gadde Venkateswara Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others, AIR 1966 SC 828, and State of Uttaranchal and Another Vs. Ajit Singh Bhola and Another, (2004) 6 SCC 800.

13. In the case of Gadde Venkateswara Rao (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia, has observed that, "If the High Court had quashed the said order, it would have restored an illegal order -- it would have given the Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The High Court, therefore, in our view, rightly refused to exercise its extraordinary discretionary power in the circumstances of the case."

14. In the case of Ajit Singh Bhola (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, "It is well settled that this Court 11 will not exercise its discretion and quash an order which appears to be illegal, if its effect is to revive another illegal order."

15. Learned State Counsel adopts the arguments, as advanced by learned counsel for the respondent no.5.

16. The following questions fall for consideration in the instant petition:-

               A)    What    is   the       effect   of   communication        dated

                     07.02.2023        of    the     CEO,   by    which   it    was

communicated that there was no substance in the complaint filed by the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, and 89 members were duly inducted?

B) Can Additional Director enquire into an issue relating to induction of members after the CEO had concluded the enquiry on the subject?

                C)   Whether      on        08.07.2022,     89    members      were

                     wrongly inducted by the COM in the General

                     Body? If so, its effects?

D) Can Authorised Controller be appointed under Regulation 8 (l) of the Regulation 2009?

17. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that after induction of 89 members in the General Body of the COM, the petitioner sent the list of members for approval to the CEO. Meanwhile, complaints were filed by the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, and by its order dated 07.02.2023, after conducting enquiry, the CEO held that the 89 members were validly inducted and 12 there is no substance in the enquiry. This was so communicated to the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, and the petitioner (Annexure Nos. 7 and 8 of the writ petition, respectively). The COM was also elected, which was approved by the CEO on 15.04.2023 (Annexure No.9 to the writ petition), and they took over the charge. This chapter was then closed. Again, complaints were filed in the month of March, 2024 by the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, to the Additional Director, who, after enquiry, passed the impugned orders.

18. On behalf of the respondents, it is argued that the Additional Director has passed the orders under Section 29(7) of the Act. It reads as follows:-

"29. Scheme of Administration.-

.......................................................................................................... .......................................................................................................... ..................................................................................................... (7) Whenever there is dispute with respect to the Management of an institution, persons found by the Regional Additional Director of Education upon such enquiry deemed fit to be in actual control of its affair may, for purpose of Act, be recognized to constitute the Committee of Management of such institution until a Court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise:

Provided that the Regional Additional Director of Education shall, before making an order under this sub-section afford reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make representations in writing.

Explanation- In determining the question to who is in actual control of the affairs of the institution, the Regional Additional Director of Education shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the administration, the receipt of income from its properties, the Scheme of Administration approved under sub-section (5) and other relevant circumstances."

19. A bare perusal of the above provision reveals that it comes into play only when there is a dispute with regard to the Management of an institution, and according to it, after enquiry, the 13 person found in actual control of the affairs could be recognized as COM, until a Court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise.

20. Instant is not such a case. There has been no dispute with regard to the control of the college, which was run by the COM. The petitioner claims that it was elected COM, after induction of 89 members. The respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, has not claimed any control over the college. Instant is not a situation, as envisaged under Section 29(7) of the Act, and orders could not have been passed under this clause.

21. The earlier litigations between the parties need attention. The respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, had filed the first petition, which was dismissed on 12.12.2022, when the Court observed as follows:-

"In this regard, the petitioner, as deciphered from the contents of paragraph-9 of the writ petition, filed a Civil Suit bearing O.S. No.4 of 2022, which is pending before the Civil Court regarding the same grievances made by the petitioner. The writ petition is not in proper form in view of the fact that the newly inducted members, whose induction is the cause of the writ, have not been arrayed as parties to this application.

In that view of the matter, since the petitioner has already approached the Civil Court, the writ petition is not maintainable as he has an efficacious and alternative remedy available to him."

22. Against it, the Special Appeal was rejected on 03.03.2023, when the Court observed that, "the dispute with regard to membership and constitution of Management Committee squarely falls for consideration by the Civil Court."

23. It may be noted that at that time, the petitioner had already filed the Civil Suit seeking declaration that the induction of the newly elected members be declared illegal. The suit was subsequently 14 withdrawn by the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, on 14.05.2024, and he filed the second writ petition, whereby, the election of the COM had been challenged on the ground that individual notice was not given to the members, as per Scheme of Administration. The second writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner on 23.10.2024. The petitioner has knocked at various doors.

24. The question is as to whether the CEO could have entertained the complaints initially filed by the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan?

25. Clause 13(2) of the Scheme of Administration makes provisions on this aspect. According to it, if before election, it is brought to the notice of the CEO or the Additional Director that without following the procedure, someone is inducted as a member or office bearer, they would enquire into the matter, and after enquiry, would cancel the membership of such person. This scheme further provides that if a decision is taken by the CEO, its appeal would be preferred to the Additional Director, and in case the decision is taken by the Additional Director, the appeal shall go to the Director, Education.

26. On 08.07.2022, members were inducted and, thereafter, complaints were filed by the respondent no.5, Anuj Singh Chauhan, to the CEO. Under Clause 13(2) of the Scheme of Administration, the CEO could have entertained this complaint. He entertained it, enquired into it and held on 07.02.2023 that the members were duly inducted and, accordingly, approved the list of members. This has attained finality, insofar as the level of CEO is concerned, and it could 15 have been challenged in appeal before the Additional Director, in view of the Clause 13(2) of the Scheme of Administration, but it has never been done. It may be noted that before it the first petition filed by the petitioner, had already been dismissed, subsequent to this order dated 07.02.2023 of the CEO, the Special Appeal filed by the petitioner had been dismissed on 03.03.2023.

27. A bare reading of Clause 13(2) of the Scheme of Administration makes it abundantly clear that the complaints regarding unlawful induction of members prior to election could have been entertained concurrently by the CEO and the Additional Director. It had been entertained once by the CEO, who had finally concluded on 07.02.2023 that there has been no illegality in the induction of 89 members. It has attained finality.

28. In view of the Scheme of Administration, the Additional Director could not have taken afresh complaint. He could have entertained an appeal against the order dated 07.02.2023 of the CEO, which he did not entertain. Therefore, this Court is of the view that with regard to the induction of 89 members, the complaints could have been entertained either by the CEO or the Additional Director under Clause 13(2) of the Scheme of Administration. The jurisdiction is concurrent. The CEO had taken cognizance of the complaints against induction of 89 members on 08.07.2022 in the General Body by the COM, and had concluded on 07.02.2023, that the induction is valid. This order was not challenged before the Additional Director. Hence the order dated 07.02.2023 of the CEO had attained finality. By no other means, the issue could have been further agitated. 16

29. After approval of the COM and after taking over of charge by the new Committee, which was constituted under the control of Authorised Controller, fresh complaints were entertained by the Additional Director, which could not have been entertained under the Scheme of Administration or under Section 29(7) of the Act, as claimed. For that reasons alone, the impugned orders are bad in the eye of law.

30. There is another issue as to whether the members could not be inducted within six months of the expiry of the term of the COM. Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration provides that it shall be the responsibility of the COM to complete the procedure of making membership six months prior to expiry of that term, so that timely elections may be held, and situation for appointment of Authorised Controller may not arise.

31. A bare reading of it makes it clear that it is directory. No consequence is given as to what would be the effect if the members are inducted within six months of the expiry of the term of the COM.

32. In the case of Balwant Singh and Others Vs. Anand Kumar Sharma and Others, (2003) 3 SCC 433, this aspect has been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, and in Paragraph 7, the Court observed as follows:-

"7. Yet there is another aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of. It is a well-settled principle that if a thing is required to be done by a private person within a specified time, the same would ordinarily be mandatory but when a public functionary is required to perform a public function within a time-frame, the same will be held to be directory unless the consequences therefor are specified. In Sutherland's Statutory Construction, 3rd Edn., Vol. 3, at p. 107, it is pointed out that a statutory direction to private 17 individuals should generally be considered as mandatory and that the rule is just the opposite to that which obtains with respect to public officers. Again, at p. 109, it is pointed out that often the question as to whether a mandatory or directory construction should be given to a statutory provision may be determined by an expression in the statute itself of the result that shall follow non-compliance with the provision. At p. 111 it is stated as follows:

"As a corollary of the rule outlined above, the fact that no consequences of non-compliance are stated in the statute, has been considered as a factor tending towards a directory construction. But this is only an element to be considered, and is by no means conclusive."

(emphasis supplied)

33. In the case of Raza Buland Sugar Co. Ltd. Vs. Municipal Board, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 119, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that whether the provision in a statute is mandatory or merely directory. It cannot be resolved by laying down a general rule and it depends on the facts of each case, the purpose, the intention, etc. In Para 8, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:-

"8. The question whether a particular provision of a statute which on the face of it appears mandatory, inasmuch as it uses the word "shall" as in the present case -- is merely directory cannot be resolved by laying down any general rule and depends upon the facts of each case and for that purpose the object of the statute in making the provision is the determining factor. The purpose for which the provision has been made and its nature, the intention of the legislature in making the provision, the serious general inconvenience or injustice to persons resulting from whether the provision is read one way or the other, the relation of the particular provision to other provisions dealing with the same subject and other considerations which may arise on the facts of a particular case including the language of the provision, have all to be taken into account in arriving at the conclusion whether a particular provision is mandatory or directory."

34. This has also been discussed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Babu Ram Upadhya, 1960 SCC OnLine SC 5, wherein one of the tests that was given to ascertain the mandatory nature of a statutory provision is as to 18 whether the statute provides for a contingency of the non-compliance with the provisions. In Para 29, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder:-

"29. The relevant rules of interpretation may be briefly stated thus :

When a statute uses the word "shall", prima facie, it is mandatory, but the Court may ascertain the real intention of the legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute. For ascertaining the real intention of the Legislature the Court may consider, inter alia, the nature and the design of the statute, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other, the impact of other provisions whereby the necessity of complying with the provisions in question is avoided, the circumstance, namely, that the statute provides for a contingency of the non-compliance with the provisions, the fact that the non- compliance with the provisions is or is not visited by some penalty, the serious or trivial consequences that flow therefrom, and, above all, whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered."

(emphasis supplied)

35. In the instant case, the Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration lays down the responsibility of the COM to complete the process of induction of new members six months prior to completion of their term. Is it mandatory? This Scheme of Administration does not give any consequence to it that in case the members are not included six months prior to the expiry of the term of COM, what would be its effect?

36. Now to examine the intention of making such a provision is given in the provision itself. It has been noted hereinbefore also. At the cost of repetition, it may be noted that this Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration makes it obligatory on the COM to complete the induction of new members six months prior to the expiry of their term so that 'timely election of the Committee may be done' and 'a situation may not arise so as to appoint the Authorised Controller.' So the intention is timely election and avoiding the appointment of Authorised Controller. The consequences are not that the induction of members, within six months of the expiry of the term 19 of the COM shall not invalidate. Perhaps, in case if the approval is sought by the COM for new members inducted within six months of the expiry of the term of COM, the statutory authority could defer their decision on it or could lay any condition that they may not participate, etc. but induction, per se, is not illegal, as per the Scheme of Administration. In the instant case, admittedly, the 89 members were inducted in the General Body within six months of the expiry of the term of the then COM. But, the membership list had already been approved by the CEO, the competent authority. Therefore, the induction of those 89 members does not become illegal.

37. Now the question is as to whether the Authorised Controller could have been appointed by the order dated 29.06.2024, by the Additional Director? The Authorised Controller has been appointed under Regulation 8(l) of the Regulations, 2009. This comes into play when election of COM is not conducted on time. Instant is not such a case. In the instant case, election of the COM had already been conducted on 10.04.2023, and on 15.04.2023, the COM was approved by the CEO, and, thereafter, they had also taken over charge. In such a situation, the provisions of Regulation 8(l) of the Regulations, 2009, could not have been invoked by the Additional Director for the appointment of the Authorised Controller.

38. The COM has already been elected. If there is any dispute to election, in the case of Jaipal Singh (supra), the Division Bench of this Court has held that challenge to such election could be made under Section 25 of the Societies Act. The Additional Director could not have impliedly nullified the election, which was done by the impugned order dated 29.06.2024.

39. In view of the discussions as aforesaid, this Court is of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned orders dated 15.03.2024, 28.06.2024 and 29.06.2024, passed by the Additional Director deserve to be quashed.

40. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 15.03.2024, 28.06.2024 and 29.06.2024 passed by the respondent no. 3/Regional Additional Director are hereby quashed.

(Ravindra Maithani, J) 30.12.2025 Ravi Bisht

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court