Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management, Sri Nehru ... vs Surjan Singh And Ors. on 30 July, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(4)AWC3674, (2004)3UPLBEC2596, 2005 A I H C 201
Author: Arun Tandon
Bench: Arun Tandon
JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri K.P. Shukla on behalf of the petitioner, Sri P.K. Jain on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 as well as learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6.
2. The Committee of Management through its Manager Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan has filed this writ petition against an order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 13th August, 2003, whereby the Regional Joint Director of Education has held that the elections set up by the Committee of Management with Sri Surjan Singh as Manager dated 7.7.2002 were legal and valid and as such he is being recognized as the Manager, while the elections set up by the petitioner with Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan as Manager dated 3.7.2002 are not legally acceptable.
3. On behalf of the petitioner it is contended that the - Committee of Management with Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan as Manager has been in control of the Institution since 1985 and all the successive elections held by the Committee of Management were being recognized. It is further stated that out going Committee of Management had held elections dated 3rd July, 2002, in which Sri Rajendra Singh Chauhan was elected as the Manager. The out going Committee alone has jurisdiction to hold fresh elections of the Committee of Management. It is further submitted that in view of the Government Order dated 19th December, 2000, the dispute with regards to rival sets of elections pleaded by the parties should be adjudicated upon by the Regional Level Committee with the Regional Joint Director of Education as the Chairman. The said Regional Level Committee comprises of three persons (1) Regional Joint Director of Education; (2) Joint Director of Education and (3) District Inspector of Schools. Since the rival elections have not been placed before the Regional Level Committee and the Joint Director of Education alone passed the order impugned, the order impugned is without jurisdiction.
4. On behalf of the respondent it is contended that the disputes with regards to legality or otherwise of the elections of the members of the general body of the Society are finally decided by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits. In the other so passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, the petitioner Rajendra Singh Chauhan has not been found to be a legal member of the Society and consequently he has no right to hold elections. It is further submitted that the Regional Joint Director of Education has rightly decided the dispute with regards to rival elections set up by the parties inasmuch as such a power is conferred upon him under Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act.
5. I have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.
6. It is not in dispute that the two sets of rival elections dated 30th July, 2002, in which the petitioner Rajendra Singh Chauhan claims himself to be elected as Manager and the other set of election dated 7th July, 2002, in which Sri Surjan Singh claims himself to be elected as Manager, were submitted in the office of District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools in turn forwarded the aforesaid two sets of elections to Regional Joint Director of Education vide his letter dated 9th December, 2002. The Regional Joint Director of Education treating the aforesaid records to be a reference under Section 16 A(7) has proceeded to pass the impugned order.
7. For the purposes of resolving the controversy as to whether in the facts of the case impugned order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education can be justified under Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act or else the matter should have been placed before the Regional Level Committee constituted under Government Order dated 19th December, 2000, of which Regional Joint Director of Education is one of the three members (Chairman). Reference may be had to Section 16-A(7), which is being quoted herein below :
"(7) Whenever there is dispute with respect to the Management of an Institution, persons found by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, upon such enquiry as is deemed fit to be in actual control of its affairs may, for purposes of this Act, be recognized to constitute the Committee of Management of such Institution until a Court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise :
Provided that the Regional Deputy 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 as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the Institution, the Regional Deputy 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."
8. Relevant portion of the Government Order dated 19th December, 2000 is being reproduced herein below :
^^f'k{kk vuqHkkx&13] la[;k&3446@15-13-2000&9@11@941] fnukad 19 fnlEcj] 2000 is"kd] ih-ds- >k] lfpo] ek/;fed f'k{kk] mÙkj izns'k y[kyÅ A lsok esa] ¼1½ f'k{kk funs'kd ¼ek-½] mÙkj izns'k y[kuÅ A ¼2½ f'k{kk funs'kd ¼cs-½] mÙkj izns'k y[kuÅ A fo"k;&&e.My Lrj ij e.Myh; la;qDr f'k{kk funs'kdksa ,oa e.Myh; mi&f'k{kk funs'kdksa ds e?; dk;ks± ds foHkktu ds lEcU/k esa A egksn;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ij vius vk-'kk-;-Mh-bZ-@2570] fnukad 9 tuojh] 1999 ds lUnHkZ esa eq>s ;g dgus dk funsZ'k izkIr gqvk gS 'kklukns'k la[;k 2477@15-10-9@11@94] fnukad 12 fnlEcj] 1994 rFkk 'kklukns'k la[;k 1398@15&13&99&9@11@94] fnukad 12 fnlEcj] 1994 rFkk 'kklukns'k la[;k 93@98@15&13&9&9&@94&Vh-lh-] fnukad 19 fnlEcj] 1997 }kjk e.My Lrj ij e.Myh; vf/kdkfj;ksa ds iz'kklfud vf/kdkj fu/kkZfjr fd;s x;s Fks A 'kklu }kjk lE;d~ fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd e.My Lrj ij e.Myh; la;qDr f'k{kk funs'kdksa rFkk e.Myh; mi f'k{kk funs'kdksa ds iz'kklfud vf/kdkjksa dk rkRdkfyd izHkko ls fuEuor~ ifjofrZr dj fn;k tk;s %
------------¼1½ izcU/kdksa ds gLrk{kj izekf.kr djuk A**
9. The provisions of Section 16-A(7) of the Act and the Government Order dated 19th December, 2000 are not over lapping. They operate in separate field. The question as to which dispute is required to be decided By the Joint Director of Education under Section 16-A(7) viz.-a-viz the dispute which is to be decided by the Regional Level Committee shall depend on the fact of each case specifically with reference to the claim set up by the parties in each of the aforesaid cases.
10. By means of the Government Order dated 19th December, 2000 the power to recognize the Committee of Management of a recognized Intermediate College has been conferred upon the Regional Level Committee which comprises of three persons i.e., (1) Regional Joint Director of Education; (2) Joint Director of Education; and (3) District Inspector of Schools. The said power was earlier being exercised by the District Inspector of Schools. The said power was earlier being exercised by the District Inspector of Schools while attesting the signatures of Manager of administrative purpose, including operation of the bank accounts.
11. It is not in dispute between the parties, that at the time when dispute arose with regards to legality of the two sets of rival elections, the earlier Committee of Management, which was recognized, was in effective/actual control of the Institution. The said out going Committee in effective/actual control of the Institution has not set up any claim for Management subsequent to fresh elections.
12. From the dispute as decided in the impugned order and as referred by the District Inspector of Schools, it is apparently clear that the dispute was confined to the issue as to which set of elections are legal and valid. The parties had not claimed their right to manage the Institution on the basis of their effective/actual control, on the contrary they have claimed that in view of the fresh elections, which have taken place on 7th July, 2002 and 30th July, 2002 respectively, they are entitled to be recognized as lawful Manager of the Committee of Management and to be put in actual control Of the affairs of the Institution.
13. The District Inspector of Schools while referring the dispute of rival set of elections had not mentioned any fact with regards to effective/actual control as contemplates by Section 16-A(7). He has only placed the papers of rival elections before the Regional Joint Director of Education only for the purpose of legality of the elections being adjudicated. Even from the order of the Regional Director of Education dated 13.8.2003, it is apparent that except for deciding the legality of the rival elections he has not adverted to any issue of effective/actual control as may be referable to Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act. There is no finding on any issue as provided for under Section 16-A(7) for deciding the deciding the effective control of the rival Management.
14. From the bare reading of Section l6-A(7) it is apparently clear that the question of legality or otherwise of the elections can only be gone into incidentally for the purposes of deciding the rival claim of Management which is based basically on effective/actual control to be determined with reference to the conditions as mentioned in the section itself namely (a) Control over finance; (b) Administration over the Institution, and (c) Income from its properties.
15. Scope of Section 16-A(7) and questions to be determined in respect of dispute under Section 16-A(7) of the Act has been crystallized by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sankatha Prasad Srivastava and Ors. v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur and Ors., 1985 UPLBEC 751 and it has been held as follows : , "......He has, however, to determine the question of effective control in accordance with the statutory guidelines provided in Section 16-A(7) of the Act itself and cannot, only on the basis of his opinion about the validity of the election, without anything more, take the view as to who was entitled to manage the Institution."
16. So far as the dispute of elections, which is to be decided by the Regional Level Committee constituted under the Government Order dated 19th December, 2000, is concerned. Validity of the elections set up by the parties is the basic issue to be decided and the claim to manage the Institution is solely dependent upon the fresh elections set up by the parties without any there further. For example, in cases where the term of the Committee of Management has expired and rival sets of elections are pleaded for taking control of the Institution after expiry of the existing term, it is the legality and validity of the elections alone which determines the said right and in such cases the matter must be placed before the Regional Level Committee. Similarly, in cases where the out going Committee of Management which was in power and had held fresh elections but does not claim any right to continue to control the affairs of the Institution, the future right to manage the Institution is to be determined by the Regional Level Committee only, as such a right is pleaded and based on the fresh set of elections only.
17. This Court, in the judgment reported in 1993 ALJ 313, Committee of Management, Dayanand Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Thana and Anr. v. The Deputy Director of Education, Agra and Ors., has held that the crucial date for deciding the actual control under Section 16-A(7) is the date on which the dispute arises. From the facts as pleaded by the parties it is apparent that the right claimed to manage the Institution is not in presenti but a right to be put in control of affairs of the Institution subsequent to the approval of the elections (after the expiry of the term of out going Management) by the Competent Authority. As a matter of fact none of the parties are claiming actual control of the affairs of the Institution on the date dispute of rival elections have been raised.
18. The dispute cannot be said to be a dispute referable to Regional Joint Director of Education under Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act as the issue was Only confined to the legality of the two sets of elections.
19. In view of the aforesaid facts, there being dispute with regards to legality or validity of the rival sets of elections pleaded by the parties only, the matter was not cognizable by the Regional Joint Director of Education under Section 16-A(7). On the contrary the records should have been placed before the Regional Level Committee for deciding as to which of the elections of the Committee of Management are liable to be recognized and which Committee is to be put in actual control of the Institution for administrative purposes as well as for operation of the bank accounts of the Institution etc.
20. Regional Joint Director of Education had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 13.8.2003 and the records of the rival sets of elections must necessarily be placed before the Regional Level Committee for appropriate decision with regards to Manager of the Institution.
21. The order dated 13.8.2003, passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education is, accordingly, set aside. It is further provided that the Regional Joint Director of Education shall transmit records of the rival sets of election, pleaded by the parties, to the Regional Level Committee. The Regional Level Committee in turn, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and permitting the parties to exchange the documents, shall pass appropriate orders with regates to legality and validity of the elections set up by the parties for being put in actual control over the affairs of the Institution.
22. The aforesaid exercise may be undertaken by the Regional Level Committee strictly in accordance with law at the earliest possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before it. While deciding the said dispute, the Regional Level Committee shall necessarily decide the following issues :
(1) Who are the legal and valid member of the general body ?
(2) Who is entitled to convene the meeting of the general body ?
(3) Whether elections have been held in accordance with the scheme of administration as applicable to the Institution or not ?
23. Till such decision is taken by the Regional Level Committee, status quo as on date with regards to Management of the Institution shall be maintained.
24. It is further clarified that no major decision shall be taken by the Committee of Management in power nor any expenditure, except in respect of day to day working of the Institution, shall be incurred till the decision of the Regional Level Committee.
25. Writ petition is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to cost.