Allahabad High Court
Bhajan Singh vs State Of U.P. And Others on 26 July, 2010
Author: Dilip Gupta
Bench: Dilip Gupta
Court No.39
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.42339 of 2010
Bhajan Singh
Vs.
State of U.P. & Ors.
~~~~~~~
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
The petitioner who claims to be a member of the General Body has sought the quashing of the order dated 22nd May, 2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar by which he has approved the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 9th May, 2010 with Dharam Pal Singh Rathi as the Manager.
It is pointed out by Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that the last elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution were held on 5th June, 2006 and under Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution though the term of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Institution is three years, but if within a period of three years and one month, the newly elected office bearers and members do not take charge, then the earlier office bearers cease to function and the Deputy Director of Education has to appoint an Authorised Controller to manage the affairs of the Institution and hold the elections. He has, therefore, submitted that as the term of three years and one month had lapsed and even fresh elections had not been held so that the newly elected office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Institution could take charge within this period, the earlier office bearers ceased to function and it was incumbent upon the authorities to have appointed an Authorised Controller to manage the affairs and hold the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution. In support of his contention he has placed reliance upon the decision rendered by this Court in Ram Kripal Singh & Ors. Vs. The Committee of Management, Uchchttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Newarhiya & Ors., 1993 (1) UPLBEC 344.
He has also pointed out that a list of 782 members of the General Body was notified by the election officer in which the petitioner was also 2 shown as a life member, but the petitioner submitted a representation dated 29th April, 2010 before the District Inspector of Schools that more than 600 members had been illegally enrolled. The District Inspector of Schools, however, kept quiet and proceeded to hold the election. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that after the holding of the election on 9th May, 2010, the petitioner submitted representations dated 22nd May, 2010 and 31st May, 2010 before the District Inspector of Schools with copies to the Joint Director of Education but no order has been passed.
He has, therefore, submitted that the District Inspector of Schools committed an illegality in approving the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 9th May, 2010.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos.1, 2 and 3 while Sri Nipun Singh has filed appearance on behalf of respondent no.4 and Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel has made submissions on behalf of respondent no.4. Learned counsel for the respondents have stated that it is not necessary to file a counter affidavit and the petition may be disposed of at this stage.
It is the submission of Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent no.4 that before the expiry of the term of the three years, a meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 31st March, 2009 for taking steps for holding fresh elections and by the order dated 19th June, 2009, the District Inspector of Schools also granted approval for holding of the Committee of Management of the Institution in accordance with the order dated 16th June, 2009 but this order dated 19th June, 2009 was challenged in Writ Petition No.33181 of 2009 by the Committee of Management with Satish Kumar as the Manager and it is after the dismissal of the writ petition on 7th July, 2009 that the election schedule was issued by the Election Officer on 6th April, 2010 for holding of the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution. The petitioner at no point of time raised any objection that the elections were required to be held only by the Authorised Controller in terms of Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution and it is after the holding of the elections and its recognition by the District Inspector of Schools that the petitioner has now raised this objection in this petition. It is also his submission that a single member of the General Body, who has not even participated in the 3 elections, cannot question the validity of the election or its approval by the District Inspector of Schools on the ground that there was some defect in the electoral college.
I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.
It is not in dispute that the earlier elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution were held on 5th June, 2006 and under Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution, the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the Institution can continue only for a period of three years and one month after which they cease to function and the Deputy Director of Education can appoint an Authorised Controller to manage the affairs of the Institution and hold the elections. In the present case, though the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution may have been held on 31st March, 2009 for taking steps regarding fresh elections, but the new office bearers did not take charge within a period of three years and one month. However, what has to be noticed is that the Deputy Director of Education did not appoint any Authorised Controller and nor did the petitioner raise any objection prior to the holding of the election that an Authorised Controller should be appointed under Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution for holding the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution. Only a bald averment has been made in paragraph 19 of the petition that objection regarding holding of the elections had been filed but such representation has not been filed in this petition and the representations dated 29th April, 2010, 22nd May, 2010 and 31st May, 2010 which have been filed with the petition do not contain such an objection. In fact, even in the representation dated 6th April, 2010 (Annexure 7 to the writ petition) filed before the District Inspector of Schools prior to the holding of the election, the only grievance that was raised is about membership of the General Body and there is no whisper that the election was required to be held by the Authorised Controller only. In the representations dated 22nd May, 2010 and 31st May, 2010 filed after the holding of the elections on 9th May, 2010 and its approval by the District Inspector of Schools on 22nd May, 2010, such objection was also not taken and the petitioner has, for the first time raised this grievance in this petition.
4In such circumstances, when the petitioner was aware that the elections were being held, it is not open to the petitioner to raise objection in this petition after the holding of the election that an Authorised Controller should have been appointed under Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution to manage the affairs and hold the election.
The second grievance of the petitioner is that the election was held on the basis of an invalid electoral college since some 615 members had been illegally permitted to participate in the election even though they were not legally enrolled in the General Body. It needs to be noticed that there is no averment in the petition that the petitioner participated in the elections or filed nomination for any post of office bearer though it is stated in the writ petition that his name was included in the list of members of the General Body published on 29th April, 2010. In such circumstances, it will not be appropriate to examine this issue at the behest of the petitioner.
This apart, the issue that also arises for consideration is whether a single member of the General Body, who did not even participate in the election, can be permitted to assail the holding of the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution or its recognition in this petition.
In Bhagwan Kaushik Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2006) 2 UPLBEC 1372, this Court observed:-
"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 5 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 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) It is clear from the aforesaid decision that a writ petition at the instance of a single member of the General Body to assail the election of the 6 Committee of Management of the Institution should not be entertained. In view of the facts enumerated above and in view of the decision of this Court in Bhagwan Kaushik (supra), this petition at the behest of a single member of the General Body should not be entertained.
Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed.
Date: 26.07.2010 GS