Allahabad High Court
Jitendra Kumar Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru Sec. Sec. Edu. Lko. And ... on 2 February, 2010
Author: Dilip Gupta
Bench: Dilip Gupta
Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4555 of 2010 Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Singh And Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Sec. Sec. Edu. Lko. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- G.K. Singh,Bheem Singh Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.M. Garg Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
The petitioners have sought the quashing of the order dated 21st December, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr in so far as it discards the list containing the names of 32 newly enrolled members of the General Body.
According to the petitioners, on the basis of the notice issued on 12th May, 2008, they moved applications for becoming members of the Society and deposited Rs.5000/- as membership fee. Receipts were also issued to the petitioners and thereafter in the meeting held on 1st August, 2008, it was resolved by the Committee of Management that since the fees had been deposited the Manager may issue the necessary certificate. The membership of the five petitioners as well as the 27 other members were approved by the Committee of Management in its meeting held on 29th November, 2009 and also by the General Body of the Society on 5th July, 2009. However, by the impugned order dated 21st December, 2009, the District Inspector of Schools, without issuing any notice to the petitioners as well as the other 27 members, has passed the order holding that they are not members.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Sri K.M. Garg appears for the remaining respondents. They state that it is not necessary to file a counter affidavit and the petition may be decided.
Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order dated 21st December, 2009 deserves to be set aside on the ground that the membership dispute has been decided without hearing the petitioners and the other 27 members.
Learned Standing Counsel and Sri K.M. Garg, learned counsel appearing for the remaining respondents have defended the impugned order and have submitted that these members have not been enrolled in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution.
I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the respondents have not been able to place on record any material which may indicate that opportunity was given to the petitioners before the impugned order was passed. The impugned order also does not indicate that any opportunity was given to the petitioners. In normal circumstances, the matter is required to be sent back to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order.
However, it needs to be mentioned that the order dated 21st December, 2009 impugned in the present petition has also been challenged in Writ Petition No.4557 of 2010 and by order of date this order has been set aside with a direction that the matter about the validity of the election held on 20th August, 2009 can be agitated by the respondents before the Regional Committee. Since the validity of the election will also depend upon the participation of these 32 members, the respondents can also raise the dispute about membership of these 32 members before the Regional Committee when it proceeds to examine the matter pursuant to the direction issued by the Court in Writ Petition No.4557 of 2010.
The order dated 21st December, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools is, accordingly, set aside. It shall, however, be open to the respondents to raise the issue about these 32 members before the Regional Committee.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Order Date :- 2.2.2010 SK