Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Allahabad High Court

The Committee Of Management Of Navyug ... vs State Of Up And 3 Others on 30 May, 2024

Author: Chief Justice

Bench: Chief Justice





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:99089-DB
 
Chief Justice's Court
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 546 of 2024
 

 
Appellant :- The Committee Of Management Of Navyug Vidya Mandir Inter College And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of Up And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Vijay Kumar Ojha
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Raj Kumar Kesari, Rajiv Singh, S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. This appeal is directed against order dated 16.2.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by respondents has been disposed of. The writ petition was filed by the respondents inter alia seeking direction to the District Inspector of Schools to appoint observer to ensure election of Committee of Management of the Institution within time, as per the Scheme of Administration pursuant to the application dated 30.9.2023.

2. During pendency of the petition, an application was filed seeking to amend the petition for the purpose of bringing on record the fact that elections of the Committee were held on 20.10.2023 and appellant no.2 was elected as Manager of the Committee of Management and signatures have been attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 3.1.2024.

3. Learned Single Judge, on coming to the conclusion that there would be no useful purpose to keep the writ petition pending and considering the facts stated in the amendment and impleadment application disposed of the writ petition with liberty to file an application before the Regional Level Committee ventilating the grievances and in case such an application was filed, the same was required to be decided within a period of three months after giving opportunity of hearing.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants made submissions that the learned Single Judge was not justified in giving liberty to approach the Regional Level Committee to the respondents in terms of the Government Orders dated 19.12.2000 and 20.10.2008. Submissions have been made that there is no rival claim qua the Committee of Management and therefore, the proceedings before the Regional Level Committee are not maintainable. Reliance has been placed on Committee of Management, Aley Ahmad Girls Inter College Amroha & Another vs. State of U.P. & others, Special Appeal No.449 of 2011, decided on 2.5.2011.

5. Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

7. The petition, as noticed herein before, initially was filed seeking appointment of observer. However, as during the pendency of the petition, the elections took place and appellant no.2 was elected as Manager, amendment was sought in the writ petition seeking to question the said election by impleading appellant no.2 as party respondent to the writ petition. The plea raised by counsel for the appellant that there does not exist any dispute pertaining to the Committee of Management, the matter could not have been ordered to be referred to the Regional Level Committee apparently has no substance by seeking amendment in the writ petition, the objection was raised by the respondents and the circular of the State dated 19.12.2000 inter alia provides for decision by the Regional Level Committee in relation to all kinds of managerial disputes and therefore, the direction by the learned Single Judge in this regard cannot be faulted.

8. So far as the plea sought to be raised questioning the maintainability of the proceeding before the Regional Level Committee, it is always open for the appellants to raise plea in this regard and once the plea in this regard is raised, it is open for the authority to decide the same in accordance with law.

9. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out in the order impugned. The appeal has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

Order Date :- 30.5.2024 nd/piyush (Vikas Budhwar, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)