Allahabad High Court
Mukut Bihari Agarwal vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. ... on 26 September, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7511 of 2023 Petitioner :- Mukut Bihari Agarwal Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vineet Bihari Patel,Atul Kumar Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ashish Kumar Singh Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard Sri Aatul Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner claims to be the lifetime Chairman/Manager of the society running the educational institution of which the managerial authority has been taken over by authorised controller since the year 1979 as per the order passed by the competent authority.
3. It appears that the educational institution in a part of the premises has some shops rented out to the private parties. According to the petitioner, these shops also constitute a part of the immovable property belonging to the institution and are under the management of the authorised controller by virtue of the order passed by the competent authority.
4. Shops no.7 and 8 which were rented out to the private parties are stated to have been demolished under the garb of the permission for repair granted by the authorised controller in collusion with the Principal.
The conditions of tenancy are not placed before us or before any authority vested with the jurisdiction of taking action against an erring tenant.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner drawing our attention to Section 16(D)(11) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 has argued that it is the duty of the Director to issue directions to the authorised controller from time to time as he may deem necessary for the proper management of the institution or its properties.
6. Admittedly, the property in question is under the tenancy of a private party and such a tenancy would be governed by the terms and conditions, if any, entered into between the committee of management and the private party. The terms and conditions of tenancy entered into between the institution and the private party are not a subject matter of consideration for issuing directions by virtue of Section 16 (D) (11) of the Act.
7. Damages for violation of the condition of tenancy can also not be taken note of by the Director for imposition of any penalty or award or damage. The damages caused by the tenant to the institution are amenable to the civil proceedings before the competent civil court and the Director for that matter cannot step in such a dispute. Even Section-4 of the U.P Educational Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act,1974 does not confer power upon the Director where rights are governed by some other law as is the case at hand.
8. It is not the case before us that the shop in question has ceased to remain under the possession of the tenant and it is thus open to be managed by the Director in any other manner by overlooking the tenancy rights.
9. The fact remains that the dispute between the management/authorised controller and the tenant for violation of any term of tenancy cannot be ruled out. In such a situation interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India would be uncalled for. It is thus open to the petitioner to take up the appropriate proceedings before the competent civil court for the damage caused, if any, if so advised.
10. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.9.2023 Shahnaz