Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Committee Of Management, Rashtriya ... vs Joint Director Of Education ... on 19 August, 2003 cites

Rajendra Pal Singh vs District Inspector Of Schools, Jalaun ... on 11 November, 1998

In the case of Rajendra Pal v. District Inspector of Schools, reported in (1991) 1 UPLBEC 588, it has been held that an inspiration has to be drawn from various decisions that the Authorised Controller is appointed to meet certain exigencies and infact it is beyond his power to enroll new member and it is merely in the nature of stop gap arrangement and membership of the' persons, who have been enrolled by Authorised Controller have to be ignored. They cannot take part to constitute new Committee of Management. Relevant Paragraphs No. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of the aforementioned judgment are quoted below:-
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 11 - O P Garg - Full Document

Damyanti Naranga vs The Union Of India And Others on 23 February, 1971

9. The Society, as a matter of fact is a compendious name of group of person who have voluntarily agreed to join for furtherance of their certain objects. This right to form a Society as envisaged in Article 19 of necessarily implies that the persons form the Association have also the right to continue to be associated with only those whom they voluntarily admitted in the Association. This aspect of the matter came to be considered by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Damyanti Naranga v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1971 SC 966, in which the provisions of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, 1962, came to be considered, vis-a-vis, right of the members of registered Society known as Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, which was constituted for the development of Hindi and its propagation throughout the country. It was held that any law, which takes away the membership of those who have voluntarily joined it will be a law violating the right to form an association. The Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Act, it was observed does not merely regulate the administration of the affairs of the original Society; what it does is to alter the composition of the Society itself. The result of this change in composition is that the members who voluntarily formed the association arc now compelled to act in that association with other members who have been imposed as members by the Act and in whose admission to membership they had no say. Such alteration in the composition of association itself clearly interferes with the right to function as members of the association, which was voluntarily formed by the original founders. The Act it was held, violates the rights of the original members of the Society to form an association guaranteed under Article 19(l)(c) of the Constitution of India.
Supreme Court of India Cites 27 - Cited by 109 - Full Document
1