Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (1.46 seconds)
Ashram And 4 Others vs State Of U.P. And 7 Others on 22 December, 2023 cites

Rajendra Pratap Singh Yadav & Ors vs State Of U.P. & Ors on 5 July, 2011

28. After expiry of term of the Committee of Management, Writ Petition No.11610 of 2020 (Rajendra Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) preferred for seeking direction in the nature of mandamus for appointment of Manager and the same was disposed of vide order dated 06.08.2020, in strict compliance of the same, vide order dated 25.08.2020 issued by respondent no.3, one Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhadana Principal of Pandit Deen Dayal Rajkiya Model Inter College, Kharkhaunda, Meerut was appointed as Manager, since Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhadana being a local person who was earlier appointed as Observer for the election held on 24.01.2017 for Committee of Management of the same institution, was later on changed with the fresh appointment of Principal of Government Inter College, Poothkhaas as Manager vide order dated 11.09.2020, but the fact is not disputed that on the date of superannuation, Joint Director, namely, Mr. O.P. Dwivedi again appointed Mr. Sunil Kumar Bhadana as Manager of the institution without having any reference or direction, thereafter the subsequent appointed Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution initiated in shape of finalizing the valid members of Committee and for convening fresh election but at the same time, direction contained in the order dated 28.02.2020 passed in Writ Petition No.6633 of 2020 was left to be adjudicated by the higher authority than District Inspector of Schools.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 488 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Azim Ahmad Kazmi And Ors vs State Of U.P. And Anr on 16 July, 2012

21. Per contra, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel for private respondents vehemently opposed the prayer as made in the petition and rebutted the stands taken up by learned counsel for petitioners by submitting that membership of Suman, Anju, Sankhya, Kawar Pal, Samrat, Prandveer, Amit Kumar, Sanjeev and Sinu would be bad for the reasons that their draft of membership has been prepared from the account of Anangpal and from different account. For this reason, their membership has been assailed in any case, since their membership has been assailed and are said to be not valid members, they should be impleaded as party in view of judgment rendered in the case of Aziz Ahmad Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Others passed in Special Appeal No. 666 of 2016. He also raised a preliminary objections with regard to maintainability of the writ petition answering deponent would cull out the essential facts which has been mentioned in paragraph nos.54 and 55 of the writ petition that as per petitioners, in all 171 members were enrolled in a meeting which was held on 20.04.2018 and it is only 55 members who have been found to be valid. In essence, petitioners want to assert that 119 members must be included to be part of electoral college. Over and above, the electoral college based upon which elections have been held. Answering deponent would submit that valid election of the Committee of Management has been held on 09.08.2021 and 119 members have been precluded from participating in the said election which is the case of the petitioners and, therefore, it would be asserted that it is 119 members who must approach this Court so as to assert their membership as 119 members have been precluded from participating in the election. Once right personal to the persons excluded from being part of electoral college, there cause of action could not be espoused by any person or persons other than those who have been so precluded, in support of the said submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of C/M Shri Jawahar Inter College Bamnauli 2012 (1) ESC 470.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 91 - Full Document

Gregory Patrao vs Mangalore Refinery And Petrochemicals ... on 11 July, 2022

36. So far as regarding giving credence to the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners, the same is based upon pronouncement made by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gregory Patrao Vs. Manglore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 830), the ratio of the judgment is a subsequent decision which have considered and distinguished the earlier judgments are binding on High Courts, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondents rendered by Division Bench of this Court while deciding Special Appeal Defective No.158 of 2022 is having no consideration with regard to judgment rendered by the same Bench of this Court passed in the case of Committee of Management, Sri Yadvesh Inter College (supra) and as such, the same is having binding effect over this Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 36 - Cited by 7 - M R Shah - Full Document

Dharampal And 43 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 15 September, 2023

5. District Inspector of Schools, Meerut thereafter issued a letter dated 12.02.2019 illegally stating that the list of 55 members is to be accepted as valid list, being aggrieved by the illegal order and arbitrary action taken by the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, with regard to the grant of membership, certain new life members out of 174 persons filed the Writ Petition No. 6633 of 2020 (Dharampal and 5 others versus State of U.P. and others) challenging the aforesaid order dated 12.10.2018 of District Inspector of Schools and the inquiry report dated 15.01.2019 and this Court vide order dated 28.02.2020 held that interference by District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, is not warranted in the matter of decision finalizing the list of members of the general body of the College and it was left open to be decided by competent authority without being influenced by any orders passed by District Inspector of Schools. Respondent no. 8 and his associates illegally tried to oust the petitioner no. 1 from the office of Manager and on the basis of false and fabricated documents and contrary to the procedure provided for no confidence motion was passed against petitioner no. 1 which was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Meerut by order dated 25.05.2019 and the petitioner no. 1 being aggrieved against the said action filed writ petition No. 22021 of 2019 in which interim order was granted staying the order dated 25.05.2019 and consequent to that the signature of petitioner no. 1 were again attested for the office of Manager vide order dated 01.08.2019 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Meerut and petitioner no.1 continued for his whole term as Manager of the College.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sachin Kumar @ Sachin Sagar @ Titu And 4 ... vs State Of U.P. And Another on 11 November, 2022

12. Petitioners being aggrieved with the illegal action of then Prabandh Sanchalak and also against the aforesaid election dated 09.08.2021, they filed the Writ Petition (C) No. 19882 of 2021 on 04.08.2021 before this Court however, since an order approving election dated 09.08.2021 was passed in the meantime on 12.08.2021 by District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, the said writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh with a view to challenge the aforesaid order dated 12.08.2021 also. Thereafter the Writ petition No. 21111 of 2021 (Sachin Kumar and 5 others Vs. State of U.P. and 6 others) was filed by petitioners and the aforesaid petition was finally disposed of on 28.09.2021 by Coordinate Bench of this Court with direction to Joint Director of Education, Meerut Region, Meerut to pass the order deciding the objection raised by the petitioners. Thereafter, petitioners in the Writ Petition (C) No. 21111 of 2021 submitted the certified copy of the order dated 28.09.2021 along-with the representation/letter dated 11.10.2021 with the request to Joint Director of Education to hear the matter as directed by the this Court and to cancel the order dated 12.08.2021 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Meerut and also to cancel the election dated 09.08.2021 as well as the list of 122 members, illegally finalized by the then Prabandh Sanchalak vide his order dated 14.07.2021 whereupon the Joint Director of Education issued a notice dated 21.10.2021 to the petitioners as well as to respondent no. 6 and 8.
Allahabad High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - G Chowdhary - Full Document

Committee Of Management, Sri Yadavesh ... vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary ... on 9 March, 2005

36. So far as regarding giving credence to the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners, the same is based upon pronouncement made by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Gregory Patrao Vs. Manglore Refinery and Petrochemicals Ltd. (2022 SCC OnLine SC 830), the ratio of the judgment is a subsequent decision which have considered and distinguished the earlier judgments are binding on High Courts, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondents rendered by Division Bench of this Court while deciding Special Appeal Defective No.158 of 2022 is having no consideration with regard to judgment rendered by the same Bench of this Court passed in the case of Committee of Management, Sri Yadvesh Inter College (supra) and as such, the same is having binding effect over this Court.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - J Sahai - Full Document

C/M, Aley Ahmad Girls Inter College ... vs State Of U.P. & Others on 2 May, 2011

32. All the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondent has been rendered by Coordinate Benches of this Court except the case of Aley Ahmad Inter College (supra) passed by Division Bench of this Court along with the judgment passed in the case of C/M Sri Swami Krishnanad Inter College Bilwar (supra) through which the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court dated 16.03.2022 passed in Writ Petition No.6923 of 2022 has been affirmed and the special appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed. The ratio of the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondents is broadly on the basis that approval of election once approved by DIOS, but dispute regarding the election can only be adjudicated by Regional Level Committee and after approving the election by DIOS became functus officio.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Dharmpal Singh vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 3 November, 2022

26. After hearing the rival contentions raised by learned counsel for parties, the epigenes of the matter arises from letter dated 12.12.2019 through which respondent no.4 accepted the membership of 55 members as valid which rises cause of action in favour of other new life members out of 174 persons who preferred Writ Petition No.6633 of 2020 (Dharmpal Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others) challenging the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by respondent no.4 and inquiry report dated 15.01.2019 whereupon Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 28.02.2020 held that interference by respondent no.4 was not warranted in the matter of decision finalizing the list of members of General Body of the College and it was left open to the competent authority without being influenced by any order passed by respondent no.4.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - G Chowdhary - Full Document
1   2 Next