Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.47 seconds)
Committee Of Management, Gangadin Ram ... vs Deputy Director Of Education, Vth ... on 10 March, 2006
cites
Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921
Gokaraju Rangaraju Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 15 April, 1981
The Division Bench applied the judgment of the apex Court in Gokaraju Rangaraju (supra). The above case does not help the appellant in any manner rather support the view which we have taken in the present case. No benefit can be taken by the appellant of de facto doctrine.
Punjab Communications Ltd vs Union Of India & Others on 4 May, 1999
17. The next submission raised by the counsel for the appellants is that the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to beset aside only on the ground that there was long delay in delivering the judgment after close of hearing. Reliance has been placed on R.C. Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. and another judgment relied on is 200 (3) A.W.C. 2098 (SC) Kanhaiyalal and Ors. v. Anup Kumar and Ors.. In R.C. Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., (supra) the apex Court had laid down that unreasonable delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of a judgment unless explained by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances is highly unreasonable even when written arguments were submitted. In the present case the learned Single Judge has elaborately dealt with all the pleadings of the parties and the submissions. We are satisfied that any submission worth substance was not noticed by the learned Single Judge in his judgment. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down by the apex Court that there should not be any unreasonable delay in delivery of judgment after hearing but in the facts of the present case we are satisfied that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not deserve to be set aside on this ground. The appellants before us have raised elaborate submissions on all aspects of the matter running to hearing given for more than a week. Learned Single Judge also recorded his observations which are part of the order sheet when the original record of the elections were summoned and perused by the Court on earlier occasion during the course of hearing.
Qamar Rashid Khan vs Committee Of Management, Azamgarh ... on 9 September, 1999
16. Reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Qanar Rashid Khan v. Committee of Management, Azamgarh Muslim Education Society, Azamgarh and Ors. reported in 1999 (4) A.W.C. 3279 in which two writ petitions which were decided by the learned Single Judge were held to have become infructuous by efflux of time during pendency of the writ petitions. An election schedule was notified by the District Inspector of Schools on 29.10.1997 fixing 23.11.1997 as a date for poll, A suit No. 227 of 1997 was filed in which Civil Judge rejected the application for temporary injunction on 15.11.1997 but on the same day the District Inspector of Schools has cancelled the election schedule. The writ petition No. 39006 of 1997 was filed by Qamar Rashid Khan challenging the order dated 15.11.1997 passed by the District Inspector of Schools in which an interim order was granted on 21.11.1997 staying the operation of of the order dated 15.11.1997. As consequence of the interim order the District Inspector of Schools issued fresh election schedule on 29.11.1997. In view of the subsequent election schedule published on 29.11.1997 the writ petition No. 39006 of 1997 was held to be infructuous. In above facts the Court held the writ petition No. 39006 of 1997 had become infructuous, when the election schedule which was earlier published on 29.10.1997 could not culminate into election and before the date of poll the schedule was cancelled and followed by another election schedule. The writ petition challenging the order dated 15.11.1997 has actually become infructuous and there cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case. The facts of the above case are based on entire different set of circumstances and the proposition laid down in the said case has no application in the present case.
Committee Of Management, Sri Ratan Muni ... vs Director Of Education (Secondary), ... on 24 May, 1996
In the case of Committee of Management Shri Ratan Muni Jain Inter College, Agra and Anr. v. Director of Eduction (Secondary) U.P. Directorate of Education, Allahabad and Ors. (supra) the effect of the temporary injunction granted by the Civil Judge in suit filed in the civil court on the basis of an election was being considered. The Court took the view that the injunction order issued by the trial court was passed on particular cause of action and the said injunction in no manner operate in respect of subsequent cause of action. The said judgment has no application in the facts of the present case.
Committee Of Management Dayanand Arya ... vs Director Of Higher Eduction Allahabad & ... on 16 January, 1998
19. The next submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that even if the judgment of this Court dated 22.10.1997 is accepted to be correct with regard to election dated 21.6.1993 the election held on 4.6.1996 is saved under de facto doctrine. It is contended that the Committee of Management which held the election on 4.6.1996 was recognised Committee of Management and all its actions are saved by colour of office although its election dated 21.6.1993 was subsequently quashed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the apex Court A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 1473 Gokaralu Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh; Beopar Sahayak (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Vishwa Nath and Ors.; (1998) 1 UPLBEC 576 Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Ors. v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Ors. and 2005 (2) ESC 1522 Committee of Management, Sri Kashiraj Mahavidyalaya Inter Collector, Aurai and Anr. v. Joint Director of Education, Mirzapur and Ors..
Mohammad Mahroz Iqbal And Others vs State Of U.P. And Another on 27 July, 1992
22. learned Counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1558 Mohd. Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.. In the aforesaid case two members were nominated by the State Government in the Board exercising power under proviso to Section 9 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 by notification dated 2.8.1991. These two nominated members participated in the proceedings of no-confidence held on 12.8.1991 which was brought against the President of the Municipal Board Mohd. Iqbal. The President filed writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 12.8.1991 and participation of aforesaid two nominated members. Two nominated members who were earlier nominated vide notification dated 19.4.1990 also challenged the notification dated 12.8.1991. The Division Bench relying on an earlier judgment of the Division Bench held that the power of nomination given to the State Government was without providing any definite guide lines, thus the nomination dated 12.8.1991 was of no legal consequence. Thus the notification nominating the two members was held to be illegal. It was contended before the Division Bench that their participation in the proceedings dated 12.8.1991 is saved by de facto doctrine because on the date when they participated in the proceedings the nomination was subsisting. The writ petition was filed even before the proceedings dated 12.8.1991 could take place seeking the interim relief restraining the nominated members to participate in the election. The Court did not grant any interim order staying the participation but only directed that their participation shall be subject to result of the writ petition. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case repelled the argument of saving the said proceedings dated 12.8.1991 on de facto doctrine. Following was observed in paragraphs 7 and 8:
Surinder Singh vs Central Government & Ors on 26 September, 1986
The voters list have never been finalized and it was never known as to who are the members who are entitled to participate in the election. Without first finalizing the members entitled to vote the argument that the petitioners failed to prove that the elections were materially affected have no legs to stand. Another submission which has been pressed by the petitioners is that in both the writ petitions main prayers were to quash the election proceedings dated 21.6.1993 and the recognition order dated 22/23.6.1993 but the copies of the said proceedings and recognition order were not filed along with the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on Surinder Singh v. Central Government and Ors. and 1999 (4) A.W.C. 3481 Pramod Kumar and Ors. v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Khaga, Fatehpur and Ors.. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down in the aforesaid cases but in the present writ petitions although the proceedings and orders were not filed by the writ petitioners but they have specifically prayed in the writ petition for quashing the said orders. In the writ petition averment was also made that in spite of several requests the respondents have not made available the copies of the orders to the petitioners. However, in the counter affidavit filed by Jai Narain Tripathi himself the copy of letter of the Prabandh Sanchalak forwarding the entire election proceedings to the District Inspector of Schools for approval and the copy of the order of recognition by the District Inspector of Schools dated 22.6.1993 have been brought on record. The proceedings and the orders were on the record of the writ petition although brought along with the counter affidavit. The proceedings being on the record, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in quashing the said proceedings and orders.
A.M. Mathur vs Pramod Kumar Gupta on 22 March, 1990
26. The last submission made by the counsel for the appellants is that serious observations have been against D.S.M. Tripathi Advocate in the judgment dated 22.10.1997. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the apex Court in A.M. Mathur v. Prfamod Kumar Gupta The apex Court in the said judgment in paragraph 14 laid down as follows: