JUDGMENT By the Court.—R.P. Post Graduate College Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad is a degree college affiliated to Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj University, Kanpur. Elections in respect of the Committee of Management of the institution are alleged to have taken place on 4th June, 2006. In the said elections Smt. Pushpa Singh was elected as Secretary while Sri Raja Ram Verma was elected as President. Papers in respect of the elections so held were transmitted to the Vice Chancellor of the University for necessary recognition under Section 2(13) of the State Universities Act. The papers were received in the office of the University on 11th June, 2006 and approval to the elections so held was granted by the Vice Chancellor, as communicated under the letter of the Registrar of the University dated 17th July, 2006. A complaint was made by Sri Raja Ram Verma, who was the outgoing President of the Committee of Management and was also newly elected President in the elections dated 4th June, 2006, alleging therein that the alleged elections dated 4th June, 2006 have not taken place and papers submitted qua elections are fictitious. 2. From the original records of the University, which have been produced under the direction issued by this Court earlier, it is apparently clear that on the complaint of Raja Ram Verma dated 17.1.2007 an office note was put up on 5th February, 2007 itself and thereafter by means of another note dated 10th May, 2007 it was recommended that before any decision is taken on the complaint of Raja Ram Verma both the parties may be heard. Thereafter there is another note dated 29th May, 2007, wherein the complaint of Kulap Singh dated 20th May, 2007 has been taken note of with an endorsement that the parties may be heard in the matter. 3. We may record that as per the noting on the office file the same was returned to the office without any order being passed by the Vice Chancellor. That since the Vice Chancellor was not taking any action on the complaint made by Raja Ram Verma and Kulap Singh, the aforesaid persons approached the Minister of Higher Education and the Minister in turn is stated to have required the Vice Chancellor to take appropriate decision on the complaint so made by Raja Ram Verma and Kulap Singh. That since the Vice Chancellor was not taking any action on the complaint made by Raja Ram Verma and Kulap Singh, the aforesaid persons approached the Minister of Higher Education and the Minister in turn is stated to have required the Vice Chancellor to take appropriate decision on the complaint so made by Raja Ram Verma and Kulap Singh. The Vice Chancellor thereafter proceeded and notices were issued to the parties for appearance before him on 29th September, 2007. On the said date an adjournment application was made on behalf of Smt. Pushpa Singh, which was granted and hearing was adjourned to 27th October, 2007. 4. It is at this stage of the proceedings Smt. Pushpa Singh filed Writ Petition No. 48607 of 2007, wherein an interim order was granted by the learned Single Judge on 3rd October, 2007 staying further proceedings before the Vice Chancellor. 5. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, Raja Ram Verma, who was elected as President in the alleged elections dated 4th June, 2006, submitted papers before the Vice Chancellor of the University stating therein that under a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 15.7.2007 a decision has been taken to handover charge of the office of the Secretary of the institution to one Ashok Kumar the Deputy Secretary. 6. Since decision was not being taken on the papers so forwarded by Raja Ram Verma, he filed Writ Petition No. 56236 of 2007 before this Court for a writ of mandamus commanding the Vice Chancellor to take appropriate decision on the papers transmitted qua the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 15.7.2007. 7. Both the aforesaid writ petitions were clubbed together and have been decided by the learned Single Judge under the impugned judgment and order dated 8th July, 2008. 8. So far as the writ petition filed by Raja Ram Verma is concerned, same has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that Raja Ram Verma has since expired and therefore Meva Ram Verma, who was the Vice-President of the Committee of Management and had made an application for permitting him to continue in the writ proceedings, cannot be permitted to do so. The writ petition at the behest of Raja Ram Verma has been therefore dismissed. 9. The writ petition at the behest of Raja Ram Verma has been therefore dismissed. 9. So far as the writ petition filed by Smt. Pushpa Singh is concerned, the learned Single Judge has recorded that the Vice Chancellor of the University has no authority of law to review his earlier order granting approval to the elections of the Committee of Management dated 4th June, 2006 as per his order dated 17th June, 2006 and therefore it has been held that notices issued on the complaint made by Kulap Singh and Raja Ram Verma, referred to above, cannot be proceeded with. The writ petition has therefore been allowed and the notices issued have been quashed. 10. Not being satisfied with the order of the learned Single Judge, two special appeals have been filed, one by Mewa Ram Verma, being Special Appeal No. 972 of 2008 and other by Kulap Singh, being Special Appeal No. 973 of 2008. 11. So far as Special Appeal No. 972 of 2008 is concerned, the relief prayed for has been confined to the prayer that the Vice Chancellor may be directed to consider the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 15.7.2007, as forwarded under the signature of Raja Ram Verma, wherein Smt. Pushpa Singh has been asked to handover the charge of the office of the Secretary to the Deputy Secretary of the society. 12. Counsel for the appellant Sri Shashi Nandan Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi vehemently contended that the learned Single Judge was not justified in refusing the permission to Sri Mewa Ram Verma to prosecute the writ proceedings subsequent to the death of Raja Ram Verma, inasmuch as subsequent to death of Raja Ram Verma all the duties of the office of President were being discharged by the Vice-President namely Mewa Ram Verma. He further contended that the resolution, as passed by the Committee of Management dated 15.7.2007, needs examination by the Vice Chancellor and he cannot be permitted to sleep over the papers so forwarded without examining the correctness or otherwise of the resolution so passed. 13. He further contended that the resolution, as passed by the Committee of Management dated 15.7.2007, needs examination by the Vice Chancellor and he cannot be permitted to sleep over the papers so forwarded without examining the correctness or otherwise of the resolution so passed. 13. So far as Appeal No. 973 of 2008 is concerned, on behalf of Kulap Singh it is contended by Sri Shashi Nandan Senior Advocate that once there are allegations made in the representation filed by Kulap Singh as well as Raja Ram Verma (since expired) that the papers submitted under their signatures qua elections dated 4th June, 2006 had never been signed by them, an issue has arisen as to whether papers so submitted are forged and fictitious or not. He submits that the Vice Chancellor has necessarily to examine the issue after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. If the charge is found proved, all the orders passed by the Vice Chancellor earlier have necessarily to be struck down inasmuch as fraud vitiates every action. 14. So far as the letter of the Minister is concerned, it is submitted that on the record of the University it is writ large that the complaint in respect of the papers qua elections dated 4.6.2006 were submitted by Raja Ram Verma and Kulap Singh (who were outgoing office bearers of the earlier committee) stating that the same have not been signed by them and no such elections have taken place. He, therefore, submits that the learned Single Judge was not justified in recording the findings that the Vice Chancellor has no power to review his earlier order. 15. Opposing the contention so rasied on behalf of the appellant, Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate vehemently contended that from the writ petition filed by Raja Ram Verma, being Writ Petition No. 56236 of 2007, it is apparently clear that he has taken a stand before this Court that elections dated 4th June, 2006 in fact had taken place and it is only the office bearers so elected are stated to have passed a resolution dated 15.7.2007 requiring Smt. Pushpa Singh to handover the charge of the office of Secretary to Ashok Kumar Deputy Secretary of the Society. He, therefore, submits that the earlier complaint made by Raja Ram Verma, being contradictory, cannot be permitted to be proceeded with. 16. He, therefore, submits that the earlier complaint made by Raja Ram Verma, being contradictory, cannot be permitted to be proceeded with. 16. With regard to resolution dated 15.7.2007, which is subject matter of Appeal No. 972 of 2008, he points out that a bare reading of the alleged resolution would establish that Smt. Pushpa Singh has not been removed from the office of Secretary. Therefore, so long as she continues to hold the post of Secretary, there cannot be any direction to handover the charge of the office to Deputy Secretary. He, therefore, submits that the prayer No. 7 in the writ petition filed by Raja Ram Verma in fact being prosecuted by Mewa Ram Verma is an attempt to somehow or the other keep Smt. Pushpa Singh out of office on one pretext or other. He further submits that Raja Ram Verma is the same person who has filed complaint alongwith Kulap Singh against elections dated 4th June, 2006 and being aware that he will not succeed, he turned around to set up a theory of a resolution of the Committee of Management dated 15.7.2007 directing Smt. Pushpa Singh to handover the charge of the office of the Secretary to Deputy Secretary. It is, therefore, submitted that the appellate Court may not interfere with the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge. 17. Sri Neeraj Tiwari Advocate on behalf of the University submits that the Vice Chancellor of the University has ample jurisdiction to reconsider an order passed earlier, if there are allegations of fraud or misrepresentation, after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties and to take appropriate decision accordingly. 18. With regard to the resolution dated 15.7.2007 he points out that Vice Chancellor has ample jurisdiction to examine as to whether such resolution is valid resolution and whether any further action is required to be taken in pursuance thereto or not. 19. On behalf of the State learned Standing Counsel states that the matter may be examined by this Court and appropriate directions may be issued to Vice Chancellor. 20. We have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 21. From the facts as they stand today, it is admitted position that Raja Ram Verma and Kulap Singh were outgoing office bearers of the Committee of Management of the institution. 20. We have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. 21. From the facts as they stand today, it is admitted position that Raja Ram Verma and Kulap Singh were outgoing office bearers of the Committee of Management of the institution. In the fresh elections dated 4th June, 2006 Smt. Pushpa Singh is stated to have been elected as Secretary/Manager, while Raja Ram Verma is stated to have been elected as President. Papers in respect of the said elections, for recognition by the Vice Chancellor, have been submitted under the signatures of Kulap Singh. Same papers have also been signed by Raja Ram Verma in his capacity as President. The Vice Chancellor vide order dated 17.7.2006 was pleased to approve the elections dated 4th June, 2006 on these set of papers only. 22. A complaint was made by Raja Ram Verma as well as by Kulap Singh in the year, 2007 itself stating that the said papers have not been signed by them and that no elections took place on 4.6.2006. There is an office note on the record which recommended that the complaint of the aforesaid two persons be examined after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. All this has taken place much prior to the date of letter of the Minister dated 12.7.2007. 23. In such circumstances we are of the considered opinion that insistence of the Minister concerned upon the Vice Chancellor to take appropriate action on the complaint of Raja Ram Verma and Kulap Singh cannot be said to be basis for any jurisdiction being conferred upon the Vice Chancellor so as to vitiate the notice issued by the Vice Chancellor subsequent to the receipt of the letter of the Minister concerned. 24. The Apex Court has repeatedly held that fraud vitiates all action. Since there are allegations of fraud in the representation made by Raja Ram Verma and Kulap Singh, the Vice Chancellor is duty bound to examine the same after affording opportunity of hearing specifically in the circumstance when Raja Ram Verma and Kulap Singh were outgoing office bearers of the Committee of Management and the papers are said to have been submitted under their signatures qua the elections dated 4th June, 2006. Such complaints cannot be brushed aside by the Vice Chancellor nor can he be permitted to sleep over the same for indefinite period. Such complaints cannot be brushed aside by the Vice Chancellor nor can he be permitted to sleep over the same for indefinite period. Moreover, the office of the University has taken note of the complaint made by Raja Ram Verma and Kulap Singh and recommended that the matter be resolved after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. 25. We may further record that proceedings initiated by the Vice Chancellor on the aforesaid two complaints cannot be termed to be review of the order by the Vice Chancellor. Every authority has inherent jurisdiction to recall an order which has been obtained by fraud and therefore in the facts of the present case, there being allegation of fraud qua the approval obtained in respect of the elections, as per the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 17.7.2006, he was under legal obligation to issue notices on the complaint so received and to finally determine as to whether earlier order dated 17.7.2006 has been obtained on the basis of fraud and fictitious documents or not. 26. We, therefore, record that learned Single Judge was not justified in recording that the impugned notice issued by the Vice Chancellor calling upon the parties for examining the correctness or otherwise of the documents received in respect of the elections dated 4th June, 2006 cannot be said to be vitiated in any manner nor the proceedings can be said to be without jurisdiction. 27. In view of the aforesaid, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge was not justified in interfering with the notice issued by the Vice Chancellor while allowing the Writ Petition No. 48607 of 2007. 28. So far as the Writ Petition No. 56236 of 2007 is concerned, we are of the considered opinion that the Vice-President of the Committee of Management, being authorized under the bye-laws of the society to look after the duties and responsibilities assigned to the President, subsequent to his death, he also gets a right to pursue the writ petition filed by the President subsequent to his death. The impleadment application made by the Vice President could not be rejected, as has been done in the facts of the present case by the learned Single Judge. 29. The impleadment application made by the Vice President could not be rejected, as has been done in the facts of the present case by the learned Single Judge. 29. Therefore, we allowed the application made by Mewa Ram Verma to pursue the Writ Petition No. 56236 of 2007 filed by the R.P. Post Graduate College, Kamalganj, District Farrukhabad through its President Raja Ram Verma. 30. We further record that in the facts of the case no purpose would be served by restoring the writ petition to its original number and remanding the matter before the learned Single Judge inasmuch as interest of substantial justice would be served by providing that the Vice Chancellor himself may examine the veracity of the resolution of the Committee of Management dated 15.7.2007 and to satisfy himself as to whether such a resolution could be passed in view of the specific provisions of the bye-laws of the society, which regulate the continuance or otherwise of the office bearers of the society/Committee of Management. 31. We may clarify that we are of the considered opinion that the alleged resolution of the Committee of Management cannot be termed to be a motion of no confidence against the Secretary of the society. The Vice Chancellor has to examine as to whether the alleged resolution is in conformity with the bye-laws of the society or not at the earliest possible, preferably within three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before him. 32. With the aforesaid observations/directions the present special appeals are allowed. 33. The original records produced before us by Sri Neeraj Tiwari Advocate may be returned to him by the Bench Secretary. ————