Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 238 (ALL)

AMANULLAH KHAN v. STATE OF U. P.

2009-01-23

SUNIL AMBWANI

body2009
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Sunil Ambwani, J.—Heard Shri M.D. Singh Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri R.K. Ojha for the respondents. 2. The counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. With the consent of the parties, the writ petition was finally heard. 3. The Sarvodaya Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Ghosi, Mau (a society registered under the Societies Registration Act) runs a recognized and aided educational institution in the name of Sarvodaya Inter College, Ghosi, Mau. The last undisputed elections of the Committee of Management of the college in accordance with the approved scheme of administration under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and regulations made thereunder was held in the year 1999 for a period of three years in which the elections of the office bearers of the Committee of Management of Shri Lochi Singh as the Manager was approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Mau. 4. Shri Lochi Singh died on 23.11.1999. A meeting of the Committee of Management was convened in which Shri Janardan Pandey-respondent No. 4 was elected as Deputy Manager on 9.12.1999 for the remaining term of the Committee of Management. The District Inspector of Schools verified his signatures on 20.12.1999. 5. The elections to elect a new Committee of Management were not held even after the remaining term of the Committee of Management expired in the year 2002, and upto the year 2005. The District Inspector of Schools appointed Shri Vikram Singh, Asstt. Basic Education Officer, Mau as observer for the elections held on 2.7.2006, in which Dr. Janardan Pandey-respondent No. 4 was again elected as the Manager. He submitted his papers for approval to the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh, through the District Inspector of Schools, Mau vide his letter dated 11.5.2007 for consideration by the Regional Level Committee. 6. The Regional Level Committee in its meeting dated 14.5.2007 decided to enquire from the District Inspector of Schools, Mau as to whether a new Committee of Management was constituted in the year 2002, and was approved to consider the elections held on 2.7.2006 for approval. The Committee was informed by the District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 26.6.2007 that the Committee elected in the year 2002 was not approved by the Regional Committee. The District Inspector of Schools was, thereafter, asked by the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh by his letter dated 1.9.2007 to make recommendations for appointment of Authorised Controller. 7. The Committee was informed by the District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 26.6.2007 that the Committee elected in the year 2002 was not approved by the Regional Committee. The District Inspector of Schools was, thereafter, asked by the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh by his letter dated 1.9.2007 to make recommendations for appointment of Authorised Controller. 7. The District Inspector of Schools informed the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh that the roof of one of the rooms in the school had fallen on 5.10.2007 in which 54 students including 23 girl students of Class-11 were injured and that three girl students were also seriously injured on which the District Magistrate along with administration reached on the spot and took rehabilitation measures. The District Inspector of Schools found the outgoing Committee of Management to be responsible for the incident. The Regional Level Committee by its decision dated 8.10.2007 did not find it appropriate to approve the elections dated 2.7.2006 and while rejecting the recommendations for approval the Regional Level Committee directed fresh elections be held under the supervision of an Authorised Controller and accordingly a senior teacher of DIAT was appointed as Authorised Controller to hold elections within two months. 8. Aggrieved by the order the Committee of Management through Dr. Janardan Pandey filed a Writ Petition No. 53222 of 2007. This Court by its order dated 5.11.2007 accepted the argument that the order was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order was set aside with directions to Regional Level Committee to pass fresh orders within four weeks. 9. The Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh has in compliance of the orders of the High Court, communicated to the petitioner and the respondent No. 4 enclosing a copy of the decision/resolution of the Regional Level Committee in its meeting dated 23.8.2008, approving the elections of the Committee of Management held dated 2.7.2006, and for verifying the signatures of Dr. Janardan Pandey as the Manager of the college, giving rise to this writ petition. 10. The petitioner Shri Amanullah Khan claims to be a member of the general body of the society. He is not claiming that there were any other set of elections or that there is any other person claiming to be Manager of the society. Janardan Pandey as the Manager of the college, giving rise to this writ petition. 10. The petitioner Shri Amanullah Khan claims to be a member of the general body of the society. He is not claiming that there were any other set of elections or that there is any other person claiming to be Manager of the society. He has raised objections to the effect that the Regional Level Committee was required to give opportunity to Dr. Janardan Pandey and to decide whether the elected Committee of Management of the year 1999, whose tenure has expired in the year 2002 could hold the elections of the Committee of Management on 2.7.2006. It is contended that the Regional Level Committee has not touched this aspect of the matter. The outgoing Committee of Management elected in the year 1999 for the remaining term with Dr. Janardan Pandey did not have any right to continue and to hold fresh elections in the year 2006. The petitioner submits that no hearing took place nor any opportunity was given to the petitioner and that inspite of objections taken by the petitioner before the Joint Director of Education on 18.8.2008 the petitioner was not provided with the relevant information. Shri M.D. Singh Sekhar would submit that Shri Janardan Pandey did not have a right to convene the meeting for fresh elections and that elections could only be held by the Authorised Controller before the terms of the Committee of Management elected in 1999 had expired. 11. Shri R.K. Ojha on the other hand would submit that the petitioner as a member of the society has no business to object to the elections. Dr. Janardan Pandey as elected Manager continued since 1999 and is smoothly performing the functions of the Committee of Management. The renewal of the registration of the society was made on 3.2.2001. The petitioner challenged the order by way of filing Writ Petition No. 11018 of 2002. The writ petition was disposed of on 19.3.2002 at the admission stage on the ground that the dispute raised could only be decided in a civil suit. The Committee of Management issued an agenda on 23.4.2006 and passed a resolution that the elections of the Committee of Management were held on 2.7.2006. A letter was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for sending an observer on 22.6.2006. The Committee of Management issued an agenda on 23.4.2006 and passed a resolution that the elections of the Committee of Management were held on 2.7.2006. A letter was sent to the District Inspector of Schools for sending an observer on 22.6.2006. Shri Udai Narain Dubey, the lecturer in Hindi in Janta Inter College, Mau was appointed by the Committee of Management as Election Officer for holding elections. The District Inspector of Schools on 27.6.2006 appointed Shri Vikram Singh as observer to supervise the elections, which was held from amongst 37 out of 46 members of the society. Dr. Janardan Pandey was elected as Manager and that the Regional Level Committee has not committed any error in recognising the Committee of Management elected on 2.7.2006. 12. The Regional Level Committee has found that the elections, which had fallen due in the year 2002 and 2005 were not held and that members of the old Committee of Management continued. The fresh elections were held on 2.7.2006 in the presence of observer sent by the District Inspector of Schools. The elections were held after advertising the agenda in daily newspapers ‘Swatantra Chetna’ on 15.6.2006 and that 37 members participated in the meeting. The entire committee was elected unopposed. There was no irregularity found in the process of elections. Shri Amanullah Khan could not produce any such material, which could have affected the validity of the elections. 13. A perusal of the copy of the objections raised by Shri Amanullah Khan on 18.8.2007 annexed as Annexure 4 would show that he claims to be a member of the society since 1984. According to him that the prescribed procedure was not followed in the elections. All the 2/3rd members of the general body belong to only one community out of which 8 were related to each other, which shows that the entire general body is dominated by one person. The petitioner was not provided with the information in pursuance of the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 20.7.2004 by which Dr. Janardan Pandey was required to submit details of the elections of the Committee of Management. The petitioner had made several representation that the elections be held through the Authorised Controller. 14. In para 10 on his objections the petitioner stated that even if Dr. Janardan Pandey was required to submit details of the elections of the Committee of Management. The petitioner had made several representation that the elections be held through the Authorised Controller. 14. In para 10 on his objections the petitioner stated that even if Dr. Janardan Pandey was validly elected after the death of Lochi Singh on 23.11.1999, the elections should have been held after informing all the members in the presence of an observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools. The list of members of the general body were not published nor the information was given regarding elections by registered post or by publication in newspapers. 15. The documents annexed to the record would show that after the death of Lochi Singh on 23.11.1999 Dr. Janardan Pandey was elected as Manager. He did not hold elections after completing the remaining term of the Committee of Management elected in the year 1999. He also did not hold elections in the year 2002 and 2005. It is only after a dispute regarding the elections of the Committee of Management of the society was raised by the petitioner that the elections were notified and were held in the presence of the observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools. The notice was sent to the members under certificate of posting and the date of election meeting was advertised in daily newspaper ‘Swatantra Chetna’. It is reported that 37 out of 45 members attended the meeting, which constitute a majority again electing Dr. Janardan Pandey as Manager. 16. Both the parties have not annexed the Scheme of Administration to find out whether the elections could be held by the outgoing Manager or by the Authorised Controller. The elections in the present case have been held in the presence of observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools in which it was found that 37 out of 46 members participated and that new Committee of Management was elected with Dr. Janardan Pandey as Manager. There was no opposition to the elections. 17. This Court would not interfere with the approval of the elections of the Regional Level Committee, only on the allegations that the procedure was not followed. Janardan Pandey as Manager. There was no opposition to the elections. 17. This Court would not interfere with the approval of the elections of the Regional Level Committee, only on the allegations that the procedure was not followed. There is no rival Committee of Management and thus the dispute raised by one of the member of society, who did not succeed in his objections in the matter of elections of office bearers of the society, should not be ordinarily entertained by the Court. The objections raised by the petitioner would go to show that he is only complaining of the irregularities in procedure of holding elections. He has nowhere stated that Dr. Janardan Pandey was not elected by the majority in the year 1999 or was not in effective control of the affairs of the institution. He has also not stated that the elections were not held in the presence of the observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools. He, therefore, does not have locus to present the writ petition. This Court would not entertain objections just for the sake of raising objections to the validity of the elections. 18. The elections to elect Committee of Management of educational institution are invariably always made the subject matter of disputes. Ordinarily, such disputes can be resolved only by filing civil suits in which the objections may be examined after taking evidence. The educational authorities have been given powers under Section 16-A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act to resolve the dispute for the purposes of deciding as to which of the rival claimant or a rank trespasser, is in effective control of the affairs of the institutions. The object is to allow a validly elected Committee of Management to discharge various statutory functions given under the Act and Regulations framed thereunder. When the objections to the elections are confined only to the irregularities and that there is no rival committee, it would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere on the ground that an Authorised Controller should have been appointed for an outgoing Committee of Management of which the term had expired to hold elections or that a single member claimed that he had no knowledge of the elections. 19. 19. The enquiry regarding validity of the elections, where no rival committee has been set up, has to be confined under Section 16-A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is confined only to find out whether the valid members of the society have elected a Committee of Management, which is in effective control of the affairs of the educational institution. In such a case the rights of the individual members of the society do not extend to file a writ petition to challenge the elections, the decision of the Regional Level Committee and the orders of the Joint Director of Education. The Court would be slow to examine these complaints made by individual members to the validity of the elections. Similar views were taken by this Court in Committee of Management, Sri Kachcha Baba Inter College, Varanasi and others v. Regional Committee, Pancham Mandal, Varanasi and others, 2007(4) ESC 2500 (All) and Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(9) ADJ 660 , following the Full Bench decision of this Court in Committee of Management, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College, Bansgaon, Distt. Gorakhpur and another v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and others, (2005) 1 UPLBEC 85 . 20. The writ petition is dismissed in limine, with no order as to costs. ————