JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The Committee of Management of S.D. Girls Inter College, Saharanpur and Vikki Batra claiming himself to be its Manager have filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 22nd March, 2010 passed by the Regional Level Committee, Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur by which approval has been granted to the election of the Committee of Management held on 1st August, 2008 in which Sarvershwar Nath Prabhakar was elected as the Manager. 2. It is stated in the petition that S.D. Girls Inter College, Saharanpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institution’) is a recognised and aided Intermediate Institution which is governed by the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The Institution has its own Scheme of Administration which provides that the term of the Committee of Management shall be three years and three months. The election of the Committee of Management was held on 31st July, 2005 from a list of 270 members of the General Body in which Mahendra Kumar was elected as the Manager. The Regional Level Committee granted approval to the said election on 19th December, 2006 and the District Inspector of Schools also attested the signatures of the Manager. As the term of the Committee of Management was coming to an end, fresh elections were held on 10th August, 2008 in which petitioner No. 2-Vikki Batra was elected as the Manager. This election was also held on the basis of a list of 270 members of the General Body. However, a rival election was also set up in which Sarveshwar Nath Prabhakar was elected as the Manager on 1st August, 2008. This election was conducted from the list of 58 members of the General Body. As the two rival Committee of Managements claimed to have held the elections, the District Inspector of Schools referred the matter to the Regional Level Committee. The Regional Level Committee took a decision on 17th July, 2009 that none of the two elections can be approved and further directed that fresh election should be held on the basis of the list of 58 members of the General Body. 3. The Regional Level Committee took a decision on 17th July, 2009 that none of the two elections can be approved and further directed that fresh election should be held on the basis of the list of 58 members of the General Body. 3. This order dated 17th July, 2009 of the Regional Level Committee was challenged in Writ Petition No. 38309 of 2009 which was allowed by the judgment and order dated 29th July, 2009 with the following observations : “The Scheme of Administration does not require any prior permission from the District Inspector of Schools for holding the elections. All that Clause 9(4) of the Scheme of Administration requires is that information of the election has to be sent to the District Inspector of Schools, District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police by registered post for sending an observer. The impugned order mentions that such information was not sent. It is the contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners that such information had been sent and in support of this contention he has placed reliance upon the registered letter dated 15th June, 2008 sent by the ex-Manager to the District Inspector of Schools. Reliance has also been placed on Annexure 6 to the writ petition which contains the postal receipts, which according to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is for the letters sent to the District Inspector of Schools, District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police. It is also his submission that these documents were included in the list of 194 documents submitted by the petitioners before the Regional Level Committee. This factual position is seriously disputed by Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the rival Committee of Management and it is submitted that such documents were never placed before the Regional Level Committee by the petitioner-Committee of Management. The Court finds that there is no discussion about this issue in the impugned order. The order dated 26th November, 2008 was passed by the District Inspector of Schools for single operation of the accounts after the petitioner Committee of Management had held the election. This order could not have been taken into consideration for holding that the election could have been held by the District Inspector of Schools and not by the ex-Manager or any other person. This order could not have been taken into consideration for holding that the election could have been held by the District Inspector of Schools and not by the ex-Manager or any other person. The Regional Level Committee has also noticed that the Committee of Management had not asked for recognition of the election but had only pointed out the infirmity in the rival elections. This is not true as papers had been submitted by the petitioner-Committee of Management before the District Inspector of Schools for granting recognition. The last reason given by the Regional Level Committee cannot also be accepted. If the Regional Level Committee formed an opinion that the membership of the body was disputed then it should have decided it but the elections could not have been discarded by simply saying that there was a dispute. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the order dated 17th July, 2009 passed by the Regional Level Committee cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. The Regional Level Committee shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above and after granting opportunity to the parties expeditiously, preferably within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by either of parties before it. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.” 4. The impugned order mentions that after the aforesaid order was passed by the Court on 29th July, 2009, the Regional Level Committee fixed 27th August, 2008 for submission of documents. Sarveshwar Nath Prabhakar appeared on the said date but Vikki Batra did not appear on the ground of illness. The Committee then fixed 4th September, 2009 as the next date and sent communication to both the parties. Surveshwar Nath Prabhakar appeared on the said date but Vikki Batra again did not appear on the ground of illness. However, the petitioners submitted two detailed representations dated 3rd September, 2009 and 11th September, 2009 enclosing the documents pertaining to the election and the membership of the General Body of the Institution. Surveshwar Nath Prabhakar appeared on the said date but Vikki Batra again did not appear on the ground of illness. However, the petitioners submitted two detailed representations dated 3rd September, 2009 and 11th September, 2009 enclosing the documents pertaining to the election and the membership of the General Body of the Institution. The next date fixed by the Committee was 13th October, 2009 on which date both Surveshwar Nath Prabhakar and Vikki Batra appeared but as the Joint Director of Education did not sit, the hearing was adjourned and 11th September, 2009 was fixed on which date both the parties appeared but as the Joint Director of Education was out of city, the hearing was again adjourned. Thereafter, on 18th November, 2009 notices were issued by registered post to both the parties fixing 30th November, 2009. Surveshwar Nath Prabhakar appeared on the said date but Vikki Batra did not appear. The hearing was, however, adjourned since the Joint Director of Education did not sit. Fresh notices were issued by registered post to the parties fixing 5th December, 2009 as the next date. Surveshwar Nath Prabhakar appeared but the registered letter returned back without service with the endorsement that Vikki Batra was out of city. Another notice was then sent to Vikki Batra on 17th December, 2009 by registered post fixing 22nd December, 2009. This notice could not also be served and it returned back with the endorsement that Vikki Batra was away. 5. The Regional Level Committee, therefore, proceeded to hear the matter in the absence of Vikki Batra and decided the matter on 22nd March, 2010. It granted approval to the election of the respondent-Committee of Management held on 1st August, 2008 from the list of 58 members of the General Body. 6. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 22nd March, 2010 shows the following: (i) The elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution were held in 1996 and 1999 on the basis of the list of 58 members of the General Body. 6. A perusal of the aforesaid order dated 22nd March, 2010 shows the following: (i) The elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution were held in 1996 and 1999 on the basis of the list of 58 members of the General Body. (ii) Prior to the election held in 2002, it was alleged that 89 new members had also been enrolled on 11th November, 1996 and 13th February, 1999 and in respect of these 89 members, Original Suit No. 605 of 2000 was filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Saharanpur in which temporary injunction was granted on 4th December, 2000 permitting these 89 newly enrolled members to participate in the election as a result of which 147 (58+89) members participated in the election held in 2002. Two rival Committee of Managements claimed to have held the elections as a result of which matter was referred to the Regional Level Committee which on 26th April, 2003 decided to approve the election with Mahendra Kumar as the Manager. Subsequently, Suit No. 605 of 2000 was dismissed as a result of which these 89 members ceased to be valid members of the General Body. (iii) After the holding of the election in 2002, the Committee of Management met on 27th July, 2000 and authorised the Manager Mahendra Kumar to enroll 100 new members and in the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 13th August, 2000, the enrollment of 100 new members was accepted. The Regional Level Committee did not accept the enrollment of these 100 new members since it was contrary to the provisions of Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. (iv) The enrollment of 53 new members in the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 15th June, 2003 is also doubtful since there is overwriting in the resolution. (v) In respect of the enrollment of these 100 members and 53 members, it is contended by Vikki Batra that the enrollment amount of Rs. 3,24,000/- was deposited in the Bank and the counter foils of the Bank were also filed, but the Regional Level Committee did not accept them since it was not clear from the counter foils of the Bank under which head the amount was deposited. 3,24,000/- was deposited in the Bank and the counter foils of the Bank were also filed, but the Regional Level Committee did not accept them since it was not clear from the counter foils of the Bank under which head the amount was deposited. (vi) In the election of the Committee of Management held on 31st July, 2005, 300 (58+89+100+53) members participated but as two rival Committee of Managements claimed to have held the elections, the matter was referred to the Regional Level Committee which on 19th December, 2006 decided to approve the election of the Committee of Management with Mahendra Kumar as the Manager. (vii) Vikki Batra claims to have held the election in 2008 on the basis of the list of 270 (58+100+53+59) members of the General Body, but no document has been filed to substantiate the enrollment of 59 new members. It is also not clear from the counter foils of the Bank under which head the deposit of Rs. 1,39,000/- towards enrollment fees of these 59 members was made. The Regional Level Committee also referred to its earlier decision dated 17th July, 2009 in which these 212 (100+53+59) members of the General Body were not found to be valid members and in this connection has observed that these 212 members had not raised any dispute against the decision of the Regional Level Committee. (viii) The Regional Level Committee, therefore, held that since the enrollment of 212 (100+53+59) members of the General Body is not valid, the elections which have been held on the basis of the list of 58 members should be declared valid. 7. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Sharma. Learned Standing Counsel has put in appearance on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel has made the submissions on behalf of respondent No. 4. 8. Learned Standing Counsel and Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 have made a statement that it will not be necessary to file a counter-affidavit and the petition may be decided at this stage. 9. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the decision dated 22nd March, 2010 taken by the Regional Level Committee deserves to be set aside on the following grounds : 1. 9. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the decision dated 22nd March, 2010 taken by the Regional Level Committee deserves to be set aside on the following grounds : 1. The decision taken by the Regional Level Committee is ex-parte since admittedly the notice dated 30th November, 2009 fixing 5th December, 2009 and the notice dated 17th December, 2009 fixing 22nd December, 2009 were not served on Vikki Batra. The telegram dated 1st February, 2010 was also not sent by Vikki Batra. 2. The Regional Level Committee committed an illegality in discarding the membership of 212 (100+53+59) members, even though sufficient documentary evidence had been filed to establish that they had been validly enrolled as the members of the General Body and the findings to the contrary recorded by the Regional Level Committee are perverse. 3. Even otherwise, these 212 members had participated in the election held in 2005, which election had been approved by the Regional Level Committee. In such circumstances, the Regional Level Committee was not justified in re-opening the issue and ultimately taking a contrary view. 4. There is no discussion in the order of the Regional Level Committee as to why the election of the respondent-Committee of Management is valid. 10. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, however, supported the decision dated 22nd March, 2010 taken by the Regional Level Committee. It is their submission that sufficient opportunity had been granted to Vikki Batra to appear before the Regional Level Committee but for reasons best known to him, he did not appear before the Regional Level Committee on the dates fixed and ultimately sent a telegram dated 1st February, 2010 which was received by the Regional Level Committee on 2nd February, 2010 mentioning that because of family conditions, he does not desire to continue as the Manager. They have further submitted that there is no error in the findings recorded by the Regional Level Committee that 212 (100+53+59) members had not been validly enrolled. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. They have further submitted that there is no error in the findings recorded by the Regional Level Committee that 212 (100+53+59) members had not been validly enrolled. 11. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. Two issues need to be decided namely, whether adequate opportunity had been given to Vikki Batra by the Regional Level Committee and whether the Regional Level Committee was justified in holding that 212 members were not entitled to participate in the election of the Committee of Management held by Vikki Batra. 13. Regarding the first issue, it is clear from the documents on record that the notice dated 30th November, 2009 fixing 5th December, 2009 and the notice dated 17th December, 2009 fixing 22nd December, 2009 were issued fixing dates of hearing before the Regional Level Committee but it is a fact that the notices had not been served on Vikki Batra. The petitioners have also disputed the sending of the telegram by Vikki Batra on 1st February, 2010. For this reason alone, the matter needs to be sent back to the Regional Level Committee to take a decision after giving opportunity to the parties. 14. However, as learned counsel for the parties have also made submissions about the finding recorded by the Regional Level Committee that 212 members were not entitled to participate in the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution, it needs to be mentioned that the Regional Level Committee has failed to take into consideration the fact that in the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held in 2005, which had been approved by the Regional Level Committee, these 212 members had participated. 15. This apart, the Regional Level Committee should have given the opportunity to the petitioners to substantiate under which head the enrollment amount was deposited regarding the enrollment of these 212 members since it was found by the Regional Level Committee that though the amount was deposited in the Bank but it was not clear from the counter foils submitted by Vikki Batra under which head the amount had been deposited. 16. 16. At this stage, Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 submits that if the matter is to be remanded then a date may be fixed for appearance of Vikki Batra before the Regional Level Committee since he is avoiding the hearing. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners states that the petitioners can have no possible objection to the fixing of a date by the Court but what he states is that as the issue pertains to old records, permission may be granted to Vikki Batra to associate the earlier Manager-Mahendra Kumar in the proceedings before the Regional Level Committee. 17. These submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties are justified and deserve to be accepted. 18. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, the decision dated 22nd March, 2010 taken by the Regional Level Committee deserves to be set aside and is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remanded to the Regional Level Committee to pass a fresh order after giving opportunity to the parties, as expeditiously as is possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced by either of the parties before the Regional Level Committee. 19. It is further ordered that petitioner No. 2-Vikki Batra shall appear before the Joint Director of Education on 10th May, 2010 who shall inform him of the date on which the Regional Level Committee shall hear the parties. Vikki Batra shall also co-operate in the hearing and shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment. The Regional Level Committee shall permit Vikki Batra to seek the assistance of the earlier Manager-Mahendra Kumar in the hearing. 20. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. ————