Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 3500 (ALL)

INTERIM COMMITTEE (UP SAMITI) v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-11-25

DILIP GUPTA, SATISH CHANDRA

body2014
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Interim Committee (Up Samiti) through its President Chhote Lal Patel has filed this Special Appeal against the judgment and order dated 17 October 2014 passed by a learned Judge of this Court by which Writ Petition No. 56462 of 2014 filed by the Committee of Management of Jhallu Jeetlal Bal Kalyan Samiti, Mandhata, Pratapgarh (the Institution) has been allowed with certain directions. 2. The aforesaid writ petition was filed by the Committee of Management of the Institution through its Manager Ganga Prasad Kesharwani for quashing the order dated 1 October 2014 passed by the Joint Director of Education by which he had modified his earlier order dated 30 September 2014 and directed that the elections for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution would be conducted by the Interim Committee constituted on 7 February 2014. 3. The election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution was earlier held on 25 April 2010. However, the post of Manager fell vacant and the election was not approved. The Scheme of Administration of the Institution provides that the term of the Committee of Management shall be of three years. It also provides in clause 8(2) that if the elections are not conducted within the aforesaid period of three years and one month, the Regional Director of Education will constitute an Interim Committee of three persons to work as President, Manager and Treasurer for a period of six months. This Interim Committee will not only manage the day-to-day affairs of the Institution but will also hold the elections for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution. 4. As the elections were not held within the aforesaid period of three years and one month, the Joint Director of Education passed an order on 7 February 2014 constituting a three member Interim Committee for conducting elections. This Interim Committee, however, did not hold the elections within a period of six months and, therefore, the Joint Director of Education passed an oder on 30 September 2014 directing the District Inspector of Schools to hold the elections on the basis of undisputed list of members in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. Subsequently, this order dated 30 September 2014 was modified by the Joint Director of Education on 1 October 2014 and a direction was issued to the Interim Committee to hold the elections. 5. Subsequently, this order dated 30 September 2014 was modified by the Joint Director of Education on 1 October 2014 and a direction was issued to the Interim Committee to hold the elections. 5. The learned Judge has found that the Interim Committee could not have continued beyond the period of six months and, therefore, quashed the order dated 1 October 2014. A further direction has been issued to the Joint Director of Education to forthwith appoint an Authorised Controller who shall proceed to take immediate steps for holding fair and transparent elections for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution and on the basis of the undisputed list of members. The learned Judge has also directed that the Authorised Controller will ensure that the list of members is finalised in a transparent and fair manner after publishing the tentative list and inviting objections. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that once the Joint Director of Education had issued direction to the Interim Committee to hold the elections on 1 October 2014, there was no necessity at all for the learned Judge to interfere with this direction, particularly when there is no provision in the Scheme of Administration of the Institution which prohibits the Interim Committee from continuing after six months. It is also his submission that the list of members is in dispute before the Lucknow Bench of this Court in a writ petition in which interim order has been passed. It is, therefore, his submission that the list of members is in dispute and fresh elections cannot be held till the matter is finalised. 7. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that this Special Appeal has been filed by the Interim Committee through its President and not through its Manager and, therefore, is not maintainable. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. 7. A preliminary objection has been raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents that this Special Appeal has been filed by the Interim Committee through its President and not through its Manager and, therefore, is not maintainable. 8. We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 9. Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution provides that the term of the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution would be three years and one month and if within a period of three years and one month, a new Committee of Management does not take charge, then the term of the office bearers of the Committee of Management shall automatically come to an end. Clause 8(2) provides that if fresh election to constitute a Committee of Management is not held within the period prescribed in clause 7, then the Joint Director of Education shall appoint three members from the General Body to function as the President, Manager and Treasurer for a period of six months. It also provides that one of the functions of this Interim Committee is to hold election for constituting a new Committee of Management of the Institution. It is, therefore, clear that the maximum period for which an Interim committee can be continued is six months and it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that this Interim Committee can continue for even after expiry of six months since there is no clause restricting its continuance after six months. As is seen, clause 8(2) clearly provides that the Interim Committee can be formed for six months. In this view of the matter, the Interim Committee does not have a right to continue after six months nor does it have a right to challenge the order directing the Joint Director of Education to appoint an Authorised Controller for conducting the elections since the maximum period of six months during which the Interim Committee could have continued had expired. This was also observed by the Full Bench of this Court in Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education and others, 2004(4) ESC 2257 (All). 10. This was also observed by the Full Bench of this Court in Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education and others, 2004(4) ESC 2257 (All). 10. It is also not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Authorised Controller cannot finalise the list of members of the General Body because of the stay order dated 29 November 2013 passed in Writ Petition No. 6569 (M/B) of 2013 in which the list of members of the General Body had been stayed. As has been observed in the order, the parties would have ample opportunity to file their objections to the tentative list which would thereafter be finalised. 11. The order passed by the learned Judge for appointment of Authorised Controller for holding the fresh elections does not suffer from any illegality which may call for interference in this Special Appeal. 12. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. ——————