Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 724 (JHR)

Anmol Kumar Singh v. State of Jharkhand

2014-07-11

D.N.PATEL

body2014
ORDER : 1.This civil review application has been preferred for review of the order dated 21st June,2013 passed in Cont. Case (Civil) No. 791 of 2012. This application has been preferred by the son of Late Mrs. Maya Devi, who was one of the donors. 2.Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, Clause 7.6 of the Jharkhand Academic Council Act, 2002 as amended by the Act 2006 reads as under: “7.6Power of the Council for constitution of Governing Body/Managing Committee of recognized Institutions. (1)There shall be a Governing Body/Managing Committee constituted by the council for the management and administration of each recognized Intermediate (+2), Secondary, Madhyama (Sanskrit) and Madarsa Institution other than an Institution maintained by State Govt. or an institution administered by a minority community on the basis of religion or language. It shall consist of following members. (i) Head of the institution Ex-officio Member. (ii) A representative of the Council to be nominated by the Council. (iii) A member of State Legislature, within whose constituency the institution in situated Ex-officio member. (iv) An officer of the State Govt. posted in the district not below the rank of a Sub-divisional officer nominated by the Deputy Commissioner. (v) One member elected by and from amongst the teacher of the institution. (vi) One member to be elected by and from amongst donors as have donated at least Rs. 25,000/- to the institution. (vii) One member to be co-opted by the Governing Body/Managing Committee from amongst such educationists or persons reputed for having academic interests who reside in the district, where the Institution is located. (viii) District Education Officer of the District ex-officio. 2. The term of office of the members of the Governing body/Managing Committee other than the ex-officio members shall be three years and their powers and functions shall be such as may be prescribed by the rules. 3. (viii) District Education Officer of the District ex-officio. 2. The term of office of the members of the Governing body/Managing Committee other than the ex-officio members shall be three years and their powers and functions shall be such as may be prescribed by the rules. 3. No proceedings of the Governing Body/Managing Committee of the recognized Institution shall be invalid merely by the existence of vacancy or vacancies amongst its members.” (Emphasis Supplied) In view of the aforesaid clause, it appears that there was a dispute about the appointment of one of the members in the Managing Committee of Ramgarh Inter Women's College, District Ramgarh and as stated hereinabove, the donor member was to be elected from amongst the donors, those who have donated at least Rs. 25,000/to the institution. Earlier also there was a dispute about donor member and, thereafter, W.P. (C) No. 6442 of 2010 was instituted by earlier elected donor member. There was a final order dated 3rd May, 2011, whereby, direction was given to convene a meeting and to elect a donor member and the president. This was done in the meeting dated 9th September, 2011 and intimation was given to the Jharkhand Academic Council and, thereafter, further orders have been passed at Annexures 3, 4 and 5. Looking to further facts of the case, it appears that in pursuance of the direction given by this Court, to all the donor members who were five in numbers, notices were given to remain present in the meeting so that one donor member may be elected. Late Smt. Maya Devi was one of them. She was also given notice, as per the affidavit filed by respondent no. 3. The said notice was given on 17th May, 2012. Out of total five donor members, rest of them were present, whereas, Late Smt. Maya Devi was not present in the meeting. Ultimately, the meeting was convened for selection of a member in the election of the member from amongst the donors, who have donated at least Rs. 25,000/ to the 3institution. 3. Mr. Ravi Kant Kushwaha was elected as a donor member and to that effect minutes were also drawn in the meeting dated 22nd May, 2012 and necessary intimation was also given to the Jharkhand Academic Council for the appointment of the said Mr. 25,000/ to the 3institution. 3. Mr. Ravi Kant Kushwaha was elected as a donor member and to that effect minutes were also drawn in the meeting dated 22nd May, 2012 and necessary intimation was also given to the Jharkhand Academic Council for the appointment of the said Mr. Ravi Kant Kushwaha as a donor member in the Managing Committee of Ramgarh Inter Women's College, District Ramgarh. 4.This Court has passed an order in the Contempt Case (Civil) No. 791 of 2012 dated 21st June, 2013 and in paragraph no. 1, the Managing Committee /Governing Body members have been mentioned and Mr. Ravi Kant Kushwaha is also mentioned as a donor elected member. Being aggrieved by this order, this civil review application has been preferred by the legal heir of donor Late Smt. Maya Devi. This applicant is son of the donor. 5. It appears from the two affidavits filed by the Jharkhand Academic Council that Mr. Ravi Kant Kushwaha has not been accepted as a donor member by the Council. Learned counsel appearing for the Jharkhand Academic Council (JAC) submitted that as there was a dispute, they have filed an affidavit that Mr. Ravi Kant Kushwaha is not accepted as a donor member of the institution. This blanket denial by JAC is a bone of contention. Applicant is heavily relying upon this stand taken by JAC. It appears that this is no reason in the eye of law. There is bound duty on the part of the Jharkhand Academic Council to give reasons why they are not accepting the elected donor member. Learned counsel appearing for Jharkhand Academic Council is unable to point out any reasonable reasons for not accepting Mr. Ravi Kant Kushwaha as a donor member by the Council. Nonetheless, the fact remains that Late Smt. Maya Devi was not present in the meeting. There was a meeting of rest of the donors. Mr. Ravi Kant Kushwaha as stated in the order dated 21st June, 2013 was elected as a donor member and now the donor, for which, the whole dispute has been raised by the petitioner, has expired on 15th July, 2013 and the applicant is son of the original donor. Looking to the Clause 7.6 of the Act 2002 as stated hereinabove, there can be only a member who is elected “from amongst donors” and not from amongst the legal heirs of the donors. Looking to the Clause 7.6 of the Act 2002 as stated hereinabove, there can be only a member who is elected “from amongst donors” and not from amongst the legal heirs of the donors. Accordingly, this civil review application is, hereby, dismissed.