Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 3103 (ALL)

Anil Kumar Singh v. State of U. P.

2015-09-30

RAJAN ROY

body2015
JUDGMENT Rajan Roy, J. Heard Sri Manjeev Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Dileep Mishra, learned counsel for opposite party no.7 as also the learned Addl. C.S.C. 2. The sole petitioner claiming himself to be a Member of the General Body of the Society i.e. the parent body which runs the college in question and also claiming himself to be Member of the General Body of the College has filed this writ petition for quashing the order dated 19.9.2015 passed by the D.I.O.S., Rae Bareli, annexed as annexure-1 to the writ petition, attesting the signatures of Sri Ram Prasad Tiwari as the elected Manager of the College based on the elections held on 13.5.2015. He has also sought a direction for appointment of an Authorized Controller in the college for completing the exercise of election and constituting a new Managing Committee. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the last election to the Committee of Management of the college as also the Society were held on 25.4.2010. As per the scheme of administration term of Committee of Management of the College is five years. Therefore, the said term expired on 25.4.2015. No elections were held before the expiry of the term of the outgoing Committee of Management, therefore, it became time-barred. Relying upon the decisions of this court reported in (1998) 1 UPLBEC 379 , Committee of Management v. Alleged Committee of Management, and 2012(2) ADJ 133 , Committee of Management v. State of U.P., it was contended that once the Committee of management becomes time-barred, it has no right to hold any election and any such election held by it is illegal. As in the present case the election has been held on 13.9.2015 when there was no validly elected Committee of Management, therefore, the same is illegal. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the court to a letter dated 28.7.2015 sent by one Devi Charan Tiwari, alleged President of the Society requisitioning an observer from the D.I.O.S. Rae Bareli for getting the elections to the Committee of Management of the college held. According to him, the alleged President had no authority to seek a requisition nor any other office bearer of the outgoing Committee of Management could have got the elections held. According to him, the alleged President had no authority to seek a requisition nor any other office bearer of the outgoing Committee of Management could have got the elections held. Therefore, the attestation of signatures of the alleged elected Manager by means of the impugned order is unsustainable in law. 5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the proper course was to get the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society held under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act 1860 and thereafter the said Committee of Management of the Society would have got the elections held to the Committee of Management of the College, but not otherwise. 6. On the other hand, Sri Dilip Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party no.7 submitted that the instant writ petition at the behest of a sole Member of the General Body of the Society challenging the order of attestation of signature of the elected Manager of the College is not maintainable in view of the pronouncement of this court in the cases reported in 2006(2) UPLBEC 1834, Bhagwan Kaushik v. State of U.P., and 1997(1) UPLBEC 415 , Dr. P.P. Rastogi v. Meerut University, Meerut. He further submitted that the challenge to the order of attestation without any challenge to the election was even otherwise not maintainable. In this regard, he placed reliance upon the decision of this court reported in 2010(28) LCD 847, Educational Sahyogi Association v. Deputy Registrar. 7. He further submitted that elections to the Committee of Management of the College had been held after seeking the requisite list of Members of the General Body of the Society. There were 42 total Members of the General Body of the Society, out of which 39 had taken part in the meeting of the General Body of the Society wherein the Committee of Management of the College was elected as per the bye-laws and scheme-of-administration of the college. He also submitted that there was no dispute regarding membership of the General Body nor any dispute had been raised by anyone with regard to the elections to the two bodies held on 13.9.2015. 8. He also submitted that there was no dispute regarding membership of the General Body nor any dispute had been raised by anyone with regard to the elections to the two bodies held on 13.9.2015. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records the first and foremost question which is required to be considered is whether this writ petition at the behest of a single member of the General Body of the Society is maintainable and is liable to be entertained or not? 9. On a perusal of the pleadings in the writ petition it is revealed that no dispute has been raised as regards the membership of the General Body of the Society which is required to elect the Committee of Management of the College. A pointed query was put to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether any non-Member has been elected to the Committee of Management of the college or whether any non-Member participated in the meeting of the General Body/election, to which the learned counsel fairly replied in the negative. It was also asked as to whether anybody had complained against the said election held on 13.9.2015 ? Again the learned counsel for the petitioner answered in the negative. 10. In this scenario the question which arises before this court is why the petitioner's writ petition should be entertained which cannot be said to be either in the interest of the Society or the college. 11. The petitioner has not been able to show any violation of his individual right. He had the occasion to participate in the election and it is not his case that he was denied participation. No doubt the elections have been held after the expiry of the term of the outgoing Committee of Management by five months, but the fact of the matter is that nobody has raised any dispute regarding the elections to the effect that the same were not fair or outsiders had participated therein or had got elected. The petitioner has not sought any relief challenging the election to the Committee of Management of the college, therefore, for this reason also it is not open for him to challenge the consequential action of attestation of signatures by the elected Manager of the D.I.O.S. Rae Bareli vide his order dated 19.9.2015. The petitioner has not sought any relief challenging the election to the Committee of Management of the college, therefore, for this reason also it is not open for him to challenge the consequential action of attestation of signatures by the elected Manager of the D.I.O.S. Rae Bareli vide his order dated 19.9.2015. It is also important to note that the election to the Committee of Management were held in the presence of the Observer provided by the D.I.O.S. and there is nothing on record to show that the elections were not held in a fair and free manner. In these circumstances, even if the elections were held with a delay of five months it would not be a fit ground for the High Court to interfere thereby jeopardizing the smooth functioning of the college. Scheme of administration mentions that as per the G.O. dated 22.11.2008 it is the General Body of the Society which shall be the General Body of the College. The petitioner has not raised any dispute about the membership of the General Body of the Society. Out of 42 members of the General Body 39 are said to have participated in the elections. In these circumstances, even if there was some minor error as claimed by the petitioner, it is not sufficient for this court to interfere in the exercise of his extraordinary discretionary and equitable jurisdiction. The relief claimed in fact is against the interest of the Society and the college. No grave prejudice has been pointed out by the petitioner to himself. Decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not to be applied blindly without considering the facts of the case, locus standi; the needs of substantial justice, specially when applying such propositions will cause more harm than good. It is very well settled that mere errors of fact or law are not sufficient for the High Court to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the constitution of India, unless the violation is so flagrant as to result in grave miscarriage of justice. It is also the settled legal position that invocation of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not as a matter of right, unless there is a violation of fundamental right involved, which is not the case here. 12. It is also the settled legal position that invocation of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not as a matter of right, unless there is a violation of fundamental right involved, which is not the case here. 12. In these circumstances, this court declines to exercise its discretion under Article 226 of the constitution of India to entertain this writ petition and has no hesitation that the petition at the behest of a single Member of the General Body is neither maintainable nor should it be entertained in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is dismissed.