Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1586 (ALL)

Bhopal Singh v. State of U. P.

2016-04-27

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, learned standing counsel for respondents no.1 & 2 and Sri Rahul Mishra who has entered appearance on behalf of respondent no.3. 2. Sarva Hitkari Inter College, Binauli, Baghpat is a recognised Intermediate College under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is governed by a duly approved Scheme of Administration, whereunder the term of the committee of management is three years and one month grace period is provided within which the election is to be held. The petitioners, some of whom had held certain posts in the committee that was elected on 8.12.2009 whereas the others who are the members of the General Body, have approached this Court assailing the validity of the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 29.3.2016, whereby the District Inspector of Schools has nominated Sri Atma Ram Tomar, Principal, Janta Vaidic Inter College, Baraut as Election Officer for conducting the election of the committee of management. The election programme issued by the Election Officer on 6.4.2016 is also subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition. 3. The last election of the committee of management was held on 14.4.2013, in which the third respondent was elected. The validity of the said election was subject matter of consideration by the Regional Level Committee by order dated 7.8.2013 and whereby the election held on 14.4.2013, in which the third respondent was elected, was approved. Assailing the said order, Mahipal Singh and others preferred Writ-C No.46221 of 2013 before this Court contending that the Regional Level Committee had failed to decide the objections raised in relation to the electoral college from which the elections had been conducted. This Court accepted the contention of the petitioners and allowed the writ petition by order dated 1.10.2013. The matter was remitted back to the Regional Level Committee for a fresh decision. Thereafter, the Regional Level Committee once again by order dated 29.5.2014 recognised the election dated 14.4.2013. It was followed by an order dated 18.6.2014, whereby signature of Krishna Pal Dhama was attested as Manager. Mahipal Singh and others once again challenged these orders in Writ-C No.34964 of 2014, but in which they failed to obtain any stay. Consequently, the committee elected on 14.4.2013 continued to manage the affairs of the institution. It was followed by an order dated 18.6.2014, whereby signature of Krishna Pal Dhama was attested as Manager. Mahipal Singh and others once again challenged these orders in Writ-C No.34964 of 2014, but in which they failed to obtain any stay. Consequently, the committee elected on 14.4.2013 continued to manage the affairs of the institution. It seems that the last election having been held on 14.4.2013, the third respondent resolved to initiate the election process for conducting fresh elections. In the meeting of the committee of management held on 14.1.2016 a panel of three persons was prepared for being forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools to enable him to designate an election officer from the said panel. In pursuance thereof, the impugned communication dated 29.3.2016 has been issued by the District Inspector of Schools informing the third respondent that Sri Atma Ram Tomar, Principal, Janta Vaidic Inter College, Baraut shall act as Election Officer. It was followed by election notification dated 6.4.2016, according to which the elections are now to be held on 1.5.2016. As per the election notification, a provisional electoral list was notified on 10.4.2016. The petitioners preferred objection against the same contending that 150 members were wrongly included in the electoral college, inasmuch as dispute in relation thereto is still pending consideration before this Court in Writ-C No.34964 of 2014. They also raised an objection to the effect that 200 persons were wrongly enrolled by the third respondent. The third objection which the petitioners raised before the Election Officer was that the term of the third respondent has not expired and thus, the election notification is illegal. 4. The Election Officer by an order date 12.4.2016 rejected the objections filed by the petitioners. It is held that the objection in relation to 150 members could not be accepted, as it was subject matter of consideration by the Regional Level Committee and by order dated 29.5.2014, induction of those persons was held to be valid. In relation to induction of 200 new members by the third respondent, it has been held that the third respondent being a validly elected committee was empowered to enroll members and thus their membership has also been accepted. In relation to induction of 200 new members by the third respondent, it has been held that the third respondent being a validly elected committee was empowered to enroll members and thus their membership has also been accepted. The third objection that the election has been notified before expiry of the tenure of the erstwhile committee, was repelled by holding that the last elections having been held on 14.4.2013 and the term of the committee being three years one month, the election process has rightly been initiated. The aforesaid order of the Election Officer dated 12.4.2016 is not subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition. 5. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently contended that the dispute relating to validity of induction of 150 members is subject matter of dispute pending before this Court in Writ-C No.34964 of 2014 and if those members are permitted to participate in the election process, the earlier writ petition would be rendered infructuous. However, this Court is unable to accept the aforesaid contention of learned counsel for the petitioners. Concededly, the election that had been held on 14.4.2013 by including these 150 members, was recognised by the Regional Level Committee by order dated 29.5.2014. Challenging the said order, although Writ-C No.34964 of 2014 was filed, but in which no stay was granted. In such view of the matter, in the opinion of the Court, the Election Officer has rightly permitted these 150 members to participate in the ensuing election. However, it goes without saying that the election which would be held by inclusion of these 150 members, shall always be subject to decision which would be taken by this Court in the pending writ petition. 6. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioners is that the term of the erstwhile committee having not expired, fresh elections could not have been notified. It is urged that the third respondent came to be recognised upon passing of the order dated 29.5.2014 by the Regional Level Committee and since the signature as Manager was attested on 18.6.2014, thus its term would commence from such date. 7. Countering the said submission, Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent submitted that the third respondent was handed over affairs of the management soon after it was elected. 7. Countering the said submission, Sri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the third respondent submitted that the third respondent was handed over affairs of the management soon after it was elected. He further submitted that the signature of Krishna Pal Dhama as Manager came to be attested for the first time on 22.8.2013 soon after the order of the Regional Level Committee dated 7.8.2013. He, therefore, submitted that the election process was initiated by the third respondent strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme of Administration. 8. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Vaibhav Jain Vs. State of U.P. and others1. The question which was referred for determination to the Full Bench was whether the term of the committee of management will start from the date of its election even if the elected body had started functioning much after the declaration of the result of the election. The Full Bench, after having regard to the provisions of the Scheme of Administration, held as under: - "Clause 7 of the amended scheme of administration provides for a term of three years for the committee of management. A further period of grace of one month is provided. If the new committee of management does not take over charge on the expiry of a period of three years and one month, the term of the earlier committee would ipso facto come to an end. Thereupon, the Joint Director of Education is authorised to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak. The Prabandh Sanchalak, in turn, is duty bound to conduct elections as expeditiously as possible, so that the newly elected committee of management can be handed over charge. The actual handing over of charge is what merits emphasis. In the event of a dispute, a provision has been made for its resolution by the Deputy Director of Education. A newly elected committee of management may be unable to take charge in a given case despite the election which has been conducted by the Prabandh Sanchalak for a reason not bearing on its own default. In such a case, the term of office of the committee of management would commence with effect from the date on which it has taken over charge. In such a case, the term of office of the committee of management would commence with effect from the date on which it has taken over charge. However, where despite the absence of any hurdle, the newly elected committee of management fails to take over charge due to its own default, its term of office of three years would commence with effect from the date of declaration of the result of the election and would not be postponed to the date on which it takes over charge. The judgment of the Division Bench in Vaibhav Jain (supra) lays down a principle contrary to what has been explained above in the earlier judgments of the Division Benches in Jangali Baba and in Ratan Singh Solanki. The decision in Vaibhav Jain (supra) would not be construed as laying down the correct principle of law." 9. It is amply clear therefrom that the Full Bench has held that the term of the committee of management would commence from the date it has taken over charge. However, where despite absence of any hurdle, the newly elected committee of management fails to take over charge due to its own fault, its term of office would commence with effect from the date of declaration of the election result and would not be postponed to the date on which it takes over charge. In the instant case, the third respondent itself contends that it was handed over the charge of the management soon upon the declaration of the result of the election, though it came to be recognised by the Regional Level Committee latter in point of time. It is noticeable that the petitioners before this Court have come up with a specific plea that the election dated 14.4.2013, in which the third respondent was elected, was invalid. A writ petition (Writ-C No.34964 of 2014) has been filed before this Court, in which some of the petitioners herein are also party, assailing the validity of the order of the Regional Level Committee dated 29.5.2014 recognising the election of the third respondent. Thus, the own case of the petitioners is that the third respondent was not entitled to manage the affairs of the institution. Thus, the own case of the petitioners is that the third respondent was not entitled to manage the affairs of the institution. In such view of the matter, in the opinion of the Court, the plea that the instant elections have been notified before the expiry of the tenure of the third respondent, cannot be permitted to be raised by the petitioners. It would have been another matter in case the third respondent would have come before this Court contending that its tenure is being cut short as a result of declaration of the election, but the third respondent itself having taken the stand before this Court that the election had been notified, as its term was coming to an end, this Court is of the opinion that there is no force in the plea raised in this regard by the petitioners. 10. Apart from what has been held above, it is noticeable that the election has already been notified and in case the petitioners have any grievance in relation to the election that is going to be held, it is always open to them to challenge the outcome of the election, after the same is held. In that event, it goes without saying that the appropriate authority shall decide the dispute without being influenced by any observation made herein. 11. In consequence and for the reasons given above, the writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.