Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3032 (ALL)

RAM NARESH v. STATE OF U. P.

2016-09-05

DEVENDRA KUMAR ARORA

body2016
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora, J.—Mr. D.P. Singh, Advocate, has filed his vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner after obtaining ‘No Objection’ from previous counsel Mr. R.J. Trivedi, Advocate. The same is taken on record. 2. Heard Mr. D.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 7. 3. Surprisingly, the petitioner, who claims himself to be the Manager of Swami Vivekanand Higher Secondary School, Bilgram, has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, inter alia seeking a direction to the Appar Sachiv Madhymic Shiksha Parishad, Kshtriya Karyalaya, Allahabad to withdraw recognition of said Swami Vivekanand Ucchtar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Hardoi and to communicate its decision to the petitioner forthwith. Petitioner is also seeking a direction to restrain opposite party No. 6-Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Bilgram, Hardoi to interfere in the property of the Institution. 4. Submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that Swami Vivekanand Ucchtar Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Hardoi [hereinafter referred to as “Institution”] was recognized from U.P. Board, Allahabad from 27.2.2006 for imparting education upto High School level. At the time of recognition, total strength of the students in the Institution was in accordance with rules in granting such recognition and sufficient teachers were discharging their duties in the Institution but in due course of time, some dispute arose between the Committee of Management and its Member resulting in reduction of strength of the student day by day. In the academic session started from 1st April, 2015, the strength of the students had become NIL and no student has come to get admission in the Institution. 5. Further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that on account of decrease in the strength of students, the income of the institution has also been reduced and it was impossible to make payment of salary of the teachers, therefore, teachers, who were posted in the Institution, had also resigned from the Institution. Therefore, the petitioner being a Manager of the Institution has no option except to move an application to the Educational Authorities for withdrawal of the recognition after due inspection. The Committee of Management has also resolved vide resolution dated 7.6.2015 for closing down the Institution. Therefore, the petitioner being a Manager of the Institution has no option except to move an application to the Educational Authorities for withdrawal of the recognition after due inspection. The Committee of Management has also resolved vide resolution dated 7.6.2015 for closing down the Institution. But as no heed was paid by the Educational Authorities, the petitioner has sent a reminder on 8.7.2015 with regard to make physical verification of the Institution and recognition be withdrawn. 6. Elaborating his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being a Manager of the Institution has purchased land of the Institution for doing agricultural work from its own pocket and earning from the agricultural work was utilized for the benefit of the Institution. 7. Elaborating his submission, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner being a Manager of the Institution has purchased land and the benefit earn from the said agricultural land was invested in the benefit of the Institution. He submits that as no action has been taken by the Educational Authorities, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of the present writ petition. 8. Feeling aggrieved by the inaction on the part of official respondents, the petitioner has no option except to knock the door of this Court. 9. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently contended that Swami Vivekanand Shiksha Samiti, Akhtiyarpur, Bilgram runs the Institution, who is recognized unaided institution upto High School level. Under the provisions of Section 7 (Ka) (Ka) of the Intermediate Education Amendment Act, 1987, the recognition of the Institution have also been given by the Upper Sachiv, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Regional Office, Allahabad vide its letter dated 27.2.2006. Submission is that the election of the general body/Managing Committee could not be held from the last several years, therefore, the Committee of Management of the Institution was declared as time barred from 27.2.2009. The election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held vide order dated 23.6.2015 by the District Inspector of Schools, Hardoi, in which Sri Hasnain Nawab Jada was elected as Manager of the Institution and his signature was also verified by the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, presently, Sri Hasnain Nawab Jada is the Manager of the Institution. 10. 10. Elaborating his submission, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that the petitioner himself declared as Manager of the Institution and without having any right, he submitted a proposal before the District Inspector of Schools with regard to withdrawal of the recognition of the institution, upon which the District Inspector of Schools did not pay any heed as there was no substance in the claim of the petitioner in the eyes of law. However, pursuant to the order of this Court dated 18.8.2015, the Joint Director, VI Region, Lucknow and the District Inspector of Schools, Hardoi made a spot inspection on 6.11.2015. On due inspection, the Joint Director, VI Region, Lucknow and the District Inspector of Schools, Hardoi, submitted report dated 11.12.2015, which indicates that the petitioner is unauthorizedly living in the first floor of the Institution and in the institution, apart from the Principal, who is the daughter of the petitioner, ten Assistant Teachers, One Clerk and one Peon have been shown in the attendance register. 11. In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual position, it has been vehemently contended that petitioner by wrongly imposing himself to be the Manager of the Institution has filed the present writ petition by concealing the material facts with oblique motive. Therefore, the present writ petition is the misuse of process of law and is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. 12. Mr. Rajendra Pratap Singh, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 7, while opposing the writ petition, has vehemently contended that on being declared the erstwhile Committee of Management as time-barred, the District Inspector of Schools, Hardoi, appointed an Observer for conducting the election of the Management in accordance with the provisions mentioned in the Scheme of Administration vide order dated 30.6.2015. Thereafter, election schedule was widely circulated and the election of Committee of Management of the Institution was held in the presence of Observer so appointed by the District Inspector of Schools on 5.7.2015. In the said election, Mr. Hasnain Nawab Jada was elected as Manager of the Institution, hence, the election dated 5.7.2015 was recognized and his signature was attested by the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 15.7.2015. In the said election, Mr. Hasnain Nawab Jada was elected as Manager of the Institution, hence, the election dated 5.7.2015 was recognized and his signature was attested by the District Inspector of Schools vide letter dated 15.7.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner with mala fide intention has filed the present writ petition against the interest of the institution on the basis of false facts, alleging to be Manager of the institution and prayed for withdrawal of recognition of the institution on account of decreasing the strength of the students. 13. Clarifying the facts, Counsel for the opposite party No. 7 has submitted that for the session 2014-15, in Class IX, there were 45 student and Class-X, there were 80 students, whereas in the session i.e. 2015-16, in Class IX, 21 students are enrolled and studying, while in Class X, 25 students are enrolled and studying. 14. So far as the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that vide resolution 7.6.2015 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition), the Committee of Management has resolved that on account of reducing the strength of the Institution, the Institution be closed, learned Counsel for the opposite party No. 7 has submitted that Annexure 3 of the writ petition is a forged and fabricated document as on 7.6.2015, no meeting of the Committee of Management was held on account of non-existence and declaring time-barred of the Committee of Management on that date. In these backgrounds, submission is that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the interest of the Institution and is liable to be dismissed with heavy cost. 15. I have examined the submissions of the learned Counsel for the petitioners and gone through the records. 16. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on 6.8.2015 by claiming himself as Manager of the Institution for withdrawal of the recognition of the Institution, whereas as per the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State as well as opposite party No. 7, since the Committee of Management of the Institution was time-barred, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools appointed an Observer for conducting the election in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme of Administration on 30.6.2015. In the presence of the Observer, the election of the Committee of Management was held on 5.7.2015, in which, Mr. Hasnain Nawab Jada was elected as Manager of the Institution. In the presence of the Observer, the election of the Committee of Management was held on 5.7.2015, in which, Mr. Hasnain Nawab Jada was elected as Manager of the Institution. Subsequently, the election dated 5.7.2015 was recognized and the signature of Mr. Hasnain Nawab Jada was attested by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 15.7.2015, as is evident from Annexure CA-3 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite party No. 7. 17. From the aforesaid admitted facts, it transpires that the petitioner has deliberately with an oblique motive filed the present writ petition in the capacity of the Manager of the Institution, whereas Mr. Hasnain Nawab Jada had already been elected as the Manager of the Institution and his signatures were also attested by the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, it is beyond doubt that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner on the basis of incorrect facts with oblique motive. 18. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been mentioned that as per the record available on the website of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad, 13 students of Class IX and 25 students of Class-X have been registered and their applications have been forwarded for examination in the academic session 2015-2016. In compliance of the order dated 18.8.2015 passed by this Court, spot inspection of the Institution was made by the Joint Director, VI Region, Lucknow and District Inspector of Schools, Hardoi on 6.11.2015, whereupon it was found that apart from the name of the Principal, the names of ten Assistant Teachers, one Clerk and One Peon have been mentioned in the attendance register and the petitioner is residing in the first floor of the institution. 19. Learned Standing Counsel, during the course of arguments, has also drawn towards the document contained at page No. 67 of the counter-affidavit, which is the information published by the petitioner in the capacity of the Manager of the Institution with regard to sell the building and land of the Institution as classes for Class-IX & X were closed and, therefore, he has right to sell the building and land of the institution. 20. 20. A specific query was put to the learned Counsel for the petitioner that as to why the petitioner has filed the present writ petition in the capacity of the Manager of the Institution, though at that relevant time, neither he was the Manager of the Institution or has any right to seek relief with regard to withdrawal of the recognition of the Institution, learned Counsel for the petitioner has failed to establish his statutory right/fundamental right, which are said to be violated by any authority. Moreover, when the petitioner had deliberately omitted to mention material facts in the writ petition, which amounts to suppression of material facts. 21. In Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, (2007) 8 SCC 449 , the Apex Court held that in exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not just a Court of law, but is also a Court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is duty bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully justified in refusing to entertain petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Apex Court Court while referring to the judgment of Scrutton, LJ. in R v. Kensington Income Tax Commissioners, observed as under : “In exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court will always keep in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise-guilty of misleading the Court, then the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter on merits. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ Courts would become impossible.” 22. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ Courts would become impossible.” 22. In Welcome Hotel and others v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others etc., AIR 1983 SC 1015 , the Apex Court has held that a party which has misled the Court in passing an order in its favour is not entitled to be heard on the merits of the case. 23. In K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, 2008 (12) SCC 481, the Apex Court has held that the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that the petitioner approaching the Writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all the facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the Court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. The same rule was reiterated in G. Jayshree and others v. Bhagwandas S. Patel and others, (2009) 3 SCC 141 . 24. In a recent decision of Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 2 SCC 114 , the Apex Court seriously criticized the making of false statement on oath and the attempt of a litigant in misleading the Court. 25. It is settled law that one should approach the Court with clean heart and clean mind to get a relief and one who does not come with clean heart and clean mind dis-entitles himself from getting any relief from the Court. From what has been mentioned above, it is clear that the petitioner has filed this writ petition with oblique motives and has not presented the correct facts just to gain undue advantage. Such type of practice should always be discouraged and is highly deprecated. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice. 26. Such type of practice should always be discouraged and is highly deprecated. They belong to the category of persons who not only attempt, but succeed in polluting the course of justice. 26. In Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others, 2003 (Suppl.) 3 SCR 352, it was reiterated after referring to various earlier decisions of the Apex Court that fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material fact vitiates all solemn acts. In State of Andhra Pradesh and another v. T. Suryachandra Rao, AIR 2005 SC 3110 , the Apex Court after referring to various earlier decisions held that suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the Court. The same view has been reiterated in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar v. State of Maharashtra and others, AIR 2005 SC 3330 . In R. Vishwanatha Pillai v. State of Kerala and others, JT 2004(1) SC 88, the Apex Court observed that a person, who seeks equity, must act in a fair and equitable manner. In Rajabhai Abdul Rehman Munshi v. Vasudev Dhanjibhai Mody, AIR 1964 SC 345 , it was held that if there appears on the part of a person, who has approached the Court, any attempt to overreach or mislead the Court by false or untrue statements or by withholding true information which would have a bearing on the question of exercise of the discretion, the Court would be justified in refusing to exercise the discretion or if the discretion has been exercised in revoking the leave to appeal granted even at the time of hearing of the appeal. The same view was reiterated and followed in Vijay Syal and another v. State of Punjab and others, (2003) 9 SCC 401 . 27. In the instant case, the petitioner in paragraph 3 of the writ petition has stated in clear words that the petitioner is a elected Manager of Swami Vivekanand Higher Secondary School Bilgram, Hardoi. On coming to know about the filing of the instant writ petition, the elected Manager of Committee of Management of the Institution, namely, Hasnain Navab Zada filed an application for impleadment together with an application for dismissal of the writ petition on account of non-joinder of necessary parties. In the affidavit filed in support of application, it has been stated that the petitioner is in habit of indulging in filing frivolous writ petitions. In the affidavit filed in support of application, it has been stated that the petitioner is in habit of indulging in filing frivolous writ petitions. As a matter of fact on the basis of undisputed electoral college of the society, the election was held on 5.7.2015 under the supervision of the nominated Observed, namely, Sri R.K. Rao, Principal, GIC Tariyawan, Hardoi in which one Shri Ram was elected as president whereas Sri Hasnanin Navab Zada was elected as Manager apart from the other office bearers. 28. The aforesaid facts made by the opposite party No. 7 have been substantiated by the DIOS, Hardoi in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties Nos. 3 and 4. In paragraph 10 and 17 of the counter-affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner has unauthorizedly declared himself as the Manager of the College and indirectly making postal correspondence for initiating proceeding against the college concerned. It has further been stated that the school land is recorded in the name of Committee of Management/Institute in the revenue record. Thus, it is imminently clear that absolutely incorrect and twisted statements have been made on oath with an oblique motive and has misused the process of law by filing successive writ petitions on flimsy grounds. 29. A litigant who has approached this Court in extra ordinary equitable jurisdiction with unclean hands, his conduct makes him liable to pay an exemplary cost for abusing the process of the Court besides wasting precious time of the Court which could have been utilized for other more deserving cases. Moreover, he is also guilty of swearing a false affidavit. Thus the petitioner must be saddled with the liability of heavy cost so that in future such thing may not recur. 30. In view of the aforesaid detailed facts and reasons, the writ petition is dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs). The petitioner will deposit the aforesaid cost within two months from today before the Registry of this Court, failing which, the Senior Registrar of this Court shall request the District Magistrate/Collector concerned to recover the said cost as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner within next one month. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lacs). The petitioner will deposit the aforesaid cost within two months from today before the Registry of this Court, failing which, the Senior Registrar of this Court shall request the District Magistrate/Collector concerned to recover the said cost as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner within next one month. On receipt of the said cost, the Senior Registrar shall transmit half of the amount to the account of Mediation and Conciliation Centre of this Court and remaining half to the account of Oudh Bar Association for purchase of books of its Library.