Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 624 (UTT)

Committee of Management v. State of Uttarakhand

2016-09-23

U.C.DHYANI

body2016
JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks following relief, among others: “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.09.2016, passed by respondent no. 2 (contained as annexure no. 10 to the writ petition) and to quash the order dated 09.08.2016, passed by respondent no. 4 (contained as annexure no. 6 to the writ petition) and to quash the consequence order dated 01.09.2016, passed by respondent no. 2 (contained as annexure 7 to the writ petition).” (2) Vide order dated 03.10.2013 issued by Chief Education Officer, Haridwar (respondent no.3 herein), a committee of management was constituted, information of which was given to the Manager, C.M.D. Inter College, Village Chudiyala, Tehsil Roorkee, District Haridwar. The subject of the letter was in respect of granting approval of the committee of management. In normal circumstances, the tenure of the committee of management is three years as per Section 33 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006. Section 33 of the said Act reads as under: “33. Term of management committee–In the scheme of administration framed under Section 29 of this Act, the term of office of the committee of management shall not be prescribed for a period exceeding three years.” (3) The term of the committee of management, in normal circumstances, is going to expire on 02.10.2016. The petitioner committee of management, therefore, issued election schedule under the signatures of Returning Officer (copy annexure 9 to the writ petition). As per the schedule of election, the publication of voter list will be done on 24.09.2016; objections thereon will be invited on 24.09.2016. The disposal of objections is proposed to be done on the same day. The nomination will be done on 25.09.2016; withdrawal of nomination by 25.09.2016; scrutiny of nomination papers by 25.09.2016 and the election shall be held, if necessary, on 29.09.2016. The result shall be declared on the self same day, at 03:00 P.M. (4) On 01.09.2016, Additional Director, Madhyamik Shiksha (respondent no.2 herein) wrote a letter to the petitioner for showing cause as to why the committee of management be not suspended and Authorized Controller be not appointed? Show cause notice dated 01.09.2016 was replied by the petitioner on 10.09.2016 (copy annexure 8 to the writ petition). Show cause notice dated 01.09.2016 was replied by the petitioner on 10.09.2016 (copy annexure 8 to the writ petition). Consequent upon the reply to show cause notice by the petitioner committee of management, another letter was sent by Additional Director, Madhyamik Shiksha to the petitioner committee of management to appear before him on 01.10.2016, at 11:00 A.M (copy annexure 11 to the writ petition). 01.10.2016 is yet to come. In between, on 20.09.2016, respondent no. 2 wrote a letter to respondent no. 3 Chief Education Officer, Haridwar to stay the election process till the explanation to certain queries and evidence thereon is supplied by respondent no. 3 to respondent no. 2. Copy of the said letter has been sent to the petitioner committee of management. Vide letter dated 20.09.2016 (copy annexure 10 to the writ petition), respondent no. 2 enquired from respondent no. 3 (both are functionaries of the State Government and of the same department) as to why respondent no.3 gave concurrence to the committee of management to hold the election of committee of management of the petitioner before time. Many other queries were asked by respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 3. (5) On an appeal, filed by respondent no.5 before Uttarakhand Information Commission, Dehradun (respondent no.4), respondent no.4 passed certain orders, copies of which have been brought on record as Annexure 6 to the writ petition. (6) The Statement of objects and reasons of the Right to Information Act, provides as under: “An act to provide for setting out the practical regime of right to information for citizens to secure access to information under the control of public authorities, in order to promote transparency and accountability in the working of every public authority, the constitution of a Central Information Commission and State Information Commissions and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. ………………………………….” (7) Section 3 of the Right to Information Act, 2005, provides that all the citizens shall have right to information. As per Section 4 of said Act, it will be the obligation of the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, on receipt of a request made under Section 6 for obtaining information shall, as expeditiously as possible, and in any case, within thirty days of the receipt of the request, either provides the information or reject the request. According to Section 6, a person, who desires to obtain any information under this Act, shall make a request in writing or through electronic means, accompanying such fee as may be proscribed to the Central Public Information Officer or State Public Information Officer specifying the particulars of the information sought by him or her. Section 8 provides for exemption from disclosure of information. The powers and functions of the Information Commission are provided under Section 18 of the Right to Information Act. A person, who does not receive a decision within the time, or is aggrieved by a decision of the Central Public Information Officer or the State Public Information Officer, as the case may be, within thirty days from the expiry of such period or from the receipt of such decision prefer an appeal. This is provided under Section 19 of the Act. Thus the job of any authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005, is to provide information or facilitate information to the person who requires such information, and not beyond that. (8) The committee of management, in the instant case, was given approval on 03.10.2013. Everything appears to have been done according to the scheme of administration, inasmuch as none of the said authorities in the Education Department raised any grievance against the committee of management (petitioner herein) till 01.09.2016. Only a month before the term of committee of management is going to expire, show cause notice as well as letters was issued by respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 3, putting a question mark on the working of the petitioner committee of management when the committee of management has already made the election schedule published and appointed Block Education Officer, Narsan as Returning Officer and District Education Officer, Bhagwanpur as Observer. The entire correspondence started on or after 01.09.2016. Normally, as per Section 33 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act, 2006, the term of the office of the committee of management shall not exceed three years, unless, as pointed by learned counsel for respondent no. 5, the Authorized Controller is appointed under sub-section (4) of Section 34 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act. At present, Authorized Controller has not been appointed. 5, the Authorized Controller is appointed under sub-section (4) of Section 34 of the Uttarakhand School Education Act. At present, Authorized Controller has not been appointed. In normal circumstances, a committee of management will start preparing for the next election only before the conclusion of the term of the first committee of management, which, in the instant case, is going to expire on 02.10.2016 and, therefore, a publication for holding the election of such committee of management has began well in advance. It does not, therefore, lie in the mouth of respondent no. 2 to say, under what circumstances the committee of management has started preparation for the next election of the committee of management. On the one hand, respondent no. 2 is writing to respondent no. 3, and on the other hand, respondent no. 2 is show causing the petitioner in respect of certain irregularities. The last date to appear in person before respondent no. 2 is 01.10.2016. (9) In the circumstances, this Court has no option but to stay the effect and operation of the letter dated 20.09.2016, issued by respondent no. 2 to respondent no. 3, copy of which has been given to the petitioner committee of management. The same is, accordingly, stayed. Otherwise also, in the absence of any compelling reasons, normally, no election process should be put to a halt. (10) Needless to say that the result of the election of committee of management pursuant to the publication dated 14.09.2016 shall be subject to the final outcome of the present writ petition. (11) As prayed, counter affidavits may be filed by the respondents within a period of six weeks. The Court does not think it necessary to issue notice to respondent no. 6. [Stay application no. 9938 of 2016, stands disposed of accordingly.] (12) Let a copy of this order be supplied to learned counsel for the parties within 72 hours on payment of usual charges.