AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Sahi, J.—This petition questions the correctness of the order dated 31.1.2011 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Kannauj, whereby he has rejected the contention of the Petitioner - Naubat Singh and has attested the signatures of the Respondent - Peshkar Singh as Manager of the institution.
The dispute relates to the Committee of Management of Bhartiya Inter College, Nitanandpur, Kannauj. The institution is managed by a Committee constituted under the Scheme of Administration framed under the provisions of Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The undisputed elections, according to the Petitioner, were held on 20.4.2007 in which the Respondent No. 6 was elected as Manager and the Petitioner was elected as Deputy Manager. This fact that the said elections are undisputed has been categorically admitted in paragraph No. 8 of the writ petition.
A rival claim was set up by one Mahendra Singh Yadav claiming that his elections are valid. The elections of Mahendra Singh Yadav are alleged to be dated 8.4.2007 whereas the claim of the committee of which the Respondent No. 6 is the Manager and Petitioner No. 2 was elected as Deputy Manager was held on 13.5.2007.
The District Inspector of Schools proceeded to pass an order on 11.6.2007 attesting the signatures of Mahendra Singh Yadav. This was assailed in Writ Petition No. 61030 of 2007 by the Respondent - Peshkar Singh. Needless to mention that the Petitioner is the Deputy Manager in the same Committee in which Peshkar Singh was claiming himself to be the Manager. The District Inspector of Schools passed another order on 4.6.2008 attesting the signature of Peshkar Singh as Manager of the Committee of Management on the ground that the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, has passed an order on 21.5.2008 holding that Peshkar Singh is the Secretary of the parent Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, which has established the institution. This order of the District Inspector of Schools was challenged by Mahendra Singh Yadav in Writ Petition No. 31330 of 2008. Both these writ petitions were heard together and the order dated 11.6.2007 and 4.6.2008 passed by the District Inspector of Schools were quashed with a direction that the matter shall now be decided by the Regional Level Committee.
This rival dispute between the Respondent No. 6 and Mahendra Singh Yadav was contested and the Regional Level Committee vide order dated 19.9.2008 held that the elections of Respondent No. 6 was held from amongst the Members of the General Body of the Society and that the elections of Mahendra Singh Yadav were not held on the basis of a valid electoral College. Accordingly, the Committee of Management, in which Peshkar Singh - Respondent No. 6 was Manager, Radhey Shyam was President and Petitioner - Naubat Singh was Deputy Manager came to be accepted.
The said order of the Regional Level Committee was challenged by Mahendra Singh Yadav in Writ Petition No. 52723 of 2008 and the said writ petition was dismissed vide judgment dated 15.10.2008 holding that the matter pertaining to the parent Society has also been decided in favour of the Respondents. Aggrieved Mahendra Singh Yadav filed a Special Appeal No. 1609 of 2008. The Special Appellate Bench did not interfere with the order of the Regional Level Committee dated 19.9.2008 but noting the fact that the Respondent No. 6 had been convicted in a criminal case, directed the Committee of Management to co-opt some other Member as Manager within 2 weeks in place of the Respondent No. 6 as according to the Division Bench judgment dated 17.11.2008, the disqualification on account of conviction continued even if the sentence was suspended.
It appears that thereafter the Petitioner, who was the Deputy Manager, started asserting his rights and relied on a resolution dated 30.11.2008 installing him as Manager in place of the Respondent No. 6. On the contrary, the Respondent No. 6 set up a claim that the Committee met and Smt. Kaushalya Devi, the wife of Respondent No. 6, was elected to officiate as Manager till Respondent No. 6 was absolved from the criminal case.
Needless to say that the appeal filed by the Respondent No. 6 against his conviction was pending. The District Inspector of Schools on 17.4.2009 attested the signatures of Smt. Kaushalya Devi as Manager that was assailed by the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 23538 of 2009. This Court vide order dated 14.5.2009 stayed the operation of the said order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 17.4.2009. The order of this Court dated 14.5.2009 is Annexure-14 to the writ petition. After the passing of the said order, the District Inspector of Schools on 11.8.2010 passed an order again attesting the signature of Peshkar Singh. It appears that Peshkar Singh had already been acquitted vide judgment dated 26.2.2009.
The Petitioner again filed Writ Petition No. 64227 of 2010 assailing the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 11.8.2010 and the same was allowed on 27.10.2010 as the order of the District Inspector of Schools had not been passed after considering the impact of the acquittal order nor any reason has been given to that effect. It was noted by this Court that from the order dated 11.8.2010 there does not appear to be any finding regarding the acquittal of the Respondent No. 6 or that it was brought to the notice of the District Inspector of Schools.
Accordingly, the District Inspector of Schools vide judgment dated 27.10.2010 in the aforesaid writ petition was directed to reconsider the matter after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties.
The Respondent No. 6 appears to have moved an application before the District Inspector of Schools annexing there with the judgment in the criminal case with a request that he should be allowed to function as Manager as he has been acquitted. Consequently, the District Inspector of Schools has now passed the order that in view of the acquittal of the Respondent No. 6, he is entitled to function as Manager and his signatures have been attested. The claim of the Petitioner was rejected as he was only a Deputy Manager.
Sri S.C. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contends that the Respondent No. 6 was removed and another Manager was co-opted which dispute came before this Court. The Respondent No. 6, therefore, cannot be inducted again as Manager without there being any specific resolution of the Committee of management or being elected in accordance with Scheme of Administration. Sri Dwivedi submits that the Petitioner being the Deputy Manager is entitled to step into the shoes of the Manager and, therefore, he cannot be denied the right to function as Manager. Sri Dwivedi further relies on the judgment of a learned single Judge in Committee of Management, Adarsh Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools and Ors. Writ Petition No. 22690 of 1998, decided on 28.8.1998 to contend that where ever it is found that the members and officer-bearers of the Committee of Management are related to each other then the same would be in violation of law and such a Committee cannot be recognized. Sri Dwivedi, therefore, contends that once the Respondent No. 6 had been removed, he could not have been allowed to function as directed by the District Inspector of Schools and even otherwise the entire constitution of the Committee of Management being invalid, the impugned order is unsustainable as it does not appropriately deal with the objections raised by the Petitioner.
Sri Ram Sajivan, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6, contends that the Committee which was elected on 13.5.2007 was found to be valid by the Regional Level Committee under the order dated 19.9.2008. The writ petition filed against the same was dismissed and the only modification made in the Special Appeal was with regard to holding of office by the answering-Respondent. Thus, the elections of the Committee of Management have already been upheld and there is no scope for further raising any objection with regard to the constitution of the said Committee of Management. He further submits that it is undisputed that the tenure of the Committee is 5 years and, therefore, the same Committee would continue till 2012. He further submits that the answering-Respondent No. 6 was ousted by the order of this Court on account of his conviction which has already been set aside and, therefore, in view of the subsequent judgment of this Court dated 27.10.2010, the impact of acquittal had to be adjudicated by the District Inspector of Schools. It is, therefore, urged that the District Inspector of Schools has not committed any illegality and has complied with the judgment of this Court. The answering-Respondent had been elected as Manager and, therefore, he is entitled to continue and no fresh elections are required.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, the position that emerges is that the elections dated 13.5.2007 in which the Respondent No. 6 was elected as Manager and the Petitioner No. 2 was elected as Deputy Manager has been upheld by the Regional Level Committee vide its order dated 19.9.2008. This order of the Regional Level Committee has been upheld by a learned single Judge and the writ petition filed against the same was dismissed on 15.10.2008. The Special Appeal filed against the same only modified the order of the learned single Judge to the extent that the Respondent No. 6 would continue to be the Manager on account of his conviction. This judgment dated 17.11.2008, therefore, also does not set aside the elections dated 13.5.2007 and it relates only to the office of the Manager. The aforesaid position, therefore, saves the entire election dated 13.5.2007 from any further challenge as the order of the Regional Level Committee dated 19.9.2008 has already been upheld.
There is yet another reason for the same. The Petitioner - Naubat Singh was also elected in the same elections which he has categorically admitted in paragraph No. 8. It is, therefore, not open to the Petitioner to raise any challenge to the validity of the constitution of the Committee of Management in which he himself was elected as the Deputy Manager. The Petitioner cannot turn around now and assail the constitution of the Committee of Management on any ground and such a challenge would be barred by estoppel and acquiescence. The Petitioner''s own conduct, therefore, dis-entitles him to raise any challenge to the validity of the said elections. Once it is held that the said elections are valid then the Committee has to continue for 5 years and the term will come to an end in the year 2012.
The Respondent No. 6 has been acquitted. When the matter came before this Court in Writ Petition No. 64227 of 2010, it was categorically held that the District Inspector of Schools should have considered the impact of the said acquittal and a reasoned order should have been passed. It is for this reason that the matter was remanded on a petition filed by the Petitioner himself. The Petitioner is, therefore, bound by the judgment and it is not open to him to say that the District Inspector of Schools cannot enter upon to decide this controversy. The District Inspector of Schools has thereafter taken notice of the acquittal order and has then proceeded to hold that the Respondent No. 6 does not suffer from any disqualification and he is entitled to occupy his office as Manager. This, in my opinion, is in compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 27.10.2010. The Respondent has been rightly restored to his status. There is nothing on record to indicate that the Committee or the General Body has expressed any No Confidence in the Respondent No. 6. The Petitioner''s individual ambitions have overwhelmed him to file the present petition which has no force.
Accordingly, for the reasons herein above, there is no merit in this petition and is hereby dismissed.