Committee of Management, Janta Inter College and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Janta Inter College, Muzaffarnagar has been established by Sri Veet Rag 1008, Swami Kalyan Dev Ji Maharaj who was a founder and patron of the institution.

According to Clause 4 (1) read with Clause 4 (5) of the Scheme of Administration Swami Kalyan Dev Ji had power to nominate three persons. After his death on 14.7.2004 fresh election has been held in June, 2006 in which Petitioner claims to have been elected as manager.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that a complaint made by Dr. Yash Pal, Respondent No. 5 dated 2.12.2006 to the District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffarnagar, that three persons have not been nominated by Swami Uma Nand Ji Maharaj, who is the patron of the Sukh Dev Ashram Trust, District Muzaffarnagar. The D.I.O.S., Muzaffarnagar by his impugned order dated 21.12.2006 has directed Petitioner No. 2 Sri Satish Kumar S/o late Sri Chandra Pal Singh, who claims himself to be manager of the college to nominate three persons for attending meeting either by said meeting would become illegal.

The Petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that aforesaid order has been passed without any notice or opportunity of hearing to him.

At the time of admission the Court has passed the following orders dated 29.1.2007:

Learned standing counsel has accepted notice for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Issue notice to respondents No. 4 and 5 fixing a date immediately after six weeks. All the Respondents may file counter-affidavit by the next date.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that as per the scheme of administration the founder of the college was entitled to nominate three members of the committee. However, since the founder has expired in the year 2004 without nominating any members, as such the condition imposed by the impugned order that in case if the three nominated members are not invited for attending the meeting of the committee, the meeting would be held to the invalid, is not justified.

Considering the facts and circumstances of this case and keeping in view that in the absence of any nominated members the meeting cannot be held to be invalid merely because of their absence, in my view the condition imposed in the impugned order prima facie appears to be unjustified. Accordingly, it is provided that till the next date of listing, the operation of the impugned order dated 21.12.2006 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Respondent No. 3 shall remain stayed.

As per averments made in counter-affidavit, Sri Veet Rag 1008 had executed Will in favour of Respondent No. 4 during his life-time on 24.11.2003 appointing him as his successor, whereby he had also vested Respondent No. 4 with all the powers exercised by him under the scheme of administration and accordingly Respondent No. 4 has been appointed as Sansthapak and Sanrakshak i.e. founder and patron after the death of Swami Veet Rag 1008. In this view, Respondent No. 4 is the only person, who is entitled to perform the duty of Sanrakshak and Sansthapak. Copy of Will has also been executed in favour of Respondent No. 4 appended as Annexure-C.A.-2 to the counter-affidavit.

It is averred in paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit that as per provisions of Clause 6 (4) of the scheme of administration Respondent No. 4 has nominated three persons as members on 5.6.2006, who are now entitled to participate in the meeting held by the Committee of Management. The impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools is fully justifiable in the facts and circumstances and no illegality in passing the impugned order.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that impugned order passed without giving any opportunity of hearing has not been denied.

In the facts and circumstances of the case that there is no power of nomination vesting in manager of the institution and the order impugned having been passed against the principles of natural justice, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order against the Petitioner as manager is quashed and the matter is remanded back to the D.I.O.S. for a decision afresh after considering the scheme of administration and validity of nomination of persons nominated by Respondent No. 4 Uma Nand Ji Maharaj as well as stand taken by the parties before him. The D.I.O.S. will pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law within a period of three weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

No order as to costs.