Committee of Management, Pant Inter College, Bambhaura, Sitapur vs State of U.P.and Others

Rajiv Sharma, J.—Heard Sri Ram Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel who has accepted notice on behalf of opposite party Nos.1 to 4. Notice on behalf of opposite party No.5 has been accepted by Sri H.G.S. Parihar.

By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner prays for a direction to the opposite parties for holding election on the basis of the list which was in operation prior to the orders of appointment of the Authorised Controller.

It has been submitted on behalf of respondents that after appointment of Authorised Controller, he has started inducting new members vide order dated 13.2.2008 (Annexure2), to which learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he is not competent to induct any new member in the General Body. In support of his contention, learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Jt. Registrar Cooperative Societies v. T.A. Kuttappan and others, (2000) 6 SCC 127. He has further submitted that the District Inspector of Schools by the order dated 11.2.2008 has stayed the election programme in view of some order passed by the Deputy Director of Education.

From the perusal of the record, it appears that Committee of Management has earlier filed a writ petition No.5259 (M/S) of 2007 challenging the order dated 7.9.2007 passed by the Joint Director of Education VI Region, Lucknow. This writ petition was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 8.10.2007 and this Court declined to interfere with the order dated 7.9.2007. However, since the petitioner has some doubts about the fair working of Dr. Parvesh Kumar as Authorised Controller, it was provided that the Director of Education will authorize an officer not below the rank of Joint Director to conduct the election of the Committee of Management of the College in question. Pursuant to this direction, the Director of Education appointed Smt. Shail Yadav, Deputy Director of Education (MadhyamikI) to hold the election. Consequently, the officers so nominated issued a press release on 30.1.2008 (copy whereof is Annexure14 to the writ petition) notifying the election programme.

In Kuttapan case (supra), on which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the petitioner, the Hon''ble Supreme Court has observed that an elected Committee of Management is empowered to enroll new members. Enrolment of new Members by the Administrator would mean alteration of the composition of Society. The duty of the Administrator is to set right the default, if any, and to enable the Society to carry on its function as enjoined by law. Thus, the role of an Administrator or a Committee appointed by the Registrar while the Committee of Management is under supersession is to bring on an even keel a ship which was in doldrums. In view of the aforesaid observations by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the Authorised Controller is restrained from inducting any new Member. The Authorised Controller is directed to hold the election expeditiously on the basis of list of the members which was in operation prior to his appointment.

If the principle enunciated in the aforesaid case is applied to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned order dated 13.2.2008 (Annexure2) issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Sitapur cannot be sustained. As observed above, the role of Administrator/Authorized Controller is to set right the default if any and enable the Society to carry on its functions smoothly.

Accordingly, order dated 13.2.2008 contained in Annexure2 to the writ petition is quashed. The elections shall be held as directed hereinabove.

The writ petition is allowed in above terms.

(Petition allowed)