Committee Of Management, Prem Vidhyalaya Sabha & Others vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

,,

Sharad Kumar Sharma, J",,

The petitioners of the present writ petition claim themselves, as to be the elected members of the Committee of Management of the “Prem",,

Vidhyalaya Sabhaâ€, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar, of which, Mr. Satendra Kumar, the petitioner No. 2, claims himself to be as its Secretary,",,

and Mr. Naresh Kumar, the petitioner No. 3, claims himself to be as its President. Whereas, on the contrary, the respondent No. 6, herein, claims that",,

in fact, it is he, who was elected as a Deputy Secretary of the said Committee of Management i.e. Prem Vidhyalaya Sabha, Gurukul Narsan, District",,

Haridwar, which runs and manages the R.M.P. (P.G.), College, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar of which, respondent No. 7 i.e. Daya Chand, at",,

the time when the writ petition was instituted, on the contrary, claimed himself as to be its duly elected President, but later on since he met with the",,

sad demise and a new incumbent namely Mr. Subhash Chand, filed his Impleadment Application, claiming himself as to be the President, on the basis",,

of a Resolution of the Committee of Management of R.M.P. (P.G.) College, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar by the order of Sub Divisional",,

Magistrate, Roorkee dated 25.10.2019, which was submitted to have been passed on the following basis:-",,

. ,,

“0 , 000 ",,

, , 234 19.10.2019 ",,

13 0 , ",,

16.09.2019,,

,,

0 , ",,

000 -234 19.10.2019 ,,

(..) ,",,

, ( 0), ( . .) ,",,

â€​,,

The basis of which was the judgement rendered on 16.09.2019, in writ petition No. 3102 of 2018.",,

The petitioners, who had contended themselves as to be the actually elected members of the Committee of Management, it was on the basis of",,

election, which was said to have been held on 26.06.2018, and hence they have given challenge to the impugned order dated 19.10.2019, as has been",,

passed by respondent No. 4 i.e. the Registrar, Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna Garhwal University, Srinagar, Pauri Garhwal, Uttarakhand, by virtue of",,

which, respondent No. 4, had granted recognition and approval to the so-called elected Committee of Management, which is shown to be represented",,

by respondent Nos. 6 and 7, herein in the writ petition.",,

It is on account and on the basis of the rival claim of Committee of Management, headed by the petitioners herein and the other Committee of",,

Management, which is alleged to have been elected on 26.02.2018, represented by respondent Nos. 6 and 7. The controversy has arisen; as to which",,

is the actual and effectively elected Committee of Management which is in the helm of affairs of the said R.M.P. (P.G.) College was an issue which,,

was left open to be decided by the university, as it was directed by the judgement dated 16.09.2019, rendered in Writ Petition referred above.",,

The brief facts and the controversy, as it emerges from the records, are that a society was got registered under the provisions of the Societies",,

Registration Act; in the year 1939; under the name and style of “Prem Vidhyalaya Sabha, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwarâ€, and it was",,

accordingly registered with the Registrar of Societies and had its own byelaws for the purposes of management of its internal affairs. In accordance,,

with the said byelaws, as provided therein the elected governing body, which was to regulate the affairs of the society, constituted to be of the elected",,

person who were elected as a consequence of election, which was to be conducted as per the covenants of clause ‘8’ of the Rules and",,

Regulation (byelaws) of Prem Vidhyalaya Sabha, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar, and one of the functions of the said Sabha, was to elect the",,

members of its executive committee, who would be managing the affairs of the educational institutions, which were being run, controlled and managed",,

by the said committee. Its no one’s dispute that the said executive committee, which was to manage the affairs of the college(s) was described as",,

to be the executive committee as contained under sub Clause (c) of Clause (11) of the byelaws of the Society. For ready reference Regulation II(a);,,

II(c) and III(8) are extracted hereunder:-,,

“II(b) Sabha means the Prem Vidyalya Sabha, Narsan (Saharanpur).",,

II(c) Executive Committee means the Executive Committee of the Prem Vidyalya Sabha, Narsan (Saharanpur).",,

III (8) Function of the Sabha:-,,

The following shall be the ordinary functions of the Sabha:-,,

(a) To elect the members of its Executive Committee from the Special Life Member and the ordinary Life members and the office bearers.,,

(b) To pass the Annual Budget of the school and the other allied institutions:=,,

(c) To frame, amend or repeal any rules or regulations or Bye-laws at the special meeting.",,

(d) To maintain and manage the property over which it has proprietory rights or may have in future.,,

(e) To appoint any person or persons from amongst themselves or outsiders as an auditor or auditors provided they are not the members of the,,

Executive Committee.â€​,,

As per the byelaws, the term of the said committee which is thus constituted as a consequence of the election to be held by the Sabha was to",,

continue for a period of three years. Clause 15 of the byelaws provided that all motions of the committee which are made by the Sabha or its,,

executive committee, shall be duly proposed and seconded by the total member of the executive committee, which was numbered, as to be 15 in",,

numbers in accordance with Clause 4(a) of the Constitution of the Prem Vidhyalaya Sabha, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar.",,

Accordingly, it is contended by the counsel for the parties, that the executive committee of the then existing Prem Vidhyalaya Sabha, Gurukul",,

Narsan, District Haridwar had last conducted the election of the Committee of Management in the year 2015, and accordingly, an elected body came",,

into existence, and which was recognized accordingly in terms of the byelaws, and particularly, it contained the body’s constitution as described",,

therein in the communication which made by the Registrar of the H.N.B. University to the Secretary of the Committee on 23.06.2015, which showed",,

that the respondent No. 7, herein was then elected as the President of the Committee of Management with petitioner No. 3, who was shown as to be",,

its elected Secretary in the year 2015.,,

As already observed above, that as per the covenants of the byelaws, the term of the society was to expire after the expiry of three years’",,

period, accordingly the term of the elected members and the body as constituted in 2015 was ending in the year 2018 and new body was as to be",,

elected and approved to be elected for the purposes of managing the affairs of the R.M.P. (P.G.) College as per the approved byelaws of 30.06.1950.,,

The controversy arose and gradually started germinating, when one Mr. Praveen Kumar, who was also admittedly then working as paid servant of",,

the R.M.P. (P.G.) College and was working as a clerk, in the College, proclaimed himself as to be the Secretary of the executive committee and thus",,

had shown himself along with respondent No. 7 as to be the elected member of the executive body, which was claimed to be elected in 2015.",,

The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that the said elected body, which was portrayed to have been an elected body in",,

2018, by one Mr. Praveen Kumar, since it was contrary to the byelaws itself, coupled with the fact that respondent No. 7 and Mr. Praveen Kumar,",,

who claims himself to be the Secretary were engaged in various activities which were contrary to the interest of the Prem Vidhyalaya Sabha, Gurukul",,

Narsan, District Haridwar; according to the petitioner, the respondent No. 7, was expelled from his office, by the resolution of the committee from the",,

president-ship of the society too and there was yet another controversy agitated to the effect that Praveen Kumar, who was a working clerk and",,

claims himself, as to be the Secretary, according to the petitioner has barged to the designation of the petitioner No. 3, who was then working as",,

Secretary of the executive committee and had also succeeded in establishing that the said resignation of Mr. Naresh Kumar was approved on,,

16.04.2015. Accordingly, as per the said composition of the body of the executive committee of Prem Vidhyalaya Sabha, Gurukul Narsan, District",,

Haridwar is shown to have been approved by the respondent No. 4, vide its correspondence No. 3040 dated 23.06.2015. This committee has shown",,

petitioner No. 3 as its Secretary, respondent No. 7 as its President and Mr. Praveen Kumar as its Vice-President.",,

As against the constitution of the executive committee, as was shown to be recognized by respondent No. 4 i.e. Hemwati Nandan Bahuguna",,

Garhwal University on 23.06.2015, Mr. Praveen Kumar, who as per the byelaws didn’t had any authority to function as Vice-President of the",,

executive committee because as per the byelaws, a person, who is a paid member of the institution was ineligible to hold any office of the executive",,

committee and hence in order to sustain his vice-president ship, Mr. Pradeep Kumar is shown to have filed a Writ Petition being Writ Petition (M/S)",,

No. 2080 of 2016, claiming himself as to be the Secretary of the Society, but however the said writ petition was dismissed by the coordinate bench of",,

this Court by the judgment dated 22.05.2018, holding thereof that since Praveen Kumar, who claimed himself as to be the Secretary of the society, has",,

been suspended and hence in view of the said suspension, he could not claim himself as to be the Secretary of the society. The Hon’ble Court",,

made the following observation in its judgement dated 22.05.2018.,,

“Admittedly, the petitioner is presently placed under suspension. Learned counsel for respondent no. 4 contended that an employee under",,

suspension cannot be an office bearer of the Management Committee. Petitioner had also filed a writ petition before this Court against his suspension,,

as he was working as a clerk and the said matter was disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 02.04.2018 with direction to,,

the respondent authorities to complete the enquiry within a period of two months.,,

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds no occasion to interfere in the matter. The writ petition is totally misconceived",,

and it is hereby dismissed.â€​,,

Petitioners’ case is that in order to manipulate further, and particularly in order to overcome the restrictions which were imposed by the",,

judgement dated 22.05.2018 of Writ Petition No. 2080 of 2017, holding thereof the disentitlement of Mr. Praveen Kumar, to continue as Secretary of",,

Prem Vidhyalaya Sabha, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar, on account of his suspension, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, the learned Senior Counsel for the",,

petitioners, has contended that even respondent No. 7 i.e. Dayachand, is said to have filed an affidavit before respondent No. 3 i.e. the Registrar,",,

Firms Societies & Chitts on 27.08.2017, whereby he has shown that Mr. Naresh Kumar, i.e. petitioner No. 3, herein has resigned from the office of",,

the Secretary ship of Prem Vidhyalaya Sabha, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar on 14.04.2017, and as a consequence of the said affidavit dated",,

27.08.2017, the respondent contended that the then Secretary Mr. Naresh Kumar, on account of his resignation dated 11.04.2017, and due to Mr.",,

Praveen Kumar, having been removed from the Secretary ship, since being placed under suspension, which had been judicially determined by the",,

judgement dated 22.05.2018, hence respondent Nos. 6 and 7, had contended that petitioner No. 3, could not have claimed, as to be the Secretary of",,

the executive committee of the Prem Vidhyalaya Sabha, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar, due to his accepted resignation.",,

According to the byelaws of the Society, registered in 1939, and as was notified on 30.06.1950, the election of the Body was to be conducted as",,

per clause 8(a) of the said byelaws and the responsibility to conduct the election was exclusively vested with as to be one of the major functions of the,,

Sabha, which was to conduct an election of the members of the committee from amongst the list of ‘Special Life Members’, and ‘Ordinary",,

Life Members’, of the Sabha, thus inducted as per the terms of the byelaws.",,

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that on account of the cessation of the term of the office of the Committee of Management,",,

which earlier stood approved on 23.06.2015, and its term had expired in 2018, the election for the year 2018-2021, was notified to be conducted and",,

one Mr. Ujagar Singh, Advocate, who was appointed as an election officer, who was vested with responsibility to conduct the election of the new",,

executive committee of the Prem Vidhyalaya Sabha, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar. As a consequence of notifying of the election, as per the",,

byelaws. The respondent No. 7, is shown to have filed a writ petition, before this Court, being Writ Petition (M/S) No. 258 of 2018, whereby",,

respondent No. 7, has sought a prayer by way of a writ of mandamus commanding respondent to conduct the election of the executive committee of",,

the Prem Vidhyalaya Sabha, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar, the term of which has expired, as per the byelaws, as previous election was",,

approved and conducted on 23.06.2015.,,

When the writ petition was taken up on 23.04.2019, the parties to the writ petition, who were then appearing at that point of time had made",,

statement, that since the election of the executive body of the Prem Vidhyalaya Sabha, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar; has already been",,

conducted, hence the writ petition has been rendered infructous, and accordingly, based on the statement made by the learned counsel for the parties,",,

the writ petition was dismissed as having rendered infructous by the orders of this Court dated 03.04.2019. This dismissal of writ petition, as having",,

rendered infructuous has attained finality.,,

Also, for the reason being that the simultaneous prayer, sought for by the respondent No. 7, therein (now deceased) for appointment of an official",,

administrator has also lost its significance; owing to the stated fact that an Elected Body of the Executive Committee, was already elected and",,

constituted as per bylaws, according to the stand taken by the learned counsel for the parties.",,

The facts, which were reflected in Writ Petition No.258 of 2018, were that a consequence of the appointment of the election officer Mr. Ujagar",,

Singh, Advocate, as the Election Officer, the election of the Committee, was conducted and according to the petitioners’ contention, the election,",,

which had culminated on 26.02.2018, the elected body took over the charge of the executive committee, which was headed by Mr. Naresh Kumar i.e.",,

petitioner No. 3, herein as its president and Mr. Satendra Kumar i.e. petitioner No. 2, herein as its Secretary.",,

On the other hand, the case of respondent Nos. 6 and 7, had proceeded to project their case that an another election, was also simultaneously",,

conducted of the executive body, which too have been conducted on same day i.e. 28.02.2018, and in the result it was shown that respondent No. 7,",,

was elected as its President and respondent No. 6, was shown as to be its elected Deputy Secretary and one Smt. Babita, was shown to have been",,

elected as to be its Secretary. Since Smt. Babita, since being the wife of the erstwhile Secretary Mr. Praveen Kumar, who was ousted from his",,

office, as a consequence of the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 22.05.2018, and on account of his suspension. But his wife too could not",,

have been elected as a Secretary, of the executive committee on 28.02.2018, for the reason being that in accordance with the terms of the byelaws, a",,

relative of a paid employee of the institution cannot be elected as to be a member of the executive committee and hence the contention of petitioners,,

is that the election of Smt. Babita as Secretary of the committee, as shown to have been elected on 28.02.2018, was bad and illegal and cannot be",,

sustained in the eyes of law, as being contrary to the byelaws of the Society. Reference, be had to clause 8 of the Constitution, which is quoted",,

hereunder:-,,

“8. No member of the Managing Committee will be related to the paid servant of the institution.â€​,,

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that since on account of nefarious and ulterior activities of respondent No.7, against",,

the interest of the institution, as he was expelled from the president ship of the committee of management vide its resolution dated 6.05.2017, he could",,

not have been shown, as to be the president of the committee of management, which was allegedly shown to be notified on 28.02.2018.",,

The petitioners’ contention is that since the election of the body of the Committee of Management, after the same being notified on",,

21.02.2018, was held on 26.02.2018, in which petitioner Nos. 2 and 3 were shown to be elected as Secretary and President respectively, the election",,

which was projected to have been held later on 28.02.2018, was false for the reason being that at the relevant point time when the election was shown",,

to have been made, it was suffering from number of vices and defects, because -",,

a) Mr. Dayachand was already an expelled President vide resolution dated 06.05.2017.,,

b) Mr. Praveen Kumar was removed from the secretary ship by the judgement of this Court dated 22.05.2018.,,

c) Smt. Babita W/o Mr. Praveen Kumar, the clerk, could not have been shown to be elected as a Secretary, because she was the wife of a paid",,

employee of the Sabha which was barred by clause 8 of the Constitution, and hence petitioners contended that the holding of the election dated",,

28.02.2018, which was shown to have been notified for its approval was contrary to the provisions of byelaws and no approval, as such could have",,

been granted to the said election by respondent No. 4, since being contrary to the Rules and Regulation of the Society.",,

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further contended that in fact, no election for the year 2018-2021; was ever held on 28.02.2018, for the",,

reason being that the election could not have been notified, exclusively on the wisdom and choice of the Secretary of the executive committee,",,

because under the Rules and Regulations, it was the responsibility which was vested with the executive body (Sabha), in accordance with clause 8 of",,

the byelaws and hence notifying the election, showing it to have been held on 28.02.2018, was false and respondent Nos. 6 and 7, were wrongly",,

declared as to be the Secretary and President of the Executive Committee.,,

However, it is under the aforesaid complicated factual backdrop, of the claim of rival elections, which according to the petitioner was conducted",,

on 26.02.2018, and according to the respondents’ case it was conducted on 28.02.2018, but, however, on a reference being made by the elected",,

body in pursuance of the two elections which was claimed by the petitioners, as well as by the respondents respectively, the matter was referred to",,

the Deputy Registrar, who had approved the committee of management and the executive body of the petitioners, which was elected on 26.02.2018,",,

vide its order dated 20.07.2018.,,

However, if the order of Deputy Registrar dated 20.07.2018, is taken into consideration in precision and the basis of granting an approval, to the",,

alleged elected body of the executive committee, dated 26.02.2018 by the Deputy Registrar on 20.07.2018, he has primarily based his opinion of",,

granting an approval to the committee of management of Naresh Kumar, as its president and Satendra Kumar as its Secretary, in fact, it was based",,

upon the opinion, which was extended by the D.G.C. (Civil), the relevant part of the approval, which was granted by the Deputy Registrar on",,

20.07.2018, is quoted hereunder:-",,

,,

0 0 00 ( ) ,,

15.04.2015 ,,

◌ 26.02.2018 ,,

,,

,",,

However, the approval, which was granted by the Deputy Registrar on 20.07.2018, since has not reflected Smt. Babita, W/o Mr. Praveen Kumar,",,

as to be the Secretary of the executive committee, which she claimed to have been elected on 28.02.2018, she represented her case and claim before",,

the Finance Minister of State of Uttarakhand on 25.07.2018, raising her claim, however on the said representation a reference was made to the",,

Registrar of the society on 08.08.2018, who had passed an order dated 27.08.2018, being order No. 1054/ . . . . -/Dehradun and once again it",,

was based on an opinion of the DGC (Civil), which had been the foundation of the passing of the order dated 20.07.2018, yet again reiterated the",,

order dated 20.07.2018, and he had decided the representation of Babita on 27.08.2018, accordingly, and consequent to it, it recognized the committee",,

of management, alleged to have been elected on 28.02.2018. The order passed by the Registrar on 27.08.2018, reads as under:-",,

,,

“ ,,

, , 0 258( 0 0)/2018 ",,

,,

14.11.2017 ,,

0 2080 00/2016 , ",,

0 1581/2016 ,,

0 ,,

02.04.2018 12 ,,

0 0 ,,

06.07.2018 0 2080 00/2016 ,,

22.05.2018 4 ,,

“ /9032",

19.05.2018",

,,

,",,

,

0 0 0 ( 0 0) ,",

( 0)",

,",

,",,

1.,,

2.,,

3.,,

4.,

,

5.,,

6.,

,

7.,,

8.,

,

9.,

,

10.,,

11.," ..

0 ",

12.," ..

0",

13.," ..

0",

14.,

,

accordance with Section 37 to be read with Clause 13 of the First Statute of the University.,,

The respondent Nos. 6 and 7 had further contended that since the election of 26.02.2018, was never approved by the University as per Section 37,",,

to be read with Clause 13 of the First Statute of the university, the petitioners would have no legally sustainable right to assail the order dated",,

19.10.2019, which was passed by the University approving the election of the respondents, which was conducted on 28.02.2018, showing Dayachand,",,

as its President and Narendra Singh as to be its Secretary, which was rather a decision based on correspondence of University dated 07.08.2019, to",,

be read with the decision of this Court dated 16.09.2019.,,

The learned counsel for the respondents had further submitted that petitioner Nos. 2 and 3, will have no right to continue to manage the affairs of",,

the Institution, for the reason being that their own credentials were doubtful, and detrimental to the interest of the institution as they were shown to",,

have been consistently engaged in usurping the amount of money payable to the Institution, as a consequence of the acquisition proceedings and the",,

compensation, which was payable to the amount of Rs. 1 crore 93 lakhs, for the land taken of the Institution, for the purposes of construction of NH-",,

Accordingly, the Committee of Management, which was headed by Dayachand, had also filed an Impleadment Application No. 16053 of 2019",,

dated 29.11.2019, praying for impleadment of the Committee of Management, showing it to be headed by its president Dayachand, but later on since",,

Dayachand has expired, the said Impleadment Application became irrelevant to be considered for orders.",,

If the counter affidavit, which was filed of respondent No. 5 i.e. Director, Higher Education is also taken into consideration, respondent No. 5, too",,

has supported the decision of the University dated 19.10.2019, recognising the Committee of Management/Executive Committee of R.M.P. (P.G.),",,

College, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar, and while doing so, respondent No. 5, has also taken into consideration various other criminal proceedings,",,

which were also held as against the alleged activities of the petitioners.,,

This Court was constrained to deal with all the aforesaid backdrop since it was argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, as well as by the",,

counsel for the respondents in support of their respective claims. But, in fact, if the entire controversy which could be summarized, as of now which",,

relates to the election of the executive body of R.M.P. (P.G.), College, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar, for the year 2018-2021, is to be taken into",,

consideration, in fact, the closure of writ petition No. 3102 of 2018, had been based on the ground that the University under Section 37 to be read with",,

Clause 13 of its First Statute of 1978, since has already granted the final approval to the Committee of Management by the said decision dated",,

07.08.2019, and since the said decision itself was placed on record in Writ Petition No. 3102 of 2018, which was preferred by petitioner No. 2, it was",,

expected that if at all the petitioners had any prejudices as against the final decision which taken by the University vide its Office Memo dated,,

07.08.2019, finally recognizing the Committee of Management which was then headed by respondent No. 7 (now deceased), it was at that point of",,

time itself that the petitioners ought to have given challenge, to the decision of the University dated 07.08.2019, before an appropriate available Forum",,

and the challenge, that was all the more necessary for the reason being that when the Writ Petition No. 3021 of 2018, was closed by this Court, it was",,

closed with liberty open to the University to take a decision, afresh in the light of the University’s approval dated 07.08.2019, which in fact has",,

been taken by respondent No. 4, in pursuance to the impugned decision dated 19.10.2019.",,

In a nutshell, it could be said that the decision dated 19.10.2019, taken by respondent No. 4, was nothing but a decision or a reiteration of decision",,

which was already taken by the University finally on 07.08.2019, and that too, when the same was taken on the basis of an earlier decision which was",,

rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court, directing the University to take a final decision, which was rendered on 16.09.2019, giving finality to",,

the approval of the Committee of Management, as per the statute.",,

Since the impugned decision dated 19.10.2019, is nothing but a reiteration of a prior decision dated 7.08.2019, and also because the petitioners, on",,

their own wisdom and logic, have not given challenge to the earlier decision dated 07.08.2019, which was rendered by Respondent No. 4, and that too",,

on the basis of the earlier judgement which was rendered by the coordinate Bench of this Court, the challenge given now to the order dated",,

19.10.2019, would not be sustainable, because the petitioners themselves have acceded to the decision dated 07.08.2019 and also to the judgement of",,

the coordinate Bench of this Court dated 16.09.2019.,,

43 Consequently, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed.",,