AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dilip Gupta, J.—The Committee of Management of Sarvodaya Inter College, Laungpur Kumwahar Etawah and Bhupendra Singh Yadav claiming himself to be its Manager, have filed this petition for setting aside the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee, Kanpur Region Kanpur on 21st November, 2009 by which the elections of the Committee of Management held on 30th August, 2009 in which Babu Ram Rajpoot, respondent No. 5 was elected as the Manager have been approved and the elections of the petitioner-Committee of Management have been discarded.
The records of the writ petition indicate that the Society, Sarvodaya Inter College, Laungpur Kumwahar Etawah, runs an Intermediate College known as Sarvodaya Inter College (hereinafter referred to as the ''College''). The said College has its own Scheme of Administration. This Scheme of Administration provides that initially 12 members of the Committee of Management of the College shall be elected by the members of the Society from amongst themselves and these 12 members will, from amongst themselves, elect the office bearers. Apart from the aforesaid 12 office bearers, there will be 3 ex-officio members in the Committee of Management namely the Principal of the College and two teachers by rotation. The term of the Committee of Management is three years but the office bearers shall continue in office till their successors are elected.
It is stated that in the previous elections of the Committee of Management of the College held on 28th September, 2003, Nathoo Ram Yadav (father of petitioner No. 2, Bhupendra Singh Yadav) was elected as the Manager and Surendra Kumar Srivastava was elected as the President. This Committee of Management was approved by the Regional Level Committee. Fresh elections of the Committee of Management were held in 2006 in which out of 73 members, 61 had participated and Bhupendra Singh Yadav was elected as the Manager. The papers of this election were sent to the District Inspector of Schools who forwarded it to the Regional Level Committee for approval. The Regional Level Committee by the order dated 21st September, 2006 approved the aforesaid election and the District Inspector of Schools also attested the signatures of Bhupendra Singh Yadav as the Manager by the order dated 21st September, 2006.
It is the case of the petitioners that since the term of the Committee of Management was coming to an end, a meeting of the Committee of Management was convened on 13th July, 2009 in which Dr. Anuj Kumar was appointed as the Election Officer for holding the fresh elections. The Election Officer fixed 6th September, 2009 for holding the elections and when the election programme was finalized, letter was sent by the Manager to the District Inspector of Schools on 31st August, 2009 informing him about the dates and a request was made for sending an Observer. The District Inspector of Schools sent the communication dated 3rd September, 2009 appointing Mukesh Kumar Yadav as the Observer. The Managing Committee finalized the list of 84 members who could participate in the election and the programme was notified in the newspaper ''AAJ'' on 3rd September, 2009. The General Body of the Society on 6th September, 2009 elected the twelve members to the Committee of Management of the College and these twelve members elected the office bearers for holding the elections on 6th September, 2009 in which petitioner No. 2 Bhupendra Singh Yadav was elected as the Manager and Surendra Kumar Srivastava was elected as the President. Copy of the election proceedings with documents were sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 7th September, 2009 for attesting the signatures.
Respondent No. 5 Babu Ram Rajpoot also submitted the papers of the election held on 30th August, 2009 in which he was elected as the Manager. The respondent-Committee of Management does not dispute that in the elections held in 2006, Bhupendra Singh Yadav was elected as the Manager and Surendra Kumar Srivastava was elected as the President and that the term of the said Committee of Management expired in September, 2009.
What is, however, asserted is that Surendra Kumar Srivastava who had been elected as the President died on 1st July, 2009 and thereafter Om Prakash Rajpoot (Verma) who was member of the Committee of Management was nominated as the President for the remaining term of the Committee of Management by the resolution dated 2nd August, 2009. It has also been stated that since Bhupendra Singh Yadav was convicted in a Criminal Case on 23rd May, 2008, his primary membership had been cancelled and for holding 2009 election, Vishnu Dayal was elected as the Election Officer by the General Body of the Society and 30th August, 2009 was fixed for holding the election. A request was also made to the District Inspector of Schools for appointing an Observer. The case of the respondent-Committee of Management is that election of the Committee of Management was then held on 30th August, 2009 in which the Om Prakash Rajpoot (Verma) was elected as the President, Ashok Kumar Yadav was elected as the Vice-President and Babu Ram Rajpoot (Verma) was elected as the Manager and papers were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools on 4th September, 2009.
The District Inspector of Schools referred the dispute to the Joint Director of Education u/s 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act'') since papers of two sets of rival Committees had been submitted. The Joint Director of Education placed the matter before the Regional Level Committee for sending its recommendation. Notices were issued to both the parties to appear before the Regional Level Committee on 30th September, 2009.
The respondent-Committee of Management also filed objection before the Regional Level Committee pointing out that proceeding of the petitioner-Committee of Management cannot be relied upon since Surendra Kumar Srivastava who was shown to have been elected as the President on the basis of the elections held on 6th September, 2009 had died on 1st July, 2009. It was also pointed out that other members of the Committee of Management are very close relatives of Bhupendra Singh Yadav and, therefore, could not have been elected.
The Regional Level Committee, in the impugned decision, noticed the following facts:
(1) The Society was registered for a period of five years w.e.f. 1st October, 2005. Babu Ram Rajpoot had submitted a list of office bearers of the Society for the year 2009-12 before the Deputy Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits (hereinafter referred to as the ''Deputy Registrar'') as also a list of members of the General Body of the Society for registration which was verified by the office of the Deputy Registrar. According to Clause 7 of the bye-laws of the Society, the meeting of the General Body of the Society is to be convened by the Manager with the approval of the President of the Society. According to the Government Order dated 21st November, 2008 for the purposes of election of the Committee of Management, the members of the General Body of the Society alone will be entitled to vote in the election of the Committee of Management of the College. In this context Babu Ram Rajpoot had submitted a list to conduct the election of 12 members of the Society from amongst the 349 members of the General Body of the Society and these 12 members of the Society had held the elections on 30th August, 2009 in which Babu Ram Rajpoot was elected as the Manager and Om Prakash Rajpoot (Verma) as the President.
(2) On the other hand, Bhupendra Singh Yadav had held the election of the Committee of Management on the basis of the list of 85 members of the General Body of the Society out of which 27 members were ineligible since their names were not registered. In such circumstances, the elections held by the Committee of Management in which Bhupendra Singh Yadav was elected as the Manager was not held from amongst the valid members of the General Body of the Society.
(3) Though Bhupendra Singh Yadav had claimed that Babu Ram Rajpoot was never a member of the General Body of the Society, yet inspection revealed that not only Babu Ram Rajpoot (Verma) was a member of the General Body of the Society but was also an office bearer in the earlier Committee of Managements and the agenda which was sent by Bhupendra Singh Yadav also contained the name of Babu Ram Rajpoot. He was also the Treasurer in the elections held in 2003.
(4) The contention of Bhupendra Singh Yadav is that from 1965 to 2009 only 120 members of the General Body of the Society had been enrolled out of which 36 had died and, therefore, only 84 remained. The contention of Babu Ram Rajpoot, on the other hand, is that there are 66 life members from which four had died and from 1999 to 2000, 287 new members had been enrolled who had never been called by Bhupendra Singh Yadav. The list provided by the Deputy Registrar also contained the names of the 349 members of the General Body of the Society.
(5) In such circumstances the election of the Committee of Management held on 30th August, 2009 in which Babu Ram Rajpoot was elected as the Manager is on the basis of the valid list of members of the General Body of the Society obtained from the Deputy Registrar and the election should be approved.
Sri G.K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 21st November, 2009 deserves to be set aside. It is his contention that the elections held by the petitioner-Committee of Management in which Bhupendra Singh Yadav was elected as the Manager deserves to be approved and the elections held by the respondent-Committee of Management in which Babu Ram Rajpoot claims to have been elected as the Manager could not have been approved. According to him, the claim set up by respondent No. 5 Babu Ram Rajpoot regarding the elections held by him on 30th August, 2009 could not have been approved since it was only the outgoing Committee of Management which could have held the fresh elections and as petitioner No. 2 was elected as the Manager in the outgoing Committee of Management in the elections held in the year 2006, he alone could have held fresh elections which elections were actually held on 13th July, 2009 after the District Inspector of Schools had appointed the Observer by the order dated 3rd September, 2009. On the other hand respondent No. 5 never asked for appointment of any Observer and four out of the 12 members who have been elected as the office bearers in the elections held by respondent No. 5 had given affidavits before the Regional Level Committee that they were never associated with the elections and nor were they elected as office bearers and that no election taken place on 30th August, 2009. He further submitted that the elections held by respondent No. 5 had been approved on the basis of the list of 349 members of the General Body of the Society merely on the basis that the list had been registered by the Deputy Registrar but the Regional Level Committee failed to notice that the list was not registered.
Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 5, however, submitted that there is no infirmity in the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee. According to him, Surendra Kumar Srivastava, who is said to have been elected as the President in the petitioner-Committee of Management in the elections held on 13th July, 2009 had actually died on 1st July, 2009 and in support of this contention he has filed the death certificate dated 1st July, 2009 issued by the Bithur Shamshan Ghat Dharmarth Trust, Luvkush Nagar (Nikat Balmiki Ashram) Kanpur Nagar. According to him, this fact alone is sufficient to discard the elections held by the petitioner-Committee of Management.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties.
The Regional Level Committee has not examined whether Surendra Kumar Srivastava, who is said to have been elected as the President in the elections held by the petitioner-Committee of Management on 13th July, 2009, had actually died on 1st July, 2009. According to the petitioners, he had died on 30th October, 2009 and in support of this contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the death certificate dated 25th November, 2009 which has been issued u/s 12/17 of the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969. The Regional Level Committee has, while granting approval to the respondent No. 5 Committee of Management on 30th August, 2009, placed much emphasis on the Electoral College and in this connection, has observed that the said list was registered by the Deputy Registrar. The Regional Level Committee has, however, failed to observe that the list of members of the General Body of the Society submitted by respondent No. 5 was not registered. Thus, the Regional Level Committee was not justified in accepting this list merely on the basis that it had been registered by the Deputy Registrar. The Regional Level Committee was required to examine whether the list of members of the General Body of the Society relied upon by the petitioners consisting of 85 members or the list of members of the General Body relied upon by respondent No. 5 consisting of 349 members was valid and after finding out which of these two list was valid proceeded to consider the grant of recognition to either of the Committee of Managements. The Regional Level Committee was also required to examine whether the elections on which reliance had been placed by respondent No. 5 was actually held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration which provides that the General Body has first to elect 12 members of the Committee of Management and thereafter these 12 members have to elect the office bearers from amongst themselves.
In such circumstances, the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 21st November, 2009 cannot be sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside. The Regional Level Committee shall now take a fresh decision in the light of the observations made above after granting opportunity to the parties concerned.
The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.