AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
D.K. Seth, J.—Janta Shiksha Samiti, Allahabad, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act runs an Institution after the name Shivaji Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Newada, Allahabad governed under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as ''the said Act''). In terms of the scheme of administration, the life span of the Commitee of Management was three years. Undisputedly, the election of the Committee of Management took place on 15th June 1983 and accordingly, on 14th June, 1986, a fresh election was held in which Jai Narain Singh was elected as Manager. One Balwant Singh raised objection and contended that the last election had taken place on 8th November, 1984 therefore the next election was due in November 1987. The District Inspector of Schools, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as ''DIOS'') referred the said objection u/s 16A(7) of the said Act. The said dispute was decided by an order dated 31st March. 1987 (Annexure 2), In the said order, direction for holding fresh election within a period of two months after the finalisation of the list of the members in accordance with the Scheme was given. The said order was challenged by means of Writ Petition No. 9537 of 1987 wherein an interim order dated 7th May, 1987 was issued to the effect that the impugned order dated 31st March, 1987 shall remain stayed and the institution would be looked after by the DIOS. The said interim order was confirmed by order dated 4th December, 1987. During the pendency of the writ petition, fresh election had taken place on 24th June, 1990 and thereafter on 27th June, 1993. In the election held on 24th June, 1990, Jai Narain Singh was elected as Manager. In the election held on 27th June 1993, Jai Narain Singh was elected as Manager along with one Prem Singh as Assistant Manager. Though the papers of the said election were forwarded to the DIOS but no steps were taken in view of the pendency of writ petition No. 9537 of 1987. On the other hand, the said Balwant Singh set up a claim of having the elections being held on 3rd May, 1987 and then on 1st May, 1990 and again on 2nd May, 1993 and in all the said elections, Balwant Singh claimed to have been elected as Manager. The DIOS did not accord any approval to any of the said three elections alleged to have been held by Balwant Singh on account of the pendency of Writ Petition No. 9537 of 1987. By order dated 2nd September, 1993, Writ Petition No. 9537 of 1987 appears to have been disposed of by observing that the term of the Committee of Management cannot exceed three years and, therefore, there was no justification in the continuance of the interim order dated 4th December, 1987. Therefore, the parties were granted liberty to take their claims before the DIOS on the basis of the latest election held. Thereupon on 4th November, 1993, the DIOS referred the dispute relating to the last election for a decision u/s 16A(7) of the said Act. The Deputy Director of Education (hereinafter referred to as ''DDE'') by notices issued invited the parties to submit written representations. After the submission of the written representations by the parties, hearing was taken on 18th April, 1995. After the completion of the hearing, order was reserved. Thereafter, before the order was passed, the said Jai Narain Singh died on 24th April, 1995. Thereupon the said Prem Singh, Petitioner No. 2 herein, was authorised to act by the Committee of Management as Manager by resolution dated 14th May, 1995 (Annexure 4) pursuant to which he is so managing the affairs of the institution and is in actual control. The dispute was decided by the DDE by order dated 23rd May, 1995 (Annexure 5). The said order was received by the Petitioner on 2nd June, 1995. It appears from the said order that the DDE had disapproved the election held by the Petitioner on 27th June, 1993. He had further held that the Committee of Management headed by Balwant Singh was not properly constituted but still then it had accorded recognition to the Committee of Management of Sri Balwant Singh elected on 2nd May, 1993 with the condition that fresh election may be held within a period of two months by the said Sri Balwant Singh. Thereafter, pursuant to the order dated 23rd May. 1995, the DIOS passed two orders on 12th June, 1995. By order No. 2067-71/95-96 (Annexure 7), the DIOS recognised the Committee of Management headed by Balwant Singh alleged to have been elected on 11th June, 1995. But the other order No. 2073/95-96 (Annexure 8) purports to revoke the order of single operation. These three orders, viz., one dated 23rd May, 1995 (Annexure 5) and two orders dated 12th June, 1995 (Annexures 7 and 8) have been impugned in the present writ petition. It was further contended that the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur had recognised the society of Jai Narain on 31st December, 1986 (Annexure 9). The said order was challenged by Balwant Singh in Writ Petition No. 2145 of 1987 which was dismissed on 7th January, 1994 (Annexure 10). Reference u/s 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act was made on 16th January, 1994 (Annexure 11). This reference is still pending.
The term of three years of the Committee of Management, according to the Scheme of Administration, has been admitted by the Respondents in the counter affidavit filed by them. The election of Jai Narain Singh as Manager in the election held on 14th June 1986 was denied while the election held In 1994 has been asserted. The election held on 27th June, 1993 by Jai Narain Singh was denied. The order dated 23rd May, 1995 and the orders dated 12th June, 1995 have been supported. Referring to the order passed in earlier Writ Petition No. 2145 of 1987, it is contended that in the said judgment, there is a clear finding that Jai Narain Singh had failed to prove effective control. The election held on 11th June, 1995 has been held validly and It was rightly recognised on 12th June, 1995.
In the rejoinder affidavit, statements made in the writ petition were reiterated and those in the counter-affidavit have been denied.
Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, contended that after having held the election of the Petitioner as invalid and that of Balwant Singh as improper, the DDE could not have permitted Balwant Singh to continue and hold the election. He secondly contended that the DDE could not have taken into account the question of election held on 11th June, 1995 and recognised the Committee so elected in the facts and circumstances of the case. The very fact that election held on 11th June, 1995 was purposed to be recognised on 12th June, 1995 itself shows the improbability of the situation and the hot haste in which the matter has been carried through depicting bias on the part of the DIOS and the collusion between DIOS and the said Balwant Singh. Thirdly, he contends that the DDE while deciding the question u/s 16A(7) could not decide the validity of the election except incidentally for the purpose of finding out as to whether a rank outsider is being permitted to manage the affairs of the institution. The DDE had no jurisdiction to decide the question of election as main issue. The scope of enquiry was confined only to the question of finding as to who was in effective control of the management of the institution with regard to the conditions as provided in the proviso thereto. His fourth contention was that even if he had come to a finding that none of the rival committee was eligible to continue in office, in that event, it was incumbent upon him to appoint an Authorised Controller to hold the election. In that view of the matter, the DDE should be directed to reconsider the dispute u/s 16A(7) of the said Act and the orders dated 12th June, 1995 should be quashed. His last contention was that since the Committee of Management of the Society running the institution has been recognised to be entitled to have the renewal of Registration Certificate, there is no question of recognising the Committee headed by Balwant Singh.
Mr. R.N. Singh, learned Counsel for the Respondent Balwant Singh, on the other hand, contends that the DDE has decided the question of election only incidentally by order dated 27th May, 1995 for the purpose of deciding as to whether a rank outsider is being permitted to run the management. There was nothing improper or illegal. Since a fresh election has taken place on 11th June, 1995 and the same has been recognised by the D.I.O.S., there is no gain-saying in reopening the case any further. According to him these decisions are subject to the decision in the Civil Court. In case the Petitioner feels aggrieved, he should approach to the Civil Court. He cannot bring the same by way of writ petition. Inasmuch as in exercising writ Jurisdiction, this Court cannot enter into the disputed question of facts as is required under the facts and circumstances of the present case.
It is an established position in law by now that while deciding a dispute u/s 16A(7) of the said Act, the DDE has to find out as to who is in effective control of the affairs of the institution. While deciding the said question, the DDE cannot look into the election dispute except incidentally as has been decided in the case of Km. Leela Paulus v. R.D.D.E. Garhwal Region and Ors. 1985 UPLBEC 241, What is meant by ''incidentally'' has been defined in the case of Sankatha Prasad Srivaslaua v. D.D.E. Gorakhpur 1985 (1) UPLBEC 751, to mean that a rank outsider shall not be permitted to run the affairs of the institution. A question of election cannot be decided as the main issue while deciding the dispute u/s 16A(7) is the ratio decided in the case of C/M Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. D.D.E., Varanasi 1992 (1) UPLBEC 327. The same principles have been reiterated in the cases Maharshi Sukhdeo Vidyalaya v. R.D.D.E., Meerui 1985 (2) UPLBEC 1053; Kisan Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya v. D.I.O.S., Agra 1985 (2) UPLBEC 1128; C/M Sarvodaya Inter College, Deoria v. D.I.O.S., Deoria 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1019; C/M Janhitkari Inter College v. D.D.E. 1994 (1) UPLBEC 590; C/M Shahid Mangal Pandey Inter College v. State of U.P. 1994 12) UPLBEC 1348 and C/M Ram Niranjan Inter College v. D.D.E. 1995 (2) UPLBEC 928.
It is also an accepted position that decision u/s 16A(7) is also subject to the decision by the Civil Court if the parties take the issue to the Civil Court.
In the present case, the fact remains that the DDE had decided the question of validity of election held by the Petitioner and that of the said Balwant Singh. It appears that at the moment the certificate of renewal has been issued in favour of the Petitioner in respect of the Society which runs the institution and the dispute u/s 25(1) is still pending. It is alleged that Balwant Singh was originally a member of the Society but he was expelled from the Society. It also appears that the D.D.E. had purported to decide the question of election as the main issue. While deciding the question referred to u/s 16A(7), the D.D.E. cannot act as Election Tribunal or the Civil Court. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent on the face of record and as has been pointed out by Mr. Khare translating the relevant portion of the impugned order dated 23rd May, 1995 (Annexure 5) at the Bar that the D.D.E. had purported to decide the question of election as the main issue and had in effect acted as Election Tribunal.
Furthermore, when the D.D.E. had found that the election of the Petitioner was invalid and that of Balwant Singh is also not proper and he had directed for holding of fresh election, in that event, he should not have left the matter at the hands of one of the rival parties. Such an election is to be held during the life time of a validly elected Managing Committee. In the present case, when it has been held by the DDE that there is no validly elected Managing Committee, in that event the election could not have been left in the charge of a person claiming to be the Manager of one of the rival Managing Committees which has also been held not to be properly elected. In such circumstances, it is incumbent upon the D.D.E., according to the scheme of Administration, as approved under the said Act to appoint an Authorised Controller and hold the election through him. The scheme of Administration has been streamlined on the line approved by the authorities under the provisions of the said Act in order to ensure uniform applicability and proper administration of the institution. A Managing Committee is empowered to hold election within the terms of its life or within one month from the expiry thereof. In case the election of a Committee of Management is found to be improper, in that event, there is no Managing Committee in the eye of law. As such, there cannot be scope for holding election by such Managing Committee.
In the present case, the Committee of Balwant Singh having been held not to be proper, it was wholly without jurisdiction on the part of the D.D.E. to ask him to hold the election. Admittedly the Committee of Management of Balwant Singh having not been recognised, Balwant Singh could not have held the election pursuant to the election contained in the order dated 23rd May, 1995 passed by the D.D.E.
It appears that the alleged election held by Balwant Singh took place on 11th June, 1995 and the same was approved by the D.D.E. on 12th June 1995 and on which date the order of single operation also stood revoked cannot be said to be free from suspicion. Over and above, by reason of the order dated 7th May, 1987 confirmed on 4th December 1987 passed in Writ Petition No. 9537 of 1987, the institution was to be looked after by the D.I.O.S. Though the said interim order has been vacated by order dated 2nd September 1993 passed in the said writ petition, but the dispute was not resolved till 23rd May, 1995. Such a dispute appears to be un-ending and generated successive dispute. The dispute even decided once would stand renewed after the expiry of every term of the Committee of Management. Even if the elections of the Petitioner are to be taken into account, the term of the said Managing Committee is to expire in June, 1996 while that of Balwant Singh in May, 1996 whereas the D.D.E. having held both the elections invalid directed holding of election by order dated 23rd May, 1995 as observed earlier should have directed the election to be held under the supervision of the Authorised Controller appointed by him.
In that view of the matter, in my view, neither the order dated 23rd May, 1995 nor the two orders dated 12th June, 1995 could be sustained and, as such, are liable to be quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, allegedly the life of the Committee of Management of both the rival claimants are due to expire in June. 1996, therefore, it would serve no useful purpose by referring the dispute to the D.D.E. for fresh decision which would not only give rise to further complication but also add new dimensions to the dispute between rival claimants resulting into complication and further cause of action for strengthening the cause of the aggrieved party to resort to more litigations which is wholly undesirable for the purpose of governance of educational institutions. The educational atmosphere is being polluted through such disputes. The educational field has been converted into a battle field between rival claimants in capturing the management at the cost of education and depletion of funds meant for spending for the betterment of education and thereby diverting the funds towards unproductive litigations and keeping the management busy in fighting cases instead of concentrating on the administration of the institution. Such an unfortunate situation should be settled and corrected once for all.
In that view of the matter, the two orders dated 12th June, 1995 contained in Annexures ''7'' and ''8'' respectively are hereby quashed. The order dated 23rd May, 1995 stands quashed to the extent it directs holding of election by Sri Balwant Singh and stands modified to the extent that an Authorised Controller be appointed within a period of 4 weeks from date for the said school for holding fresh election after finalising the list of members of the Society within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the D.D.E. Such an election is to be notified immediately after the expiry of the said period of three months and be concluded within a period of two months from the date of such notification. Thereafter the Authorised Controller shall forward the papers to the D.I.O.S. within two weeks and the D.I.O.S. shall grant recognition to the said Committee within two weeks thereafter. Within 2 weeks from the date of grant of such recognition, the Authorised Controller shall handover the charge to the Committee of Management so elected. It is further directed that in case of any further dispute between the parties, the same may be resolved by them either by approaching the Prescribed Authority in the pending proceedings u/s 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act or through a Civil Suit, as may be advised, only after the compliance of the present order, as indicated above. The writ petition is thus disposed of. There will, however, be no order as to costs.