AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vineet Saran, J.—Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Sri B.D. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1University and Sri O.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel appearing for the contesting respondent No. 2. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage without calling for a counter affidavit.
The dispute in this writ petition is with regard to the recognition granted to the Committee of Management of the respondent No. 2 by order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the Registrar of the respondentUniversity. The said order has been passed by the Registrar of the University on the basis of certain orders already having been passed by the ViceChancellor on the application of respondent No. 2 dated 7.9.2006.
On 30.10.2006, this Court had granted time to Sri B.D. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for the respondentUniversity to obtain instructions and produce the copy of the order of the ViceChancellor on the basis of which the order dated 13.9.2006 has been passed.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that after expiry of the term of the Committee of Management, on 3.9.2006, fresh elections of the Committee of Management had been held in which the petitioner No. 2 was elected as Manager/Secretary of the Committee of Management regarding which papers were sent for approval to the ViceChancellor on 4.9.2006, which were received in the office of the ViceChancellor on 8.9.2006.
On the other hand, the respondent No. 2 contends that fresh elections of the Committee of Management were held on 6.9.2006 in which the said respondent No. 2, Bageshwari Dayal Dixit was elected as Manager of the Committee of Management of the College and papers regarding the said elections were forwarded to the ViceChancellor on 7.9.2006, on which basis the election of the respondent No. 2 as Manager has been duly approved by the ViceChancellor.
Even though the order of the ViceChancellor approving the election of the petitioners has not been produced despite time having been granted to the respondentUniversity, still considering the fact that there was a dispute with regard to the election of the Committee of Management between the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 and since the papers relating to both the elections had already been forwarded and received in the office of the ViceChancellor, one on 7.9.2006 and the other on 8.9.2006 and by the impugned order it is clear that the papers relating to the election of the respondent No. 2 were only taken into consideration, in my view, the impugned order recognizing the elections of the respondent No. 2 without considering the election of the petitioners and without granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, deserves to be set aside.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and the order dated 13.9.2006 passed by the ViceChancellor, Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Gorakhpur University, Gorakhpur, respondent No. 1 is set aside.
Learned Counsel for the parties have however, submitted that they would submit their representations/written submissions with regard to the respective elections before the ViceChancellor within one week from today. The ViceChancellor, shall thereafter give opportunity of hearing to the petitioners as well as respondent No. 2 and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six weeks from today.
For a period of six weeks, status quo with regard to the Management of the College as it existed on the date of passing of the impugned order dated 13.9.2006 shall be maintained.
No costs.