Prem Vidyalaya Sabha Narsan vs Committee of Management & others

Appellant has filed this appeal seeking leave. The impugned order is as follows:-

"The present writ petition has been filed by the Management of Committee, Raja Mahendra Pratap Prem Vidhalaya Inter College, Gurukul Narsan, District Haridwar, challenging the validity and propriety of the order dated 03.04.2017 by which the Chief Education Officer has stayed the earlier order dated 30.03.2017 in which he had initially directed that the election be held for creating a new Committee of Management. As per the petitioner, the terms of the Committee of Management had come to an end on 14.03.2017 but for administrative purpose and other purposes they are continuing for one month. The petitioner- Committee of Management had already informed the Chief Education Officer vide its letter dated 04.01.2017 to conduct the election of the new committee of management. In pursuance of the said letter, the Chief Education Officer vide its order dated 31.03.2017 appointed the Election Officer and directed to hold the election of the Committee of Management. In compliance of the order, an election notification was issued on 01.04.2017,

which was published in a newspaper on 02.04.2017 by which information pertaining to the election, for example, electoral roll has to be published on 18.04.2017, date of nomination paper is to be received by 19.04.2017, date of election is 30.04.2017 and date of result is 30.04.2017, has been mentioned. This Court is of the view that once election has been notified and the process of election has been started, unless valid reason, the election process cannot be stayed. Moreover, in the order dated 30.03.2017 issued by respondent No. 2 - Director School Education, Madhyamic Shiksha, Dehradun to Additional Regional Director, Madhyamic Shiksha, Garhwal Region, of which reference has been taken by the Chief Education Officer in the impugned order dated 03.04.2017, it nowhere directs the Chief Education Officer to stay the election process of the petitioner/Committee of Management. In view thereof, the operation and effect of the impugned orders dated 03.04.2017 and dated 01.04.2017 shall remain stayed. Mr. P.C. Bisht, Brief Holder, for the State has accepted notices on behalf of all the respondents, who prays for and is allowed three weeks time to file counter affidavit. Thereafter, the petitioner shall file rejoinder affidavit thereto within a period of three weeks. List this matter on 31.05.2017 in the daily cause list. Consequently, stay application No.3192 of 2017 stands disposed."

Leave is granted.

We notice that, vide order dated 18.04.2017, this Court had stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order.

We heard Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the appellant, Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for respondent nos.1 & 2 and Mr. Rajeev Singh Bisht, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

The writ petition was filed calling in question two orders. By order dated 03.04.2017 passed by respondent no.4, who is the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar, the election, which was to be conducted by the petitioners'' institution, was directed to be put on hold. By the next order dated 01.04.2017 passed by respondent no.3 i.e. Additional Regional Director an authorized controller has been appointed.

The case of the appellant would appear to be that the learned Single Judge has passed an order of stay of both the impugned orders passed by the 4th respondent and 3rd respondent and directed to put on hold the election. It is submitted that if the stay is maintained, the result would be that the writ petition itself would render infructuous and nothing would remain as far as main prayer is concerned. In other words, this is a case where the learned Single Judge has granted the interim order, which is in the nature of grating the main relief. The case of the appellant would appear to be that it is on the appellant''s complaint that the action was taken. The appellant is an organization, which has the control in the affairs of the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners have added certain members impermissibly and, therefore, the matter should have been heard and adjudicated and interim order of stay should have not been granted;

The case of the writ petitioner is that the appellant has nothing to do with the petitioner''s organization since 1984.

This is refuted by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant. We do not propose to go into this aspect having regard to the nature of the order we propose to pass. We feel that the appeal must be allowed. It is brought to our notice that pursuant to the interim stay granted by this Court of the entire orders passed by the learned Single Judge, the authorized controller has already taken charge but election has not been held.

We would think that it requires most urgent hearing. In order to facilitate the same, we record the following submissions of learned counsel for the parties:

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that appellant would move an application for impleadement alongwith a counter affidavit on or before 18.07.2017. It is, in fact, brought to our notice that the case is listed on 17.07.2017 for disposal. It is further submitted on behalf of the learned Brief Holder also that counter affidavit, which was, in fact, directed to be filed on behalf of the respondent before the learned Single Judge, has not been filed; but, it will be filed on or before 18.07.2017.

After recording the submission, we request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition on 19.07.2017, if possible, or at an earlier date. We direct that the case be listed on 19.07.2017. The impugned order will stand set aside. We make it clear that we have not expressed any view regarding the merits of the case. Needless to say that the learned Single Judge shall dispose of the matter untrammeled by any observation made in this order. The appeal is, accordingly, disposed of.