AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ
This intra-court appeal, under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, is preferred against the interlocutory order passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMS No.444 of 2019 dated 06.11.2019.
The learned Single Judge had earlier passed an order on 30.09.2019 in the very same writ petition wherein, after taking note of the fact that elections of the Committee of Management which govern administration of the school had already been notified, he observed that no interference was called for by way of an interim measure by this Court. While directing that elections shall go on as per the scheme of administration, the learned Single Judge directed that the matter be listed on 06.11.2019.
Again when the matter was listed before him on 06.11.2019, the learned Single Judge observed that it is settled position of law that the elections to the new Committee of Management have to be finally approved by the Chief Education Officer; and while elections may go on, in case approval is granted by the Chief Education Officer, the same shall be subject to the final determination of the writ petition. The matter was directed to be listed in the daily list on 18.11.2019.
Aggrieved by the interlocutory order dated 06.11.2019, the petitioner is now in appeal before us. While several contentions are raised on merits by Mr. Navnish Negi, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, it must be borne in mind that the scope of interference in an Intra-Court Appeal, more so against an interlocutory order, is extremely limited. Save cases where the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality, no interference is called for.
The learned Single Judge has, after taking note of the fact that an election notification had already been issued, has made the approval, if any, granted by the Chief Education Officer, to the new Committee of Management, subject to the final determination of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge has exercised his discretion not to interfere with the election process and, at the same time, has secured the interests of appellant-writ petitioner making it clear that approval, if any, granted by the Chief Education Officer to the newly elected Committee of Management shall be subject to the result of the writ petition.
While the submission urged by Mr. Navnish Negi, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, cannot be said to be without merit, these are all matters which are required to be examined in the writ petition which is still pending before the learned Single Judge.
In an Intra-Court appeal our examination is confined to whether or not the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality. We are satisfied that it does not and, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the said order, more so since the learned Single Judge has directed that the matter be listed in the daily cause list on 18.11.2019, just three days hence.
The Special Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.