High CourtsDivision Bench(2011) 04 AHC CK 0271

Shri Aditya Lal Janta Yogesh Uchchatar Mad. Vid. and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 13 April 2011

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.K. Agrawal, J · Bharati Sapru, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Special Appeal No. 544 of 2011

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 667 words
1.

The present special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7th March, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the Respondent No. 4 challenging the order dated 1st October, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur recognising the election of the Committee of Management of Sri Aditya Lal Janta Yogesh Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Ghazipur, hereinafter referred to as "the College", with Sri Geeta Prasad Tiwari as President and Sri Guru Lal Srivastava as Manager has been allowed and the order dated 1st October, 2009 has been set aside.

2.

We have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare on behalf of the Appellant, Sri G.K. Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 4 and the learned Standing Counsel, who represents Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and have perused the judgment and order dated 7th March, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge giving rise to the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed along with it.

3.

From the record it appears that in the College election for the Committee of Management had not been held since long and an Authorised Controller had been appointed, who was looking after the affairs of the College.

4.

The election programme was published by the Authorised Controller in the newspapers on 6th July, 2009 wherein the election was scheduled to be held on 19th July, 2009. The date of election was, however, postponed and another programme was published in the newspapers on 9th September, 2009 that the election would be held on 20th September, 2009. Sri Santosh Kumar Rai was appointed as the Election Officer. It appears that some application was made before the Authorised Controller that the election scheduled to be held on 20th September, 2009 be postponed and some other date in October, 2009 be fixed, which is being seriously disputed by the Appellant as also by the Authorised Controller. However, the fact remains that on 20th September, 2009, a publication was made in the daily newspaper "Aaj" informing all concerned that the election scheduled to be held on 20th September, 2009 had been postponed. When this fact came to the notice of the Authorised Controller, the Election Officer was changed and the election was held as per schedule in which the Committee of Management with Sri Gita Prasad Tiwari as President and Sri Guru Lal Srivastava as Manager were elected. The Committee of Management had also been recognised by the District Inspector of School, Ghazipur vide order dated 1st October, 2009. The learned Single Judge had quashed the order dated 1st October, 2009 on the ground that if the notice had been published on 20th September, 2009 in daily newspaper "Aaj" informing all concerned that the election had been postponed it would not have been proper on the part of the Authorised Controller to proceed to get the election held by appointing a new Election Officer.

5.

Sri Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assailed the judgment and order dated 7th March, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge on the ground that even if the Respondent No. 4 would have participated in the election the result would not have been any different as 14 members out of 17 members, who had participated in the election held on that date elected the office bearers unanimously. The submission is wholly misconceived. If by some action on the part of some person a notice has been published in the daily newspaper to the effect that election scheduled to be held on a particular date has been postponed even then if the elections are held the same ought not to be recognised as it would reflect on the purity of the election.

6.

Learned Single Judge has rightly annulled the election by directing for holding of a fresh election. The appeal fails and is dismissed.

Dismissed.

For order see order of date passed on the separate sheets.