Allahabad High Court
C/M Bapu Inter College And Another vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others on 9 July, 2012
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No.38
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.32460 of 2012
Committee of Management, Bapu Inter College, Deoria,
and another Vs. State of U.P. and others
****
Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M.N. Pathak for respondent No.4 and learned Standing Counsel.
Learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter be disposed of finally at this stage itself.
Petitioner - Smt. Savitri Sinha claims herself to be the erstwhile Manager of Committee of Management and also presently in effective control. The writ petition has been filed questioning the correctness of the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 19.6.2012 on the ground that the District Inspector of Schools has no authority in law to forestall the election process once a direction has already been issued by the High Court to decide all the objections after the elections are over vide judgment dated 1.6.2012 in Writ Petition No.28973 of 2012 filed by Ramji Prasaid and others. Sri Singh further submits that any dispute relating to electoral college, therefore, if wrongly decided, can be raised after the elections are over.
The second contention of Sri V.K. Singh is that so far as the dispute relating to the membership of the General Body is concerned, the same has already been finalized by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, vide order dated 23.2.2012. He, therefore, contends that the said order having not been upset or reviewed by any authority or Court of law, the District Inspector of Schools cannot now travel behind the aforesaid order.
It appears that elections were scheduled to be held and at that stage Sri A.K. Sinha challenged the order of Assistant Registrar dated 23.2.2012 finalizing the electoral college through Writ Petition No.11591 of 2012. It is admitted at the bar and undisputed that no interim orders have been passed in the said writ petition. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools appears to have notified the elections to be held on the basis of the said list on 10.6.2012.
At that stage, 5 persons claiming themselves to be the Members of the General Body, filed Writ Petition No.28973 of 2012, which was disposed of on 1.6.2012 by the following order:-
"According to the petitioners, the list, which has been forwarded to Assistant Registrar does not include their names and that respondent no. 2 is proceeding to hold elections afresh on the basis thereof.
In the opinion of the Court, the list of General Body Members is not required to be registered under the Societies Registration Act. Membership is to be determined with reference to the provision of Section 15 of the Societies Registration Act.
Therefore, as and when the elections are announced, petitioners shall have every right to file their representation for being included in the electoral college. This Court has no hesitation to record that if such objections are filed the same shall be decided before finalizing the electoral college. After the elections are over, the petitioners shall have a right to approach the competent authority, before whom the elections can be questioned.
Writ petition is disposed of. "
The said persons claimed that they had filed their objections but the same had not been decided. It is in this background that the District Inspector of Schools appears to have passed the order on 19.6.2012 staying the election process as the hearing in the matter relating to the electoral College would be conducted before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, on 22.6.2012.
This order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that once the order of Assistant Registrar has not been stayed nor has been modified, the election process could not have been forestalled and there was no occasion for staying the election process under the garb of the decision to be taken by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits.
The fact remains that the election undisputedly could not be held as notified earlier by the District Inspector of Schools on 10.6.2012.
In the opinion of the Court, once there was no direction by the High Court to stay the election process, the District Inspector of Schools should have allowed the election process to continue and ought to have entertained objections thereafter and then proceed to pass appropriate orders with regard to the validity of the election or otherwise in accordance with the relevant Government Orders or if there was a rival claim, the same could have been referred to the Regional Level Committee. The District Inspector of Schools, instead of allowing the election process to continue has proceeded to treat the judgment dated 1.6.2012 to be an impediment in the holding of the elections.
This process adopted by the District Inspector of Schools is erroneous. The judgment dated 1.6.2012 in the penultimate paragraph has clarified that the petitioner in the said writ petition shall have a right to approach the competent authority after the elections are over before whom the election is questioned. In the circumstances, the District Inspector of Schools has over stepped his authority by forestalling the aforesaid process in not sending his Observer.
The forestalling of the election process is contrary to the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Basant Prasad Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P. and another, (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1333.
I have perused the records of the two writ petitions referred to herein above and if the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 23.2.2012 has not been stayed by this Court, then the election has to be completed on the basis of the electoral list and the Assistant Registrar at this stage could not have intervened nor the District Inspector of Schools could have stayed the election process.
The writ petition is allowed and the order dated 19.6.2012 is, therefore, without authority and is hereby quashed. The District Inspector of Schools shall proceed to hold the elections within one month from today but shall not recognize the elections if objections are filed and shall refer the same to the Regional Level Committee for decision in terms of the judgment of this Court dated 1.6.2012.
Dt. 9.7..2012
Irshad
