Allahabad High Court
C/M,Sarvoday High ... vs State Of U.P.And Others on 20 July, 2012
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?AFR
Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 34725 of 2012
Petitioner :- C/M,Sarvoday High School,Angadpur And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P.And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Yogish Kumar Saxena
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,K.P.Shukla
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
Heard Sri Yogish Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri K.P. Shukla for the respondent no. 3 and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2.
This petition questions the legality of the order dated 6th July, 2012 on several grounds, namely, that the Deputy Registrar had no authority to pass an order of review without there being any fraud or misrepresentation. The Deputy Registrar has exceeded his jurisdiction in passing the order on grounds that were not available and finally even otherwise the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice.
Sri Yogish Kumar Saxena contends that once the Deputy Registrar had after putting the erstwhile office bearers to notice registered the list of office bearers he had no power to review the same. He contends that there is no finding of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the petitioners.
The second contention of Sri Saxena is that the date fixed for hearing in the matter by the Deputy Registrar was 20th of June, 2012. Thereafter no dates were fixed and at least the petitioners had no notice of any further dates. He submits that on 21st June, 2012, the Deputy Registrar admitted documents filed by Jagdish Narayan Yadav the respondent no. 3 and on that basis has passed the impugned order. He contends that this procedure of entertaining documents after the close of hearing behind the back of the petitioners and then passing an order on the basis of such material violates the principles of natural justice.
Sri K.P. Shukla for the respondent contends that the aforesaid facts are incorrect and as a matter of fact the dates were fixed even thereafter uptil 4th July, 2012, whereafter the impugned order has been passed on 6th July, 2012. He therefore contends that the impugned order does not violate the principles of natural justice and it has been passed after considering the entire material on record including the documents relied upon by the petitioners.
Sri K.P. Shukla has urged that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit at this stage as the matter may be disposed of on the basis of the material that is on record. The same submission has been raised by the learned Standing Counsel.
In the opinion of the Court, this petition should succeed on the short ground of violation of principles of natural justice.
A perusal of the impugned order nowhere indicates that any other date was fixed after 20th June, 2012. It is further evident that on 21st June, 2012 the respondent Jagdish Narayan Yadav had appeared with a letter and also filed certain documents relating to the list of office bearers claiming that they were valid documents. The said documents have been relied upon by the Deputy Registrar for passing of the impugned order.
In the opinion of the Court, once the order does not recite the fixing of any date after 20th June, 2012, the contention of Sri Shukla that dates were fixed upto 4th July, 2012 to the knowledge of the petitioners is not borne out from record. The petitioner therefore had no notice of any other date or of the documents that were filed behind his back on 21st June, 2012. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 6th July, 2012 is in violation of principles of natural justice.
Sri K.P. Shukla for the respondent contends that the Deputy Registrar has decided the issue of membership which is based on cogent evidence and the petitioner has been unable to prove anything to the contrary. He therefore submits that the findings on merit are in accordance with the evidence on record and therefore require no interference.
Whether the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction to review his order as alleged by the petitioner is an issue which can be raised by the petitioner before the Deputy Registrar and similarly whether on merits the Deputy Registrar was justified in proceeding to hear the matter and take a decision against the petitioner is also an issue which can be decided by him provided it is done in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
As noted above the impugned order has been passed after placing reliance on material which was filed on 21st June, 2012 apparently without notice to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the impugned order dated 6th July, 2012 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.
The Deputy Registrar shall now decide the matter within a period of three months after putting the parties to notice on the issues as raised and noted hereinabove and any other objections that may be canvassed by the parties after giving them an opportunity of hearing.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 20.7.2012
Sahu
