Vineet Agnihotri And Anr. vs State Of U.P. And 6 Others
2014 Latest Caselaw 1228 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 

 
Judgment reserved on 27.03.2014
 
Judgment delivered on 25.04.2014
 

 
Special Appeal No.1355 of 2013
 
Vineet Agnihotri & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.
 

 
Hon. Sunil Ambwani, J.

Hon. Dr. Satish Chandra, J.

1. We have heard Shri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi appearing for the appellants. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents. Dr. H.N. Tripathi appears for the respondent nos.6 and 7.

2. This intra court special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the rules of the Court arises out of judgment of learned Single Judge dated 10.7.2013 by which he has allowed the Writ Petition No.49713 of 2010 and Writ Petition No.53727 of 2010 with directions that until fresh elections of Committee of Management is held, the Authorised Controller appointed pursuant to the directions contained in the interim order dated 6.9.2010 will continue to function. He will take immediate steps to hold fresh elections of Committee of Management of the institution expeditiously preferably within four months after determining the electoral college.

3. Brief facts giving rise to this special appeal are that Rishibhumi Inter College, Distt. Kannauj is a recognised and aided educational institution governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The college has Committee of Management elected in accordance with the scheme of administration approved by the competent authority. The last elections of the Committee of Management were held in 2010.

4. In Writ Petition No.49713 of 2010 Shri Ram Shankar Tiwari set up a case that the election of the Committee of Management of the institution were held on 15th May, 2010 from amongst 36 members and thus the next elections in the year 2013 should have been held from amongst the same members, whereas the claim of Shri Vineet Agnihotri is that the election of the Committee of Management of the institution was held on 16.5.2010 from amongst 113 members, in view of the communication dated 31.5.2010 sent by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Region, Kanpur.

5. In the previous elections held on 3.6.2007 Shri Babu Ram Dubey was elected as President and Shri Ram Shankar Tiwari was elected as Manager. The Regional Level Committee approved the elections on 21.5.2007 and the signatures of Shri Ram Shankar Tiwari were attested by the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS).

6. The case set up by Shri Ram Shankar Tiwari is that Shri Babu Ram Dubey, the President was removed. On his removal he submitted a letter dated 6.3.2008 to the DIOS that the Committee of Management should be dissolved. On this complaint the Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur superseded the Committee of Management of the institution and appointed Authorised Controller by his letter dated 5.3.2009.

7. The Joint Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur by his fresh order dated 31st July, 2009 cancelled his earlier order dated 5.3.2009. In between a letter was submitted by the Authorised Controller to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur Region for sending a list of valid members of the society, who were entitled to participate in the elections of the Committee of Management of the institution. On 31.5.2009 the Deputy Registrar had submitted a list of 113 members. Shri Ram Shankar Tiwari claimed that this list of 113 members is not the correct list and that infact there were only 36 valid members, who had participated in the elections on 15.5.2010 in which he was elected as Manager. Shri Vineet Agnihotri on the other hand states that the elections were held on 16.5.2010 and not on 15.5.2010 from amongst the 113 valid members determined by the Deputy Registrar in which he was elected as Manager and thus there was no illegality in the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee.

8. The Regional Level Committee by its order dated 7.8.2010 approved the elections of the Committee of Management of the institution held on 16.5.2010 with Shri Vineet Agnihotri as Manager. At this stage both the writ petitions were filed.

9. Learned Single Judge held that the election dated 16.5.2010 was not in accordance with Clause-5 of the Scheme of Administration, which provided that Committee shall have 15 members out of which 12 shall be elected by the society and these 12 shall elect 5 office bearers namely President, Vice President, Manager, Asstt. Manager and Treasurer. There was also nothing on record to indicate nor there was any case set up by the parties that 12 members were initially elected by the society and these 12 had subsequently elected the office bearers.

10. Learned Single Judge held that the Authorised Controller had asked the Deputy Registrar to submit list of valid members of the society. The list of members, who had participated in the last elections and which list was submitted with the list of the office bearers should have been submitted to the Deputy Registrar instead invited objections and determined the list, which was not permissible.

11. When the Authorised Controller was removed, elections were required to be held in accordance with Clause-5 of the Scheme of Administration. The Regional Level Committee had approved the election meeting dated 16.5.2010, which was called by the President, who had no authority to call the meeting as it was required to be called by the Manager.

12. Learned Single Judge on the aforesaid reasoning set aside the orders passed by the Regional Level Committee on 7.8.2010 and the order dated 3.6.2010 passed by the DIOS. He also set aside the order dated 31.5.2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar.

13. Learned Single Judge, thereafter, relied upon the interim order dated 6.9.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.53727 of 2010 for appointment of Authorised Controller and which is continuing till date. The interim order provided after considering the submissions of the petitioner that even if order dated 7.8.2010 passed by the Regional Level Committee was stayed, it does not mean that Shri Ram Shankar Tiwari-respondent no.5 will be entitled to function as Manager. Learned Single Judge directed appointment of Authorised Controller until the controversy is decided. Following the interim order passed in Writ Petition No.53727 of 2010, learned Judge found it fit to direct the Authorised Controller to hold elections of the Committee of Management of the institution in accordance with Clause-5 of the Scheme of Administration of the institution after determining the electoral college. He directed the Authorised Controller appointed in pursuance to the interim order dated 6.9.2010 to continue and to take immediate steps to hold fresh elections of the Committee of Management expeditiously and preferably within four months giving rise to this special appeal.

14. Shri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur is fully empowered to decide the dispute of membership under the Societies Registration Act. The order passed by the Deputy Registrar dated 31.5.2010 was challenged in Writ Petition No.34197 of 2010, which was disposed of with directions that the parties will maintain status quo for a period of four weeks as immediately prior to passing of the impugned order dated 16.5.2010. The petitioner was at liberty to challenge the order dated 31.5.2010 passed by the Deputy Registrar before the appropriate forum and accordingly the writ petition was disposed of.

15. Shri Dwivedi submits that another Writ Petition No.38415 of 2010 was filed in which final orders were passed on 8.7.2010 by which this Court did not interfere with the orders passed by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits dated 31.5.2010 and in which observations were made that since the matter is pending before the Regional Level Committee, the petitioner may file proper representation before the Regional Level Committee along with certified copy of the order and that the Regional Level Committee will consider the objections filed by the petitioner.

16. Shri Suresh Chandra Dwivedi submits that the order of the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur dated 31.5.2010 was challenged twice in the High Court and in which the High Court did not interfere and thus the High Court should not have interfered and set aside the order dated 31.5.2010 by which the Deputy Registrar had communicated to the Authorised Controller the final list of 113 members of the society from whom the elections were to be held.

17. Shri H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the last valid elections dated 15.5.2010 were held from amongst the 36 members. The Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Kanpur did not have any power to increase the number of valid members to manipulate the elections. The Authorised Controller, who was required to hold elections in pursuance to the interim order dated 6.9.2010 in Writ Petition No.53727 of 2010 did not have authority to determine the electoral college by making a request to the Deputy Registrar to supply list of valid members. In exercise taking from Shri Vineet Agnihotri increased the members to 113. Shri Tripathi submits that the Authorised Controller as well as the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits have acted illegally and arbitrarily in increasing the members of the society before holding the elections and consequently learned Single Judge did not commit any error of law in allowing the writ petition and issuing directions to the Authorised Controller to hold elections.

18. We have time and again expressed our concern in the manner in which learned Single Judges of the Court has been interfering during the process of elections at every stage. It is fairly well settled that in the matters of elections the High Court under Art.226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere until elections are concluded and the parties have availed the alternative remedies provided under the law. The interference at every stage had encouraged the disputing parties to approach the Court time and again. In the present case the elections scheduled to be held in 2013 have not been held so far and in between four writ petitions have been filed and in each writ petition the High Court has passed some or other order giving momentary advantage to the parties.

19. The elections to the Committee of Management to gain control over the educational institutions, which have become profit making organisations in variety of ways, has resulted into thousands of writ petitions being filed every year. These elections to the private bodies are held under the Scheme of Administration approved by the Joint Director of Education. The disputing parties in the elections do not spare any weapon in their arsenal to wrest control over management, and file writ petitions on the drop of the hat for gaining advantage at almost all the stages of the elections and thereafter at the stage of approval. At such intermediate stages, the Court does not have sufficient material to adjudicate and is tempted to pass interim order as in the present case directing the Authorised Controller to hold elections. Some times the Courts in an overzealous exercise to set the things right pass orders laying down the procedure as to how the electoral college will be finalised and also appoints observer and fixes dates for holding the elections. Most of the times, the loosing parties do not follow the order giving rise to further litigation.

20. In Special Appeal No. 1714 of 2013 (Committee of Management Pratap Vidyalaya Prabandh Samiti and another Vs. State of U.P. and others - decided on 08.11.2013), relying upon Five Judges judgment of the Court in Committee of Management Vs. Deputy director of Educations and others in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36267 of 1992, decided on 15.10.2004, it was held that the parties are not allowed to challenge the election midway during the process of election including finalization of electoral list. The relevant portion of judgment in Special Appeal No. 1714 of 2013, is quoted as hereunder:-

"In the matter of elections the Supreme Court and this Court have consistently taken a view that the Courts should not interfere in the process of elections once the elections have been notified, as the adjudicating authority cannot conclusively decide any dispute in the middle of the process of election nor the fundamental rights of any of the parties are affected as elections have always been held to be statutory right. The parties can always be relegated to the forums of adjudication and election tribunals after the results of the elections are declared.

"In the case of elections to the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, the Representation of People's Act, 1951 provides that election petitions be filed in the High Court. In the matter of elections to societies and cooperative societies, the statutes regulating the registration and elections of the societies provide for constitution of election tribunals for challenging the elections. In the case of societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, the elections of the office bearers can be challenged before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act and in order to determine as to who is in effective control, Section 16A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act provide for the authorities, which in the present case is the Regional Level Committee. A five judge Bench of this Court in Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education & Ors., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36267 of 1992 decided on 15.10.2004 held as follows:-

"Accordingly, we answer the questions as follows:-

1. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A (7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, exercises quasi-judicial powers, and not purely administrative powers.

2. The Regional Deputy Director of Education while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921, must decide the question of validity of the elections prima facie, in deciding the question of actual control over the affairs of the institution.

3. Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education finds that the election of both the rival committees are invalid, he is not required to decide the question of actual control to recognise one or the other Committee of Management, and instead he shall, where the Scheme of Administration provides for appointment of an Administrator (Prabandh Sanchalak), appoint an Administrator with the direction to hold elections in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, and where there is no such provision in the Scheme of Administration he shall appoint an Authorised Controller who shall expeditiously hold elections to the Committee of Management and shall manage the affairs of the institution until a lawfully elected committee of management is available for taking over the management."

In order to avoid a large number of writ petitions filed for quashing the orders passed by the educational authorities during the process of elections and in seeking directions to them, we hereby declare that the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64; Harcharan Singh v. Mohinder Singh & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 1500; Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851; Jyoti Basu & Ors. v. Debi Ghosal & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 983; Harikrishna Lal v. Babu Lal Marandi, (2003) 8 SCC 613 and Shyamdeo Pd. Singh v. Naval Kishore Yadav, (2000) 8 SCC 46 restraining the courts from interfering in the process of election after the elections are notified is equally applicable to the elections of the office bearers of the committee of management of the societies as well as the Committee of Management to be elected in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of administration of the educational institutions. The principles of law that the Courts should keep their hand off in electoral matters and that all election disputes must be tried by the Election Tribunal, is also incorporated in the Constitution of India under Art.329 (b) for the elections of the Parliament or to the house or either house of the legislature, under Art.243 O for the elections of Panchayats and Art.243 ZG in the matter of elections of the municipalities. There is no reason as to why these time tested and settled principles should not be made applicable to the elections of the office bearers of the societies and for the Committee of Management under the scheme of administration of the educational institutions.

We have every reason to believe that in future the Court will refuse to interfere in the process of elections until the elections are concluded and will refuse to entertain election disputes and relegate the parties to approach the Election Tribunals or to file civil suit to challenge the results of the elections.

The huge pendency in the Court denies access of justice to the thousands of litigants in need of justice from the Court. The filing of frivolous, premature and unnecessary writ petitions take away the valuable time of the Court and clogs the entire justice delivery system. This Court has to be conscious of the fact that writ petitions should be entertained only when parties have acquired a cause of action and have exhausted the alternative remedies before approaching the Court.

There is no legal error in the judgment of learned Single Judge.

The special appeal is dismissed."

21. In the present case the elections for the year 2013 have not been held so far. The letter of the expelled President of the Society was utilised by the Joint Director of Education to supersede the Committee of Management. Instead of considering the validity of the order of the supersession, this Court directed the Authorised Controller to be appointed to hold the elections. In none of the writ petitions, the learned Single Judges tried to find out whether the elections were actually due and that it was only the outgoing Manager of the institution, who was required to call for and hold elections. Earlier two writ petitions filed against the order of the Deputy Registrar were disposed of by this Court. In Writ Petition No.53727 of 2010 the interim order was passed in a matter in which the order of the DIOS directing salary of the teaching and non-teaching staff to be paid by Shri Ram Shankar Tiwari, the outgoing Manager was an issue. The order of the Regional Level Committee dated 7.8.2010, whereby the claim of Ram Shankar Tiwari was rejected, learned counsel in the writ petition had relied upon the interim order dated 7.8.2010 passed in Writ Petition No.49713 of 2010 in which the order of the Regional Level Committee was stayed. This Court without going into the dispute in detail, was persuaded by the argument of learned counsel for the petitioner that even if the order dated 7.8.2010 passed by the Regional Level Committee has been stayed, it does not mean that Shri Ram Shankar Tiwari-respondent no.5 was entitled to function as Manager and made an adhoc recommendation that appropriate course for the DIOS was to await the decision of the Court and in the meantime to avoid any controversy, to appoint Authorised Controller for financial functioning of the institution. This Court stayed the order of DIOS dated 26.8.2010 directing Ram Shankar Tiwari, the Manager of the institution to disburse the salary and directed the Authorised Controller to be appointed giving rise to further litigation.

22. The matters of the elections of the Committee of Management unless rank outsider to usurp the power have to be left to be considered and decided by the educational authorities namely at the first instance by the DIOS, who has to attest the signatures and if he finds that there is any dispute, he has to refer the matter to the Regional Level Committee to be decided under Section 16A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The High Court should not usurp these powers in which orders are subject to regular suit and to start adjudicating at every stage of the elections and on every complaint. The unending issue on interfering at every stage for giving momentary advantage to disputing parties leads to unnecessary litigation and ultimately affects the management of the institution, which in turn deteriorates the academic atmosphere.

23. The legal position was settled by the five judges decision in the year 2004 laying down the principles in law not to interfere in these matters unless the elections are concluded and the parties have exhausted the alternative remedies.

24. In the present case the learned Single Judge has passed the orders in a matter in which cause of action had not arisen to the parties to approach the Court. The Authorised Controller had called for a list of valid members by the Deputy Registrar. The question as to whether these members were valid members and constituted electoral college was not decided as yet. There was no need for this Court to interfere specially when two previous writ petitions against the order of the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits were unsuccessfully filed by the parties.

25. The special appeal is allowed. The judgment of learned Single Judge dated 10.7.2013 is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

Dt.25.04.2014

SP/