Allahabad High Court
C/M Public Inter College And ... vs State Of U.P. And 8 Ors. on 8 August, 2014
Bench: Vineet Saran, Vijay Lakshmi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 37
Special Appeal No. 713 of 2014
Committee of Manager, Public Inter College, Mandaripur, District Bijnor through its Manager, Sri Rohtash Singh
Vs.
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Vijay Lakshmi, J.
By means of this appeal, the appellants have challenged the judgement and order dated 1.8.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition no. 38726 of 2014 whereby the writ petition, which was filed with the prayer for a direction in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent no. 2 (Regional Level Committee) from proceeding to enquire into or decide the issue with regard to the validity of enrollment of 213 members of the general body of the institution, has been dismissed primarily on the ground that the Regional Level Committee has jurisdiction to decide such issues and as such, a writ of prohibition restraining the Regional Level Committee from adjudicating the matter, does not deserve to be granted.
The brief facts relating to this case are that the Committee of Management of the institution, which was elected in August, 2008 for a period of three years, had, vide a resolution dated 25.4.2010, inducted 213 new life members. According to the appellants, the objection with regard to the induction of such members was decided and rejected by the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 5.6.2010 and affirmed by the Joint Director of Education on 16.7.2010. After completion of the term of three years, fresh elections were held on 17.7.2011 in which all the office bearers were elected unopposed. The respondent no. 4 was elected as Deputy Manager of the said committee of management. Then fresh elections were announced to be held on 1.6.2014 in which the appellants as well as the private respondents no. 4 to 9 had participated. Admittedly, no objection with regard to the electoral college was raised by any party at any stage till the election had been held on 1.6.2014. It was only thereafter that objections with regard to the conduct of the elections had been filed, in which one of the objections was with regard to the electoral college and induction of 213 members in the year 2010. According to the appellants, the question of induction of 213 members in the year 2010 had become final, which cannot be looked into by the Regional Level Committee on the objections of the private respondents. They thus filed the said writ petition praying for a direction in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondent no. 2 (Regional Level Committee) from proceeding to enquire into or decide the issue with regard to the validity of enrollment of 213 members of the general body of the institution, which has been dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal has been filed.
We have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri K.M. Asthana, learned counsel for the appellants as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents no. 1 to 3 and Sri Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel for the private respondent no. 4 and Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri S.B. Singh, learned counsel for the private respondents no. 5 to 9 and have perused the record. With consent of learned counsel for the parties, this appeal is being disposed of finally at the admission stage itself.
The submission of Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants is that since the issue relating to the enrollment of 213 fresh members on 25.4.2010 had become final as the same had been duly approved by the District Inspector of Schools and by the Joint Director of Education, it was not open for the respondents to raise the issue afresh, especially after one of them was elected as office bearer in the elections held in the year 2011 (which was unanimous) and thereafter also they having participated in the elections held on 1.6.2014 without raising any objections with regard to the electoral college and have raised such objections only after having lost in such elections. It is contended that the respondents are thus estopped from raising such an issue with regard to the validity of the induction of 213 members in the year 2010. It has thus been prayed that the Regional Level Committee be restrained on deciding any such dispute with regard to the validity of the enrollment of 213 members of the general body of the institution.
Sri Gajendra Pratap, learned Senior Counsel as well as Sri Sujeet Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents have submitted that a writ of prohibition is to be issued only when the authority does not have jurisdiction to decide a particular matter and once it is not disputed that the Regional Level Committee, while considering the validity of the elections, has the authority to decide such objections with regard to the electoral college and other objections, there should be no such restraint order issued by this Court requiring the authority not to decide an issue when it has the authority to decide such issue. It is also contended that the learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition and there is no infirmity in the impugned order so as to call for interference in appeal.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.
The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the respondents, who have filed objections before the Regional Level Committee with regard to the elections held on 1.6.2014, had themselves either been office bearers in the elections of the 2011 or had participated in the elections of 2014 and not raised any objection, and then after having lost in such elections, they would be estopped from raising any such objections after the elections are held. Such contention of the learned counsel for the appellants may have substance but once it is not disputed that the authority dealing with the objections of the parties with regard to the validity of the elections, is seized of the matter, it is for the appellants to defend their case and raise all such pleas before the authority concerned and it is not for the writ court to issue any such orders prohibiting the authority from looking into the matters with regard to the electoral college and deal with the other objections. As such, with the aforesaid observations, we decline to interfere with the order impugned in this appeal.
This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Dismissal of this appeal would not mean that there is any direction of this Court to decide the matter relating to the validity of the electoral college and induction of 213 members in the year 2010, and it is for the Regional Level Committee to consider the matter independently.
There shall be no order as to costs.
Dt/- 8.8.2014
abhiShek
(Vijay Lakshmi , J.) (Vineet Saran, J.)
