Prem Prakash And 3 Others vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2015 Latest Caselaw 645 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Chief Justice's Court							AFR
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 307 of 2015
 

 
Appellant :- Prem Prakash And 3 Others
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Awasthi,Tej Bhan Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,V.K. Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud,Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

The learned Single Judge has dismissed a writ petition filed by the appellants on the ground that the appellants lack locus-standi in order to challenge an order passed by the Regional Level Committee on 14 November 2014 accepting the legitimacy of the election in which the fifth respondent was elected as the Committee of Management. The appellants also sought to question an order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 28 February 2013 attesting the signatures of the fifth respondent and sought the appointment of an authorized controller to hold valid elections.

Elections were held to the Committee of Management on 31 January 2013. The appellants objected to the legitimacy of the elections on 7 February 2013. On 28 February 2013, the District Inspector of Schools approved the elections in the course of which the fifth respondent was elected as the Committee of Management. The appellants filed a writ petition (Writ-C No. 35073 of 2013)1. By an order dated 3 July 2013, the learned Single Judge disposed of the petition by permitting the appellants to ventilate their grievance before the Regional Level Committee within a period of two weeks. On such an application being made, the Regional Level Committee was to decide it by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of being heard to the elected office bearers.

On 8 January 2014, the Regional Level Committee passed an order by which it rejected the elections which were held in the course of which the fifth respondent was elected as the Committee of Management. Against the rejection of the elections, a writ petition was filed before the learned Single Judge by the fifth respondent (Writ-C No. 4278 of 2014)2. By an order dated 22 January 2014, the writ petition was finally disposed of by setting aside the order of the Regional Level Committee dated 8 January 2014 with a remand to the Committee to pass a fresh speaking order after affording an opportunity "to both the sides". The order of the Regional Level Committee passed thereon accepted the elections of the fifth respondent. The order of the Regional Level Committee dated 14 November 2014 was questioned before the learned Single Judge once again. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by holding that the appellants have no locus-standi to challenge the order of the Regional Level Committee.

On behalf of the appellants, it has been submitted that the first order of the learned Single Judge dated 3 July 2013 specifically permitting the appellants to ventilate their grievance before the Regional Level Committee tacitly recognized the standing of the appellants to raise their objections before the Committee. Thereafter when the fifth respondent filed a writ petition, the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 22 January 2014, remitted the matter to the Regional Level Committee to decide the matter afresh after affording an opportunity to both the sides. Hence, it was submitted that this would indicate that the appellants would have a sufficient standing to pursue writ proceedings. In this regard, reliance was placed on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Rajveer Singh vs. The State of U.P. and others3, decided on 7 September 2010.

On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the fifth respondent has supported the view of the learned Single Judge as being based on the law laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Ratan Kumar Solanki vs. State of U.P. and others4. Moreover, it was urged that the first order of the learned Single Judge dated 3 July 2013 was without notice to the fifth respondent. Finally, it was submitted that the mere fact that the learned Single Judge in the writ petition filed by the fifth respondent had directed the Committee to decide the dispute after affording both the sides would not furnish locus to the appellants. The appellants were entitled to have their objections heard by the Regional Level Committee. Once the Committee decided those objections, the appellants would have to take recourse to the ordinary civil remedy of a suit before the competent court. In this regard, reliance was placed on the judgment in Rajveer Singh (supra) decided on 7 September 2010.

The facts of the present case which have been narrated in the earlier part of this judgment would indicate that initially the appellants moved the learned Single Judge, aggrieved by the elections to the Committee of Management. The learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition on 3 July 2013 held that this grievance of the appellants could be appropriately examined by the Regional Level Committee and, accordingly, remitted the matter with liberty to move the Committee. Undoubtedly, at that stage, the fifth respondent was not before the learned Single Judge since the order was passed without notice to the fifth respondent.

Be that as it may, when a fresh order was passed it was challenged by the fifth respondent and this time the learned Single Judge, by an order dated 22 January 2014, remitted the matter to the Regional Level Committee to pass a fresh speaking order after affording an opportunity to both the sides. Accordingly, the appellants were before the Regional Level Committee and their objections were heard.

In Ratan Kumar Solanki (supra), the principle of law which has been laid down by the Division Bench is in the following terms:

"24. What is discernible from the above discussion is where the right of an individual is affected or infringed, and, he has no other effective remedy, if such rights of the individual concerned are borne out from the statute or the provision of bye-laws etc. having the flavour of statute, a writ petition at his instance may be maintainable subject to attracting the condition where the Court may decline to interfere namely availability of alternative remedy, delay, laches etc. but where a legal right of an individual is not directly affected, a writ petition expousing the cause of the collective body or other members of the collective body would not be maintainable at the instance of an individual who himself is not directly affected. We may add here that in a given case, if it is found that an election was held by an imposter and he is supported by DIOS or other educational authorities, such an action of DIOS as also the election can be challenged by the individual member since it cannot be said that he is not a person aggrieved but whether a writ petition at his instance would be maintainable or he can challenge the election by filing a civil suit etc., would be a different aspect of the matter and has to be considered in each and every case considering the facts, relevant provision and other relevant aspects of the matter."

These observations indicate that the view of the Division Bench was that where a legal right of an individual is not directly affected, a writ petition espousing the cause of the collective body or of the members of the collective body would not be maintainable at the instance of an individual who himself is not directly affected. In the present case, it is not appropriate to hold that the appellants would not be directly affected having due regard to the case of the appellants that they are members of the society and sought to question the legality of the list of members on the basis of which the elections were held. Particularly having due regard to the earlier orders passed by the learned Single Judges on 3 July 2013 and on 22 January 2014, recognizing the right of the appellants to have their grievance ventilated before the Regional Level Committee, it would not be appropriate for this Court to adopt a different position.

A similar situation had in fact emerged before the Division Bench in Nazimuddin vs. State of U.P. and others5.

We must of course note that the basic issue as to whether writ proceedings should be entertained in a situation, such as the present, is a different matter altogether. The judgment of the Division Bench in Ratan Kumar Solanki (supra) which has been extracted above also indicates that the locus of an individual to move the Court is an issue which is quite distinct from the maintainability of the writ proceedings. In fact, in a subsequent judgment of a Division Bench in Rajveer Singh (supra), this aspect was considered and dealt with in the following observations:

"This Court is already over-burdened with the writ petitions filed by the rival Committees of Management, or the members, who have taken part in the elections, and did not succeed, in the matters arising out of thousands of educational institutions across the State. Every year thousands of writ petitions are being filed. In fact every election of the Committee of Management of education institution is challenged in the High Court, on the question of its recognition by the Regional Deputy Director of Education (now the Regional Level Committee), under Section-16A (7) of the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921. A single Judge has been assigned determination relating to only such matters. The valuable time of the Court for deciding important questions of law to reduce inequities and injustice in the society, is spent in resolving disputes between rival groups to gain control over the educational institutions for the purpose of access to the funds provided by the State Government. In most of the cases the Courts find that the elections are set up only on papers, without holding election meetings.

If the individual members of the general body of the educational society not directly affected by the election results, are also allowed to file objections and to challenge the elections, the fight for gaining control over the school funds will flood the High Courts with litigation. The election may be challenged by members of the general body separately after raising objections before the educational authorities, and thereafter filing writ petitions on variety of grounds.

We may add here that an individual member in such case, is not without remedy. He may file a suit challenging the elections, to enforce his right of association guaranteed under Section 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India."

In the present case, the nature of the challenge is such as to implicate the correctness of the list of members on the basis of which elections to the Committee of Management were held. In our view, it would not be appropriate for the High Court under Article 226 to entertain such a petition challenging the result of an election, where several disputed issues of fact would have to be adjudicated. An aggrieved individual has a sufficient remedy available in law in the form of a civil suit having due regard to the provisions of Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

Hence and for these reasons, while we are not in agreement with the view of the learned Single Judge for non suiting the appellants on the ground of locus, we are nonetheless of the view that the ultimate conclusion of the learned Single Judge was right and that the appellants should be relegated to the remedy of filing an ordinary civil suit to pursue their claims.

The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 25.5.2015				(Dr.D.Y.Chandrachud,C.J.)
 
RK
 

 
								(M.K. Gupta,J.)