C/M Of Sri Radha Krishna Adarsh ... vs State Of U.P. Thru' Principal ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4981 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
									                    (AFR)
 
							         RESERVED ON 17.05.2017
 
							          DELIVERED ON 05.10.2017
 

 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 48253 of 2004
 

 
Petitioner :- C/M Of Sri Radha Krishna Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyalaya   and  Another. 
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Principal Secy. & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- G.K. Singh,Pankaj Misra,Upendra Misra,V.K. Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar,Anil Tiwari,Ashok Kumar Shukla,Rajeev Mishra
 

 
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.

1. This writ petition has been filed by petitioners' Committee of Management headed by its manager Dinesh Chandra Singh challenging the order dated 3rd of October, 2004 passed by the Vice Chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi and praying for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to recognize the petitioners' Committee of Management as duly elected in the elections held on 14.12.2002.

2. This writ petition had earlier been dismissed on 01.05.2013 as having become infructuous but the petitioners filed Special Appeal No. 893 of 2013 which was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 31.05.2013, and the matter was remanded back to this Court to be heard on merits.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that a Society by the name of Shri Radha Krishna Adarsh Sanskrit Vidyalaya, Sukhpura, Ballia was registered sometime in the year 1981. The said Society runs a Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya affiliated to Sampurnanad Sanskrit University. As per the bye-laws of the Society the term of Committee of Management is five years.

4. In the year 1987 a dispute arose with regard to the selection on the post of Principal. The University had sent Dr. Adya Prasad Mishra as an expert but the allegation made by Dr. Adya Prasad Mishra as endorsed by the Deputy Registrar and Vice Chancellor of the University, was that the signatures of the expert sent by the University were forged. Dr. Adya Prasad Mishra never attended the selection allegedly held in which one Shri Barmeshwar Nath Pandey, Assistant Teacher, was selected as Principal. The Registrar and Vice Chancellor of the University thereafter sent several letters to the Committee of Management for setting aside the selection of Shri Barmeshwar Nath Pandey and for removing the Secretary/Manager Balram Singh.

5. It is the case of the petitioners that the orders/letters of the University were not complied with as the allegations made by the University were found false by the Committee of Management. By an election held 0n 07.07.1991 Balram Singh was again elected as Secretary/Manager and one Laxmi Narayan Giri was elected as President of the Committee of Management. Papers were sent to the University and to the Assistant Registrar under Societies Registration Act and the District Inspector of Schools for recognition of the election held on 07.07.1991.

6. Before such an election could be recognized one Dr. Deena Nath Ojha sent papers for approval of election held on 10.01.1992 in which Dr. Deena Nath Ojha was elected as Manager/Secretary and Chandra Dev Pandey was elected as President.

7. On 27.03.1992 the University recognized the Committee of Management headed by Dr. Deena Nath Ojha and being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner filed writ petition No. 30377 of 1992 and an interim order was granted by this Court on 26.08.1992.

8. The Assistant Registrar under Societies Registration Act also passed two orders in favour of Dr. Deena Nath Ojha on 30.09.1992 and 03.10.1992 which were challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition No. 48826 of 1992 and this Court passed an interim order on 02.12.1992.

9. It has been averred by the petitioners that in compliance of the interim orders dated 26.08.1992 and 02.12.1992, the Committee of Management headed by Balram Singh continued to function. On 08.07.1996 when writ petition No. 30377 of 1992 was again taken up for hearing, this Court modified the interim order, directing the Deputy Director of Education to ask the District Inspector of Schools to take over the charge of the institution as an Authorized Controller and to conduct fresh elections of the Committee of Management within three months.

10. The District Inspector of Schools, however, did not comply with the order passed by this Court and on 28.01.2000 the Court directed the Deputy Director of Education and District Inspector of Schools to show cause as to why the order dated 08.07.1996 had not been complied with. The Court further directed that the elections be held within two weeks and the duly elected Committee of Management approved by the appropriate Authority should be given charge within two months and that the District Inspector of Schools should not function beyond the said period.

11. In purported compliance of the order issued by this Court the District Inspector of Schools issued notices to both the rival managers i.e. petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 5, Dr. Deena Nath Ojha and on 25.11.2002 the District Inspector of Schools declared the final list of the members/voters of the General Body of the Society.

12. It is alleged that the elections were held thereafter on 14.12.2002 and the petitioner No. 2, Dinesh Chandra Singh, was elected as Manager and one Shri Pashupati Nath Pandey was elected as President.

13. It has been alleged that the District Inspector of Schools thereafter sent a letter to the University on 24.12.2002 informing it about the elections held on 14.12.2002 but the University did not immediately pass any order recognising the newly elected Committee of Management. In stead, the Vice-Chancellor constituted a Committee of two persons to hold an inquiry with regard to the validity of the elections. The petitioner no. 2 along with one Vijay Shanker Singh and Respondent No. 5 appeared before this Committee on various dates fixed but the report of the Committee was not made known to the petitioners.

14. The Vice-Chancellor formed another Committee for inquiry into the same matter and information regarding the same was sent to the petitioner by the Registrar by letter dated 23.03.2004. It has been alleged that Sarvashri Dinesh Chandra Singh, Vijay Shanker Singh and Deena Nath Ojha all appeared before this newly constituted Committee and the petitioner thereafter filed a Contempt Petition No. 2450 of 2004 for alleged willful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 28.01.2000 in writ petition No. 30377 of 1992.

15. After notices were issued, the Vice-Chancellor passed the impugned order on 3rd of October, 2004 wherein the Vice-Chancellor observed that in the year 1981 when the Society was constituted and registered there were nine life members out of whom four were alive and they were supporting Dr. Deena Nath Ojha, the respondent no. 5 herein. The list of members submitted by Dr. Deena Nath Ojha has been recognized by the Assistant Registrar and this list of members dated 15.02.1987 alone should be taken as the only valid list of members of the general body of the society. The elections held by the Committee of Management under the manager-ship of Shri Balram Singh could not be recognised as Balram Singh had already been removed under the orders of the Vice-Chancellor from the post of manager of the institution. None of the members enrolled by Balram Singh after his removal could not be recognised as valid members. Since the petitioner No. 2, Dinesh Chandra Singh, became a member on 8th of July, 1987 after removal of Balram Singh as Manager, he could not be recognised as a member of General Body of the Society, nor any election alleged to have been conducted thereafter in which Dinesh Chandra Singh was elected as Manager of the Institution, could be given any recognition.

16. It has been alleged in the writ petition that the order of the Vice-Chancellor was completely without jurisdiction. In case of dispute with regard to the validity of elections or which Committee of Management was to be recognized as validly elected, the matter should have been referred for adjudication to the Deputy Director of Education, Varanasi Mandal, Varanasi. It has also been averred that after the elections held on 14.12.2002 under the supervision of District Inspector of Schools, no manner of doubt could have been entertained with regard their validity and the two Inquiry Committees constituted by the Vice-Chancellor thereafter had no jurisdiction to hold any inquiry.

17. It has been submitted that the Vice-Chancellor wrongly relied upon a letter/report of the District Inspector of Schools dated 18.06.2004 wherein the District Inspector of Schools had reported that no elections were held on 14.12.2002. The reliance placed by the Vice-Chancellor on the alleged report of the District Inspector of Schools dated 18.06.2004 was illegal and arbitrary as the District Inspector of Schools had already submitted papers on 24.12.2002 for recognition of the petitioners' Committee of Management to the Vice-Chancellor.

18. At the time when this writ petition was filed this Court had granted an interim order directing that the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia shall not hold any fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution in pursuance of the orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor.

19. A detailed counter affidavit along with Stay Vacation Application in the aforesaid matter has been filed on behalf of the University by Shri Anil Tiwari. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State-Respondents by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia and a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 5, Dr. Deena Nath Ojha also. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No. 5 it has been brought on record that no elections were held on 14.12.2002 because on 07.12.2002 the District Inspector of Schools had indefinitely postponed the elections scheduled to be held on 14.12.2002, had been postponed indefinitely. The order dated 07.12.2002 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia was never challenged. The letter allegedly submitted on 24.12.2002 by the District Inspector of Schools to the University for grant of recognition to the alleged election held on 14.12.2002 was a forged document and this could be ascertained from the letter sent by the Principal of the Institution dated 18.04.2004 to the District Inspector of Schools and the report submitted on 18.06.2004 by the District Inspector of Schools to the University in this regard.

20. It has been averred in the counter affidavit that the Society was initially constituted in 1981 and the term of the Committee of Management as per its registered bye-laws was five years. Elections should have been held in 1986 and 1991 and thereafter in 1996 and 2001. However, no elections were held in 1986 and 1991 by the then Manager of the College. The elections were held by the Respondent No. 5 with support of four other life members of the Society in January, 1992 and the papers were sent thereafter to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi, which were approved and recognition was granted to the Committee of Management headed by Dr. Deena Nath Ojha as Manager on 03.10.1991.

21. The University also had refused to give any recognition to the Committee of Management allegedly elected on 07.07.1991 under the manager-ship of Dinesh Chandra Singh. Against the orders of the University dated 23.07.1992 writ petition No. 30337 of 1992 was filed by the petitioners in which an interim order was granted on 26.08.1992. This writ petition was eventually dismissed as having become infructuous. Thus, the orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor in favour of the Respondent No. 5 granting recognition on 23.07.1992 attained finality.

22. In view of the interim orders granted by this Court on 02.12.1992 in writ petition No. 42826 of 1992 and the said writ petition pending in this Court, the papers submitted for renewal by the Respondent No. 5 to the Assistant Registrar have been kept pending. The petitioner Dinesh Chandra Singh had also submitted his papers regarding the renewal of the original registration of Society in his favour but the Assistant Registrar on 09.01.2004 had observed that no renewal certificate can be granted on the ground of pendency of the writ petition No. 42826 of 1992 before this Court.

23. It has been alleged that in compliance of the order passed by the University dated 18.05.1997 directing the President of this Committee of Management, namely, Laxmi Narayan Giri to remove the manager Balram Singh, Balram Singh had been removed on 25.05.1997 itself. Thereafter, Balram Singh also died in December, 2000.

24. It has been alleged that the elections held by the Respondent No. 5 dated 10.01.1992 were given recognition by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of powers under Section 2 (13) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973 and this order attained finality after the writ petition No. 30377 of 1992 was dismissed by this Court.

25. It has also been alleged that after this Court passed an order on 08.07.1996 directing the District Inspector of Schools to take over the charge and affairs of the Management of the Institution till the new office-bearers are elected, the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia had passed an order on 28.09.1996 restraining both the parties from working as Manager of the Committee of Management. This order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 28.09.1996 was also not challenged by the petitioners.

26. It has been further alleged that two lists were submitted by both the parties to the District Inspector of Schools and the District Inspector of Schools by an order dated 25.11.2002 had recognised 66 members as valid members/valid voters of the General Body to elect the office-bearers of the Committee of Management. Since no elections were held and the District Inspector of Schools continued to manage the Institution. The petitioner no. 2 cannot be recognised as Manager of the Institution and the Vice-Chancellor after due inquiry had found the case of the petitioners to be false from the very beginning and therefore, had directed that entire exercise of holding fresh elections be done on the basis of the list of the members of the Society up to 1987.

27. Along with the counter affidavit of the Respondent No. 5 a report of DIOS dated 18.06.2004 mentioned in the order impugned of the Vice-Chancellor dated 03.10.2004 has been filed as Annexure. A perusal of the same shows that the DIOS has reiterated the information given by the Principal of the Institution that no elections were held on 14.12.2002 as alleged by the petitioner No. 2. A copy of the order passed by the DIOS on 25.11.2002 recognising the list of 66 members after giving the opportunity of hearing to both the parties has also been filed.

28. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools it has been averred that all the letters/orders referred to by the petitioners in the writ petition, for example; letter dated 14.12.2002 and the letter by the DIOS supposedly sending the papers to the Vice-Chancellor of Sampurnanand Sanskrit University for granting recognition to the Committee of Management elected in the alleged elections cannot be found in the office of the District Inspector of Schools and the District Inspector of Schools has rightly submitted his report dated 18.06.2004 to the Vice-Chancellor in this regard.

29. In the Counter affidavit filed by the University while denying of the averments made in the writ petition, the University has said that the list submitted by the District Inspector of Schools with his letter dated 25.11.2002 containing 66 members as valid members can be taken to be the only valid list and the case set up by Balram Singh and by Dinesh Chandra Singh, the petitioner no. 2, as a representative and successor of Balram Singh is liable to be rejected as a false and fabricated one.

30. The matter was taken up by me for hearing on 17.05.2017 and a detailed order was passed which is being quoted herein below:-

"1. I have heard Mr. Pankaj Misra, counsel for petitioners and Mr. Rajeev Mishra, counsel for the respondents.

2. Both the counsel have agreed that in so far as adjudication with regard to the order impugned in this writ petition dated 3rd of October, 2004 passed by the Vice Chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit University, Varanasi is concerned, this Court may not adjudicate regarding the validity of the same at this point in time because the order was passed when the validity of elections allegedly held by the Committee of Management headed by the petitioners on 14.12.2002 was in question.

3. Since 14 years have passed from the date of passing of the impugned order, the term of Committee of Management headed by Dinesh Chandra Singh, the petitioner, even if it was elected on 14.12.2002, as alleged, has admittedly expired. Apparently, at the current point in time no validly elected Committee of Management is in existence and the list of members finalized by the District Inspector of Schools in compliance of the orders passed by this Court on 08.07.1996 by the order dated 25.11.2002, although not questioned by any of the parties, still may not be of any use as now some of sixty six members may have either died or would have been incapacitated or rendered ineligible in terms of the bye-laws of the Society, a question arises whether a fresh direction may be issued to the Assistant Registrar under the Societies Registration Act to hold fresh elections after finalizing the list of members of the Society in question after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. Arguments have been heard.

4. Judgment is reserved."

31. The question before this Court now is whether this Court can issue a mandamus to the Registrar to call for a meeting of the General Body of the Society in question to determine first, the valid members of the said Society and then, to get elections conducted either himself or by an officer nominated by him, in accordance with the provisions in the bye-laws of the Society relating to the meeting and elections (may be with necessary modifications).

32. A Full Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 589 of 2016 : Committee of Management, Dadar Ashram Trust Society and others Vs. Mahatma Gandhi Vidya Peeth, Varanasi and others has laid down the law in its judgment rendered on 16th of December, 2016 considering the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the relevant provisions of the State Universities Act, 1973.

33. Having the benefit of reading the judgment of the Full Bench of this Court, I am of the considered opinion that Section 25 of the Act of 1986 deals with the disputes relating to the election of office-bearers under Sub Sections (2) and (3) thereof in the following manner:-

"25. Disputes regarding election of office-bearers:

(1).............

(2) Where by an order made under sub-section (1), an election is set aside or an office-bearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of office-bearers of a society has not been held within the time specified in the rules of that society, he may call meeting of the general body of such society for electing such office-bearer or office-bearers, and such meeting shall be presided over and be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorised by him in this behalf, and the provisions in the rules of the society relating to meetings and elections shall apply to such meeting and election with necessary modifications.

(3) Where a meeting is called by the Registrar under sub-section (2), no other meeting shall be called for the purpose of election by any other authority or by any person claiming to be an office-bearer of the society.

Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, the expression 'prescribed authority' means an officer or court authorised in this behalf by the State Government by notification published in the Official Gazette."

34. From a bare reading of sub-section (2), it appears that there are three situations in which the Registrar is empowered to call a meeting of the general body of a society for electing an office bearer or office bearers, and such meeting shall be presided over by him or by any officer authorized by him in this behalf, and the provisions in the rules of the society relating to meetings and elections shall apply to such a meeting and elections with necessary modifications. The three situations which are contemplated by this provision are (i) where by an order made under sub-section (1), an election is set aside; (ii) where an office bearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office; or (iii) where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of office bearers of a society has not been held within the time specified in the rules of that society.

35. Admittedly, it is the third situation which is attracted in this case and as a result thereof, it is only the Registrar who is competent to call a meeting of the general body for electing office bearers in a meeting presided over by him or by any officer authorized by him, and to hold the elections.

36. The Hon'ble Full Bench has held that the Authorized Controller can be allowed to conduct elections and this Court can issue a mandamus to the Authorized Controller for holding elections.

37. The Registrar/Assistant Registrar under the Societies Registration Act and can also call a meeting of the general body and hold elections in accordance with the provisions in the rules of the society relating to meetings and elections, as may be with necessary modifications. The office bearers of the society had, admittedly, failed to hold elections within the time specified in the rules of that society.

38. The appointment of the Authorized Controller was made by this Court by an interim order, since the office bearers did not hold elections within the time specified under the bye laws.

39. Admittedly, no elections have been held for the past several years of the Society in question. Even the list of valid members as notified by the District Inspector of Schools the Authorized Controller, after hearing both the parties, of 66 members has now become out dated and this fact has been noticed on the basis of submissions made by the counsel for both the parties by this Court in its order dated 17.05.2017.

40. Under the State Universities Act of 1973, Section 2(13) contemplates grant of recognition by the University to the Managing Committee of the Society charged with the managing affairs of the College. The management performs functions which are assigned to it under the Act of 1973 including the appointment of teachers, managing the assets and properties of the educational institution etc. Chapter IX of the Act of 1973 contains provision relating to regulation of degree colleges wherein under Sections 56, 57 and 58 State Government and also Director of Higher Education have been given power to over see the functioning of the Committee of Management and to ensure that the management acts in accordance with Acts and Rules. Whenever the Management of an affiliated College has persistently committed willful default in paying the salary of the teachers or other employees; or the Management has failed to appoint teaching staff possessing such qualifications as are necessary for the purpose of ensuring the maintenance of academic standards relating to the college or has appointed or retained in service any teacher in contravention of the Statute or Ordinances; or that any dispute with the rights claimed by different persons to be valid office-bearers of its Management has affected the smooth and orderly administration of the College; or has persistently failed to provide the College with such adequate and proper accommodation, library, furniture, stationery, laboratory, equipment, and other facilities, as are necessary for efficient administration of the College; or the Management has substantially diverted or misappropriated the property of the college to the detriment of the college; the State Government may call upon the Management to show cause as to why an Authorized Controller be not appointed.

41. This Authorized Controller if so appointed by the government may take over the Management of the affiliated College for a period of two to five years and even after expiry of five years if no lawfully constituted Management of the College comes into existence, the Authorized Controller can continue to function until the State Government is satisfied that the Management has been lawfully constituted.

42. For lawful constitution of Managing Committee of an affiliated College the relevant provisions under the Societies Registration Act 1860 have to be looked into and admittedly, under Section 25(2) of the Act, 1860 the Registrar may call a meeting of the General Body of the Society and take such action as is required under the bye-laws of the said Society for holding elections of Committee of Management.

43. In the judgment rendered by the Full Bench in the case of Dadar Ashram Trust Society (supra), it has been held that not only the Registrar but also the Authorized Controller can be issued a direction by the High Court to call for a meeting of the General Body of the Society and ensure that a duly elected Committee of Management is put in place, but such a mandamus can be issued by this Court alone if the Registrar fails to perform his duty. The power to call upon the Authorised Controller to hold elections cannot be exercised by the Vice Chancellor of a University.

44. In view of the law settled by this Court in various earlier judgments and as elucidated by the Full Bench decision in the case of Dadar Ashram Trust (supra), the direction issued by the Vice-Chancellor while refusing to recognize the Committee of Management headed by Dinesh Chandra Singh, the petitioner no. 2, and observing that the four life members of the Society who were still alive out of nine original life members must produce the list of valid members as recognized on 15.02.1987 before the District Inspector of Schools concerned, and the District Inspector of Schools to thereafter get the election conducted on the basis of the list of the members dated 15.02.1987 is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

45. A direction is issued to the Registrar to take appropriate steps as envisaged under Sub-section (2) of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act for calling a meeting of the General Body of the Society, or those members left alive as on the date, by issuing a notice in two widely circulated daily newspapers of State published in Hindi and English.

46. The Registrar is further directed to finalize the list of valid members of the Society within a period of four weeks from the date of issuance of a public notice as aforesaid.

47. A meeting of the General Body for conducting election as per the bye-laws of the Society shall be held after issuance of agenda for the same and after its proper communication to all valid members as determined by the Registrar.

48. The Registrar is also entrusted with the responsibility of getting elections conducted as per the provisions of the statute and bye-laws of the Society.

49. The whole exercise shall be completed by the Registrar within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.

50. The writ petition is disposed of as aforesaid with no order as to costs.

Order Date :- 05.10.2017

LBY