Committee Of Management, F.R. ... vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 97 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
Chief Justice's Court
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 897 of 2020
 

 
Appellant :- Committee Of Management, F.R. Islamia Inter College And Another
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- J.P. Singh,Ashok Khare (Sr. Advocate)
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi
 

 
Hon'ble Govind Mathur,Chief Justice
 
Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal, J.

"Whether the learned single Bench is right in holding that as per paragraph 9 of the Scheme of Administration of Fazlur Rahman Islamia Inter College, Bareilly extraordinary meeting of the Committee could be called only with the approval of the President," is the precise question under consideration before us.

Paragraph 9 aforesaid reads as under:-

"Meetings of the Committee.

(i) Ordinary Meetings - An ordinary meeting of the Committee shall be called by the Manager/Secretary at least once every quarter with the approval of the President.

(ii) Extra ordinary or Emergency Meetings - The Manager/Secretary (with the approval of the President) may when necessary and shall on the written requisition of at least once fifth of the elected members containing the resolution of specific subject for consideration, call an emergent meeting of the Committee.

(iii) Notice of the Meeting- At least seven clear days notice shall be given for an ordinary meeting of the Committee and three clear days notice for an emergent or extra ordinary meeting. Provided that in case of sending of notice by Post at the last known address of the member nine days before the date of an emergent meeting shall be deemed sufficient service on him in due time. The notice shall contain the agenda and specify the place, date and time of the meeting.

(iv) Quorum and adjourned meeting- Six members or one third of the total number of the then members, whichever is greater, shall form the quorum for the meeting. In the absence of the required quorum upto 30 minutes after the time fixed for the commencement of the meeting, the same shall stand adjourned and may be held again the same day or the next day at a time announced by the President at the expiry of the said 30 minutes. No quorum or any other notice shall be required for an adjourned meeting, but no matter shall be taken up there which was not included in the agenda of the meeting which was adjourned for want of quorum."

Before touching merits of the case, it would be appropriate to mention certain necessary facts.

The institution in question, namely, Fazlur Rahman Islamia Inter College, Bareilly is a recognized and aided intermediate college. The college is governed by the provisions contained under Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder. A Scheme of Administration as per the Act of 1921 was approved by the competent authority to deal with all day today administrative issues of the college. Paragraph 9 of the scheme that has already been quoted above pertains to meeting of the Committee of Management in ordinary as well as extraordinary circumstances.

Six members of the Management Committee on 13th February, 2020 submitted an application to the Manager of the Institution to convene meeting of the Committee of Management and despite having no approval by the then President of the Committee, an agenda was issued to be considered by the Committee of Management on 3rd March, 2020. The President objected the same by relying upon provision of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration. Ignoring the objection, the Committee of Management met on 3rd March, 2020 and sought an explanation from the President about a forged resolution dated 28th July, 2018. The Committee also decided to handover charge of the office of President to one Dr. Shakir Ali. The decision was also communicated to the District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly on 12th March, 2020. The District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly did not approve the decision taken by the Committee of Management in light of the Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration. A request was again made to the President of the Committee to convene a meeting of the Committee afresh but of no consequence. In such circumstances, the Committee met on 28th June, 2020 in absence of approval of the President and resolved in the same tune as undertaken by the resolution earlier. The District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly under an order dated 6th July, 2020 refused to approve the resolution undertaken on 28th June, 2020. Aggrieved by the same, the appellants preferred a petition for writ that came to be disposed of on 21st September, 2020. Learned single Bench while disposing of the writ petition gave a definite finding that no meeting of the Committee of Management could have been called without having approval of the President as required under Clause 1 and 2 of Para 9 of the Scheme of Administration.

Suffice to state, while arriving at the conclusion as above, a direction was also given to the President of the Committee of Management to grant approval for holding meeting of the Committee of Management by following the norms issued by the State Government in relation to combat COVID-19.

In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that learned single Bench failed to appreciate real intent and import of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration. It is submitted that Clause 2 of Paragraph 9 prescribes two different eventualities for calling a meeting of the Management Committee but learned single Bench failed to interpret the provision in its true spirit.

Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the President and also on behalf of District Inspector of Schools submits that a conjoint reading of Paragraph 9 and 15 of the Scheme of Administration makes it crystal clear that no meeting could have been called without having approval of the President.

Heard learned counsels and considered the arguments advanced.

Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration provides two eventualities to call meeting of the Committee. As per sub-Clause (i), ordinary meeting by the Committee shall be called by the Manager/Secretary at least once every quarter with the approval of President. The ordinary meeting of the Committee is to be called in usual course and for that approval of the President is required only to settle the convenience. The meeting of this nature otherwise is mandatory. The other eventuality pertains to extraordinary circumstances. The extraordinary circumstances as given under sub-Clause (ii) of Clause 9 are of two nature. Firstly, when it is necessary looking to extraordinary circumstances and secondly, on return requisition of at least 1/5th of the elected members containing the resolution or specific subject for consideration. The first extraordinary eventuality may be there for several reasons and on having such reason, the Manager/Secretary may call a meeting with the approval of the President. The other part relates to calling of meeting of the Committee by a definite number of elected members. The occasion to call such meeting may arise in different circumstances even in a circumstance when the President is not desirous to call such meeting. Approval of the President in such a circumstance is quite difficult.

Learned single Bench while examining the process to call meeting has read the entire sub-clause as one eventuality. As a matter of fact, the word used "and" between necessary and shall differentiates and prescribes two eventualities under sub-clause (ii).

If we accept the interpretation of the sub-clause aforesaid as accepted by learned single Judge that will frustrate very purpose of the provision relating to call meeting at the instance of elected members. The rule framing authority under the provision aforesaid intends to provide two different eventualities for calling emergent meeting and if both the eventualities are made dependent to the approval of the President, then that would frustrate the will of rule making authority. It is well settled that the Court must ascertain the intention of rule making authority by attracting its attention by examining intent of the provision. The Court must interpret a provision to make that maximum workable. The sub-clause under consideration if we read as read by learned single Bench would virtually make the provision non-workable, if a meeting is to be called at the instance of elected members in a definite number and President is not agreeable for that. No provision is supposed to be interpreted in a manner that makes execution of law impossible. There may be a cause available to the elected members against the President. For consideration of such cause, it is quite possible that President may not approve the request to call meeting. In the case in hand too the issue under consideration was about the alleged ill-deeds of the President and looking to that he did not approved the request. To avoid such eventuality the Rule making authority has given a power to elected member to call meeting of the Committee.

For the reasons given above, in our considered opinion, learned single Bench erred while setting aside the decision taken by the Committee of Management in the meeting called at the instance of elected members. The appeal hence deserves acceptance. Accordingly, the same is allowed. The judgment impugned dated 21st September, 2020 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 6th July, 2020 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly is set aside. The resolution undertaken by the Committee of Management on 28th June, 2020 stands restored. The District Inspector of Schools, Bareilly is directed to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law with regard to the resolution aforesaid.

 
Order Date :- 05.01.2021
 
Bhaskar
 
(Piyush Agrawal, J.)           (Govind Mathur, C.J.)