Sant Lal Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 18702 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


 
Chief Justice's Court
 
Serial No. 3032
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
***
 
SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 470 of 2021
 
(Arising out of Writ - C No. 25754 of 2021)
 

 
Pronounced on : November 24, 2022
 
Sant Lal Yadav
 

 
.............. Appellant
 

 
Through :-
 
Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Shashank Sharma, Advocate
 

 
v/s
 

 
State of U.P. and others
 

 
.............. Respondents
 

 
Through :-
 
Mr. Gajendra Pratap Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava, Advocate and Mr. Ramanand Pandey, Additional Chief Standing Counsel
 

 

 
CORAM :
 
HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE
 

 
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, JUDGE
 

 
       ORDER

1. This Special Appeal by the writ petitioner is directed against an order of the learned Single Judge dated November 16, 2021, dismissing Writ-C No. 25754 of 2021. This appeal has been preferred by Sant Lal Yadav, who claims to be the elected Manager of the Committee of Management of Sri Yadvesh Inter College, Naupedwa, District Jaunpur.

2. The writ petitioner instituted Writ-C No. 25754 of 2021, challenging the order of the Authorized Controller, Sri Yadvesh Inter College dated March 24, 2021, determining the electoral college for holding elections to the Committee of Management of the said College. He has further challenged the consequential order dated June 22, 2021 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, attesting the signatures of respondent no.5 as the elected Manager of the Institution pursuant to the elections held in terms of the order dated March 24, 2021 passed by the Authorized Controller. The result of the elections declared by the Authorized Controller on June 14, 2021 has been questioned too.

3. Sri Yadvesh Inter College is a recognized Inter College under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is in receipt of Government grant-in-aid. The aforesaid College, which shall hereinafter be referred to as ''the College', has been established and managed by a Society, going by the name of Sri Yadvesh Vidya Mandir Society, Naupedwa, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It appears to be common ground between parties that Murli Dhar Yadav functioned as the elected Manager of the Committee of the Management of the Society as well as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the College between 1974 to 2007. The writ petitioner-appellant, Sant Lal Yadav is a son of Murli Dhar Yadav and claims to be a life member of the Society, entitling him to vote in the elections of the Management of the College and also stake his claim to office on the Committee of Management of the College.

4. It appears that the elections to the Committee of Management of the College, that were held on September 6, 1998, wherein again Murli Dhar Yadav was elected, led to eruption of an election dispute with the rival claim being staked in the year 1999. Thereafter, litigation regarding the validity of elections, held from time to time, has been perennial. It has vacillated between the Authorities and this Court with never a quietus to it. The authority of an undisputed management has not been established after the year 2007. An Authorized Controller is managing the affairs of the College since the year 2007 till date and all elections that have been held by the Authorized Controller, with an elected management returned to office, have been unsettled by rivals challenging it, either before this Court or the Education Authorities. Those elections have been set aside by the Authorities as well as by this Court with repeat directions to the Authorized Controller to determine the electoral college, in accordance with the By-laws of the Society and the scheme of administration of the College. Each determination of the electoral college by the Authorized Controller has led to a fresh challenge by one faction or the other, with a re-determination being directed again, and the elections held set at naught.

5. It would not be of much profit to refer to the long course of litigation with the history of it being etched for every detail of it. It would be apposite to pick-up the thread of the managerial dispute midway in the course of its long and chequered history. It appears that the Authorized Controller vide his order dated June 22, 2013 finalized the list of 35 members and held elections on June 29, 2013. The Regional Level Committee recognized the said elections, wherein respondent no.5, Smt. Malti Devi, was declared elected as the Manager of the Committee of Management. This was questioned by the writ petitioner-appellant through Writ-C No.14099 of 2014 on ground that earlier a list of 36 members stood approved and there was no dispute. However, the list carried both life members and ordinary members. The Authorized Controller had been directed to find out, if any, ordinary members had ceased to be competent electors. The exercise was completed under orders of this Court dated January 29, 2013 and a list of 36 members finalized. So far as the list 67 members submitted by the rival faction was concerned, this Court said that it had to be proved through a suit before a Civil Court.

6. This contention on behalf of the writ petitioner-appellant was questioned on behalf of Malti Devi saying that the list of 36 members was never finalized, but the matter was entrusted to the Authorized Controller to determine the electoral college by the Division Bench in Special Appeal, which the Authorized Controller would do on the basis of evidence produced before him. This Court opined that the 36 members could not be eliminated and replaced by another 35 by the Authorized Controller. On the aforesaid reasoning, the orders of the Authorized Controller dated June 22, 2013 finalizing the list of 35 members of the electoral college and the order dated January 28, 2014, recognizing the elections of the fifth respondent on the basis of the said electoral college were stayed. The Authorized Controller was ordered to continue managing the affairs of the Institution.

7. Pending the aforesaid writ petition, another election was privately held on June 15, 2016, which the District Inspector of Schools appears to have recognized by an order dated May 23, 2017. The order dated May 23, 2017, recognizing the management elected in the private elections, was impugned before this Court in Writ-C No.34865 of 2017. This Court, by an interim order dated August 8, 2017 passed in Writ-C No. 34865 of 2017, stayed the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated May 23, 2017, recognizing the elections. The matter was carried in Special Appeal to the Division Bench against the interim order of this Court dated August 8, 2017 by respondent no.5. The Division Bench disposed of Special Appeal (D) No. 491 of 2017 as well as Writ-C No. 34865 of 2017, out of which the appeal arose, with a direction to the Authorized Controller managing the College, to ensure fresh elections to the Committee of Management, strictly in accordance with the scheme of administration, after determination of the electoral college by a reasoned order, within the period of two months.

8. In compliance with the directions of the Division Bench in Special Appeal (D) No. 491 of 2017, the Authorized Controller of the College determined the electoral college afresh vide order dated December 30, 2017 and declared a general body of 32 members and an observer was duly appointed for the conduct of elections. And, on January 22, 2018 elections to the Committee of Management were held in the observer's presence. In the said elections, respondent no.5 was returned elected to the office of Manager again. Her elections were approved by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur vide order January 25, 2018 and signatures attested. The order dated January 25, 2018 was again challenged before this Court by the writ petitioner vide Writ-C No.19219 of 2019, which was decided on July 30, 2019.

9. A reading of the order dated July 30, 2019 shows somehow that the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated January 25, 2018 alone was challenged. At least, it does not show that the determination of the electoral college by the Authorized Controller vide order December 30, 2017 was scrutinized by the learned Single Judge, before whom Writ-C No.19219 of 2019 came up for hearing. The learned Single Judge virtually declined to interfere with the order dated January 25, 2018, attesting the fifth respondent's signatures. The writ petitioner did not press the relief that he sought in Writ-C No.19219 of 2019 and instead submitted before the learned Single Judge hearing the aforesaid writ petition that he may be permitted to make an application before the Regional Level Committee, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, which may be decided within a stipulated period of time. The learned Judge directed the Regional Level Committee, Varanasi Division, Varanasi to decide the application that the writ petitioner may move before it within a stipulated period of time. It is of importance to reproduce the relevant part of the learned Judge's order passed in Writ-C No.19219 of 2019. It reads:

"The petitioner, has challenged the order dated 25.01.2018 passed by the respondent No.4-District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, upholding the election claim set up by the respondent No.5. The petitioner, submits that the election claim set up by the respondent No.4, is invalidated. Admittedly, the elections have been taken place, and the signatures of the newly elected manager has attested.

The relief sought for cannot be granted.

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner, recasts his relief. He does not press the relief sought in the writ petition, at this stage. He submits, that the petitioner, shall make an application before the respondent No.2-Regional Level Committee, Varanasi Division, Varanasi and the same may be decided in a stipulated period of time.

In case the petitioner, moves an application before the respondent No.2-Regional Level Committee, Varanasi Division, Varanasi, the same shall be decided, preferably, within a period of six months, from the date of, receipt of, a certified copy of this order along with a fresh copy of the representation, after giving opportunity to concerned parties, including the respondent No.4.

It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the veracity of the assertions made in the writ petition, nor has judged the claim of the petitioner on merits. It is for the competent authority, to do so, with an independent application of mind."

10. Upon the matter going before the Regional Level Committee, they proceeded to pass an order dated December 3, 2020, setting aside the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated January 25, 2018 and also held that the elections convened on January 22, 2018 were ones without duly examining the validity of membership of the electoral college/ general body. The Authorized Controller was directed to determine afresh the electoral college in accordance with the various directions of this Court, earlier issued and examining the earlier list of the general body. The elections were directed to be held afresh in accordance with the amended scheme of administration. The said order was questioned in Writ-C No. 1285 of 2021 before this Court by respondent no.5, Smt. Malti Devi, who had been declared elected as the Manager in terms of the elections held on January 22, 2018 with her signatures attested on January 25, 2018, all set at naught by the Regional Level Committee, through the order dated February 3, 2020.

11. This Court upon hearing parties was of opinion that the Regional Level Committee had faulted the elections solely on the basis of the interim order passed in Writ-C No. 14099 of 2014. It was further opined that the Regional Level Committee had failed to take into consideration the orders of the Division Bench in Special Appeal (D) No. 491 of 2017, an appeal that arose out of a later writ petition, which required the Authorized Controller to finalize the electoral college. It was also opined by the learned Judge deciding Writ-C No. 1285 of 2021 that the Regional Level Committee failed to take into consideration the exercise undertaken by the Authorized Controller to finalize the electoral college, which was determined by him by his order dated December 30, 2017. The learned Judge has remarked that the order dated December 30, 2017 is under challenge in pending Writ-C No. 7779 of 2018, but no interim orders have been passed there. This Court held that the pendency of Writ-C No. 7779 of 2018 or the interim orders passed in earlier Writ-C No. 14099 of 2014, could not have materially impacted the determination of the electoral college by the Authorized Controller. Accordingly, the learned Judge allowed Writ-C No. 1285 of 2021 and quashed the order of the Regional Level Committee dated December 3, 2020. The Authorized Controller was directed to determine the electoral college upon hearing objections by the parties to the determination of the electoral college as decided in terms of his order dated December 30, 2017. It was clarified that the aforesaid issue shall be decided by the Authorized Controller, uninfluenced by the interim order passed in Writ-C No. 14099 of 2014 or the pendency of Writ-C No. 7779 of 2018.

12. It is in compliance with the aforesaid orders that the Authorized Controller has passed the impugned order dated March 24, 2021, determining an electoral college of 28 members, on the basis of which elections have now been held and the fifth respondent declared elected as the Manager of College and her signatures attested. The order dated March 24, 2021, now passed by the Authorized Controller and the consequential orders are the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition giving rise to this appeal.

13. The Authorized Controller while passing the order impugned held that the writ petitioner had no locus standi to question the determination of the electoral college or the elections held, because vide order dated December 30, 2017 earlier passed by the Authorized Controller, he was held not to be a member of the general body of the Society or the College, since his membership had been terminated for gross misconduct by the Founder Trustees of the Society, under By-law 10(Gha) of the By- laws, through a resolution dated March 3, 2009. It was opined by the Authorized Controller that this Court vide judgment and order dated February 8, 2021 after quashing the order dated December 3, 2020 passed by the Regional Level Committee had permitted the writ petitioner to file objections to the order dated December 30, 2017. It was, therefore, open to the writ petition to show how the order of the Authorized Controller dated December 30, 2017 was wrong, but the writ petitioner could not point out how that order was bad. The reason, according to the Authorized Controller, was that the order dated December 30, 2017 held the petitioner to be not a member of the general body, because his membership had been terminated by the Founder Trustees of the Society for gross misconduct vide order dated March 3, 2009.

14. The Authorized Controller recorded a finding that there is nothing to show that the order dated March 3, 2009, terminating the membership of the writ petitioner by the Founder Trustees for gross misconduct, had been challenged before any competent Court or Authority. It has become final. In fact, the Authorized Controller has recorded in the order dated March 24, 2021 that the Founder Trustees have terminated the membership of the writ petitioner, besides another 35 members of the Society. It was opined, therefore, that assuming that in the year 2007-08, the writ petitioner was a member of the Society/ general body of the College, his membership did not survive the termination dated March 3, 2009, which has since become final. This is what the Authorized Controller earlier held by the order dated December 30, 2017.

15. The writ petitioner upon objections preferred against the order dated December 30, 2017 in terms of the orders of this Court dated February 8, 2021 passed in Writ-C No. 1285 of 2021, could not demonstrate how he would regain his lost membership that the Authorized Controller had held he did not have after March 3, 2009.

16. The learned Single Judge, before whom a grievance was made that the judgment of this Court dated February 8, 2021 passed in Writ-C No. 1285 of 2021, had set aside the order dated December 3, 2020 passed by the Regional Level Committee and remitted the matter to the Authorized Controller to consider the objections which the parties may choose to prefer, was not complied with, because the Authorized Controller threw out the writ petitioner's claim on the ground of his locus standi. The learned Single Judge held that locus standi is also a part of consideration of the writ petitioner's claim and if the writ petitioner could not establish that, no fault could be found with the impugned order passed by the Authorized Controller dated March 24, 2021 and the consequential orders under challenge in the writ petition.

17. Before us, Mr. R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate submits that the learned Single Judge has committed a grave error of law in failing to appreciate that the learned Judge, while sending the matter to the Authorized Controller, had required him to decide the vexed issue of composition of the general body, but the Authorized Controller rejected the writ petitioner's objections solely on the ground of locus standi. We may note here that the writ petitioner, while challenging the earlier attestation of the fifth respondent's election held by the Authorized Controller on January 22, 2018 vide Writ-C No. 19219 of 2019, did not challenge the order dated December 30, 2017 passed by the Authorized Controller, on the basis of which the elections dated January 22, 2018 were held, wherein the fifth respondent was elected. The order of this Court dated July 30, 2019 passed in Writ-C No. 19219 of 2019 would show that the order of attestation of signatures of the fifth respondent alone dated January 25, 2018 (based on the elections dated January 22, 2018) were alone challenged. The order dated December 30, 2017, which was the foundation of the elections dated January 22, 2018 or the said elections itself were never challenged by the writ petitioner. The writ petition was not pressed with liberty to move the Regional Level Committee for relief. Thus, the order dated December 30, 2017 has attained finality between parties. It is in consequence of the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on the writ petitioner's application that he made after withdrawal of Writ-C No. 19291 of 2019 to the Regional Level Committee, that the writ petitioner commenced fresh and almost collateral proceedings in the garb of assailing the order dated February 3, 2020 passed by the Regional Level Committee.

18. We say collateral proceedings, because in Writ-C No. 1285 of 2021, the writ petitioner challenged the order of February 3, 2020 passed by the Regional Level Committee and attempted to question the order of the Authorized Controller dated December 30, 2017 that had already attained finality. It is for the said reason that the learned Judge while allowing the writ petition dated February 8, 2021, permitted objections to be filed against the order dated December 30, 2017, but expressed no opinion on its validity. In fact, not much could be said against the said order, either before this Court or before the Authorized Controller, except something very fundamental or on wider ground. The Authorized Controller while hearing the writ petitioner's objections, in our considered opinion, rightly concluded that he had nothing to say on merits against what was held by the Authorized Controller earlier, vide order of December 30, 2017. The order of December 30, 2017 had held that the writ petition had no locus to question the determination of the electoral college of the Society or the College, because vide order dated March 3, 2009, the Founder Trustees had removed 32 members, including the writ petitioner, from membership of the Society in exercise of powers under Clause 10(Gha) of the By-laws of the Society. The order of December 30, 2017 further records the fact that the order dated March 3, 2009 had never been challenged before any forum, Court or Authority and it was, thus, final.

19. Before the Authorized Controller, when the matter came on a remit from the learned Single Judge in terms of the judgment and order dated February 8, 2021 passed in Writ-C No. 1285 of 2021, the writ petitioner could not show anything that may dispel the finding earlier recorded by the Authorized Controller vide order dated December 30, 2017 to the effect that the writ petitioner's membership of the Society stood terminated in terms of the order dated March 3, 2009, passed by the Founder Trustees, under the By-laws of the Society. Since the writ petitioner has apparently lost his status as a member of the general body of the Society, in terms of a resolution of removal passed by the Founder Trustees on March 3, 2009, which has not been challenged anywhere, his right to question the determination of the electoral college is decidedly without any right; or as the learned Single Judge says, without locus standi. All this is about consideration of the writ petitioner's case and it is fallacious to say that there was anything else to be considered by the Authorities at the instance of the writ petitioner, relating to the validity of the electoral college, once the writ petitioner's membership of the Society and a fortiori the general body of the institution is non-existent.

20. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

21. The Special Appeal fails and is dismissed.

Allahabad

24.11.2022

Anoop/ Deepak

Whether the order is speaking :

Yes/No

Whether the order is reportable :

Yes