Allahabad High Court
Committee Of Management Bharat ... vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 2 January, 2023
Bench: Manoj Misra, Vikas Budhwar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 29
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 757 of 2022
Appellant :- Committee Of Management Bharat Sewak Samaj Inter College Through Its Manager Rajendra Singh
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Hari Nath Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Supplementary Affidavit filed today is taken on record.
Heard Dr. H.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
This intra-court appeal is against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.11.2022 by which Writ-C No. 19659 of 2020, filed by the appellant for quashing the order dated 16.09.2020 passed by the District Inspector of Schools (D.I.O.S.), Bareilly, has been dismissed.
A perusal of the record would reflect that the order dated 16.09.2020 was passed by the D.I.O.S. on the application submitted by the appellant seeking recognition of the Committee of Management of an institution named Bharat Sewa Samaj Inter College, Rajpura, Newada, Bareilly, pursuant to election dated 31.08.2020. The said application was rejected, inter alia, on the following grounds: (a) that as per Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration, agenda notice for election had to be sent to the members under a registered cover 15 days in advance whereas, the appellant submitted no proof disclosing compliance of the said procedure; (b) that there was no document on record to indicate that there existed a resolution appointing an election officer as is required by Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration; (c) that there was no document to indicate that the electoral list was published two weeks in advance inviting objections from the members as is required by Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration; (d) that the electoral list was not certified by any officer under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, which was necessary because the General Body of the institution and of the Society, which established the Institution, was same; (e) that the election was not conducted in the presence of a supervisor as is the requirement of Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration.
The order of the D.I.O.S. was challenged by the appellant inter alia on the following grounds: (i) that if there was any document missing on the record, the D.I.O.S. ought to have given an opportunity to the applicant to provide the document because, in fact, the agenda notice was sent to the members by registered post; (ii) that Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration requires the Committee of Management to make a request for appointment of a supervisor and such request was made therefore, if a supervisor had not been appointed despite request, the election cannot be nullified merely on account of his absence; (iii) there was no dispute raised by any body in respect of the electoral college being improperly constituted or election not being held properly; moreover, the outgoing committee which held the election was recognized in the past, therefore, in absence of any dispute in respect of the validity of the election, the D.I.O.S. held no jurisdiction to refuse to accord recognition to the election; and (iv) that the D.I.O.S. in the operative portion of the impugned order cancelled the election, whereas, he held no jurisdiction to cancel the election even if he declines to recognize the election.
Repeating the aforementioned grounds, the learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge has failed to address the grounds taken by the appellant in proper perspective. It was argued that the learned Single Judge himself was of the view that in respect of the election the word "cancelled" used by the D.I.O.S. was not justified rather, it should be treated as a refusal to accord recognition to the election consequently, once the learned Single Judge himself came to the conclusion that the D.I.O.S. held no jurisdiction to cancel the election, the order of the D.I.O.S. was a nullity and ought to have been set aside with a direction to the D.I.O.S. to decide the matter afresh.
The learned Standing Counsel has supported the order of the D.I.O.S. and the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition.
Having considered the submissions, no doubt on perusal of the record as well as the order of the D.I.O.S. impugned in the writ petition it appears that no dispute in respect of the election was raised before the D.I.O.S. but while attesting the signature of an applicant, on the basis of an election set up by him, the D.I.O.S. is required to satisfy himself, on the basis of papers produced before him, whether the election set up before him is in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme of Administration of the institution. In the instant case, the D.I.O.S. has taken notice of the provisions of the Scheme of Administration and has recorded a finding that there was no material on the record to demonstrate that the agenda notice was dispatched to the members 15 days in advance under a registered cover; that there was no resolution of the Committee of Management appointing an Election Officer as was the requirement of Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration; and that there was no document on record to indicate that the electoral college was published two weeks in advance inviting objection from the members as is required by Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration. No doubt, there may not be any specific provision in Clause 8 of the Scheme of Administration that election cannot be accorded recognition unless and until it is held under a supervisor appointed by the D.I.O.S. but what is important is that the Scheme of Administration envisages an application for appointment of a supervisor therefore, when there were no documents regarding compliance of the relevant provisions of the Scheme of Administration for holding an election, absence of a supervisor adds to the doubt with regard to the validity of the election.
The argument that the D.I.O.S. gave no opportunity to produce the documents is misconceived because the election papers are to be forwarded for the purposes of seeking recognition. If all the relevant papers were not forwarded, the fault would be of the applicant who seeks recognition. Importantly, it is not the case of the writ petitioner that those papers were produced by him but not considered by the D.I.O.S. In such circumstances, if any of those papers are produced for the first time in the writ proceeding it would not materially affect the validity of the order passed by the D.I.O.S.
As the D.I.O.S. had refused to accord recognition to the election by recording cogent reasons, which are neither flimsy nor irrelevant, the order called for no interference and the petition was rightly dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant that by using the word "cancel" for the election set up by the appellant, the D.I.O.S. transgressed his jurisdiction and therefore, the order refusing to accord recognition would be rendered a nullity, is not acceptable, because mere use of an inappropriate or wrong word would not render the decision bad in law as to render it vulnerable to judicial review more so, when the order read as a whole seeks to convey what it relates to and what it seeks to achieve. Otherwise also, the learned Single Judge has clarified that part of the order.
For all the reasons above, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.1.2023
N.S.Rathour
