The dispute in this writ petition relates to the election of the Committee of Management of the S.B. Inter College, Terahi Kapatganj, district Azamgarh, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Institution'), which is an Institution recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'). The Committee of Management of the Institution and Dr. Phool Chandra Singh claiming to be the Manager, have sought the quashing of the decisions taken by the Regional Level Committee on 29th April, 2010 and 31st July, 2010 regarding the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution.
In the decision taken on 29th April, 2010 by the Regional Level Committee, neither the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution said to have been held on 30th August, 2008 in which Shashi Prakash Singh was elected as the President and Jai Prakash Pandey as the Manager, nor the election held on 28th August, 2008 in which Dhirendra Singh was elected as the President and Dr. Phool Chandra Singh as the Manager were approved for the reason that they were not held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution and recommendation was also made for appointment of an Authorized Controller under Section 16-D of the Act with a further direction that the Prabandh Sanchalak earlier appointed shall continue to manage the affairs of the Institution till the appointment of the Authorized Controller. The Regional Level Committee also directed that fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution should be held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution after obtaining the list of members from the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits. This decision taken by the Regional Level Committee was communicated by the Joint Director of Education by the letter dated 22nd May, 2010.
In the decision taken on 31st July, 2010, pursuant to the interim order dated 28th June, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 36907 of 2010 that was filed to assail the aforesaid decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 29th April, 2010, the Regional Level Committee approved the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 29th August, 2008 in which Jai Prakash Pandey was elected as the Manager till the said Writ Petition was decided or the term of the Committee of Management of the Institution came to an end, whichever was earlier. This decision taken by the Regional Level Committee was communicated by the Joint Director of Education by the letter dated 28th August, 2010.
It is stated that "Kapatganj Terahi Development Education Expansion Association," Terahi Kapatganj, Azamgarh (hereinafter referred to as the 'Society') runs the aforesaid Institution. The Institution has an approved Scheme of Administration, which amongst others, provides that the term of the Committee of Management shall be three years.
Earlier, the election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 3rd August, 2002 in which Dr. Phool Chandra Singh was elected as the Manager and Vasishtha Narain Singh was elected as the President. This election of the Committee of Management, which was not disputed by any person, was approved by the Regional Level Committee on 11th December, 2003 and consequently the District Inspector of Schools attested the signatures of Dr. Phool Chandra Singh as the Manager by the order dated 19th February, 2004.
Fresh election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution was to be held in 2005 since the term of the Committee of Management of the Institution is three years. A letter was, therefore, sent by the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution to the District Inspector of School for appointment of an Observer for holding the election and by the order dated 22nd July, 2005, the District Inspector of Schools appointed the Assistant District Basic Education Officer, Maharajganj as the Observer. It is stated that in the presence of the Observer, election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 5/6th August, 2005 on the basis of the list of 26 members approved by the Observer who thereafter sent his report dated 7th August, 2005 to the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh containing the names of the elected office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Institution with Dr. Dhirendra Singh as the President and Dr. Phool Chandra Singh as the Manager. Two other claims were also set up. In one Bhagwan Swaroop claimed to have been elected as the President of the Committee of Management of the Institution and in the other Vinay Kumar Pandey claimed to have been elected as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution. The District Inspector of Schools forwarded all the three claims to the Joint Director of Education for being placed before the Regional Level Committee for taking a decision.
It is further stated that various dates were fixed by the Regional Level Committee, but as the decision could not be taken and the term of the Committee of Management of the Institution elected in 2005 was also coming to an end in 2008, a request was made by Dr. Phool Chandra Singh as Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution by his letter dated 22nd August, 2008 addressed to the District Inspector of Schools to appoint an Observer for the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution scheduled to be held on 30th August, 2008. The election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was thereafter held on 30th August, 2008 from the list of 26 members of the General Body in which Dr. Phool Chandra Singh was elected as the Manager and Dr. Dhirendra Singh as the President. Papers regarding this election were sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 2nd September, 2008 and the District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 6th September, 2008 forwarded the papers to the Regional Level Committee for taking a decision. Dr. Phool Chandra Singh also sent a letter dated 7th September, 2008 to the Joint Director of Education informing him about the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 30th August, 2008.
It is also stated that on the other hand, another election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution under the supervision of the Observer was set up and it was asserted that in the said election held on 29th August, 2008 from the list of 56 members of the General Body, Jai Prakash Pandey was elected as the Manager. The Observer sent his report dated 1st September, 2008 to the District Inspector of Schools and the papers regarding the election were also submitted by the elected Manager to the District Inspector of Schools on 2nd September, 2008.
The District Inspector of Schools, however, passed an order on 10th September, 2009 for single operation of the account of the Institution to ensure payment of salary of the teachers, but soon thereafter the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 14th September, 2009 recognising the Committee of Management of the Institution with Jai Prakash Pandey as the Manager on the basis of the election said to have been held on 29th August, 2009 and also attested the signatures of Jai Prakash Pandey.
The aforesaid order dated 14th September, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools was assailed by the Committee of Management of the Institution with Dr. Phool Chandra Singh as the Manager in Writ Petition No. 61384 of 2009 in which the following interim order was passed by the Court on 16th November, 2009 :-
"Learned Standing Counsel representing respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Sri Siddharth Khare, Advocate representing respondent no.5 may file counter affidavit within a month. Petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
List thereafter.
Having considered the submissions the Court is prima facie of the view that the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools is bad in law.
As an interim measure it is provided that the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh, respondent no.3 shall appoint Prabandh Sanchalak to manage the affairs of the institution forthwith, and such arrangement shall continue till further orders being passed in this petition."
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid interim order dated 16th November, 2009, Special Appeal No. 1955 of 2009 was filed by the Committee of Management of the Institution with Jai Prakash Pandey as its Manager. This Special Appeal as well as Writ Petition No. 61384 of 2009 filed by the petitioner-Committee of Management were disposed of on 17th December, 2009 with a direction to the Regional Level Committee to decide the issue. It was also directed that the Prabandh Sanchalak earlier appointed by the Joint Director of Education shall continue to manage the Institution till the dispute was decided by the Regional Level Committee. The order passed by the Court in the aforesaid Special Appeal is:-
"Heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 5 and 6 as well as Standing Counsel.
Learned Single Judge has directed the parties to exchange counter and rejoinder affidavits and prima facie finding that the order of District Inspector of School, Azamgarh is bad in law, he has directed the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak to manage the affairs of the institution forthwith, and such arrangement is to be continued, till further orders passed in the writ petition.
Both the learned counsel for the parties have raised a point that the learned Single Judge should have assigned some reason, necessitating to pass orders for appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak. Upon hearing both sides, we find that there was serious dispute regarding the validity of the elections, which requires to be decided by the Regional Level Committee.
During the course of hearing, both the parties agreed that writ petition No. 61384 of 2009 filed by the Appellant-respondent be allowed and the matter be sent back to the Regional Level Committee to decide the issue and till then Prabandh Sanchalak appointed by the Joint Director of Education may continue till the dispute is decided by the Regional Level Committee. We order accordingly. The Regional Level Committee shall decide the matter after hearing both the parties, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months.
The writ petition no. 61384 of 2009 as well as this appeal shall stand disposed of with the aforesaid order."
(emphasis supplied) The Regional Level Committee proceeded to decide the dispute and it is asserted that the petitioner submitted two representations dated 19th January, 2010 and 2nd March, 2010 before the Joint Director of Education for being placed before the Regional Level Committee.
The Regional Level Committee by its decision taken on 29th April, 2010 declared both the elections, namely the election held by the petitioner-Committee of Management on 30th August, 2008 with Dr. Phool Chandra Singh as the Manager as well as the election held on 29th August, 2008 with Jai Prakash Pandey as the Manager to be invalid as they were not held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. With respect to the election held in the year 2005, the Regional Level Committee, after noticing that the election in which the petitioner-Committee of Management was elected was held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration and the District Inspector of Schools had also recommended that the said election may be approved as it was held in the supervision of the Observer appointed by him, proceeded not to formally approve it for the reason that the term of the said Committee of Management elected in 2005 had come to an end after three years. The Regional Level Committee also issued directions for appointment of an Authorized Controller for holding fresh election in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution and the Prabandh Sanchalak earlier appointed was directed to continue till the Authorized Controller was appointed.
The aforesaid decision taken by the Regional Level Committee was assailed by the Committee of Management of the Institution with Jai Prakash Pandey as the Manager in Writ Petition No. 36907 of 2010 and the following interim order was passed by the Court on 28th June, 2010.
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
Petitioners are directed to serve the respondent No.6 by registered post.
Steps be taken within one weeks.
Learned Standing Counsel may file counter affidavit within six weeks. Petitioners will have two weeks, thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
List thereafter.
Petitioners submit that election was held on 29.08.2008, therefore, the Government order issued dated 21.11.2008 will not be applicable in the present case. Therefore, the direction in the order impugned dated 29.04.2010. Till the dispute of membership is decided by the Registrar Society, no order can be passed.
In view of the aforesaid fact, the petitioner is entitled for interim relief.
Till further order of this Court, the order dated 29.04.2010 shall remain stayed. It is further observed that it will be open to the Regional Level Committee to decide the controversy between the parties in view of the direction issued by this Court in the special appeal."
Pursuant to the aforesaid interim order, the Regional Level Committee issued notices to the parties and the petitioner claims to have submitted fresh representations dated 26th July, 2010 and 28th July, 2010.
The Regional Level Committee thereafter took the decision on 31st July, 2010. As a temporary measure, it approved the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 29th August, 2010 with Jai Prakash Pandey as the Manager till Writ Petition No. 36907 of 2010 was decided or the term of the Committee of Management came to an end, whichever was earlier.
These two decisions taken by the Regional Level Committee on 29th April, 2010 and 31st July, 2010 have been assailed in this petition filed by the Committee of Management with Dr. Phool Chandra Singh as its Manager.
A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-Committee of Management with Jai Prakash Pandey as the Manager. It is stated that the 2005 elections were held from the list of 56 members of the General Body and the petitioners have made a false statement that it was held from the list of 26 members of the General Body. In this connection the report dated 7th August, 2005 submitted by the Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools has also been enclosed and relied upon. It is also stated that for the 2008 elections, Dr. Phool Chandra Singh submitted an application dated 24th August, 2008 to the District Inspector of Schools for appointment of an Observer and the District Inspector of Schools made an endorsement on the said application on 25th August, 2008 that the Assistant Basic Education Officer, Maharajganj will be the Observer for the election. Thereafter, the election programme was also notified according to which the nominations were to filed on 28th August, 2008 and they could be withdrawn on 29th August, 2008 and, if necessary, the election was to be held on 30th August, 2008. However, as only one nomination was filed for each post, and there was no withdrawal, there was no need for holding the election on 30th August, 2008. The Election Officer submitted a report which was also seen by the Observer and the Election Officer notified the result on 29th August, 2008 in which Jai Prakash Pandey was elected as the Manager. The Observer thereafter submitted his report to the District Inspector of Schools on 30th September, 2008 and only for the purpose of creating a dispute, Dr. Phool Chandra Singh claimed that elections were held on 30th August, 2008 in which he was elected as the Manager. It is, therefore, asserted that the District Inspector of Schools was justified in granting approval by his order dated 14th September, 2009 since the Committee of Management of the Institution was elected on 29th August, 2008 in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. It is also asserted that the election said to have been held by the petitioner-Committee of Management on 30th August, 2008 was not held in the presence of the Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, while the election of the respondent-Committee of Management was held in the presence of the Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools.
The main dispute, as it transpires from the pleadings of the parties, with regard to the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution held in 2005 and 2008 is with regard to the number of members of the General Body entitled to participate in the elections. According to the petitioners, the 2002 election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on the basis of the list of 27 members while the 2005 and 2008 elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution were held on the basis of the list of 26 members as one member had died in the meantime while according to the respondent-Committee of Management the number of members of the General Body entitled to participate in the 2005 and 2008 election is 56. There is no dispute between the parties that the 2002 election was held on the basis of the list of 27 members of the General Body. Emphasis has been placed by both the parties on the report dated 7th August, 2005 submitted by the Observer to the District Inspector of Schools for the 2005 elections. According to the petitioners, the report dated 7th August, 2005 refers to the 2005 elections held on 5/6th August, 2005 from amongst 26 members of the General Body, while according to the respondent-Committee of Management, the said report mentions that the election was held from amongst 56 members of the General Body.
It is for this reason that the Court on 8th November, 2010 passed the following order in this petition:-
"List this case on 22nd November, 2010.
Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged. As there is a dispute regarding membership whether there are 56 members or 26 members, it will be appropriate that original record be produced by learned Standing Counsel on that day. Learned Standing Counsel will also produce the letter dated 7.8.2005 in original.
In the facts and circumstances of present case, it is provided that, in case, the order passed by Regional Level Committee has been given effect to, then this order will not be effective, otherwise, authorised controller, if he is managing affairs of the institution, will manage affairs of the institution."
The records were produced by the learned Standing Counsel and on 1st February, 2012 the following order was passed:-
"The Court has perused the records produced by the learned Standing Counsel. It is seen from the document at Page Nos.102 and 103 of the records that in the second line of the second paragraph of the communication dated 7th August, 2005 of the Observer/Assistant Basic Education Officer, Maharajganj/ Azamgarh '56' is not written and instead of 'Ke'. On the other hand, Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has placed before the Court the said document supplied to Sri Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi on 14th March, 2011 by the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh under the Right to Information Act in which in the second line of the second paragraph '56' is mentioned and not 'Ke'.
The Clerk Narendra Kumar who has brought the records has made a statement before the Court that the records produced before the Court are the records maintained in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh and the information that has been supplied to Sri Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi is by the Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh on the basis of the records maintained in his office.
In such circumstances, learned Standing Counsel shall produce the original records maintained in the office of Joint Director of Education, Azamgarh Region, Azamgarh positively by 7th February, 2012. The original records produced by the learned Standing Counsel and the information supplied to Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi by the Joint Director of Education, shall now be kept in a sealed cover with the Registrar General of this Court which shall be placed before the Court on the next date fixed i.e. 7th February, 2012.
List this petition on 7th February, 2012."
The matter was thereafter taken up on 7th February, 2012 on which date an order was passed and the relevant portion is quoted below:-
"................Today, Sri B.Ram, learned Standing Counsel has produced four files which he states were handed over to him by Sri Narendra Kumar, Clerk in the office of the Joint Director of Education.
Learned Standing Counsel has stated that information under the Right to Information Act was supplied to Sri Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi on the basis of the note dated 11th March, 2011 submitted by the Clerk Narendra Kumar. The note mentions that the original records were available in the office of the District Inspector of Schools and so information can be supplied to Sri Chaturvedi under the Right to Information Act on the basis of the documents submitted by Sri Jai Prakash Pandey to the Joint Director of Education with his letter dated 5th February, 2010.
There is another note at the bottom of this note which mentions that such information can be furnished to the applicant but if it is found that the information is at variance with the information contained in the file maintained in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, than the information supplied to Sri Chaturvedi shall be treated as cancelled.
The controversy in this petition is whether the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution of the year 2005 was held on the basis of the list containing 26 members or 56 members. In this connection learned counsel for the parties have placed reliance upon the report of the Observer submitted on 7th August, 2005. According to the petitioner, the 2005 election was held on the basis of the list of 26 members while according to the respondents, the election was held on the basis of the list of 56 members. The report dated 7th August, 2005 of the Observer as it exists in the records of the District Inspector of Schools does not mention 56 members and mentions 'Ke'. Sri Jai Prakash Pandey, who had been contending that the election of 2005 was held on the basis of the list of 56 members, had submitted a representation dated 5th February, 2010 to the Joint Director of Education and with this report he had enclosed a photostat copy of the report dated 7th August, 2005 submitted by the Observer in which '56' is mentioned and not 'Ke'. Sri Jai Prakash Pandey, is an interested person as he claims to be the Manager on the basis of the election held subsequently in 2008 on the basis of the list of 56 members.
Sri Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi, had moved an application under the Right to Information Act seeking copy of the document dated 7th August, 2005. Information was supplied by the Joint Director of Education on the basis of the document enclosed with the representation dated 5th February, 2010 submitted by Jai Prakash Pandey by the Joint Director of Education. The Joint Director of Education should have supplied information on the basis of the original document dated 7th August, 2005 submitted by the Observer to the District Inspector of Schools and not on the basis of the documents enclosed by Sri Jai Prakash Pandey with his representation and if this information was to be supplied than it should have been clearly mentioned that it was not on the basis of the report submitted by the Observer to the District Inspector of Schools but on the basis of the documents supplied by Sri Jai Prakash Pandey.
It is on the basis of the aforesaid information supplied by the Joint Director of Education that learned counsel for the respondents had submitted that the document dated 7th August, 2005 which is the report of the Observer mentions '56' and not 'Ke'.
It also needs to be mentioned that Sri Narendra Kumar, who had appeared before the Court on 1st February, 2012 informed the Court that the information must have been supplied to Sri Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi on the basis of the records maintained in the office of the Joint Director of Education. He did not inform the Court that he had submitted the note that information can be supplied on the basis of the document submitted by Sri Jai Prakash Pandey and that the information was supplied to Sri Chaturvedi on the basis of the note.
It has, therefore, become necessary to summon the Joint Director of Education, who had supplied information to Sri Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi as also the two persons who submitted the note on the basis of which information was supplied. They should explain why information was supplied in this manner, more particularly when writ petition was pending in the High Court.
Photostat copy of this note-sheet as also the photostat copy of the information supplied by the Joint Director of Education to Sri Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi, may be supplied to Sri Shashank Shekhar Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel so as to enable him to inform them and ensure that these persons appear before the Court on 16th February, 2012.
List this petition on 16th February, 2012.
The packet containing the original records of the office of the District Inspector of Schools which had been opened today shall again be sealed and shall be placed with the Registrar General of the Court. The four files produced by Sri B.Ram, learned Standing Counsel shall also be kept in a sealed cover with the Registrar General of the Court. These records shall be made available to the Court on 16th February, 2012."
On 16th February, 2012 the following order was passed by the Court:-
"Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel states that Narendra Kumar, the Clerk in the office of the Joint Director of Education is present in the Court but the Joint Director of Education who had supplied the information to Sri Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi is not present since, in the meantime, he was transferred from Azamgarh to Varanasi and the person presently holding the charge of Joint Director of Education has come to the Court.
Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, therefore, states that the matter may be adjourned to 21st February, 2012 on which date both Narendra Kumar and the Joint Director of Education who had supplied the information to Sri Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi shall appear before the Court. Narendra Kumar who is present in the Court shall also by that date file an affidavit to explain why information was supplied to Sri Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi when records were not available in the office. The then Joint Director of Education may also file an affidavit by the next date of listing to explain the aforesaid.
List this petition on 21st February, 2012."
Pursuant to the order passed by the Court, both the Joint Director of Education and the Clerk filed affidavits. In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, the Joint Director of Education stated:-
"That the deponent has provided the information, which was available with the office of the deponent. Since the original records are not available in the office of the deponent and the same are available in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh. It is further stated that photocopy of some of the relevant records of the disputed Committee of Management was available in the office of the deponent at the time of hearing, which has been provided by him under the Right to Information Act, therefore, there is no fault or error on the part of the deponent. However, if the Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that any act or omission is committed on the part of the deponent in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 16.02.2012 for that the deponent tenders his unconditional and unqualified apology for humble consideration of this Hon'ble Court."
In paragraph 4 of the affidavit, the Clerk also stated:-
"That the deponent has provided the information, which was available in the office of the deponent under the direction of Joint Director of Education. Since the original records are not available in the office of the deponent and the same are available in the office of the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh. It is further stated that photocopy of some of the relevant records of the disputed Committee of Management was available in the office of the deponent at the time of hearing, which has been provided by the parties during the course of hearing of the matter under the order of Hon'ble High Court and the same has been provided by him under the Right to Information Act, therefore, there is no fault or error on the part of the deponent. However, if the Hon'ble Court comes to the conclusion that any act or omission is committed on the part of the deponent in compliance of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 16.02.2012 for that the deponent tenders his unconditional and unqualified apology for humble consideration of this Hon'ble Court."
Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has made the following submissions.
(1) The decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 31st July, 2010 pursuant to the interim order dated 28th June, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 36907 of 2010 deserves to be set aside as it does not decide the dispute and for arbitrary reasons has approved, on a temporary basis, the election of the respondent-Committee of Management said to have been held on 29th August, 2010. It his submission that the observation of the Regional Level Committee that the petitioners had not raised objection with regard to the membership of the electoral college is not correct inasmuch as specific objections had been raised by the petitioners in the objections. It is also his submission that the Regional Level Committee committed an illegality in placing reliance on the order dated 14th September, 2009 passed by the District Inspector of Schools in view of the decision rendered by the Court on 17th December, 2009 in Special Appeal No. 1955 of 2009.
(2) It was incumbent upon the Regional Level Committee to decide the membership dispute of the General Body which was as to whether there were twenty six members in the General Body for the 2005 and 2008 elections as contended by the petitioners or fifty six members as contended by the respondents, but without deciding this dispute, the Regional Level Committee approved the election of the respondent-Committee of Management.
(3) The Regional Level Committee also did not examine whether the meeting convened for holding the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution in 2008 was legally convened or whether the election was held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. The Regional Level Committee also did not examine whether the election had been held by the outgoing Committee of Management.
(4) The 2002 election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on the basis of the list of twenty seven members which was not disputed and even the Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools for the 2005 elections in his report dated 7th August, 2005 enclosed the list of twenty six members of the General Body, but without recording any finding as to how the additional thirty members had been enrolled as members of the General Body, the Regional Level Committee approved the 2008 election of the respondent-Committee of Management held on the basis of the list of fifty six members of the General Body. The election held by the respondent-Committee of Management was, therefore, not valid as it was held from the list of 56 members. On the other hand, the 2008 election of the petitioner-Committee of Management was valid as it was held from the list of 26 members of the General Body.
(5) The Regional Level Committee committed an illegality in not approving the 2005 election because though three sets claimed to have held elections in 2005 but as the elections of two sets had been discarded by the Regional Level Committee and an observation had also been made that the election of the petitioner-Committee of Management was held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution, the said election should have been approved and should not have been ignored for the reason that the term of the Committee of Management of the Institution had come to an end. It is his submission that in such circumstances the Regional Level Committed should have approved the 2008 election of the petitioner-Committee of Management of the Institution as it could have been held only by the 2005 elected Committee of Management.
(6) The Regional Level Committee committed an illegality in approving the 2008 election of the respondent-Committee of Management as a stop gap arrangement when it was required to decide the dispute finally in terms of the interim order passed by the Court.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent-Committee of Management-respondent No.5 assisted by Sri J.P. Singh, made the following submissions:
(1) There is no illegality in the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 31st July, 2010 and so far as the decision taken by the Regional Level committee on 29th April, 2010 is concerned, it has been assailed by the respondent-Committee of Management by filing Writ Petition No.36907 of 2010 (2) The election of the respondent-Committee of Management was validly held on 29th August, 2008 in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution from the list of fifty six members of the General Body in the presence of the Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools.
(3) Even the 2005 elections were held on the basis of the list of fifty six members of the General Body as was mentioned in the report dated 7th August, 2005 submitted by the Observer and the petitioners had not raised any objections about this list of fifty six members of the General Body in their representations. The Joint Director of Education also supplied a copy of the report dated 7th August, 2005 submitted by the Observer under the Right to Information Act from which it is clear that the 2005 election was held from the list of fifty six members of the General Body.
(4) The term of the Committee of Management elected in the year 2008 has also come to an end and fresh elections have been held which have not been assailed in this petition.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 4 has also submitted that the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee does not call for any interference and the records produced may be examined in this connection.
I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
It is seen from the records that there is no dispute with regard to the 2002 election of the Committee of Management of the Institution. This election was held on 4th August, 2002 from the list of 27 members of the General Body in which Vashishtha Narain was elected as the President and Dr. Phool Chandra Singh was elected as the Manager. This election was approved by the Regional Level Committee in its meeting held on 11th December, 2003 and the District Inspector of Schools attested the signatures of Dr. Phool Chandra Singh as the Manager on 19th February, 2004.
It is specifically stated in paragraph 43 of the writ petition that the General Body of the Institution and the Society is the same. There is no specific denial of this fact in paragraph 35 of the counter affidavit which is in reply to the averments made in paragraph 43 of the writ petition. The respondent-Committee of Management has also placed reliance on the list of members of the General Body of the Society in order to assert that the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held from the members contained in the said list.
The term of the Committee of Management of the Institution is three years and when this term was coming to an end, a request was made to the District Inspector of Schools to send an Observer and the District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 22nd July, 2005 notified that the Assistant District Basic Education Officer, Maharajganj shall be the Observer for the election. The election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 5th/6th August, 2005 in which Dr. Dhirendra Singh was elected as a President and Dr. Phool Chandra Singh was elected as the Manager. The Observer also sent his report dated 7th August, 2005 to the District Inspector of Schools regarding the aforesaid election. However, two other claims were set up and the District Inspector of Schools forwarded all the three claims to the Joint Director of Education for placing them before the Regional Level Committee for taking a decision but no decision could be taken.
It is asserted by the petitioners that in the meantime, as the term of the Committee of Management of the Institution of three years was coming to an end, a letter dated 22nd August, 2008 was sent by Dr. Phool Chandra Singh to the District Inspector of Schools to send an Observer for the election scheduled to be held on 30th August, 2008 but as no Observer was sent, the election was held from the list of 26 members of the General Body in which Dr. Phool Chandra Singh was elected as the Manager and Dr. Dhirendra Singh was elected as the President and the papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools on 2nd September, 2008, who forwarded it to the Regional Level Committee on 6th September, 2008.
It is, however, asserted by the respondent-Committee of Management that Dr. Phool Chandra Singh had sent the letter dated 24th August, 2008 to the District Inspector of Schools for appointing an Observer on which an endorsement was made by the District Inspector of Schools on 25th August, 2008 that the Assistant District Basic Education Officer, Maharajganj shall be the Observer. As per the election programme, nominations were to filed on 28th August, 2008 on which date only one nomination was filed for each post and since there was no withdrawal on 29th August, 2008, there was no necessity for holding elections on 30th August, 2008 and the result was declared by the Election Officer on 29th August, 2008 which was also seen by the Observer. The Observer also submitted his report dated 1st September, 2008 to the District Inspector of Schools that the election had been held from the 56 valid members and Jai Prakash Pandey was elected as the Manager and Shashi Prakash Singh as the President. The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 14th September, 2009 approved the election held on 29th August, 2008 in which Jai Prakash Pandey was elected as the Manager.
The basic dispute between the parties, therefore, is with regard to the number of members of the General Body. According to the petitioners, there were 27 members of the General Body when the 2002 undisputed election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held and since one member had died, the 2005 election was held on 5th/6th, August, 2005 from 26 members of the General Body. According to the respondent-Committee of Management, the 2005 election was held on the basis of 56 members. Both the petitioner-Committee of Management and the respondent-Committee of Management have placed reliance upon the report dated 7th August, 2005 submitted by the Observer and in support of this contention each side placed different version of the report dated 7th August, 2005. It is for this reason, as noticed hereinabove, that the Court had directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the original records to find out which was the correct report.
The difference in the copy of the report dated 7th August, 2005 filed by the petitioner-Committee of Management and the copy of the report filed by the respondent-Committee of Management is with regard to the first sentence of the second paragraph of the report.
In the report dated 7th August, 2005 filed by the petitioner-Committee of Management, the first sentence of the second paragraph is as follows:-
"nh dIrkuxat rsjgh MsoyiesUV Cykd gk;j ,tqds'ku ,Dlisa'ku ,lksfl,'ku vktex<+ ds oS| lnL;ksas dh tks lwph ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd dk;kZy; vktex<+ esa tek dh xbZ Fkh rFkk ftlls eq>s voxr djk;k x;k Fkk"lwpuk iaftdk ns[kus ls ;g Kkr gqvk fd lHkh lnL;ksa dks fof/kor lwpuk nh xbZ FkhA"
In the report dated 7th August, 2005 filed by the respondent-Committee of Management, the said sentence contained in the second paragraph is as follows:-
"nh dIrkuxat rsjgh MsoyiesUV Cykd gk;j ,tqds'ku ,Dlisa'ku ,lksfl,'ku vktex<+ 56 oS| lnL;ksas dh tks lwph ftyk fo|ky; fujh{kd dk;kZy; vktex<+ esa tek dh xbZ Fkh mlls voxr gqvk A"
It needs to be mentioned that the names of office bearers mentioned in the report of the Observer are the same. The report mentions that Dr. Dhirendra Singh was elected as the President and Dr. Phool Chandra Singh as the Manager.
On 1st February, 2012, learned Standing Counsel produced the records and the Clerk-Narendra Kumar, who produced the report, stated that the records that were produced were from the office of the District Inspector of Schools. The file produced by the learned Standing Counsel on 1st February, 2012 contains the original report dated 7th August, 2005 submitted by the Observer to the District Inspector of Schools. From a perusal of the said document, it is clear that the photostat copy of the report dated 7th August, 2005 enclosed by the petitioners in the rejoinder affidavit and the typed copy which is Annexure 18 to the Writ Petition is the correct copy of the report. The second page of the report is signed by the Observer-Assistant Basic Education Officer, Maharajganj, Azamgarh and on both the pages the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh has noted "seen" and signed it. A photostat copy of the revised and approved list of 26 members of the General Body of the Society has been enclosed with the report, which is as follows:-
1.District Magistrate
2.District Planning Officer
3.District Cooperative Officer
4.President-Cooperative Union
5.Dr. Phool Chandra Singh
6.Sri Kanhaiya Singh
7.Sri Diwakar Singh
8.Sri Anil Kumar Yadav
9.Sri Anil Kumar Singh
10.Sri Vishnu Dutt Mishr
11.Sri Hari Prasad Sahu
12.Sri Bansh Bahadur Singh
13.Sri Satyaveer Singh
14.Sri Ashok Kumar Singh
15.Sri Pramod Kumar Singh
16.Sri Awadh Prasad Singh
17.Sri Anil Kumar Singh
18.Sri Kanhai Ram
19.Sri Dilendra Nath Singh
20.Sri Vasishtha Narain Singh
21.Dr. Dhirendra Singh
22.Sri Subas Chandra Gond
23.Sri Rishideo Upadhyay
24.Sri Govind Singh
25.Sri Suryabhan Singh
26.Sri Chandrika Yadav At the bottom of this list, the Assistant Basic Education Officer has signed on 12th August, 2005 and the District Inspector of Schools has also noted "seen" and signed.
The report of the Observer further mentions that the following persons have been elected:-
1.Dr. Dhirendra Singh-President
2.Awadh Prasad Singh-Vice President
3.Dr. Phool Chandra Singh-Manager
4.Sri Kanhaiya Singh-Deputy Manager
5.Sri Vashistha Narain Singh-Treasurer
6.Sri Banshbahadur-Member
7.Sri Anil Kumar-Member
8.Sri Subas Chandra Gond-Member
9.Sri Kanhai Ram-Member
10.Sri Chandrika Yadav-Member
11.Sri Rishideo Upadhyay-Member
12.Sri Anil Kumar-Member The file also contains the communication dated 8th August, 2005 sent by Dr. Phool Chandra Singh as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution to the District Inspector of Schools for grant of approval to the election. The said communication also contains the same list of 26 members of the General Body, the report of the Observer dated 7th August, 2005 as filed by the petitioners and the attested copies of the signatures of the Manager.
The original records also reveal that the election programme was as follows:-
(1)Date of filing of nomination papers-5th August, 2005.
(10:00 A.M. to 12:00 Noon) (2)Verification of nomination forms-5th August, 2005.
(4:00 P.M. to 6:00 P.M) (3)Withdrawal of nomination-6th August, 2005.
(10:00 A.M. to 1:00 P.M) (4)Declaration of the valid nomination forms-6th August, 2005.
(3:00 P.M) (5)Date of election-7th August, 2005.
(10:00 A.M to 2:00 P.M) (6)Declaration of result-7th August, 2005.
(3:00 P.M) The reports of the Election Officer and the Observer show that for the posts of five office bearers only five nomination forms were received and for the seven members only seven nomination forms were received and as all the nominations were found to be valid and no nomination was withdrawn, it was not necessary to hold the elections on 7th August, 2008. The result of the office bearers and the members of the Committee of Management of the Institution was, therefore, declared without holding any election.
The photostat copy of the report dated 7th August, 2008 filed by the respondent-Committee of Management is, therefore, not a correct copy of the report and it is clear that fifty six has been inserted in the first sentence of the second paragraph of the said report to make it appear that the election was held in 2005 from 56 members of the General Body whereas it was actually held from 26 members of the General Body and the list of 26 members is also contained in the original records.
The records also indicate that the two other claims had been set up regarding the 2005 election but the District Inspector of Schools had informed the Joint Director of Education that the election in which Dr. Phool Chandra Singh was elected as the Manager was held under the supervision of the Observer while the other two elections were not held under the supervision of the Observer.
The term of three years of the Committee of Management of the Institution elected on 5/6th August, 2005 was coming to an end in August, 2008. The case of the petitioner-Committee of Management is that a request was made by Dr. Phool Chandra Singh as the Manager by his letter dated 22nd August, 2008 addressed to the District Inspector of Schools to appoint an Observer for the election scheduled to be held on 30th August, 2008, but as the Observer was not sent, steps were taken to hold the election without the Observer. It is, however, the claim of the respondent-Committee of Management that Dr. Phool Chandra Singh, as the Manager, had sent the letter dated 24th August, 2008 to the District Inspector of Schools for appointment of an Observer and on 25th August, 2008 the District Inspector of Schools made an endorsement on the said letter that the Assistant Basic Education Officer shall be the Observer for the election.
The petitioners have specifically stated that the letter dated 24th August, 2008 was not sent by Dr. Phool Chandra Singh to the District Inspector of Schools and the signatures of Dr. Phool Chandra Singh have been forged. It is also the contention of the petitioners that in case an Observer had actually been appointed, than a separate letter would have been sent by the District Inspector of Schools to the Manager informing him about such appointment, as was done in the earlier years, but it was not sent and only an endorsement was made on the letter. This contention of the petitioners appears to be justified. There is nothing on the record to indicate that the District Inspector of Schools had sent any letter to the Manager to inform him about the appointment of the Observer and unless the Manager is informed in writing about the appointment of the Observer it cannot be presumed that the Manager will gather knowledge from the endorsement made on the letter. The so called appointment of the Observer by the District Inspector of Schools is, therefore, of no significance.
It is also seen that for the 2008 election of the Committee of Management of the Institution, two claims were set up. According to the petitioners the election was held from 26 members of the General Body but according to the respondent-Committee of Management, the election was held from 56 members of the General Body.
It is, therefore, clear that earlier there was no dispute about the number of members of the General Body and it is only when the 2008 election was held that the respondent-Committee of Management started asserting that the 2005 election was held on the basis of the list of 56 members of the General Body and the 2008 election was also held on the basis of the 56 members of the General Body. It is at this stage that the copy of the report dated 7th August, 2005 of the Observer was submitted by the respondent-Committee of Management so as to substantiate its claim that the 2008 election was also held on the basis of 56 members of the General Body because what was tried to be emphasized was that if Dr. Phool Chandra Singh was elected as the Manager in 2005 on the basis of the list of 56 members of the General Body, than Dr. Phool Chandra Singh cannot raise any objection to the 2008 election being held on the basis of the list of 56 members of the General Body.
The respondent-Committee of Management asserts that the strength of the General Body had increased from 26 to 56. It was, therefore, imperative for it to substantiate that the 36 members had been included in the General Body in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. Mere deposit of fees is not sufficient and under the Scheme of Administration of the Institution it is also necessary that the membership should be accepted by the Competent body. This issue has not been examined by the Regional Level Committee.
What is also important to be noticed is that though two rival claims had been set up, yet the District Inspector of Schools proceeded to approve the election of the respondent-Committee of Management held on 29th August, 2008 by the order dated 14th September, 2009 when, in such circumstances, he should have referred the dispute to the Regional Level Committee in terms of the Government Order. It is this order dated 14th September, 2009 that was assailed by the Committee of Management with Dr. Phool Chandra Singh as the Manager in Writ Petition No. 61384 of 2009 in which an interim order was passed on 16th November, 2009 that the Prabandh Sanchalak shall continue to manage the affairs of the Institution, but this order dated 16th November, 2009 was assailed by the Committee of Management with Jai Prakash Pandey as the Manager in Special Appeal No. 1955 of 2009. The Division Bench in Special Appeal found that there was a serious dispute with regard to the validity of the elections and, therefore, it was required to be decided by the Regional Level Committee. Both the parties agreed that in such circumstances, the dispute should be referred to the Regional Level Committee and till then the Prabandh Sanchalak earlier appointed should continue to manage the affairs of the Institution. The Special Appeal and the writ petition were, accordingly, disposed of.
The Regional Level Committee, however, in its decision taken on 29th April, 2010, even after observing that the petitioner-Committee of Management was duly elected in 2005 in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution, did not pass any formal order approving it for the reason that the term of the said Committee of Management had come to an end in 2008 and with respect to the 2008 elections observed that none of the two elections should be approved for the reason that they were not held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution and, accordingly, directions for holding fresh elections were issued. This decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 29th April, 2010 was assailed by the respondent-Committee of Management in Writ Petition No.36907 of 2010 in which an interim order was passed on 28th June, 2010 that the decision of the Regional Level Committee taken on 29th April, 2010 shall remain stayed, but it was left open to the Regional Level Committee to decide the controversy between the parties afresh in accordance with the directions issued in the Special Appeal decided on 17th December, 2009.
The original records produced by the learned Standing Counsel indicate that at this stage Jai Prakash Pandey, who claimed to have been elected as the Manager of the respondent-Committee of Management in the 2008 election started exerting pressure on the Educational Authorities. On the record is the letter submitted by Jai Prakash Pandey to the Hon'ble Education Minister (Secondary) in which he wrote that the District Inspector of Schools had attested his signatures as Manager on 14th September, 2009 and so he was in effective control of the management. Reference is then made to Writ Petition No. 61384 of 2009 filed by Dr. Phool Chandra Singh as Manager and the interim order passed for appointment of a Prabanch Sanchalak and it is stated that against that interim order Special Appeal was filed by Jai Prakash Pandey in which the High Court passed an order on 17th December, 2009 that the Regional Level Committee should decide the matter in two months. It is further stated in the letter that since the election in which his Committee of Management was elected was held under the supervision of an Observer, a direction should be issued by the Hon'ble Education Minister to the Joint Director of Education to approve the said election so that there is no disobedience of the order of the High Court.
It is clear that Jai Prakash Pandey not only sought intervention of the Hon'ble Education Minister but also made an attempt to mislead the Hon'ble Education Minister (Secondary) since there is no direction in the order passed in the Special Appeal that only that election which was held under the supervision of the Observer should be approved. The direction that was issued in the Special Appeal was to decide the matter afresh and a direction had also been issued that the Prabandh Sanchalak, appointed earlier shall continue to manage the affairs of the Institution. It is also noticed that in the aforesaid letter addressed to the Hon'ble Education Minister (Secondary) Jai Prakash Pandey stated that if this was not done, it will amount to disobedience of the order passed by the High Court.
The records also indicate that Surendra Prasad Mishra, Member of Legislative Assembly also wrote a letter dated 31st December, 2009 to the Hon'ble Education Minister (Secondary) that the department had attested the signatures of Jai Prakash Pandey as Manager and the representation filed by Jai Prakash Pandey may be perused. It was also written that for ensuring compliance of the directions issued by the High Court on 17th December, 2009 in Special Appeal No.1955 of 2009 a direction may be issued to the Joint Director of Education to approve the election held under the supervision of the Observer so that the dispute in the Institution situated in his area is resolved and the order passed by High Court is complied with.
On the said letter, the Hon'ble Education Minister (Secondary) made a remark to the Joint Director of Education that if the election had been held in accordance with law than due compliance should be made. There is also an endorsement dated 21st January, 2010 made in the said letter that the order passed by the Hon'ble Education Minister (Secondary) should be complied with.
On the record is also a letter dated 24th April, 2010 submitted by the Joint Director of Education to the Personal Assistant of the Hon'ble Education Minister. It begins by making mention of the telephonic conversation had with the Hon'ble Minister that the Joint Director of Education should meet the Hon'ble Education Minister with his specific report and the records.
The report dated 24th April, 2010 submitted by Sri Omkar Shukla, Joint Director of Education needs to be mentioned in detail. It refers to the 2002 election held from 27 members of the General Body in which Dr. Phool Chandra Singh was elected as the Manager and which election was approved by the Regional Level Committee on 11th December, 2003 and signatures were also attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 19th February, 2004. It also refers to the subsequent election held in 2005 in which the same 26 members of the General Body who had participated in the 2002 election except one member again participated and election was held on 5th August, 2005 in which Dr. Phool Chandra Singh was elected as the Manager. It also mentions that the election papers were received in the office of the District Inspector of Schools on 9th August, 2005 and were thereafter received in the office of the Joint Director of Education. However, two other claims were set up and when the term of the Committee of Management was coming to an end, Dr. Phool Chandra Singh held the election on 30th August, 2008 and the District Inspector of Schools sent the entire papers relating to the election to the office of the Joint Director of Education on 6th September, 2008 in which Dr. Phool Chandra Singh was elected as the Manager. Another election was held in which Jai Prakash Pandey was elected which election was approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 14th September, 2008 and signatures of Jai Prakash Pandey were also attested. This election was held from 56 members but the signatures of Dr. Phool Chandra Singh have been forged in the papers. The report further mentions that Dr. Phool Chandra Singh had filed Writ Petition No. 61384 of 2009 in which an interim order was passed against which Special Appeal was filed which was disposed of on 17th December, 2009 that the Regional Level Committee should pass a fresh order. The report further mentions that the hearing before the Regional Level Committee had been concluded and from perusal of the papers, the Committee of Management elected with Dr. Phool Chandra Singh should be approved for the reasons mentioned in the report. It also mentions that the Committee with Jai Prakash Pandey should not be approved because the election was held from 56 members and not from 26 members of the General Body and was also not held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. The report concludes by stating that granting approval to the Committee of Management of the Institution with Jai Prakash Pandey as the Manager would be contrary to the Scheme of Administration of the Institution and the directions issued by the High Court.
It is, however, seen that in the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 29th April, 2010 none of the two elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution were approved and direction for appointment of an Authorized Controller for holding fresh elections was given and it was also ordered that the Prabandh Sanchalak earlier appointed shall continue to manage the affairs of the Institution till the Authorized Controller was appointed.
In the meantime, the Joint Director of Education changed and Sri Akhilesh Pandey became the Joint Director of Education and pursuant to the directions contained in the interim order dated 28th June, 2010 passed by the Court in Writ Petition No. 36907 of 2010, the Regional Level Committee proceeded to decide the matter on 31st July, 2010. It, by its decision taken on 31st July, 2010, granted approval to the election set up by respondent-Committee of Management on 29th August, 2008 with Jai Prakash Pandey as the Manager. The Regional Level Committee after referring to the elections held in 2002 and 2005, litigation between the parties and the representations filed by the parties has given the following reasons in support of its decision.
(1) The Government Order dated 21st November, 2008 provides that the Scheme of Administration of non-Government Institutions should contain a provision that the members of the General Body of the Society should alone be the voters for the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution and if the Scheme of Administration had earlier been approved and there is a contrary provision then it should be amended. The Regional Level Committee in its decision taken on 29th April, 2010 did not consider this aspect.
(2) The High Court by its interim order dated 28th June, 2010 in Writ Petition No. 36907 of 2010 had stayed the decision of the Regional Level Committee taken on 29th April, 2010 and, therefore, the Prabandh Sanchalak could not have continued in the Institution. It is, therefore, necessary to have some arrangement for the management of the affairs of the Institution.
(3) The election from amongst the members of the General Body of the Society cannot be said to have been held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution.
(4) Dr. Phool Chandra Singh has referred to the list of members of the Society for the purpose of conducting the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution and has pointed out that the members who participated in the election of Jai Prakash Pandey were not members of the Society, but he has not stated that they had not been enrolled as members of the General Body of the Institution in accordance with the Scheme of Administration.
(5) The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 14th September, 2009 had approved the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 28th August, 2009 with Jai Prakash Pandey as the Manager and, therefore, as an option this Committee should be approved till the decision in Writ Petition No. 36907 of 2010 is given or the term comes to an end, whichever is earlier.
It is just not possible to sustain the aforesaid decision take by the Regional Level Committee on 31st July, 2010.
The Regional Level Committee was required to take a decision with regard to the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution and it was not required to make a temporary arrangement till the writ petition, in which direction was given to the Regional Level Committee to decide the matter, was decided by the High Court. In fact the High Court had specifically observed that it will be open to the Regional Level Committee to decide the controversy between the parties in view of the directions issued by the Division Bench in Special Appeal. It was, therefore, obligatory for the Regional Level Committee to decide which of the two Committee of Managements of the Institution or none could be granted approval and for this purpose, what was required to be examined was which of the two elections had been held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. The dispute between the parties basically was with regard to the members of the General Body entitled to participate in the election. This aspect was conveniently avoided by the Regional Level Committee by stating that the petitioners had only raised a dispute with regard to the members of the General Body of the Society and not with regard to the members of the General Body of the Institution. This finding of the Regional Level Committee is perverse and it is more than apparent that the documents had not been perused by the Regional Level Committee. The petitioners had raised a specific objection about the members of the General Body entitled to participate in the election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution but the Regional Level Committee overlooked this objection and observed that such an objection was not taken because the objection that was taken was with regard to the members of the General Body of the Society.
As noticed hereinabove, the parties had placed reliance on the list of members of the General Body of the Society for it alone was the list on the basis of which the Committee of Management of the Institution was to be elected as it was never in dispute between the parties that there were separate lists of members of the General Body of the Society and members of the General Body of the Institution.
It also needs to be noticed that the petitioners have specifically stated in paragraph-43 of the Writ Petition that that the Government Order dated 21st November, 2008 had no relevance to the dispute because it provides that in future the General Body of the Society and the Institution will be the same and if not, than an amendment should be made in the Scheme of Administration of the Institution, but in the present case, the General Body of the Society and the General Body of the Institution is the same and elections were being held from amongst the members of the General Body of the Society.
All that is stated in paragraph 35 of the counter affidavit, which is in reply to the averments made in paragraph 43 of the writ petition, is that no amendments had been carried out and the elections were held before the issuance of the Government Order dated 21st November, 2008. Thus, even the respondents Committee of Management has asserted that the said Government Order will not apply and it is also placing reliance on the list of members of the General Body of the Society for the purpose of holding the election of Committee of Management of the Institution. There is no specific denial of the fact stated in the Writ Petition that the General Body of the Society and the Institution is the same and even from a perusal of the Scheme of Administration, which is contained in the original papers provided by the learned Standing Counsel, it is seen that the statement of the petitioners is correct. The respondents have also not placed any separate list of the members of the General Body of the Institution. On the other hand they have also relied upon the list of 56 members of the General Body of the Society. It is also seen that even the 2005 elections and the 2002 elections were held from the list of the members of the General Body of the Society. The Regional Level Committee, therefore, completely misdirected itself as the Government Order dated 21st November, 2008 had no relevance and the issue that was really needed to be decided by the Regional Level Committee was whether there were 26 members of the General Body in the 2005 elections or 2008 elections or whether there were 56 members.
In this connection, both the parties had placed reliance upon the report dated 7th August, 2005 submitted by the Observer with respect to the 2005 elections and according to the petitioners, there were 26 members while according to the respondents, there were 56 members. As noticed hereinabove, from the original records produced by the learned Standing Counsel it is clear that the respondent-Committee of Management had filed forged copy of the report dated 7th August, 2008 submitted by the Observer to substantiate that the report mentions 56 members for the 2005 elections as from the original records it is clear that the report refers to 26 members of the General Body.
What is also important to note is that during the course of hearing of the Writ Petition on 1st February, 2012, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents had placed before the Court the information supplied by the Joint Director of Education to Sri Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi on 14th March, 2011 in response to the application submitted by Sri Chaturvedi on 24th February, 2011 under the Right to Information Act. Two information had been sought by Sri Chaturvedi in the application. The first information was for providing the report submitted by the Observer on 7th August, 2005 with regard to the 2005 elections and the second information was for supplying the report dated 1st September, 2008 submitted with regard to the 2008 elections. What was supplied by the Joint Director of Education under the Right to Information Act was not the copy of the report dated 7th August, 2005 submitted by the Observer to the District Inspector of Schools but a copy of the report dated 7th August, 2005 submitted by Jai Prakash Pandey with his representation addressed to the Hon'ble Education Minister (Secondary).
This act of the Joint Director of Education in furnishing that copy of the report dated 7th August, 2005 which had been enclosed with the representation filed by Jai Prakash Pandey is wholly unjustified and does tend to convey an element of collusion with Jai Prakash Pandey. The Joint Director of Education was aware that there was a serious dispute between the parties regarding the 2008 election and so when an application under the Right to Information Act had been filed seeking a copy of the report dated 7th August, 2005 submitted by the Observer to the District Inspector of Schools, he should have been very careful and accurate information should have been given. When the document was not available in the records available in the office of the Joint Director of Education, either such a reply could have been furnished or copy of the report could have been obtained from the office of the District Inspector of Schools and than furnished to the applicant. It is clear that the Joint Director of Education made all attempts to help the respondents by furnishing to them a copy of the report which had been submitted by them before the Joint Director of Education as a result of which the respondents raised submissions before the Court in this petition that the petitioners are not justified in asserting that the report furnished by them is correct. What is more shocking is that the Joint Director of Education made a remark in the office note put up by the Clerk that if the information supplied to Sri Ramesh Chandra Chaturvedi was at variance with the records maintained in the office of the District Inspector of Schools than the information given under the Right to Information Act should be treated as cancelled. In the first instance, when there were doubts, such information should not have been given at all and if it was given than this condition should also have been made a part of the information but the condition only remained a part of the note and was not contained in the information given to the applicant.
The act of the Clerk Narendra Kumar also deserves to be deprecated. It is he who made the note to the Joint Director of Education to supply the copy of the report when he knew that there was a serious dispute between the parties regarding the elections and this report was not available in the office of the Joint Director of Education. In his affidavit, he has also stated that the records were not available in the office of the Joint Director of Education. In such circumstances, he should have clearly stated that it was not possible to supply the information but in his anxiety to help the respondents he has placed such a note which resulted in furnishing wrong information to the applicant under the Right to Information Act.
It is, therefore, a fit case where not only a direction is needed to be given to the Disciplinary Authorities of the Joint Director of Education who gave the information and the Clerk Narendra Kumar posted in the office of the Joint Director of Education to consider whether disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against them, but costs should also be imposed upon them for giving false information to the applicant under the Right to Information Act in a matter which they knew was engaging the attention of the High Court in this Writ Petition.
The Regional Level Committee was also not justified in observing that because of the interim order dated 28th June, 2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 36907 of 2010, the Prabandh Sanchalak could not have continued in the Institution. It is seen that in Writ Petition No. 61384 of 2009 earlier an interim order was passed by the Court on 14th September, 2009 that a Prabandh Sanchalak should be appointed to manage the affairs of the Institution and such arrangement should continue till further orders are passed in the petition. In Special Appeal No.1955 of 2009 that was filed to assail the said interim order, both the parties had agreed that the writ petition should be allowed and the matter should be sent back to the Regional Level Committee to decide the issue afresh but the Prabandh Sanchalak appointed by the Joint Director of Education should continue till the dispute is decided by the Regional Level Committee. The Regional Level Committee took the decision on 29th April, 2010 in which a direction for continuing the Prabandh Sanchalak was also issued but this decision was assailed by the respondent-Committee of Management in Writ Petition No. 36907 of 2010 in which the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 29th April, 2010 was stayed.
It is no doubt true that in Writ Petition No. 36907 of 2010 an interim order was passed by the Court on 28th June, 2010 that the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 29th April, 2010 shall remain stayed but mere stay of this decision will not mean that the Prabandh Sanchalak could not have been continued in the Institution because the Court had even earlier passed orders for appointment and continuance of the Prabandh Sanchalak. The Regional Level Committee was, therefore, not justified in observing that the Prabandh Sanchalak could not have continued because of the interim order dated 28th June, 2010.
The decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 31st July, 2010 to permit the respondent-Committee of Management to function till the decision is rendered in Writ Petition No.36907 of 2010 or the term of the Committee comes to an end cannot also be sustained. As noticed above, the reason given by the Regional Level Committee is that the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 14th September, 2009 had attested the signatures of Jai Prakash Pandey as the Manager of the respondent-Committee of Management. This order was assailed in Writ Petition No.61384 of 2009 in which an interim order was passed and in Special Appeal filed against this order, both the parties agreed that the matter should be sent to the Regional Level Committee to decide and till then the Prabandh Sanchalak should continue in the Institution. The order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, therefore, lost all significance but the Regional Level Committee placed reliance upon it.
The submission advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents that this Court should not interfere with the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 31st July, 2010 for the reason that the term of the Committee of Management of the Institution elected in 2008 has come to an end and fresh election has been held which have not been assailed in this petition also needs to be examined. Amongst the many issues that have arisen between the parties, the core issue is with regard to the number of members of the General Body which has to constitute the Committee of Management of the Institution. The petitioner-Committee of Management asserts that there are only 26 members in the General Body while the respondent-Committee of Management asserts that there are 56 members. The report of the District Inspector of Schools submitted on 7th August, 2005 for the 2005 election on which reliance has been placed by the respondent-Committee of Management to assert that there are 56 members, is not correct and as noticed hereinabove, the report on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners is the correct report and this report refers to only 26 members of the General Body of the Society. This issue was required to be decided by the Regional Level Committee since it will also have a bearing on the future elections. Thus, when the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 31st July, 2010 cannot be sustained, it will not be appropriate to ignore the said decision only for the reason that the term of the Committee of Management elected in 2008 has come to an end. Learned counsel for the petitioners is, therefore, justified in asserting that it is necessary to decide this dispute about membership because this will not only form the basis for the future elections to be held but it will also determine as to which Committee of Management was required to hold the future election of the Committee of Management of the Institution.
In this connection the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Sri Raghubar Dayal Pathak Inter College, Etawah through its Manager Krishna Murari Pathak,Vs. Committee of Management, Sri Raghubar Dayal Pathak Inter College, Etawah through its Alleged Manager Brij Bihari Lal Pathak & Ors., 2006 (7) ADJ 427 needs to be noticed:-
"We are of the view that in the facts of the case and also in view of the fact that the elections held in the year 1999 and 2002 were found to be invalid, the Hon'ble Single Judge is right in directing to hold fresh election by an independent agency. Even during the course of submission in spite of repeated request, learned Counsel for the appellant could not show any evidence or material nor has brought anything on record to show that the elections held in the year 1999 and 2002 were validly held.
The contention that since the orders dated 21.6.2005 and 22.6.2005 were not set aside, the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge is wrong, has also no substance for the reason that the elections of the year 1999 and 2002 having been found to be invalid, all subsequent actions or orders are also illegal and nonest in the eyes of law. Thus, we do not find any fault in the order or the Hon'ble Single Judge."
(emphasis supplied) This Court in Ram Kripal Singh & Anr. Vs. Committee of Management, Uchchttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Newarhiya, district Jaunpur & Ors., (1993) 1 UPLBEC 344 also observed:-
"The appellants have filed two applications dated 9-11-1992 and 18-11-1992 in which it has been mentioned that the respondents have published a news item on 14-11-1992 for holding the election of the committee of management. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the appellants, which has also been admitted by the learned counsel for the respondents, committee, that election in fact has been held by the respondents committee on 29-11-1992 on which date new committee of management has been elected, which has also been recognised by the District Inspector of Schools. On the basis of the above election learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that this appeal has become infructuous as no useful purpose would be served by deciding the same in view of the above election held on 29-11-1992. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. As mentioned hereinabove, election of the committee of management was claimed by both the factions of the committee of management to have been held on 5-5-2986. Even if this election is treated to be a valid election, the term of the committee of management so elected on the above date came to an end on 4-6-1989 and thereafter it was not open to the committee or its office bearers to hold the election. The election held on 29-11-1992 by the respondents committee, as such, is not suitable under law and is declared invalid. Consequently the order of the District Inspector of Schools, recognising the committee of management elected on 29-11-1992 and attesting the signatures of its manager is also declared illegal."
(emphasis supplied) The decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 29th April, 2010 has been assailed by the respondent-Committee of Management in Writ Petition No.36907 of 2010 in which an appropriate order is being passed. In any view of the matter, when the Regional Level Committee had taken the decision on 31st July, 2010 it is not necessary to examine the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 29th April, 2010.
Thus, it is not possible to sustain the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 31st July, 2010. It is, accordingly, set aside. The Regional Level Committee shall now examine the matter in the light of the observations made above and take a decision expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the Regional Level Committee by either of the parties. The Joint Director of Education, who was a member of the Regional Level Committee that took the decision on 31st July, 2010 will not be a member of the Regional Level Committee that will now decide the dispute. The Director of Education shall, in such circumstances, nominate another Joint Director of Education to be a member of the Regional Level Committee. The Disciplinary Authorities of the Joint Director of Education and the Clerk shall seriously consider whether disciplinary proceedings should be initiated against them.
The Joint Director of Education and the Clerk Narendra Kumar, for the reasons stated above, shall deposit costs of Rs. 50,000/- and Rs.10,000/- respectively with the Registrar General of the Court within two months from today and the same shall be remitted to the Allahabad High Court, Mediation and Conciliation Centre. If such amount is not deposited by the Joint Director of Education (Akhilesh Pandey) and the Clerk (Narendra Kumar) within the aforesaid time, the same shall be recovered from them by the District Magistrate as arrears of land revenue and remitted to the Registrar General of the Court.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Date: 10.4.2012 NSC