JUDGMENT Arun Tandon, J.
1. Heard Sri P. N. Saxena, assisted by Sri Amit Saxena on behalf of the petitioner, Learned Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, Sri Irshad Ali on behalf of the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Sri Bheem Singh on behalf of respondent Nos. 6 and 7.
2. The facts, which are relevant for disposal of the resent writ petition, are as follows :
There is an institution known as Janta Inter College, Patai Khalsa, J.P. Nagar which is duly recognized under the provision of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, As per provisions contained in Section 16(A) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the aforementioned institution has an approved scheme of administration which has been subsequently amended and the terms of the Managing Committee has been extended from 3 years to 5 years, the amendment in the term has been duly approved by the Joint Director of Education on 18.9.1999. Last election of Managing Committee was held on 21.6.1995 and in the aforementioned election, petitioner No. 2 (Dharam Veer Singh) was elected as Manager and Sri Kunwar Pal Singh as President, along with other office bearers and members. The aforesaid elections were duly recognized and the signatures of Sri Dharam Veer Singh as Manager were attested on 13.11.1995.
3. The Committee continued in control of the affairs of the institution and, during subsistence of the period of Committee of Management, its term was extended from three years, to 5 years.
4. The term of 5 years, as such was due to expire in the year 2000 and accordingly fresh elections of the Committee of Management are said to have taken place on 18th June, 2000. In the elections dated 18th June, 2000, Petitioner No. 2 was again elected as Manager, while Sri Kunwar Pal Singh as President. Entire papers of the aforesaid elections were transmitted to the District Inspector of Schools and Joint Director of Education, however, no action was taken by the said respondents on the papers so submitted.
5. A parallel set of elections dated 18th June, 2000, were set up by one Naresh Pal Singh as Manager. The District Inspector of Schools recognized the aforesaid election by order dated 1.9.2000. As the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools was ex parte, petitioners Committee of Management preferred Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 43430 of 2000. This Court on 11.10.2000 passed an interim order, which is quoted herein below ;
"Sri Irsahd Ali, learned Counsel for the Caveator has filed counter affidavit.
Let it be taken on record.
List for admission thereafter.
Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties, I am inclined to stay the operation of the impugned order dated 1.9.2000.
It is accordingly ordered that the operation of the impugned order dated 1.9.2000 shall remain stayed until further orders of this Court. In the meanwhile, the Joint Director of Education, Moradabad Region, Moradabad is directed to take steps for appointment of the Authorized Controller to manage the affairs of the institution until further orders."
6. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the Joint Director of Education, Moradabad Region, Moradabad appointed the Authorized Controller in the institution.
7. The aforementioned writ petition was finally decided by means of order dated 6.1.2003 and the parties were directed to appear before the Joint Director of Education on 27.1.2003 and file their respective claim and Joint Director of Education, Moradabad Region, Moradabad was directed to decide the dispute in accordance with law. The Authorized Controller, appointed under the interim order of this Court, was directed to continue till the dispute was decided of by the Joint Director of Education, Moradabad Region, Moradabad. Accordingly both the parties placed their respective claims before the Joint Director of Education Moradabad Region, Moradabad.
8. The Joint Director of Education, after hearing the parties, passed the order dated 24.3.2003, whereby he held that both the elections set up by the petitioner as well as by Sri Naresh Pal Singh were not in accordance with the approved scheme of administration and accordingly declared the same to be illegal. He further directed that Authorized Controller appointed in the institution (under interim order, referred to above) may hold fresh elections within two months.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order dated 24th March, 2003, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15143 of 2003 was filed by the Committee of Management with Sri Dharam Veer Singh as Manager, while Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16191 of 2003 was filed by the Committee of Management with Sri Naresh Pal Singh as Manager, Both the aforesaid writ petitions, after exchange of affidavits, were decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated 11th August, 2003.
10. This Court, while deciding the said writ petitions, specifically held that the finding of the Joint Director of Education that no documents in respect of the elections pleaded by Dharam Veer Singh are available on record, is a perverse finding, as the entire papers pertaining to the elections dated 18th June, 2000 were made available in the office of the District Inspector of Schools and were also otherwise available before the Joint Director of Education as part of the, representation filed on behalf of Sri Dharam Veer Singh. The Regional Joint Director of Education has failed to look into the aforesaid documents and has, therefore, committed an unsustainable error while recording findings in respect of the elections set up by Sri Dharam Veer Singh.
11. So far as the claim as pleaded by Sri Naresh Pal Singh was concerned, this Court set aside the order of the Regional Joint Director of Education, on the ground that he has failed to look into the provisions of scheme of administrate, which provided for convening of a meeting by the members of general body, specifically Clause 9 of the approved scheme of administration.
12. This Court, however, recorded a categorical finding that under the scheme of administration the District Inspector of Schools has not been vested with any , authority to give permission to the members of the general body to convene a meeting of the general body for holding elections. This Court further proceeded to record conditions under which the District Inspector of Schools can authorize member of the general body to convene a meeting. For ready reference relevant portion of the judgment of this Court is being quoted herein below :
"As per the provisions contained in the Scheme of Administration, with the consent of the President, the Manager/Secretary is entitled to convene a meeting and it is also further provided that on written request of four members emergent meetings necessarily has to be convened. Under the Scheme of Administration, the District Inspector of Schools has not at all been vested with any authority to give such permission. However, this does not mean that Managing Committee and the President and Manager of the Managing Committee can be permitted to sit tight over the matter. On written request of four members the President/Manager are obliged to convene the meeting, Once meeting is not being deliberately convened and the concerned authorities are sitting tight over there mater, then District Inspector of Schools has authority to give suitable direction to them for convening meeting of the general body of the institution. In case in site of such direction and opportunity to the Manager and President of the Managing Committee of the institution for convening the meeting, if no meeting is concerned, then similar direction can be given to Vice-President/Assistant Manager and in case disinclination is shown by them, also then District Inspector of Schools can authorize any member to convene the meeting and the aforementioned meeting should be presided by President and in the absence of President/Vice President and in absence of both, members may elect any one of them to preside over the meeting. District Inspector of Schools, while exercising this power shall direct the members, who were approached him to publish the date of meeting in well known news paper which has vide circulation in the locality. On the aforementioned date of meeting, the District Inspector of Schools shall present himself or authorize any one of his subordinate to supervise the aforementioned meeting."
13. Thereafter this Court proceeded to record a finding that there being no provisions for appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak under the approved scheme of administration, the order passed by the Joint Director of Education is legally not sustain. It was further provided that Joint Director of Education shall also record a finding as to which of the Committee of Management are in effective control of the institution on the date the dispute arose, strictly in accordance with the provisions of Section 16-A (7). The relevant portion of the direction issued by this Court is being quoted herein below :
"In both the writ petitions one common argument has been advanced that in case of two rival claimants dispute is to be decided within the four comers of Section 16-A (7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The submission of both the petitioners appears to be correct, inasmuch as in terms of provisions as contained under Section 16-A (7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, no findings of fact has been returned as to which one of the Managing Committee of the institution was in effective control of the affairs of the institution on the date when the dispute arose. On this Score also, the order is vitiated and is liable to be set aside. The Joint Director of Education was duty bound to advert on this aspect of the matter i.e. on the relevant date, which one of the Managing Committee of the Institution was in effective control of the affairs of the institution. The Joint Director of Education shall go into this question, as to who was in effective control, on relevant date and thereafter return finding in consonance with the provisions as contained under Section 16-A (7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1021."
14. From the aforesaid judgment of this Court it is apparently clear that the matter was remanded to Joint Director of Education for deciding the dispute between the parties afresh strictly in light of the observations made in the judgment of this Court.
15. The Joint Director of Education, Moradabad Mandal, Moradabad, by means of the order dated 21st October, 2003 has held that the elections set up by the petitioner are invalid and further the elections pleaded by Sri Naresh Pal Singh have been held strictly in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of administration and, therefore, the said elections are required to be recognized. The said order of the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 21.10.2003 has been challenged by means of the present writ petition.
16. I have heard Counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the writ petition.
17. The elections set up by the petitioner dated 18th June, 2000 have been held to be illegal under the impugned order by the Regional Joint Director of Education on the finding that the elections dated 18th June, 2000 and the documents. submitted in respect thereto appears to be suspicious and rejected the claim of petitioner for the following reasons :
(a) Information of the elections dated 18th June, 2000 was not forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools or the Joint Director of Education nor the documents in respect of the said elections have been forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools or to the Joint Director of Education, as is apparent from the endorsement made by the District Inspector of Schools on the application of Sri Naresh Pal Singh on 15th September, 2000 and dated 16th September, 2000 to the effect that the documents pertaining to elections dated 18th June, 2000 have not been received in the office of District Inspector of Schools.
(b) The Principal of the institution has informed that no elections have been held in the college premises on 18th June, 2000.
(c) Agenda of the elections have not been published in any newspaper.
(d) Request for appointment of observers of the elections was not made to the District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police and other officers.
(e) From the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 24.2.2003, it is apparent that the Committee of Management did not take any steps for holding fresh elections even when the term of the Committee of Management was due to expire on 20th June, 2000.
(f) Since the Committee of Management failed to hold any election, the District Inspector of Schools granted permission under Clause 9(2) to the members of the general body to hold elections.
(g) Petitioner did not enter into any correspondence with the District Inspector of Schools or Joint Director of Education for recognition of the alleged elections.
(h) No reply was submitted to the letters of the District Inspector of Schools dated 15.5.2000 and 17.6.2000 in respect of the allegation that meeting was not being convened by the Manger for holding fresh elections.
(i) On information being received about the order of the District Inspector of Schools, permitting the member of general body to hold elections, Sri Dharam Veer Singh has manipulated documents to suggest that the elections dated 18th June, 2000.
(j) There were objections to the list of members entitled to be participated in the elections raised by Sri Naresh Pal Singh and, therefore, the elections, if any, have been held on the basis of the disputed list.
(k) The effective control of the Committee of, Management, of which Sri Dharam Veer Singh was Manager, came to an end on 20th June, 2000 with the expiry of the term.
18. So far as the elections set up by Sri Naresh Pal Singh are concerned, the Regional Joint Director of Education has proceeded to hold that since the recognized Manager/President of the Committee of Management have not convened the meeting of the general body to hold fresh elections despite letter of the District Inspector of Schools, he authorized the members of the general body to hold elections vide its letter dated 12th July, 2000. Accordingly an agenda dated 27.7.2000 was published and on 13th August, 2000 fresh elections were held by the members of the general body in the college premises at 12:00 noon. In the said elections out of 62 members, 33 participated. In the elections so held, office bearers and other remembers of the Committee of Management were elected. The papers pertaining order said elections were forwarded to District Inspector of Schools on 12.8.2000. A certificate has been, issued by the Principal of the institution categorically stating that elections have taken place on 13.8,2000 within the college premises. Although Sri Dharam Veer Singh has stated that Sri Naresh Pal Singh is not even primary member of the general body, however, from the receipt produced by Sri Naresh Pal Singh it is apparent that life membership fee of Rs. 1000/- has been deposited in the capital account of the institution and no documents has been produced by Sri Dharam Veer Singh of reestablishing the removal of Naresh Pal Singh from the list of the general body. Since Sri Khayali Ram Shastri was elected as Manager of the society in all the elections held between 1955 to 1991 and further since he was illegally removed from the office of President by Sri Dharam Veer Singh and further Sri Khyali Ram Shastri has now been elected as President of the Committee of Management with Sri Naresh Pal Singh as Manager. The said Committee of Management is in effective control of the institution. The elections pleaded by the said committee are in accordance with the scheme of administration and are accordingly recognized.
19. The findings recorded by the Regional Joint Director of Education in the impugned order are the contrary to the specific direction issued by this Court in the earlier judgment dated 11.8.2003. The findings recorded with regards to the documents prepared by Sri Dharam Veer Singh in respect of his elections dated 18th June, 2000, being concocted or suspicious on the ground that they had not been communicated to, the District Inspector of Schools or the Regional Joint Director of Education, is apparently perverse and in teeth of the finding recorded by this Court in its earlier judgment.
20. From the findings recorded by this Court earlier, referred to above, it is apparently clear that the records of the elections held on 18th June, 2000 were transmitted to the office of District Inspector of Schools and the Regional Joint Director of Education. In view of the said finding of this Court, with reference to the fact that the documents were forwarded by registered post to the District Inspector of Schools on 19th June, 2000, which in turn is supported by registration receipt issued by the post office and the certificate issued by the postal department, certifying delivery of the documents to the addressee. The conclusion arrived at in the impugned order by the Regional Joint Director of Education with regards to non-receipt of the said documents in the office of the District Inspector of Schools and the Regional Joint Director of Education and Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, is apparently perverse and clear case of non-consideration of the relevant documents.
So far as the endorsement of the District Inspector of Schools on the letters of Sri Naresh Pal Singh dated 15.9.2000 and 16.9.2000 are concerned, the same of no consequence in view of the finding recorded by this Court earlier. Similarly, the letters of the District Inspector of Schools dated 24.2.2003, dated 26.6,2000 and dated 12.7.2000 cannot in any way be read so as to suggest that the documents pertaining to elections dated 18th June, 2000 have not been submitted in the office of the District Inspector of Schools. In any view of the matter, the said question was not open to be decided by the Regional Joint Director of Education in view of the conclusive finding recorded by this Court in its earlier judgment.
21. The ground mentioned in the impugned order with regards to non-publication of the agenda in newspaper, information not being supplied to the District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police about the elections of the petitioner are concerned, suffice is point out that under the approved scheme of administration there is no requirement of agenda being published in the newspaper or any information being supplied to the District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police. Similarly, merely because the Principal of the institution has written letter to the effect that no elections have taken place in the college premises, the Regional Joint Director of Education could not have proceeded to hold that said letter of the Principal to be gospels truth and to hold that no elections have taken place on 18th June, 2000.
22. The finding that Sri Naresh Pal Singh has raised objections with regards to voter list on the basis whereof Sri Dharam Veer Singh is elected as Manager, is neither here nor there. The question still survives as to whether the objections raised by Sri Naresh Pal Singh are legally justified or not.
23. From the order of the Prescribed Authority it is apparently clear that the Committee of Management with Sri Dharam Veer Singh as Manager was in effective control of the institution till Prabandh Sanchalak was appointed under order of this Court, quoted herein above, dated 11.10.2000. It is thus, clear that till the date of appointment of Prabandh Sanchalak under order of this Court dated 11.10.2000, the petitioner's Committee of Management was in effective control of the institution on the date the dispute has arisen.
24. The elections set up by Sri Naresh Pal Singh is could not have accepted except after appreciating that this Court, while recognizing the power to District Inspector of Schools to permit members of general body to convene a meeting of the general body, and specifically stipulated five steps before any such permission could be granted.
25. From the record it is apparently clear that none of the aforesaid 5 steps have been followed and further, as provided by this Court earlier, the District Inspector of Schools was not present nor anybody else authorized on his behalf was present in the alleged meeting, convened under his permission by general body, to supervise the same. The Regional Joint Director of Education has deliberately ignored the steps, which were formulated by this Court in its earlier judgment for the purposes of deciding as to whether the meeting concerned by the members of the ganeral body under permission of the District Inspector of Schools was valid or not.
26. It is apparently clear that the Regional Joint Director of Education has side stepped the aforesaid directions of this Court. Such as approach of the Joint Director of Education cannot be appreciated. It is further surprising to note that the Regional Joint Director of Education has adopted double standard in passing the impugned order. In respect of the elections pleaded by Sri Dharam Veer Singh amongst other question has been raised to the legality of the elections on the ground that (a) the agenda has not been published in any of the newspaper, (b) information of the election meeting was not forwarded to the District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police. In respect of the elections pleaded by Sri Naresh Pal Singh, deliberately the Joint Director of Education has not noticed the aforesaid fact and has not recorded any finding as to whether agenda was published in the newspaper in respect of the elections dated 13.8.2000 and further as to whether information of the said elections dated 13.8.2000 was forwarded to the District Magistrate/Senior Superintendent of Police or not. The elections set up by the rival parties are liable to be Judged on same standard.
27. It is further surprising to note that Sri Naresh Pal Singh had not claimed effective control over the institution on any of the conditions mentioned in Section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act namely (a) control over the funds of the institution (b) control over the administration (c) receipt of income from its property etc. nor any finding in that espect has been recorded by the Joint Director of Education in the impugned order. The reasoning assigned for holding that the Committee of Management with Sri Naresh Pal Singh as Manager and Sri Khyali Ram Shastri as President was in effective control of the institution on the basis of fact that Sri Khyali Ram Shastri was President between 1955 to 1991 and has been again elected as President in the election dated 13.8.2000, is wholly out of context, a case not pleaded by the parties and even otherwise irrelevant for the purposes of determination of issue under Section 16-A (7).
28. The petitioner has referred to the order passed by the Civil Court dated 26th March, 1993, whereby the application of Sri Khyali Ram for substitution and impleadment as party in civil revision in place of Sri Jagan Singh had been rejected with specific finding that Sri Khyali Ram Shastri has been left with no interest in the Management Committee. Even otherwise merely because Sri Khyali Ram was President between 1995 to 1991 and is now again alleged to have been elected as President in the elections set up by Sri Naresh Pal Singh, is beyond comprehension of any reasonable man for arriving at a conclusion that the Committee with Sri Khyali Ram as President is in effective control of the institution on the basis of the elections now pleaded by Sri Naresh Pat Singh.
29. Reference at this stage may also be made to the earlier order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 24.3.2003, wherein one of the ground for disbelieving the elections set up by the rival parties was that the list of the members of the general body, on the basis whereof Sri Dharam Veer Singh has held elections, and the list of members of general body, on the basis whereof Sri Naresh Pal Singh has held elections, are different, consequently there is a dispute in respect of the valid members of the general body. The impugned order is completely silent in respect of the aforesaid aspect of the matter and there is no any finding as to whether the list of the members, on the basis whereof alleged elections set up by Sri Naresh Pal Singh dated 13.8.2000 have been held, was valid or not.
30. When the elections of 1995, in which Sri Dharam Veer Singh was elected as Manager, were not challenged in any manner by Sri Khyali Ram, how is it open to Regional Joint Director of Education to hold that he was illegally removed from the office of the President by Sri Dharam Veer Singh. It is thus, apparent that the Regional Joint Director of Education has travelled beyond the scope of the dispute, which was referred to as above.
31. In the opinion of the Court, the order passed by the Regional Joint Director of Education dated 22.10.2003 is legally not sustainable in the eyes of law for the reasons, stated herein above, and is hereby quashed.
32. Accordingly, the present writ petition is allowed, subject to the observations made herein above.
33. The matter is remanded to Regional Joint Director of Education to consider and decide the dispute afresh strictly in accordance with the directions issued by this Court vide its judgment dated 18.8.2003 and in the light of the observations made hereinabove, preferably within two months after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.
34. Till such decision place, there shall be single operation of the accounts in the institution. None of the parties shall have any right to manage the institution.