Hon'ble Arvind Kumar Tripathi (II),J.
Heard Shri Anil Tewari, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant; learned standing counsel for respondent no.1, Shri Shashi Prakash Singh, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, Shri Sandeep Dixit, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5 and Shri J.N. Mathur, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.7.
This special appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who had dismissed the writ petition on the ground of alternative remedy calling upon the appellant to approach the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, and for getting his grievance redressed against the order passed by the Vice Chancellor dated 19.9.2014.
The appellant, who was working as a President is alleged to have been removed by a no confidence motion. His continuance, as office bearer, therefore, came to be disputed and the respondents contend that the appellant has been replaced. It is this dispute that travelled to the Vice Chancellor for decision under Section 2 (13) of the Universities Act, 1973 read with the First Statute of the Lucknow University (referred to hereinafter).
Shri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in the impugned judgment even though the learned Single Judge had noticed that the order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, yet did not record any reasons to indicate as to how the principles of natural justice have been observed by the Vice Chancellor while proceeding to pass the order so as to relegate the appellant to the alternative remedy.
He further submitted that the Vice Chancellor has over stepped his authority in proceeding to act contrary to the to the records maintained by the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, and consequently, the order of the Vice Chancellor even otherwise was illegal, which ought to have been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. He further contends that the learned Single Judge has erroneously refused to exercise his discretion whereas the writ petition ought to have been allowed.
Shri Sandeep Dixit and Shri J.N. Mathur contend that the order has been passed by the Vice Chancellor after considering the documents available on record and that no oral hearing was necessary keeping in view the provisions of Statute 13.05 (g) of the First Statutes of Lucknow University.
They further contend that so far as the issue of continuance of the appellant is concerned, even otherwise on merits the appellant had no right or authority to continue after he had lost the confidence. They further contend that no issue remained to be decided and no oral hearing was necessary.
Learned counsel for the respondents, who have put in appearance, do not pray for filing any counter affidavit and they contend that the matter be disposed of on the basis of records, which are available in the appeal itself. Consequently, this Court is proceeding to pass orders with the consent of the parties on the basis of the submissions, so raised, and the documents, which are available on records.
On a perusal of the order of the Vice Chancellor, we have not been able to gather any sentence indicating any hearing in the matter or even considering the alleged report said to have been submitted by Shri Sandeep Dixit orally.
In our opinion, if the Vice Chancellor had proceeded to consider any report, as alleged, then, it was incumbent on the Vice Chancellor to have apprised the parties of the said report, and then to proceed to decide the matter, but this does not appear to have been done. The order cannot be supplemented by any facts not considered and no such reason exerts as such natural justice has been violated.
Apart from this, it is apt to indicate that the statutory provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 govern the functioning of the registered society and its management, the control whereof lies with the Deputy Registrar/Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits while maintaining the list of office bearers and any doubt or dispute in relation to either the election or continuance of an office bearer is within the jurisdiction of the Prescribed Authority under the 1860 Act.
So far as the dispute of the Committee of Management of a Degree College affiliated to a University is concerned, the First Statutes of the University, in the present case of the Lucknow University, are also attracted, particularly, Statute 13.05 (g) of the First Statutes read with Section 2 (13) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973.
In our opinion, the power of the Vice Chancellor is to recognize a committee having effective control which is an administrative power as against the quasi judicial power conferred under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act on a Prescribed Authority. This issue has been dealt with by a learned Single Judge in the decision of Committee of Management, Chowdhury Chhotu Ram Post Graduate Degree College, Muzaffarnagar and others Vs. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Meerut and others, (2006) 3 AWC Page 2204, paragraph nos. 24 to 30 and paragraph 33 thereof. There is yet another decision which deserves to be taken notice of, namely, Committee of Management, A.K. College, Shikohabad, District Firozabad and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, (2000) 1 UPLBEC Page 777. The same has been followed and considered in the case of Committee of Management, Raja Tej Singh Vidyalaya, Arandh, District Mainpuri and another Vs. District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri and others, (2000) 2 UPLBEC Page 999, paragraph 18 whereof is quoted hereinunder :-
"18. A society may run educational institutions at different levels namely Primary, Basic, Intermediate, degree level. A society running an educational institutional has to conform to the Societies Registration Act as well as the Act dealing with that level of education. The Intermediate Education Act deals with Intermediate Institutions whereas U.P. Basic Education Act and U.P. State University Act deal with Basic and Degree level institutions. The provisions of these Acts are different resulting into different consequences. I have considered differences between an Intermediate College and a degree college in another case and have held (13) that position of a committee of management of an Intermediate College is different than the position of a committee of Management of a degree college. The position of a committee of management running a Basic school is similar to the position of a committee of management running a degree college; same principles apply. Law in respect of committee of management an Intermediate college does not apply to a committee of management of a Basic School. In brief, reasons are as follows (14)."
[13. Writ Petition No.51047 of 1999. Committee of Management of A.K. College v. State of U.P., decided on the same day (10.1.2000) as this writ petition.
14. For details see the decision in the previous footnote.] In view of the aforesaid conclusions drawn, we find that neither the Vice Chancellor nor the learned Single Judge have addressed themselves on these issues that were vital for the purpose of deciding the matter at that very stage when such facts were available on record. The impact of the list of office bearers registered with the Deputy Registrar and any related proceedings under the 1860 Act have to be assessed as per law before taking any decision. This may be necessary for the Vice Chancellor in order to avoid any legal conflict that may possibly arise in such a situation.
We, therefore, send the matter back to the Vice Chancellor to decide it afresh keeping in view the observations made above.
We set aside the order of the learned Single Judge dated 24.9.2014 and the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 19.9.2014.
We direct the Vice Chancellor to give an opportunity of hearing to the parties and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Order Date :- 13.10.2014 Anupam