Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10648 of 2018 Petitioner :- Lakhmi Singh And 47 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Sankalp Narain,Vijay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Chandra Shekhar,Harshit Srivastava
Hon'ble Manoj Misra,J.
Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned senior counsel, assisted by Sri H.P. Sahi, for the petitioners; the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 3; Sri Harshit Srivastava for the respondent no.5; and perused the record.
The petitioners have challenged the order dated 23.02.2018 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr by which he has rejected the claim in respect of inclusion of 500 new members in the provisional list of voters for election of committee of management of an institution named Sarvodaya Inter College Banboi, Bulandshahr.
The facts as regards which there exist no dispute are that an election of the Committee of Management dated 19.09.2009 was set up with an electoral college comprising 691 members, which was initially accorded recognition on 30.09.2009, but, subsequently, was discarded by order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the Regional Level Committee, which remains operative. The Committee, which got recognition on 30.09.2009, in the meantime, proceeded to induct new members on 15.08.2010. The petitioners before this Court are those new members.
Earlier, the order of the District Inspector of Schools granting recognition was challenged by the rival claimant, which had set up its own election, in this court vide Writ C No. 69186 of 2009, which was dismissed by order dated 25.01.2010 giving liberty to the rival claimant to ventilate grievance before the Joint Director. Pursuant to which, the dispute came before the Regional Level Committee, cognizance of which was taken by the Regional office by issuing notice on 25.03.2010. While the matter was under examination of the Regional Level Committee, the committee which was earlier recognised proceeded to induct new members on 15.08.2010.
The order dated 15.11.2010 of the Regional Level Committee discards both the elections and proceeds to appoint an Authorised Controller with a direction to hold election.
As a step in aid of holding the election, the impugned order has been passed.
The grievance of the petitioners is that while the Committee was in-charge of the affairs of the institution it had all the authority to induct new members, such as the petitioners, and therefore, the petitioners, who have all subscribed to the membership fee cannot be denied voting right. The other grievance of the petitioners is that the Authorised Controller was alone authorised to finalise the electoral college and not the District Inspector of Schools, who has no authority to finalise the electoral college. It has also been urged that the order has been passed without hearing the petitioners, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside only on that ground.
Learned counsel for the contesting respondent no.5 has submitted that once it is undisputed that the petitioners were inducted by a Committee whose constitution was under challenge and was later declared invalid the induction of members by that Committee would be void and cannot be saved by de facto doctrine and since it is not in dispute that the petitioners were inducted by that Committee which has been discarded by the Regional Level Committee, whose order is operating, the petitioners would have no locus to participate and intermeddle with the affairs of the institution.
I find substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the respondent no.5, inasmuch as admittedly the petitioners were inducted on 15.08.2010 by the Committee whose authority and constitution was under challenge and the Regional Committee/Joint Director was already examining its authority having taken cognizance of the matter by issuing notice in the month of March, 2010. Under the circumstances, the induction of new members by the disputed committee to secure its future cannot be termed as a bona fide act in public interest or as an exigency of running the institution, therefore, such act cannot be saved by de facto doctrine. In Veerendra Kumar Gautam v. Karuna Nidhan Upadhyay, (2016) 14 SCC 18, the apex court held that it has to be kept in mind while applying de facto doctrine whether such acts performed were aimed at the prevention of public and private mischief and for the protection of public and private interest. In the instant case, the acts were done apparently to secure its own future in the next election and not for running the institution therefore in the view of the Court such an act, in the given set of facts, cannot be saved by de facto doctrine.
Once it is not in dispute that the petitioners were inducted by a Committee whose very existence has been discarded by the Regional Level Committee and the order of the Regional Level Committee is operative, the very induction of the petitioners in the institution comes to naught and as such they would have no locus to participate in the affairs of the institution so long the order of the Regional Level Committee operates though they may have right to recover their membership fee by taking recourse to appropriate legal remedy.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 27.3.2018 Sunil Kr Tiwari