Court No. - 25
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 26413 of 2015 Petitioner :- Mahabir Singh Tyagi And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P. Singh,B.B. Singh,B.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,S.K.Shukla
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
When the petitioner no.1 and petitioner no.2 along with 55 others were enrolled in the General Body as a founder member and as a life member respectively then information regarding it was sent to the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad and to the Deputy Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits, Meerut. The respondent no.4 who was aggrieved by the enrolment of the petitioners and the other 55 members filed a writ petition in this Court which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 32655 of 2014 (Rajendra Pal Tyagi vs. State of U.P. and 3 others). This writ petition was dismissed on 18.6.2014 with an observation that the elections which had then been announced would be held but the petitioners therein could raise a dispute regarding the enrolment of the 57 members after the elections were over. After the elections were held on 21.6.2014, the respondent no.4 of this writ petition represented before the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad. On 30.12.2014 the District Inspector of Schools found that the enrolment of the 57 new members was correctly done. Thereafter the respondent no.4 approached the Deputy Director of Education, treating him to be an Appellate Authority. When on 23.4.2015 without hearing the petitioners and the other members, the Joint Director of Education passed the impugned order which has been challenged herein, the instant writ petition was filed.
The contention of the Writ Petitioners is that in the first place, there was no appeal provided in the Statute against the order of District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad. Secondly, the order was passed without hearing the petitioners and the other 55 members. Thirdly the Clause-4 of the Scheme of administration was wrongly interpreted and it was held that a new member could be enroled only when he deposited the memebrship fee by means of a bank draft. In the end the learned counsel submitted that even if there was a provision of depositing of the memebrship fee by bank draft, the depositing of memebrship fee in cash would not disentitle the new members from their membership if the General Body and also the Committee of Management accepted the fact that the fees was deposited.
The learned Standing Counsel supported the impugned order and said that the Joint Director of Education is an officer of a higher rank than the District Inspector of Schools and could always set aside the order of District Inspector of Schools. He has also submitted that the membership fee should have been deposited by means of a bank draft alone.
The respondent's counsel Sri S.K.Shukla however, did not appear.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the order dated 23.4.2015 cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. The petitioners were definitely not issued any notice and on this ground alone the writ petiton should be allowed.
However, the ground which the Joint Director of Education has taken that the membership fee was not deposited by means of a bank draft also is not correct. The intention of the scheme of administration is that the fee had to be deposited.
When the General Body and the Committee of Management both were accepting that a definite fee had been deposited then it mattered little as to how the fee was deposited.
Also when the Statute does not provide for any appeal against the order of District Inspector of Schools, the appeal was not maintainable.
Under such circumstances, the order dated 23.4.2015 cannot be sustained and is thus quashed.
The writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 Ashish Pd.