# A.K.Singh v. U.O.I. & another

- **Citation:** (1999) 1 ILRA 20
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/a-k-singh-v-u-o-i-another-39097
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

20 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
complainant proposes to rely on and the trial court would keep in
mind the decision of the courts on the point of admissibility as
evidence, of a confession of a co-accused against another. If there be
any material other than the confession, the trial court would proceed
and if there be none others, then the complaint against the present
applicant must not be allowed to proceed and he must be discharged
at the threshold itself.

The present application stands disposed of with the aforesaid
directions to the trial court. The above said point shall be determined
before proceeding further with the case and till a decision is taken on
this point, the personal attendance of the applicant before the trial
court shall not be insisted upon, provided he appears through a
counsel. If at all any process has been issued against the applicant,
the same shall not be executed on condition that he would appear, as
directed above, within 15 days from today and take up the objections
that have been taken here. The trial court would give its decision on
such objection within a reasonable time, preferably within 3 months
after giving an opportunity of hearing to the complainant and the
applicant.

Petition Disposed of

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 23 *$5* -
7+( +21·%/( 23 *$5* -
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
&RPPLWWHH RI 0DQDJHPHQW -9 ,QWHU
«3HWLWLRQHUV
&ROOHJH 5DMXSXU 'LVWW 6DKDUDQSXU RWKHUV
9HUVXV
'\'LUHFWRU RI (GXFDWLRQ 6DKDUDQSXU RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV
Counsel for the petitioners
: Sri V.K. Shukla
Counsel for the respondents
: S.C.
: Sri R. Rai
: Sri Malik S. Uddin
: Sri S.U. Khan
1998
------
A.K.Singh
 Vs.
U.O.I.
& another
------
S.K.
Phaujdar, J.
1998
------
August, 17
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 21
$UWLFOH

RI
WKH
&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD2LQ DEVHQFH RI DQ\
SURYLVLRQV IRU DSSHDO RU UHYLHZ WKH 'HSXW\-RLQW 'LUHFWRU RI
(GXFDWLRQ KDV VXSHUYLVRU\ SRZHU WR FRUUHFW DQG UHFWLI\ WKH PLVWDNH
FRPPLWWHG E\ WKH ',26 LQ KLV DGPLQLVWUDWLYH RUGHUV2RSSRUWXQLW\
RI KHDULQJ WR WKH SHWLWLRQHU QHHG QRW EH JLYHQ EHIRUH SDVVLQJ WKH
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH RUGHUV E\ ZKLFK DGPLQLVWUDWLYH RUGHUV SDVVHG E\ WKH
',26 ZHUH VXEVWLWXWHG
&DVHV UHIIHUHG
 $:& 3
 83/%(& 3
 83/%(& 3
 $OO &- 3
 83/%(& 3
 83/%(& 3
 3/%(& 3
1. By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, it is prayed that the impugned order dated
13.1.1998, Annexure 12 to the writ petition, passed by the Deputy
Director of Education, (for Short 'DDE') (Madhyamik), Saharanpur
Region, Saharanpur be quashed and the respondent no.1 be
commanded to appoint prabandh Sanchalak forthwith in exercise of
the powers vested in him under clause 8 of the amended Scheme of
Administration with a view to complete the process of elections of
the members and the office bearers of the Committee of management
from out of 116 members of the General Body of the Society.

2. Counter and rejoinder affidavits have been exchanged and,
therefore, this writ petition is being finally disposed of, on merits.

3. Heard Sri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Sri S.U. Khan for the respondent no. 3 as well as learned
Standing counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2.

4. The only question which arises for consideration and
determination in the present writ petition is where in the absence of
any provision for appeal or revision, a Regional Deputy Director
(Madhyamik) is empowered and authorised to set aside the order of
the District Inspector of Schools (for short 'DIOS') refusing to
recognise the election of a Committee of Management or to put
differently, whether the administrative action of a subordinate
authority can be annulled by a higher authority, in its supervisory
1998
------
C/M, J.V.
Inter College
Saharanpur
& Others
 Vs.
D.D.E.,
Saharanpur
& Others
------
O.P.Garg, J.
22 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
jurisdiction. This legal question has come up in the following
circumstances :-

5.Sri Janta Vidya Sabha, Rajpur, District Saharanpur is a
society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It has
established an institution in village Rajupur in district Saharanpur.
The said institution was initially a Junior High School and in course
of time, it came to be upgraded to High School and than to
Intermediate level. The institution is govered by the provisions
contained in the Scheme of Administration which has been framed in
exercise of power vested under Section 16-A of the Intermediate
Education
Act,
1921
(hereinafter
referred
to
'the
act').
Undeoubtedly, the institution is on the list of grants-in-aid of the
State Government and the provisions of the U.P. High School and
Intermediate Colleges (payment of Salaries to the Teachers and other
Employees) Act, 1971 are applicable. It is an admitted fact that Sri
Saud Ahmad- petitioner no.2 was the Manager of the Committee of
Management and Mohd. Kamil Hasan was its president. Originally
there were 56 members of the Society. Therefore, elections for
constituting the Committee of Management were held on 23.7.1997
in which, respondent no.3, of which Sri Iqbal Ahmad was the
Manager, was elected. The relevant documents were submitted to the
DIOS for recognising the new Committee of Management and
attesting the signatures of the newly elected Manager Sri Iqbal
Ahmad. By order dated 12.8.1997, which is Annexure 11 to this writ
petition, the DIOS did not recognise the Committee of Management
as according to him, the elections held on 23.7.1997 were not
according to the provisions of the Scheme of Administration. Certain
members of the newly elected Committee of Management made a
representation to the DDE (Madhyamik) Saharanpur Region,
Saharanpur respondent no. 1 as well as District Magistrate,
Saharanpur. The matter ultimately came to be dealt with by the
DDE- respondent no.1 who by the impugned order dated 13.1.1998,
Annexure 12 to the writ petition, set aside the order dated 12.8.1997
passed by the DIOS and recognised the Committee of Management
elected on 23.7.1997 by 56 members of the Society and in which Sri
Mohd. Kamil Hasan and Sri Iqbal Ahmad were elected as the
president and Manager respectively. By the same order, the
enrolment of 60 more members of the society at the behest of Sri
Saud Ahmad-petitioner no. 2 was held to be illegal.

6. Sri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners urged
that the impugned order dated 13.1.1998 passed by the respondent
1998
------
C/M, J.V.
Inter College
Saharanpur
& Others
 Vs.
D.D.E.,
Saharanpur
& Others
------
O.P.Garg, J.
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 23
no.1-DDE (Madhyamik) Saharanpur Region, Saharanpur is per se
illegal and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as, no-where under the
provisions of the Act the DDE has been vested with the power of
appellate authority and consequently, the order dated 12.8.1997
passed by the DIOS Saharanpur refusing to recognise the alleged
elections of the Committee of Management held on 23.7.1997 could
not be set aside. It was also urged that the DDE can exercise powers
only under Section 16-A (7) of the Act on a reference having been
made to him if there is a dispute raised about the election by the rival
parties and that in that case too, the power of the DDE is limited to
determine the fact as to which of the party is in actual control of the
affairs of the institution and even this determination by the DDE
under Section 16-A(7) of the Act is subject to the final adjudication
by the competent court. According to Sri Shukla, learned counsel for
the petitioner, the DDE concerned could not have exercised his
powers under Section 16-A (7) of the Act in the present case, as
there was no dispute about the rival elections and no reference under
the aforesaid provision was made. It was also pointed out that the
finding of the DDE that there were only 56 members of the society
and the alleged addition of 60 members by the Ex Manager Sri Saud
Ahmad was illegal is also not sustainable as it is against the weight
of the evidence on record.

7. Sri S.U. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent no.3
repelled the various submissions raised on behalf of the petitioners
and urged that a wrong order passed by the DIOS on the
administrative side can always be corrected by the DDE who is
superior administrative authority under its supervisory administrative
jurisdiction and that this legal position has received judicial
recognition in a number of cases decided by this Court.

8. To begin with, it may be mentioned that it is an admitted
fact that there were only 56 members of the society. The petitioner
no.2- Saud Ahmad has asserted that he enrolled 60 more members on
23.12.1996 to which act the the DIOS put the seal of approval on
26.12.1996. The case of the petitioners, therefore, is that under the
provision of para 5(v) of the Scheme of administration, all the 116
members of the society should have taken part in the election of the
new Committee of Management and since the elections were held by
inviting only 56 old members and excluding the newly enrolled 60
members, it was not in accordance with the Scheme of
Administration and was consequently not approved and recognised
by the DIOS by his order dated 12.8.1997. The DDE has dealt with
1998
------
C/M, J.V.
Inter College
Saharanpur
& Others
 Vs.
D.D.E.,
Saharanpur
& Others
------
O.P.Garg, J.
24 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
this controversy with all specificity and has come to the conclusion
that the enrolment of 60 more members by Saud Ahmad petitioner
no. 2 was illegal. The respondent no. 3 in his counter affidavit has
alleged that the list of the alleged enrolment of 60 members was not
required to be put up for approval before the DIOS and that the list
of the new members was ante dated and signed by the then DIOS-
Sri O.P. Saini in a back date after his retirement in collusion with
Saud Ahmad- petitioner no.2 When the fact that list has been ante
dated and the signatures of the then DIOS were obtained on a back
date, after his retirement, was brought to the notice of the DDE, Saud
Ahmad petitioner no.2 behaved in a funny manner, inasmuch as he
removed the relevant list and tore it out in pieces. Kamil Hasan
president pleaded his total ignorance about the enrolment of the new
members. The relevant documents about the deposit of the enrolment
fee and other charges were also missing. It was in these
circumstances that the DDE had come to the conclustion that the
enrolment of 60 members, as alleged by Saud Ahmad, was illegal.
The society as a body, had 56 members only. These 56 members
only could be associated in electing the new Committee of
Management. According to the DDE- respondent no.1, the question
of validity of the enrolment of the new 60 members by Saud Ahmad
was not thoroughly scrutinised by the DIOS and that he has, in a
most mechanical and perfunctory manner, refused to recognise the
newly elected Committee of Management. It was in the background
of above facts that the DDE set aside the order dated 12.8.1997 and
by the impugned order dated 13.1.1998 reognised the Committee of
Management as having been duly elected on 23.7.1997 of which Sri
Iqbal Ahmad is the Manager.

9. The main thrust of Sri V.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the
petitioners to assail the impugned order is that the DDE concerned
had no jurisdiction, whatsoever, to set aside the order dated
12.8.1997 passed by the DIOS for one simple reason that no
provision for appeal has been made and that the jurisdiction of DDE
can be invoked only in one situation, i.e., under Section 16-A (7) of
the Act, when dispute of the rival Committees of Management is
referred to him and in which he has to record a finding as to which of
the rival committees of management has been in actual control of the
affairs of the institutions. Without repeating the facts all over again,
suffice it to say that it is not the case of the respondents that the
impugned order dated 13.1.1998 has been passed by the DDE as an
appellate authority or under the provisions of Section 16-A (7) of the
Act. On the other hand, Sri S. U. Khan, learned counsel for the
1998
------
C/M, J.V.
Inter College
Saharanpur
& Others
 Vs.
D.D.E.,
Saharanpur
& Others
------
O.P.Garg, J.
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 25
respondents frankly conceded that it is not a case in which powers
under Section 16-A (7) of the Act could be invoked by the DDE nor
it is a case in which he had exercised powers as an appellate
authority. It is accepted at all hands that 'appeal' is a creature of
statute and in the absence of any statutory provisions, no appeal
would lie. Therefore, in the instant case, the question of preferring an
appeal against the order dated 12.8.1997 passed by the DIOS to the
DDE did not arise. No rival Committee of Management has been set
up and, therefore, the question of making reference under Section
16-A (7) of the Act also did not arise.

10. As said above, the only moot point for determination is
whether the DDE in exercise of his supervisory powers could rectify
the order passed by the DIOS on administrative level.

11. It is well established that neither under the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act nor under any statutory provision, the
DIOS has been given the power to adjudicate upon the claims of the
rival contending managing Committees but it is equally clear that
under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act as also under the U.P.
High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of
Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971, the DIOS has to deal with
the committee of Management of a recognised educational institution
in respect of various affairs of the institution, i.e., granting of
approval as contemplated by sub-section (3) of Section 16-C of the
Act and dealing with the management of such an institution under
Section 5 of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges
(Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971.
Not only this, the DIOS has to perform various administrative
functions
of statutory character in collaboration with the
management of High School and Intermediate Colleges. These duties
cannot be discharged by the DIOS unless he is in a position to find
out on an administrative level as to who are the real office bearers of
the Committee. For this limited purpose, the DIOS must, of
necessity, satisfy himself as to who, according to him, are validly
elected office bearers of the institution. Mere raising of a dispute
about the election of the members of the Managing Committee and
its office bearers would not absolve the DIOS from its duty to find
out on an administrative level as to who are the real office bearers of
the College in order to perform his statutory functions under the
aforesaid two Acts. Viewed from the angle of administration, the
DIOS is duty bound to take a decision to recognise the Committee of
Management and to attest the signatures of the Manager who has
1998
------
C/M, J.V.
Inter College
Saharanpur
& Others
 Vs.
D.D.E.,
Saharanpur
& Others
------
O.P.Garg, J.
26 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
been elected, after satisfying himself as to who according to him are
validly elected office bearers of the institution. An administrative
enquiry may always be necessary whenever some sort of dispute or
doubt is raised about the election of the new Committee of
Management and its office bearers. This aspect of the matter came to
be considered in an earlier decision in the case of Committee of
Management SAV Inter College Vs. District Inspector of Schools
(Civil Misc. Writ No. 12725 of 1975, decided on 24.11.1997, by a
Division Bench of this Court. The said decision again came to be
considered by another Division Bench of this court in the case of
Committee of Management and another V. District Inspector of
Schools, Meerut and another (1978 AWC-124) in which the earlier
view was reiterated. To the same effect is another decision of a
Division Bench of this Court reported in (1993) 2 UPLBEC-934-
Committee of Management, Vaidik Higher Secondary School
Faizpur, Ninana and another Vs. DIOS Meerut and another.

12. In Gauri Shankar Rai and others Vs. Dr. Ram Lakhan
Pandey, DIOS, Ballia and others (1984) UPLBEC-166, it was
observed that the DIOS recognises a new committee of management
for day to day work of the department, such as payment of salary to
the teachers and staff of the college. In discharging this
administrative function, it cannot be said that the DIOS decides any
dispute relating to election of rival committees of management.
There can, therefore, be no escape from the conclusion that the DIOS
stands vested with sufficient jurisdiction for the limited purpose, as
indicated above, to satisfy himself as to who according to him is
validly continuing as manager or representative of the committee of
management. If any party feels dissatisfied with such administrative
decision, he is always at liberty to file a suit for adjudication of his
rights either as an office bearer of the committee of management or
member of such committee. Simply because a dispute has come to be
raised in regard to the validity or a particular election, DIOS cannot
shirk in his duty to recognise a particular committee and to attest the
signatures of its manager. He would not be justified in waiting for
the dispute to be resolved by the civil court or wash his hands off by
making reference u/s. 16-A (7) of the Act. If the apathy or inaction
on the part of the DIOS in discharging his administrative function is
upheld it is likely to lead to disastrous results.
13. It is well embedded and established proposition of law that
the DIOS has to perform certain administrative functions even
though there is no statutory sanction for the performance of such
1998
------
C/M, J.V.
Inter College
Saharanpur
& Others
 Vs.
D.D.E.,
Saharanpur
& Others
------
O.P.Garg, J.
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 27
administrative duty. The Deputy Director of Education is
undoubtedly a superior and senior officer to whom the DIOS is
subordinate. Sri S. U. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents
urged that in the case of Shandar Hussain Vs. Dy. Director of
Education XII Region Moradabad and others (1995-All.C.J.-1241) it
has been held that Deputy/Joint Director, in exercise of its
supervisory jurisdiction has the power to Scrutinise the order passed
by the subordinate officers and to correct and rectify the wrong
orders. It was urged that a superior officer cannot shut his eyes to
the mistakes committed by his subordinates and the propriety
demands that the senior officer should step in to correct the mistakes.
Sri V. K. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that
Shandar Hussain's case (Supra) is not a good law in view of the later
decision of this court reported in (1995) 2 U.P.L.B.E.C.-704-
Committee of Management, Lakhori Inter College, Moradabad Vs.
DDE 12th Region Moradabad which is based on the Full Bench
decision of this court in 1980 UPLBEC-6- Magan Ram Yadav Vs.
DDE and others. I have thoroughly studied both these above rulings
and find that they do not erlipse Shandar Hussain's case (supra) In
Lakhori Inter College case (supra), there was some serious dispute
about the correctness and legality of inclusion and exclusion of 122
persons as life members of the general body of the society. It was
held that in the absence of any specific provision in the Act or
Regulations it was absolutely clear that the DIOS had exceeded his
jurisdiction in entering into the complex question about the validity
of the election and also validity of 122 persons as life members of
the Society. It was also observed that the Deputy Director of
Education does not sit in appeal over the judgement of the DIOS to
have approved election and attested the signatures of the Manager.
The direction of the Deputy Director in that case appointing the
Authorised Controller was found to be patently unwarranted and
without jurisdiction. Reliance was placed on Magan Ram Yadav's
case (Supra) for the limited purpose that the Education Code is
nothing but a mere executive instruction and could not be given
status of statutory rule. It is true that the provision in the Education
Code do not supersede the statute and Regulations as the provisions
therein are mere compilations of the administrative orders and
instructions of the Department. There can, therefore, be no quarrel
about the proposition of law laid down in the decision of Lakhori
Inter College (Supra). As a matter of fact, Shandar Hussain's case
(supra) is clearly in keeping with a number of decisions of this court,
discussed above in which it has been held that the DIOS exercises
certain powers at the administrative level. In Shandar's case (supra),
1998
------
C/M, J.V.
Inter College
Saharanpur
& Others
 Vs.
D.D.E.,
Saharanpur
& Others
------
O.P.Garg, J.
28 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
it was hold that the administrative power exercised by the DIOS is
subject to correction and scrutiny by the higher authorities on the
administrative side. Shandar's case (supra) came to be referred and
discussed before a Division Bench of this Court in (1998) 1
U.P.L.B.E.C.-429 Committee of Management, Tagore Ucchattar
Madhyamik Vidhyalaya Dilawarganj, Farrukhabad Vs. DIOS,
Farrukhabad and others Though Shandar's case (supra) was
distinguished and found to be inapplicable to the facts of the case
before the Division Bench, it was impliedly approved. In carrying on
the general administrative functions of the State, executive functions
are performed by hierarchy of officers who are supposed to act
according to rule of law. A superior officer has the implied and
implicit administrative power to perform the function which its
subordinate can discharge. If a subordinate officer has omitted to
perform his administrative duty or administrative function the
superior officer would certainly step in to pass appropriate correct
order on administrative side. If the illegal and incorrect
administrative orders of the subordinates are allowed to exist and
continue, the very purpose of creating the hierarchy in the civil
services would be frustrated. I am, therefore, also of the view that the
Deputy/Joint Director of Education has the power and authority to
scrutinise and correct the order passed by the DIOS on
administrative side. The decision in Shandar's case still survives and
it cannot be ignored particularly when it is based on perfect rationale
of administrative expediency and exigency. The submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the Deputy Director of
Education-respondent no.1 was not legally entitled for want of
jurisdiction to review or revise the order passed by the DIOS is not
tenable. In the absence of any provision for appeal or review, the
Deputy/Joint Director of Education concerned has supervisory power
to correct and rectify the mistakes committed by the DIOS in his
administrative orders.

14. A faint suggestion was also made that the respondent no.1
- Deputy Director of Education did not afford an opportunity to the
petitioners before passing the impugned order. In matters where
observance of principles of natural justice would have made no
difference and the admitted and undisputable or irrefutable facts
speaking for themselves lead to a situation where only one
conclusion is possible under the law, the issuance of a writ to compel
observance of principles of natural justice is not at all called for. In
every case and situation, personal hearing is not necessary. In the
circumstances of the present case, it was not necessary for the Joint
1998
------
C/M, J.V.
Inter College
Saharanpur
& Others
 Vs.
D.D.E.,
Saharanpur
& Others
------
O.P.Garg, J.
1 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES 29
Director to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners
before passing the administrative order by which the administrative
order passed by the DIOS was substituted.

15. In the result, for the reasons stated above, the present
petition has no merits and is accordingly dismissed.

Petition Dismissed.
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ -
7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ -
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI
6PW 6KDQWL 'HYL
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
$' 6- .DUYL RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV
&RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU
 6UL 6. 6LQJK
 6UL 9. 6LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV
 6&
 6UL *6 'ZLYHGL
 6UL 1& 7ULSDWKL
$ 83 3XQFKD\DW 5DM $FW (OHFWLRQ RI 0HPEHU 3UDGKDQ DQG 8S
3UDGKDQV 5XOHV 2UXOH 2(OHFWLRQ RI 3UDGKDQ21LUYDFKDQ
$GKLNDUL IRXQG WZR FDQGLGDWHV VHFXULQJ KLJKHVW QXPEHU RI YRWHV
2WKH DOORWPHQW RI DGGLWLRQDO RQH YRWH WR WKH FDQGLGDWH RQ
ZKRP WKH ORW IDOOV2LQVWHDG RI ORW WKH GHFLVLRQ WDNHQ RQ WKH EDVLV RI
37RVV ́2KHOG QR QRWLFLDEOH GLIIHUHQFH EHWZHHQ WKH WZR 3DUD
% :RUGV DQG 3KUDVHV23'UDZ RI ORWV ́ DQG 37RVV ́ H[SODLQHG2DV
SHU ODZ /D[LHRQ2GHQRWHV DQ\ WKLQJ XVHG LQ GHWHUPLQLQJ D 4XHVWLRQ
E\ FKDQFH RQ ZLWKRXW PHQ
V FKRLFH RU ZLOO2ZKLOH 7RVV ́ WR IOLS D
FRLQ LQWR DLU DQG OHW LW IDOO KHDGV RU WDLOV DV D PHWKRG RI OHWWLQJ IDWH
GHFLGH 3DUD
1998
------
September, 2