# C/M Babu Triloki Singh Inter College v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 135
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-08-28
- **Case number:** Misc Single No. 13987 of 2020
- **Bench:** Manish Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-babu-triloki-singh-inter-college-v-state-of-u-p-anr-45131
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Civil Law - Payment of Salaries Act, 1971Section 5 - D.I.O.S. has not mentioned-any
dificulty in disbursement of salary or
Committee
of
Management
has
continuously
committed
default
in
disbursement of salary-impugned order
passed on ground that term of committee
come to an end-whereas, administration
scheme extended the term by one monthimpugned order passed prior to expiry of
term with immediate effect-against s.5 of
the Act, 1971-W.P. allowed.

Held, In the present case, the D.I.O.S. has not
whispered even a single word in the impugned
order that there is difficulty in disbursement of
salary or Committee of Management has
continuously committed default in disbursement
of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff,
but passed the order merely on the ground that
the term of Committee of Management had
come to an end, without considering that as per
the scheme of administration, the term of the
Committee of Management would extend by
one month thus its term was going to expire on
28.08.2020. The impugned order was passed
prior to 28.08.2020 and that too with immediate
effect, which is against the statutory provision
i.e. Section 5 of the Act 1971, hence the order is
bad in law. (para 12) ( E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

1.Committee
of
Management
of
Rajendra
Prasad Intermediate College, Bareilly Vs DIOS,
Bareilly & anr., 1990(1) UPLBEC, page 189

## Text

10 All. C/M Babu Triloki Singh Inter College Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
135

59. The complainant has to
establish that he has been deprived of or
denied of a legal right and he has sustained
injury to any legally protected interest. In
case he has no legal peg for a justiciable
claim to hang on, he cannot be heard as a
party in a lis. A fanciful or sentimental
grievance may not be sufficient to confer a
locus standi to sue upon the individual.
There must be injuria or a legal grievance
which can be appreciated and not a stat pro
ratione voluntas reasons i.e. a claim devoid
of reasons.

60. Under the garb of being a
necessary party, a person cannot be
permitted to make a case as that of general
public interest. A person having a remote
interest cannot be permitted to become a
party in the lis, as the person who wants to
become a party in a case, has to establish
that he has a proprietary right which has
been or is threatened to be violated, for the
reason that a legal injury creates a
remedial right in the injured person. A
person cannot be heard as a party unless
he answers the description of aggrieved
party."(emphasis supplied)

15. In Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan
v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 4 SCC 465,
the Apex Court has enumerated some of the
exceptional circumstances wherein a third
person, having no concern with the case,
can be heard. Paragraph 23 of the said
report being relevant is extracted below:

"23. Thus, from the above it is
evident that under ordinary circumstances,
a third person, having no concern with the
case at hand, cannot claim to have any
locus standi to raise any grievance
whatsoever.
However,
in
exceptional
circumstances as referred to above, if the
actual persons aggrieved, because of
ignorance, illiteracy, inarticulation or
poverty, are unable to approach the court,
and a person, who has no personal agenda,
or object, in relation to which, he can grind
his own axe, approaches the court, then the
court may examine the issue and in
exceptional circumstances, even if his bona
fides are doubted, but the issue raised by
him, in the opinion of the court, requires
consideration, the court may proceed suo
motu, in such respect."(emphasis supplied)

16. The petitioner is admittedly
espousing the cause of Gaon Sabha. By no
stretch of imagination, can it be said that
the Gaon Sabha is unable to approach this
Court
because
of
the
exceptional
circumstances mentioned in the case of
Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan (supra).

17. For the foregoing reasons, the
petitioner has no locus to invoke the
extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Accordingly, without entering into the
merits of the case, this writ petition is
dismissed. No order as to cost.
----------
(2020)10ILR A135
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.08.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR, J.

Misc Single No. 13987 of 2020

C/M Babu Triloki Singh Inter College
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Som Kartik Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
136 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Civil Law - Payment of Salaries Act, 1971Section 5 - D.I.O.S. has not mentioned-any
dificulty in disbursement of salary or
Committee
of
Management
has
continuously
committed
default
in
disbursement of salary-impugned order
passed on ground that term of committee
come to an end-whereas, administration
scheme extended the term by one monthimpugned order passed prior to expiry of
term with immediate effect-against s.5 of
the Act, 1971-W.P. allowed.

Held, In the present case, the D.I.O.S. has not
whispered even a single word in the impugned
order that there is difficulty in disbursement of
salary or Committee of Management has
continuously committed default in disbursement
of salary to the teaching and non-teaching staff,
but passed the order merely on the ground that
the term of Committee of Management had
come to an end, without considering that as per
the scheme of administration, the term of the
Committee of Management would extend by
one month thus its term was going to expire on
28.08.2020. The impugned order was passed
prior to 28.08.2020 and that too with immediate
effect, which is against the statutory provision
i.e. Section 5 of the Act 1971, hence the order is
bad in law. (para 12) ( E-9)

List of Cases cited:-

1.Committee
of
Management
of
Rajendra
Prasad Intermediate College, Bareilly Vs DIOS,
Bareilly & anr., 1990(1) UPLBEC, page 189

2. Committee of Management Ramroop Singh
Dhanraj Singh Intermediate College, Fatehpur
Vs DIOS Fatehpur & ors., 2000 (2) UPLBEC,
(Summary) 54

3.Committee of Management Gandhi Smarak
Inter College, Jainganj, Agra Vs DIOS Agra,
2001(1) UPLBEC, Page 1347

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Kumar, J.)

(1) Heard Sri Som Kartik Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned State Counsel for Opposite parties.

(2) The present writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner for quashing of the
impugned order dated 10.08.2020 passed
by D.I.O.S. (District Inspector of School)
under Section 5 (1) of the Payment of
Salaries Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to
as "Act 1971"), for single operation of the
Account of the College.

(3) Babu Triloki Singh Inter College,
Kakori, Lucknow is a recognized college
under the Intermediate Education Act, 1921
and regulation framed thereunder. The
college is also under Grant-in-Aid Scheme
of the State Government and salary of
teachers and other employees of the college
is paid under the Act, 1971.

(4) As per the amended scheme of
administration, which was approved and
forwarded by Joint Director of Education,
6th Region, Lucknow, by letter dated
03.12.2009, the term of Committee of
Management of the college is for a period
of 5 years and office bearers of Committee
of Management are to continue for one
more month from the date of expiry of term
of Committee of Management, if newly
elected Committee of Management does
not take charge within a month after 5 year.

(5) The last election of Committee of
Management was held on 12.07.2015 and
the signature of the Manager was attested
by the D.I.O.S. vide its letter dated
28.07.2015.
The
Committee
of
Management took charge on 28.07.2015
and 5 years term of petitioner Committee of
Management was expiring on 28.07.2020.
Prior to the expiry of term of Committee of
Management, the President of General
Body was informed by the Manager to hold
the election on 28.07.2020 with a request to
take necessary action for the same.
10 All. C/M Babu Triloki Singh Inter College Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
137

(6) In pursuance of letter of the
Manager, the President of Governing Body
of the Society submitted a letter dated
14.07.2020 to the D.I.O.S. through Speed
Post requesting to send an observer for the
election scheduled for 28.07.2020. The
letter dated 14.07.2020 was also forwarded
to the Deputy District Magistrate, Lucknow
informing about the election and in which
41 members of General Body of the
Society and other staff, totaling around 60
persons would be present, hence requested
that permission may be granted for holding
the election meeting.

(7) The Deputy District Magistrate
issued a letter dated 20.07.2020 to the
Manager informing that due to prevailing
pandemic
of
Covid
-
19
situation,
permission to hold the election could not be
given, hence the application was rejected.
The order of the Deputy District Magistrate
dated 20.07.2020 has been submitted
before the D.I.O.S. vide letter dated
22.07.2020
through
speed
post
and
requested the D.I.O.S. to cancel the
election as per schedule and to give at least
3 months time for holding fresh election.

(8) The D.I.O.S. without taking any
decision on the application of the petitioner
dated 22.07.2020 passed the impugned
order dated 10.08.2020, feeling aggrieved
by the same, the present writ petition has
been preferred.

(9) Learned counsel for the petitioner
has submitted that the order of single
operation passed by the D.I.O.S. under
Section 5 of the Act, 1971 is without
jurisdiction and not tenable in the eyes of
law for the following reasons :-

(i) Section 5 of the Act provides
that the D.I.O.S. is empowered to pass an
order for single operation, if there is any
difficulty in disbursement of the salary to
the teaching and non-teaching staff of the
institution, whereas, neither any such
complaint was before the D.I.O.S. nor any
such reason has been indicated in the
impugned order.

(ii) The order of the single
operation has been passed on the pretext
that the term of the Committee of
Management has expired in July, 2020, so
for the purpose of disbursement of salary of
teaching and non-teaching staff of the
institution, the order of single operation
was passed, whereas, there is no such
provision under the Act 1971, which
empowers the D.I.O.S. to pass an order of
single
operation
in
the
eventuality
mentioned in the impugned order.

(iii) Neither any show-cause
notice was issued, nor any opportunity of
hearing was provided prior to the passing
of the impugned order.

(iv) The term of Committee of
Management was to expire on 28.07.2020
and as per scheme of administration, the
Committee of Management continues for a
further period of one month which in this
case was to expire on 28.08.2020, but the
impugned order was passed prior to that i.e.
on 10.08.2020.

(v) Due to prevailing Covid 19
pandemic situation, the State Government
has banned a gathering of more than 50
persons at one place. The Manager of the
petitioner
submitted
a
letter
dated
14.07.2020
to
the
Deputy
District
Magistrate,
Lucknow
for
grant
of
permission for holding the election on
28.07.2020 in which 41 members of
General Body and other staffs, totaling
around 60 persons were to be present. The
Deputy District Magistrate rejected the
application vide its order dated 20.07.2020
mentioning therein, that due to Covid 19
138 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
pandemic situation it was not possible to
provide any officer or police force for
maintaining law and order situation.

(vi) The President of General Body
of the Society submitted a letter dated
22.07.2020 to the D.I.O.S. through speed post
informing about order passed by the Deputy
District Magistrate dated 20.07.2020 as
indicated above, and further that some
members of General Body of the society have
been found Corona Positive and requested to
give at least three months time for holding
fresh election by extending the term of the
Committee of Management.

(vii) Learned counsel for the
petitioner has placed reliance upon the
judgments of this Court reported in 1990(1)
UPLBEC,
page
189;
Committee
of
Management
of
Rajendra
Prasad
Intermediate College, Bareilly Vs. DIOS,
Bareilly and another, 2000 (2) UPLBEC,
(Summary) 54; Committee of Management
Ramroop
Singh
Dhanraj
Singh
Intermediate College, Fatehpur Vs. DIOS
Fatehpur and others, 2001(1) UPLBEC,
Page 1347; Committee of Management
Gandhi Smarak Inter College, Jainganj,
Agra Vs. DIOS Agra, wherein it has been
held that an order of single operation of
accounts could be passed by the D.I.O.S.
under Section 5(1) of the Act, 1971, where
the difficulty has arisen in disbursement of
salary of the staff of the institution due to any
default of the Management. The order for
single operation of accounts could not be
passed without providing opportunity of
hearing to the Committee of Management.

(10) Learned State Counsel has
submitted that even the extended term of the
Committee of Management has expired today
itself and now by efflux of time, the writ
petition has thus become infructuous. But
learned State Counsel was unable to dispute
the submissions made by the learned counsel
for the petitioner and as well as applicability
of the judgements of this Court referred to
above. Therefore, the petition is being finally
decided at this stage itself.

(11) After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, it is found that as per
requirement of Section 5 of the Act 1971,
an order of single operation of account
could be passed by the D.I.O.S., where the
difficulty arises in disbursement of salary
of the staff of the institution due to any
default of the Management and as per the
law settled by this Court the default must
not be continued to be committed by the
Committee of Management. In para 24 of
the writ petition, it has been stated that the
petitioner Committee of Management never
defaulted in submitting salary bill of the
college.

(12) In the present case, the D.I.O.S.
has not whispered even a single word in the
impugned order that there is difficulty in
disbursement of salary or Committee of
Management has continuously committed
default in disbursement of salary to the
teaching and non-teaching staff, but passed
the order merely on the ground that the
term of Committee of Management had
come to an end, without considering that as
per the scheme of administration, the term
of the Committee of Management would
extend by one month thus its term was
going to expire on 28.08.2020. The
impugned order was passed prior to
28.08.2020 and that too with immediate
effect, which is against the statutory
provision i.e. Section 5 of the Act 1971,
hence the order is bad in law.

(13) The D.I.O.S. passed the order
behind the back of the petitioner without
affording any opportunity to show cause in
view of the decisions referred above.
10 All. M/S Sahara India & Anr. Vs. U.O.I., New Delhi & Anr.
139

(14) The D.I.O.S. has failed to
consider that there is no fault on the part of
Committee
of
Management
for
not
conducting the election for which purpose,
an application was given to the Deputy
District Magistrate, which was rejected on
the ground that due to Covid -19 Pandemic
situation, it was not possible to hold
election because the number of persons
were about 60 and congregation of such
large group is not permissible and, it was
very difficult to provide any force or any
officer for the purpose of holding the
election. The said order of the Deputy
District Magistrate dated 20-07.2020 was
duly served upon the D.I.O.S., which was
much prior to the passing of the impugned
order dated 10.08.2020. The D.I.O.S.
without considering the order of the Deputy
District Magistrate and the request of the
petitioner for extension of term of the
Committee of Management for three
months more, passed the impugned order.

(15) So far the objection raised by
learned State Counsel that the petition has
become infructuous since the period upto
28.08.2020 has also expired is concerned, it
may be noted that in case the invalid order
passed violating the principle of natural
justice also, is not quashed and it is allowed
to remain in operation, it may come in the
way of the petitioner in considering and
disposing off the application moved by the
petitioner requesting the D.I.O.S. to extend
the time for another period of 3 months for
the purposes of holding the election. The
aforesaid application dated 22.07.2020
made to the D.I.O.S. is yet not disposed off
and remains pending for its consideration.

(16) It would be worthwhile to
observe that any order or direction which is
likely to have an adverse effect in future,
and there is any apprehension of any kind
of injury to be caused, relief cannot be
denied on a plea raised on the ground that
the petition has become infructuous by
efflux of time. The order which is passed
against the law continues in operation
having all its adverse consequences, which
are likely to adversely affect the rights or
interest of the petitioner, the plea of petition
being
infructuous
would
not
be
entertainable. An order having potential of
likely injury to be caused would ordinarily
not be allowed to remain in operation.
Since it may deprive a person of his rights
and to get justice as due under the law. In
this background, it would be necessary to
quash
the
illegal
order
instead
of
dismissing the writ petition as infructuous.

(17) In view of above, order dated
10.08.2020 passed by the District Inspector
of School being contrary to the provision of
Section 5 of the Act 1971 and without
providing any opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner is arbitrary, illegal and is liable to
be set aside.

(18) Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The order dated 10.08.2020
passed by the D.I.O.S. is hereby quashed.

(19) No orders as to cost.
----------

(2020)10ILR A139
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 20.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Misc Single No. 15298 of 2020

M/S Sahara India & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
U.O.I., New Delhi & Anr. ...Respondents