# C/M Ch. Charan Singh Brij Khand Inter College v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2016) 3 ILRA 679
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2016-02-12
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 57 of 2016
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Yashwant Varma
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-ch-charan-singh-brij-khand-inter-college-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43510
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Mathura - Held, elections violated Division Bench order dated 5 April 2011 directing Authorised
Controller (Prabandh Sanchalak) to conduct elections per Scheme of Administration, including
notifying draft voter list, inviting objections, finalising list, and issuing one-month notice; RLC's review
order dated 5 May 2014 lacked substantive jurisdiction. (Entire judgment)

Regional Level Committee - Power of Review - RLC's order dated 30 August 2013 disapproving
elections was reviewed on 5 May 2014 claiming compliance - Held, RLC lacked statutory power of
substantive review; Single Judge correctly set aside review order as without jurisdiction, upholding
original disapproval. (Paras leading to p.6)

Voter List Finalisation - Mandatory Procedure - Elections held on 14 April 2013 without post2011 Division Bench compliance on draft voter list objections or one-month notice (published 1-5 April
2013) - Held, pre-2011 communications (e.g., Deputy Registrar, Agra, 30 April 2009) irrelevant;
Election Officer instead of Authorised Controller conducted poll; substantial participation no substitute
for mandatory steps. (pp.7-10)

Scheme of Administration Provisions - Binding Nature - Scheme required 3 months pre-term
expiry voter list verification, Election Officer appointment by Committee, one-month notice with voter
list copy to members and newspaper publication - Held, total non-adherence vitiated elections;
appeals dismissed, no costs. (p.7 onwards)

Special Appeals Dismissed - Single Judge Orders Upheld

## Text

3 All. C/M Ch. Charan Singh Brij Khand Inter College Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
679

APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL JURISDICTION
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.02.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE YASHWANT VARMA, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 57 of 2016
&
Special Appeal Defective No. 58 of 2016

C/M Ch. Charan Singh Brij Khand Inter College ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Satya Man Singh, Sri Radha Kant Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vinod Kumar Singh

Elections to Committee of Management - Non-Compliance with Scheme of Administration and
Court's Directions - Special appeals challenged Single Judge orders upholding Regional Level
Committee's (RLC) disapproval of elections of Chaudhary Charan Singh Brij Khand Inter College,
Mathura - Held, elections violated Division Bench order dated 5 April 2011 directing Authorised
Controller (Prabandh Sanchalak) to conduct elections per Scheme of Administration, including
notifying draft voter list, inviting objections, finalising list, and issuing one-month notice; RLC's review
order dated 5 May 2014 lacked substantive jurisdiction. (Entire judgment)

Regional Level Committee - Power of Review - RLC's order dated 30 August 2013 disapproving
elections was reviewed on 5 May 2014 claiming compliance - Held, RLC lacked statutory power of
substantive review; Single Judge correctly set aside review order as without jurisdiction, upholding
original disapproval. (Paras leading to p.6)

Voter List Finalisation - Mandatory Procedure - Elections held on 14 April 2013 without post2011 Division Bench compliance on draft voter list objections or one-month notice (published 1-5 April
2013) - Held, pre-2011 communications (e.g., Deputy Registrar, Agra, 30 April 2009) irrelevant;
Election Officer instead of Authorised Controller conducted poll; substantial participation no substitute
for mandatory steps. (pp.7-10)

Scheme of Administration Provisions - Binding Nature - Scheme required 3 months pre-term
expiry voter list verification, Election Officer appointment by Committee, one-month notice with voter
list copy to members and newspaper publication - Held, total non-adherence vitiated elections;
appeals dismissed, no costs. (p.7 onwards)

Special Appeals Dismissed - Single Judge Orders Upheld

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.
680 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
&
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J.)

1. The special appeal has arisen from a judgment of a learned Single Judge dated 3
November 2015 by which a writ petition filed by the fourth to ninth respondents ("the
original petitioners"), has been allowed by setting aside an order dated 5 May 2014 of the
Regional Level Committee.

2. The companion special appeal arises from an order of the learned Single Judge dated
3 November 2015 disposing of a companion writ petition challenging an original order of
the RLC dated 30 August 2013, which was subsequently reviewed on 5 May 2014.

3. In order to appreciate the subject matter of dispute, a brief reference to the factual
background would be in order. The matter pertains to the elections to the Committee of
Management of Chaudhary Charan Singh Brij Khand Inter College, Bathain, District
Mathura. Elections to the Committee of Management not having been held after the expiry
of its term on 25 June 2007, proceedings were initiated before this Court. They culminated
in an order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 5 April 2011 in Tej Ram vs. State of
U.P & Ors. The Division Bench by its order issued the following directions while
disposing of the special appeal:

"Considering the above and as the Committee of Management has to be elected we
issue the following directions:

1. The Prabandh Sanchalak to hold elections in terms of Scheme of Administration
and complete the process within three months from the date a copy of this order is submitted
by the petitioner to the Prabandh Sanchalak.

2. The Prabandh Sanchalak to notify a draft electoral list, call for objections and
thereafter finalise the same and proceed to hold the elections in terms of the list as is
finalised."

4. An election was conducted under which, the appellant represented by its Manager
seeks to assert a claim. The election was disapproved by the RLC to whom the dispute in
regard to the validity of the elections was referred for adjudication by the District Inspector
of Schools. The RLC disapproved of the elections by its order dated 30 August 2013 on the
ground that the elections had not been conducted in accordance with the scheme of
administration. This order was reviewed by the RLC on 5 May 2014. In its order in review,
the RLC came to the conclusion that elections to the Committee of Management had been
held in accordance with the scheme of administration and would, accordingly, stand
approved. In those elections, Mr Doonger Singh was elected as President and Mr Tej Ram
as the Manager. The order of the RLC was challenged before the learned Single Judge in
writ proceedings by the fourth to ninth respondents. Another writ petition was filed before
the learned Single Judge by Tej Ram, the Manager who claims under the elections which
were held to the Committee of Management for challenging the original order of the RLC
3 All. C/M Ch. Charan Singh Brij Khand Inter College Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
681
dated 30 August 2013 which had set aside the election which was held on 14 April 2013.
This writ petition was instituted on or about 25 September 2013 but the writ petition was
registered in 2014. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by separate orders of the
learned Single Judge dated 3 November 2015.

5. On the writ petition which was filed by the fourth to ninth respondents, the learned
Single Judge came to the conclusion that (i) the RLC had no substantive power of review
and hence the order passed on 30 May 2014 reviewing its earlier order dated 30 August
2014 was without jurisdiction; (ii) the elections to the Committee of Management had been
held in violation of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court on 5 April 2011
because the elections had not been held by the Authorized Controller as directed; (iii)
before the election was held, neither was a list of members finalised or approved after the
order of the High Court which had clearly envisaged the notification of a draft electoral list,
calling for objections and finalization of the electoral list; and (iv) the Election Officer
published the notice of holding elections on 14 April 2013 in the newspapers on 1 and 5
April 2013 and hence, there was no valid notice of one month as required by the scheme of
administration. These being the findings, the learned Single Judge held that the order which
was passed in review was without jurisdiction and it was, accordingly, set aside. The
original decision of the RLC disapproving the elections relied upon by Tej Ram, has been
upheld on the ground that the election was held contrary to the provisions of the scheme of
administration and in breach of the directions which were issued by the Division Bench in
its judgment dated 5 April 2011.

6. Hence, two special appeals have been filed. The first arises out of the judgment of
the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition challenging the review order of the RLC
and the second is out of the order of the learned Single Judge arising from the writ petition
filed to challenge the original order of the RLC disapproving of the elections.

7. At the outset, it must be noted that the submission of the learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the appellant, is that the issue as to whether the RLC had a power of
substantive review would shade into the background and would cease to have any practical
significance since the appellant has challenged the original order of the RLC before the
learned Single Judge in writ proceedings. Hence, the submission on the part of the appellant
is that the elections which were held to the Committee of Management were due and proper
and ought not to have been interfered with by the RLC in its original order dated 30 August
2013.

8. Having due regard to the ambit of controversy, it now appears clear on all counts that
the RLC when it passed its order dated 30 May 2014, reviewing its earlier order dated 30
August 2013, acted without jurisdiction. Now, it must be noted that the Division Bench of
this Court had passed an order on 5 April 2011 for the holding of elections to the
Committee of Management. Tej Ram filed a writ petition in 2014 seeking a decision by the
Director of Education, Allahabad on a representation submitted on 9 September 2013. The
Court was apprised that a notice had been issued from the office of the Director calling for
a hearing. In this view of the matter, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the
682 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Joint Director of Education to pass an order after affording an opportunity to all concerned
parties. This order of the learned Single Judge dated 15 January 2014 cannot by any stretch
of imagination be construed as conferring a substantive power of review upon the RLC. As
a matter of fact, when the RLC passed an order on 5 May 2014, it made a reference to the
fact that this order was being passed on the directions of the Director which had been issued
to the Committee of Management. There is a clear distinction in law between a procedural
review and a substantive review. The power of substantive review has to be conferred by a
specific statutory provision. The RLC, hence acted without jurisdiction in substantively
reviewing its earlier order dated 30 August 2013 on 30 May 2014. The learned Single
Judge cannot be held to be in error in setting aside the order of the RLC dated 5 May 2014
on the ground that it lacks a substantive power of review.

9. That leaves the Court with the basic issue in dispute in regard to the legitimacy of the
elections which were held by the appellant, since it is the contention of the appellant that
those elections were proper and were wrongly held to be illegal by the RLC in its original
order dated 30 August 2013.

10. Now, it must be noted that the scheme of administration makes the following
provisions for the conduct of the elections:

"5-प्रबन्ध्‌ सकमकत्‌ के्‌ कनर्ावचन्‌ की्‌ प्रकिया्‌ :-

(1) प्रबन्ध्‌ सकमकत्‌ के्‌ कायवकाि्‌ की्‌ समाकप्त्‌ के्‌ 3 माह्‌ पूर्व्‌ साधारण्‌ सभा्‌ के्‌ नत़ीन्‌ एर्ूं्‌ पुराने्‌ सदजगों्‌ की्‌ सूच़ी्‌ को्‌
अकन्तमरूप्‌ कदगा्‌ जागेगा।्‌ उस़ी्‌ समग्‌ साधारण्‌ सभा्‌ एक्‌ तदथव्‌ कनधावचन्‌ अकधकाऱी्‌ कनयुत्‌ करेग़ी्‌ जो्‌ प्रबन्ध्‌ सकमकत्‌ के्‌ कनर्ावचन्‌ की्‌
कायवर्ाह़ी्‌ पूणव्‌ होने्‌ तक्‌ कायव्‌ करेगा।्‌ साधारण्‌ सभा्‌ का्‌ सभापकत्‌ सदजयों्‌ की्‌ अकन्तम्‌ सूच़ी्‌ की्‌ एक्‌ प्रकत्‌ कनर्ावचन्‌ अकधकाऱी्‌ को्‌ उसकी्‌
कनयुकत्‌ के्‌ एक्‌ सप्ताह्‌ के्‌ अन्दर्‌ उपिब्ध्‌ करा्‌ देगा्‌ तथा्‌ सूच़ी्‌ की्‌ एक्‌ प्रकत्‌ कजिा्‌ कर्द्यािय्‌ कनऱीक्षक्‌ को्‌ भ़ी्‌ देगा।्‌ कनर्ावचन्‌ से्‌ पूर्व्‌
सदजयता्‌ सूच़ी्‌ सभ़ी्‌ सदजयों्‌ को्‌ देने्‌ हेतु्‌ छपर्ाई्‌ जायेग़ी।्‌ कजसमें्‌ सदजय्‌ का्‌ नाम्‌ कपता्‌ का्‌ नाम्‌ जथाय़ी्‌ पता्‌ सदजयता्‌ का्‌ प्रकार्‌ एर्ूं्‌
साधाष्ट्रण्‌ सदजयों्‌ के्‌ सम्मुख्‌ र्र्व्‌ कजसके्‌ किए्‌ र्ह्‌ सदजय्‌ बने्‌ है, भ़ी्‌ अूंककत्‌ ककया्‌ जायेगा।्‌ कनर्ावचन्‌ अकधकाऱी्‌ कनर्ावचन्‌ की्‌ कतकथ्‌
कनकित्‌ करके्‌ चुनार््‌ की्‌ कतकथ, समय्‌ एर्ूं्‌ जथान्‌ की्‌ सूचना्‌ कनधावररत्‌ कतकथ्‌ से्‌ कम्‌ से्‌ कम्‌ 1 माह्‌ पूर्व्‌ सभ़ी्‌ सदजयों्‌ को्‌ सदजयता्‌ सूच़ी्‌ की्‌
एक्‌ प्रकत्‌ सकहत्‌ पूंज़ीकृत्‌ डाक्‌ द्वारा्‌ देगा्‌ तथा्‌ ऐसे्‌ जथाऩीय्‌ कहन्द़ी्‌ समाचार्‌ पत्र्‌ में्‌ भ़ी्‌ कर्ज्ञकप्त्‌ करायेगा्‌ कजसका्‌ जनपद्‌ में्‌ पयावप्त्‌ प्रचिन्‌
हो।...."

11. There was a direction which was issued by the Division Bench on 5 April 2011 by
which the Authorized Controller was directed to hold elections in terms of the scheme of
administration. Moreover, the Authorized Controller was directed to notify a draft electoral
list, call for objections and thereafter finalise the same. This procedure for notifying a draft
electoral list and calling for objections is also provided for in the scheme of administration
which is extracted above. Moreover, the scheme also envisages that after the finalization of
the objections, a notice of one month has to be issued and to be duly advertised.

12. The learned Single Judge has come to the conclusion that this procedure has not
been followed.
3 All. C/M Ch. Charan Singh Brij Khand Inter College Vs State Of U.P. & Ors.
683

13. The submission which has been urged on behalf of the appellant is three fold and
which now falls for consideration. Firstly, it has been urged that though the election was not
conducted by the Authorized Controller, the Authorized Controller had appointed an
Election Officer whose appointment had been approved by the District Inspector of
Schools. Hence it was urged that this amounts to sufficient compliance with the direction
issued by the Division Bench in its order dated 5 April 2011. Secondly, to meet the
objection that there was no finalization of the voters' list by calling for objections and
evaluating them, reliance was sought to be placed on a communication of the Deputy
Registrar, Agra dated 30 April 2009. This was relied upon to submit that the requisite
procedure had been followed. Thirdly, in regard to the paucity of notice of one month, it
was sought to be urged that out of the list of 164 members, 8 had died and out of the
remaining 156 members as many as 145 had participated in the election. Hence, it was
submitted that the election result should not be allowed to be questioned merely on account
of insufficiency of notice and in this regard, reliance was placed on Ground (III) of the
memo of appeal.

14. While dealing with the submission, it would be necessary to note at the outset that
the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court dated 5 April 2011 specifically directed
that the election has to be conducted by the Authorized Controller. In the present case, the
election was held by an Election Officer. But more significantly, the basic flaw in the entire
election process was the failure to finalise the list of voters by considering objections to the
voters' list. The order of the Division Bench dated 5 April 2011 specifically directed that
the Authorized Controller shall notify a draft electoral list, call for objections and thereafter
finalise the same upon which he would proceed to hold the election in terms of the list as is
finalised. The communication of the Deputy Registrar, Agra which is relied upon by the
appellant is dated 30 April 2009 which is much prior, in fact merely a year and half prior to
the order of the Division Bench dated 5 April 2011. Hence, it is evident on the basis of the
material on the record that after the judgment of the Division Bench dated 5 April 2011, the
draft electoral list was not notified nor were objections called and invited. Any process
which had taken place prior to the order of the Division Bench would not come to the aid of
the appellant even if the notification took place thereafter as submitted for the simple
reason that the process of finalization of the voters' list had to take place in compliance
with the order of the Division Bench which was not done. This being the position, it is
found from the record that the basic directions which were issued by the Division Bench in
its order dated 5 April 2011 which we have noted above and which were in accordance with
the plain meaning of the scheme of administration, were not fulfilled. Having due regard to
this aspect, the learned Single Judge has found against the appellant on three counts
namely, (i) the failure of the Authorized Controller to hold the elections; (ii) the failure of
the Authorized Controller to publish a tentative list of voters, to call for objections and after
the finalization of objections to notify the final list of voters; and (iii) the elections having
been held barely two weeks after the date of publication of the advertisement in the
newspaper in breach of the binding terms of the scheme of administration. These findings
are justified and proper.
684 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

15. For these reasons, there is no merit in these special appeals. The special appeals
shall, accordingly, stand dismissed.

16. There shall be no order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.02.2016

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH KESARWANI, J.

Transfer Application (Civil) No. - 34 of 2016

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ...Applicant
Versus
Ram Swaroop Bajaj (Deceased) ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Prakash Padia

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
Sri M.M. Sahai

Transfer Application under Section 24 CPC - Non-Maintainability against District Judge Order -
Applicant sought to set aside District Judge, Kanpur Nagar's order dated 21.01.2016 rejecting Misc.
Transfer Application No. 64014 of 2015 and stay of the proceedings in Civil Revision No. 114 of 2015 -
Held, High Court lacks power under Section 24 CPC to set aside or review District Court's transfer
order; jurisdictions mutually exclusive, no appellate/revisional remedy available. (Paras 3, 5-9)

Section 24 CPC - Scope and Limitations - Section 24 confers general transfer/withdrawal powers on
High Court or District Court over subordinate courts, exercisable suo motu or on application - Held, no
provision for High Court to interfere with District Court's order; applicant must invoke writ jurisdiction
under Articles 226/227 instead. (Paras 5-7)

Mutually Exclusive Jurisdiction - No Successive Applications - Preliminary objection upheld relying
on Sunita Devi vs. Ram Kripal (2015(2) AWC 1543) - Held, party approaching District Court precluded
from successive Section 24 application to High Court; cannot treat High Court as appellate forum.
(Paras 3, 8, 10)

Power of Superintendence - Alternative Remedy - Section 24 exercises superintendence, not
original/appellate/revisional jurisdiction - Held, rejection by District Judge leaves remedy via writ
petition under Articles 226/227, not fresh transfer application. (Paras 7, 11)

Transfer Application Dismissed - Not Maintainable

List of Cases Cases cited:

Sunita Devi vs. Ram Kripal and another, 2015(2) AWC 1543 (Paras 8 and 10)
Dr. Ajay Chaturvedi vs. Smt. Shobhana, 2014(11) ADJ 404 (DB)