# C/M Chaudhary C.R.P.G. College & another v. D.I.O.S., Muzaffarnagar and others

- **Citation:** (2000) 3 ILRA 28
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-chaudhary-c-r-p-g-college-another-v-d-i-o-s-muzaffarnagar-and-others-39501
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

INDIAN LAW REPOSTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
28
12. Respondent No.3, in a high
handed manner, illegally dispossessed the
petitioner on 16.4.1983, the date on which
the allotment order was passed. The Rent
Control and Eviction Officer had issued
two different forms on the same date.
Form B was issued directing the previous
owner, respondent No.4 to let to let the
premises in question to respondent. No.3.
He further issued form C under Rule 14 of
the Rule directing respondent No.4 to
deliver
possession
to
the
allotteerespondent No.3 Rule 14 provides that an
order in form 'C' shall be served upon the
person who is in unauthorized occupation
of the building directing him to vacate the
same and deliver vacant possession thereof
to the person named in the order within
such period as may be specified in the
order, which shall in no case be less than a
week from the date of service of the order
upon him. The order in form C was issued
in the name of respondent No.4 who was
then not the owner of the property.
Secondly, the order indicates to deliver the
possession on or before 16.4.1983 in
violation of Rule 14 which prescribes
minimum one week's time shall be given
to
the
occupier
to
vacate
the
accommodation. Respondent No.3 took
possession on the same date. It is clear
from the facts and circumstances of the
case, that the Rent Control and Eviction
Officer colluded with the allottee, the
respondent No.3, and he, in violation of
the statutory law, passed the allotment
order and also got evicted the petitioner
who was a lawful occupant as owner of the
house in question. Respondent No.1 also
while
disposing
the
revision
clearly
misdirected himself and dismissed the
revision filed by the petitioner.

13. In view of the above, the writ
petition is allowed and the orders dated
16.4.1983 and 20.1.1984 are hereby
quashed. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are
directed to restore the possession to the
petitioner within 24 hours from the date of
production of a certified copy of this order.

14. The Senior Superintendent of
Police, Agra shall take steps for restoration
of the petition to the petitioner within 24
hours from the date, the order is produced
before him.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ -
7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

&RPPLWWHH
RI
0DQDJHPHQW
&KDXGKDU\
&53* &ROOHJH WKURXJK LWV 6HFUHWDU\ 9HG
3DO 6LQJK DQG DQRWKHU
« 3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
'LVWULFW
,QVSHFWRU
RI
6FKRROV
0X]DIIDUQDJDU DQG RWKHUV«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 5DPHVK 8SDGK\D\D
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

0HHUXW
8QLYHUVLW\
6WDWXWH 6WDWXWH
DPHQGHG
E\
,VW
$PHQGPHQW
6WDWXWH
 DQG WK $PHQGHPWQ 6WDWXWH
'LVFLSOLQDU\
DFWLRQ
E\
WKH
'LVFLSOLQDU\
$XWKRULW\
0DQDJHPHQW
DJDLQVW
QRQ
WHDFKLQJ VWDII RI DIILOLDWHG FROOHJH ± 1R
DSSURYDO RI ',26 REWDLQHG DV UHTXLUHG
E\ DPHQGHG VWDWXWH 2UGHU UHPDLQV
LQHIIHFWLYHDJDLQVW RUGHU RI DSSURYDO E\
',26 XQGHU VWDWXWH DSSHDO OLHV
EHIRUH
5HJLRQDO
'HSXW\
'LUHFWRU
RI
(GXFDWLRQ XQGHU VWDWXWH
DSSHDO
KHOG QRW PDLQWDLQDEOH ZLWKRXW KHDULQJ
3All] C/M Chaudhary C.R.P.G. College & another V. .D.I.O.S., Muzaffarnagar and others 29
+HOG
,W LV FOHDU DQG XQDPELJXRXV WKDW H[HUFLVH
RI SRZHU XQGHU 6WDWXWH E\ WKH
0DQDJHPHQW LV VXEMHFW WR DSSURYDO RI WKH
'LVWULFW
,QVSHFWRU
RI
6FKRROV
XQGHU
VWDWXWH ZLWKRXW ZKLFK WKH RUGHU RI
WKH 0DQDJHPQW UHPDLQV LQ HIIHFWLYH
,Q
DV PXFK DV WKH RUGHU SDVVHG E\ WKH
0DQDJHPHQW ZRXOG QRW WDNH HIIHFW XQWLO LW
LV DSSURYHG E\ WKH 'LVWULFW ,QVSHFWRU RI
6FKRROV LQ ZULWLQJ
7KXV DV VRRQ WKH
RUGHU RI WKH 0DQDJHPHQW LV DSSURYHG E\
WKH 'LVWULFW ,QVVSHFWRU RI 6FKRROV ZKLFK
KDV VLQFH EHHQ PDGH DSSHOODEOH E\ YLUWXH
RI
6WDWXWH

EHIRUH WKH 5HJLRQDO
'HSXW\
'LUHFWRU
RI
(GXFDWLRQ
DV
WKH
IRUXP RU DSSHOODWH DXWKRULW\ IRU VXFK
DSSHDO
7KXV RQ WKH IDFH RI WKH SURYLVR RI WKH
0HHUXW 8QLYHUVLW\ 6WDWXWH DV GLVFXVVHG
DERYH
WKH
DSSHDO
DSSHDUV
WR
EH
PDLQWDLQDEOH EHIRUH WKH 5HJLRQDO GHSXW\
'LUHFWRU RI (GXFDWLRQ 3DUD DQG

By the Court.

1. By an order dated 28th March
2000, the petitioner's appeal was returned
on the ground that the Regional Deputy
Director of Education had no jurisdiction
to hear the appeal. Mr. Ramesh
Upadhyaya,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner contends that this order was
passed without hearing the petitioner.
Relying on Statute 23.04 of the Meerjut
University Statute he contends that against
the order passed under clause (2) of Statute
23 an appeal lies to the Regional Deputy
Director of Education after the order
passed under Statute 23.02 is approved
under Statute 23.03 of the Meerut
University Statute.

2. I have heard Mr. Upadhyaya and
the learned Standing Counsel at length

3. The Meerut University Statute in
Chapter XXII while prescribing conditions
of the service of non-teaching staff of the
affiliated
colleges
in
Statute
23.02
prescribes that the appointing authority
referred to in Statute 23.01 shall have the
power to disciplinary action and award
punishment against the class of employee
of which he is the appointing authority.
By reason of Statute 23.03 every decision
of the appointing authority with regard to
the
disciplinary
proceeding
as
contemplated in Statute 23.02 shall be
reported to the District Inspector of
Schools before it is communicated to the
employee. Such decision shall take effect
only when it is approved by the District
Inspector of Schools in writing with
certain exceptions provided in the two
proviso appended thereto with which we
are not concerned now. Against the order
the approval by the District Inspector of
Schools in terms of Statute 23.03 the
appeal is provided in statute 23.04
prescribing that such appeal shall lie to the
regional deputy director of education.

4. The whole chapter XXII was
added by the Meerut University (1st
Amendment statute, 1977 which came into
force on 11th May, 1977 namely, the date
of
publication
in
the
Gazette,.
Subsequently
certain
changes
were
incorporated in the statute with effect from
12th June, 1979 by Meerut University (4th
Amendment ) statute, 1979 The learned
counsel for the petitioner contends that
there has not been any further change in
the statute till date. The statute as
amended in 1979 by the 4th Amendment is
still surviving.

5. Originally, the appeal was
provided in statute 23.03 providing that
against
an
order
passed
by
the
INDIAN LAW REPOSTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
30
Management, the appeal would lie to the
Regional Deputy Director of Education. If
such order is passed by the Principal then
the appeal would lie with District Inspector
of Schools. This provision has now been
substituted by statute 23.04. whereas a new
provision has been incorporated in statute
23.03 with the requirement of approval of
the District Inspector of Schools. Thus the
order the Management was subjected to
the approval of the District Inspector of
Schools in writing. After the order of the
Management is approved by the District
Inspector of Schools, it becomes an order
of District Inspector of Schools which has
since been made appealable by virtue of
statute 23.04 prescribing the forum as the
Regional Deputy Director of Education.

6. In the impugned order, the appeal
was held to be not maintainable before the
Regional Deputy of Education on the
ground that there has been some changes
in the statute. Under the changed statute,
the regional deputy director of education
has been divested of its jurisdiction to hear
the appeal. But in the said order, nothing
has been mentioned about the changes that
had been made in the statute. On the other
hand Mr. Upadhyay contends that there
has been no change in the statute after
1979 and 4th Amendment of statute 23.03
and 23.04 is still surviving the statute.

7. From the above discussion, it is
clear and unambiguous that exercise of
power
under
statute
23.02
by
the
Management is subject to approval of the
district inspector of schools under statute
23.03, without which the order the
management remains ineffective. In as
much as, the order passed by the
Management would not take effect until it
is approved by the district inspector of
schools in writing. Thus as soon, the order
of the management is approved by the
district inspector of schools, it becomes an
order the district inspector of schools
which has since been made appellable by
virtue of statute 23.04 before the regional
deputy director of education as the forum
or appellate authority for such appeal.

8. Thus on the face of the proviso of
the Meerut University statute as discussed
above,
the
appeal
appears
to
be
maintainable before the Regional Deputy
Director of Education.

9. If there has been any change in the
statute, the same has not been brought to
my notice. At the same time, the order
does not disclose as to under which
provision the jurisdiction of the Regional
Deputy Director of Education as appellate
authority has ceased. In that view of the
matter,
this
question
requires
fresh
determination about the maintainability of
the appeal before the Regional Deputy
Director of Education provided there has
been no change in the situation by reason
of any amendment in the statute as
discussed above after the 4th Amendment.

10. It is contended by Mr. Upadhyay
that the impugned order was passed
without hearing the appellant. In such
circumstances,
in
case
the
Regional
Deputy Director of Education is still of the
opinion that the appeal is not maintainable
for him in that event, he may decide the
question as to the maintainability of the
appeal after giving opportunity too the
appellant and then pass appropriate order.

11. In such circumstances the
impugned order dated 28th March 2000 is
hereby quashed.
3All] Chandra Pal Singh V. Prescribed Authority/Ist A.C.J. and others
31

12. Let the appeal be treated as to
have been filed before the said authority
who may pass appropriate order with
regard
to
the
jurisdiction
and
maintainability of the appeal before him
after giving opportunity to the petitioner as
directed above within one month from the
date of production of a certified copy of
this order. The appeal shall be treated to
have been restored until the decision in
terms of this order is arrived at by the
Appellate Authority concerned.

With these observations, this writ
petition is disposed of. However, there
will be no order as to costs.

13. Let a certified copy of this order
be given to the learned counsel for the
parties on payment of usual charges.
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·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 68'+,5 1$5$,1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

&KDQGUD 3DO 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
3UHVFULEHG $XWKRULW\,VW $GGLWLRQDO &LYLO
-XGJH DQG RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 68 .KDQ
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&

83
8UEDQ
%XLOGLQJV
5HJXODWLRQ
RI
/HWWLQJ UHQW DQG (YLFWLRQ $FW ±
6HFWLRQ ± ([HFXWLRQ RI 'HFUHH EDVHG
RQ FRPSURPLVH ± GLVSXWHG TXHVWLRQ RI
IDFWV UDLVHG HLWKHU E\ WKH WHQDQW RU E\ D
WKLUG
SHUVRQ
FDQ
EH
GHFLGHG
E\
WKH
3UHVFULEHG
$XWKRULW\
DIWHU
DIIRUGLQJ
RSSRUWXQLW\
RI
KHDULQJ
DQG
WR
OHDG
HYLGHQFH LI VR QHHGHG
+HOG ±
$Q
RUGHU
SDVVHG
E\
WKH
3UHVFULEHG
$XWKRULW\ XQGHU 6HFWLRQ RI WKH $FW FDQ
EH HQIRUFHG E\ KLP XQGHU VHFWLRQ RI
WKH $FW ,I DQ\ SHUVRQ KDV DQ\ REMHFWLRQ
KH
FDQ
UDLVH
REMHFWLRQ
EHIRUH
WKH
3UHVFULEHG $XWKRULW\ DQG KH LV WR FRQVLGHU
LW MXGLFLDOO\ DIWHU JLYLQJ RSSRUWXQLW\ RI
KHDULQJ DQG WR OHDG HYLGHQFH LQ VXSSRUW RI
WKH REMHFWLRQ
7KH REMHFWLRQ PD\ EH E\
WKH WHQDQW DJDLQVW ZKRP WKH RUGHU ZDV
SDVVHG E\ WKH 3UHVFULEHG $XWKRULW\ RU E\
DQ\ WKLUG SHUVRQ ZKRVH ULJKW PD\ EH
DIIHFWHG LI WKH RUGHU LV HQIRUFHG DJDLQVW
VXFK SHUVRQ SDUD
&DVH ODZ GLVFXVVHG
 $5& ±
83 5&& ±
$,5 6& ±

By the Court

1. This writ petition is directed
against the order dated 22.7.1996 passed
by the Prescribed authority, respondent
No. 1 allowing the application filed by the
landlord-respondent No. 2 for delivery of
possession of the disputed shop.

2. Priya Dutt, respondent No. 2 the
landlord of the shop in dispute filed an
application under section 21 (1) (a) of U.P.
Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting,
Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (in short the
Act) for release of the disputed shop
against the petitioner tenant with the
allegations that the required the disputed
shop bona fide. The petitioner entered into
compromise on 16.2.1985 wherein he
admitted that the landlord-respondent no.2
bona fide needs the disputed shop for the
purpose of business but he stated that he