# C/M, Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya, Rath, Dist. Hamirpur & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 2 ILRA 708
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-01-19
- **Case number:** Special Appeal Defective No. 122 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-gandhi-rashtriya-vidyalaya-rath-dist-hamirpur-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49733
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Societies/Election Law - The Societies
Registration Act, 1860 - A dispute is raised
that the General Body of the Society and
the Committee of Management are very
different. This fact would have to be asserted
by looking into the by-laws of the Society and
the scheme of management of the Institution.
There is also a thick dispute about the
enrollment of members to the General Body of
the Society, the membership whereof has been
modified a number of times and approved by
the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits. The issue is one relating to elections
to the Committee of Management of the
Institution with involvement of the parent
body, that is to say, the Society. The
learned Single Judge has allowed the writ
petitions without affidavits being exchanged
between parties. (Para 11)

In original writ petitions involving factual
disputes of this complexity, the better course of
action to follow is to permit parties to exchange
affidavits and then hear the matter. This matter
should go back to the learned Single Judge with
a direction to permit parties to put in their
affidavits and decide the matter afresh after
hearing all parties concerned. (Para 12)

Special appeal allowed. Impugned judgment
and order dated February 24, 2022 is set aside.
All the three writ petitions shall stand restored
to the file of the learned Single Judge for
hearing and decision afresh in accordance with
law. (E-4)

Present
special
appeal
assails
the
judgment and order dated 24.02.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge.

## Text

708 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

43. If, every error of law were to
constitute a charge of misconduct, it would
impinge upon the independent functioning of
quasi judicial officers like the appellant. Since
in sum and substance misconduct is sought to
be inferred by the appellant having committed
an error of law, the charge-sheet on the face of it
does not proceed on any legal premise
rendering it liable to be quashed. In other
words, to maintain any charge-sheet against a
quasi judicial authority something more has to
be alleged than a mere mistake of law, e.g., in
the nature of some extraneous consideration
influencing the quasi judicial order. Since
nothing of the sort is alleged herein the
impugned charge-sheet is rendered illegal. The
charge- sheet, if sustained, will thus impinge
upon
the
confidence
and
independent
functioning of a quasi judicial authority. The
entire system of administrative adjudication
whereunder quasi judicial powers are conferred
on administrative authorities, would fall into
disrepute if officers performing such functions
are inhibited in performing their functions
without fear or favour because of the constant
threat of disciplinary proceedings."

(26) The disciplinary proceedings against
the appellant have been initiated merely
because the assessee has deposited the penalty
within a very short span of time which raised a
suspicion with regard to the penalty order
passed by the appellant. In Zunjarrao Bhikaji
Nagarkar (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has categorically held that the disciplinary
proceedings against an officer cannot take place
on information, which is vague and indefinite
and suspicion has no role to play in such
matters when the department has taken a
conscious decision not to challenge the order
passed by the appellant and has allowed the
same to attain finality. Prima facie, it appears at
this stage that the disciplinary proceedings
cannot be drawn against the appellant to punish
her for having passed the aforesaid order.

(27) In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we are of the view that the
respondents ought not to have been given
liberty to proceed with the disciplinary
proceedings against the appellant and to
post her anywhere considering the facts
that the disciplinary proceedings are
pending against her.

(28) Accordingly, the instant special
appeal
is
allowed.
The
order
dated
28.11.2022 passed by the Hon'ble Single
Judge in Writ-A No. 7888 of 2022 : Anjali
Chaurasia Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, so
far as it provides that "Respondents are at
liberty to proceed with the disciplinary
proceedings, without being influenced by the
findings
recorded
in
this
order.
The
respondents are also at liberty to post the
petitioner at any place, considering the fact
that disciplinary proceedings are pending
against her" is hereby set-aside.

(29) It is clarified that while deciding the
case on merits, Hon'ble Single Judge shall not
be guided or influence by any observations
made hereinabove, which have been made only
for the purposes of disposal of the instant
appeal.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 708
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Special Appeal Defective No. 122 of 2022

C/M, Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya, Rath,
Dist. Hamirpur & Anr.
 ...Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
2 All. C/M, Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya, Rath, Dist. Hamirpur & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 709
Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sri Saurabh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.K. Roy,(Addl. C.S.C.), Sri Harindra
Prasad, Sri Krishna Kant Dwivedi, Sri Ankit
Gaur (S.C.), Sri Brijesh Dubey

A. Societies/Election Law - The Societies
Registration Act, 1860 - A dispute is raised
that the General Body of the Society and
the Committee of Management are very
different. This fact would have to be asserted
by looking into the by-laws of the Society and
the scheme of management of the Institution.
There is also a thick dispute about the
enrollment of members to the General Body of
the Society, the membership whereof has been
modified a number of times and approved by
the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits. The issue is one relating to elections
to the Committee of Management of the
Institution with involvement of the parent
body, that is to say, the Society. The
learned Single Judge has allowed the writ
petitions without affidavits being exchanged
between parties. (Para 11)

In original writ petitions involving factual
disputes of this complexity, the better course of
action to follow is to permit parties to exchange
affidavits and then hear the matter. This matter
should go back to the learned Single Judge with
a direction to permit parties to put in their
affidavits and decide the matter afresh after
hearing all parties concerned. (Para 12)

Special appeal allowed. Impugned judgment
and order dated February 24, 2022 is set aside.
All the three writ petitions shall stand restored
to the file of the learned Single Judge for
hearing and decision afresh in accordance with
law. (E-4)

Present
special
appeal
assails
the
judgment and order dated 24.02.2022
passed by the learned Single Judge.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.
&
Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

on Civil Misc. Application for
Leave to Appeal No. 2 of 2022

1. The leave application is allowed.
The appellants/ applicants are permitted to
appeal from the impugned judgment and
order dated February 24, 2022 passed by
the learned Single Judge.

on
Civil
Misc.
Exemption
Application No. 3 of 2022

2. The exemption application is
allowed.

on the Memo of Appeal

3. This special appeal is directed
against a judgment and order of the learned
Single Judge dated February 24, 2022
allowing Writ-C Nos. 703 of 2022, 3056 of
2021 and 30573 of 2021.

4. By the impugned judgment, the
learned Single Judge, amongst others, has
quashed the order dated December 5, 2019
and October 30, 2021 passed by the
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits, Jhansi Region, Jhansi. By the order
dated December 5, 2019, the Assistant
Registrar had approved the addition of 307
members to the General Body of the
Society at the time, comprising 1397
members. By the other order dated October
30, 2021, the Assistant Registrar issued a
revised and rectified list of members of the
General Body of the Society, numbering
1025.

5. The learned Judge has further
quashed all consequential proceedings that
would
follow
consequent
upon
determination
of
membership
of
the
General Body of the Society by the
710 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Assistant Registrar. Another impact of the
judgment passed by the learned Single
Judge is that the elections to the Committee
of Management of the Society held on
January 16, 2022 and registered by the
Assistant Registrar on January 18, 2022
headed by the appellants would also stand
set aside.

6. The dispute involved in the writ
petitions giving rise to this appeal relates to
Shri Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya, Rath,
District Hamirpur, a Society registered
under the Societies Registration Act, 1860
(for short, 'the Society'). The Society has
established
an
educational
institution,
known as Gandhi Rashtriya Vidyalaya,
Rath, District Hamirpur (for short, 'the
Institution'). The undisputed elections to
the Committee of Management authorized
to govern the Institution were held in the
year 2000 and then again in the year 2003.
Later on, the membership of the General
Body increased.

7. It is the appellants' case that on
April 20, 2018, the Assistant Registrar
approved a list of 1397 members, including
some 307 members, who were approved by
the order dated December 18, 2014. On the
basis of the said list, elections to the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Institution were held on February 3, 2019.
On December 5, 2019 some 307 members
were approved as members of the General
Body, over and above the 1397.

8. The order dated December 5, 2019
was challenged by the appellants vide WritC No. 30573 of 2021. By a subsequent
order dated October 30, 2021, the Assistant
Registrar issued a rectified list, excluding
members, whose term of three years had
come to an end. This order was challenged
vide Writ-C No. 30956 of 2021, again by
the appellants here. It appears that an
interim order was passed in this petition on
an undertaking by respondent No.5 to the
writ petition that no elections to the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Institution were being held on the basis of
the order dated October 30, 2021 passed by
the Assistant Registrar and elections to the
Committee of Management of the Society
alone had been notified.

9. The Court passed an interim order,
therefore,
that
the
respondents
are
restrained from interfering in the peaceful
functioning of the petitioner's Society as
approved on March 6, 2019 on the basis of
elections held on February 3, 2019. This
order was corrected by a subsequent order
dated December 22, 2021 to mention for
"the petitioners' Society" in the interim
order "the Committee of Management of
the College". Elections to the Committee of
Management of the Society were held on
January 16, 2022, wherein appellant No. 2
was returned elected as the Secretary/
Sabhapati.

10. On February 14, 2022, it appears
that a meeting of the General Body of the
Society was held, where name of 477
members of the General Body, who were
dead, were scored out and another 103
were enrolled. The Assistant Registrar
approved the list of 651 members of the
General Body of the Society under Section
4-B of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
At this juncture, 56 members of the
General Body challenged the order dated
October 30, 2021 passed by the Assistant
Registrar vide Writ-C No. 703 of 2022. All
the three writ petitions were tagged and
heard by the learned Single Judge, who has
allowed them by the impugned judgment,
quashing the two orders above detailed and
issuing
various
directions.
2 All. Awanish Kumar Pandey & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
711

11. Upon hearing the learned Counsel
for parties, we find that a dispute is sought
to be raised that the General Body of the
Society and the Committee of Management
are very different. This fact would have to
be asserted by looking into the by-laws of
the Society and the scheme of management
of the Institution. There is also a thick
dispute about the enrollment of members to
the General Body of the Society, the
membership whereof has been modified a
number of times and approved by the
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and
Chits. The issue is one relating to elections
to the Committee of Management of the
Institution with involvement with of the
parent body, that is to say, the Society. The
learned Single Judge has allowed the writ
petitions
without
affidavits
being
exchanged between parties.

12. We are of opinion that in original
writ petitions involving factual disputes of
this complexity, the better course of action
to follow is to permit parties to exchange
affidavits and then hear the matter. We,
therefore, think that this matter should go
back to the learned Single Judge with a
direction to permit parties to put in their
affidavits and decide the matter afresh after
hearing all parties concerned.

13. We, accordingly, allow this
appeal, set aside the impugned judgment
and order dated February 24, 2022. All the
three writ petitions shall stand restored to
the file of the learned Single Judge for
hearing and decision afresh in accordance
with law. We request the learned Single
Judge to expedite hearing.

14. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 2 ILRA 711
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.02.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Writ A No. 1051 of 2023

Awanish Kumar Pandey & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Vyas Narayan Shukla, Raghvendra Ojha,
Shiv Kumar Soni

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Constitutionality of Rule
17 - Uttar Pradesh Police Computer Staff
(Non-Gazetted) Service Rules 2011 - Uttar
Pradesh
Government
Department
Electronic
Data
Processing
(Grade-C)
Cadre Service Rules, 2016: Rule 18;
Constable and Head Constable Service
Rules, 2015: Rule 17; U.P. Sub-Inspector
and Inspector (Civil Police) Service Rules,
2015:
Rule
17;
U.P.
Police
Radio
Subordinate Service Rules, 2015; U.P.
Police
Ministerial
Accounts
and
Confidential
Assistants
Cadre
Service
Rules,
2015;
U.P.
Pradeshik
Armed
Constabulary Subordinate Officers Service
Rules, 2015; Right to Information Act
2005; Police Act, 1861: Section 46(2)(c)
r/w Section 2.

No enactment can be struck down by just
saying that it is arbitrary or unreasonable.
Some or other constitutional infirmity has
to be found before invalidating an Act. An
enactment cannot be struck down on the
ground that court thinks it unjustified.
Parliament and the legislatures, com-posed as
they are of the representatives of the people,
are sup-posed to know and be aware of the
needs of the people and what is good and bad