# C/M Hindu Inter College, Kandhla & Anr v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 456
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-18
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 18053 of 2025
- **Bench:** Chandra Dhari Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-hindu-inter-college-kandhla-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53911
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

the order under Section 16 (D) (4) of the Act is
bound to give an opportunity to Committee to
show cause.

HEADNOTE
Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921
- Section 16-D(3), 16-D(4) - Appointment of
Authorized Controller - Financial irregularities
- Violation of Scheme of Administration -
Opportunity of hearing - Principles of natural
justice - Recording of reasons
HELD
On plain reading, sub-section (4) is silent
regarding requirements of notice to be served
upon the Committee of Management before any
order is passed by the State Government. What
is required is application of mind to the relevant
facts placed before the Administrative Authority;
short reasons that weight with them to take
action need to be recorded.It is settled law that
High Court exercising the power under Article
226 of the Constitution is not like an appellate
authority to consider the dispute. It has to see
whether the impugned order is based on
records or whether the authorities have applied
their own mind to the relevant facts. (Para 23,
32, 33)
In
the
instant
case,
the
Committee
of
Management challenged the appointment of the
Authorized Controller alleging violation of the
principles
of
natural
justice
and
nonconsideration of their reply. However, in the
present case, the petitioners were supplied with
the enquiry reports, issued notice, granted time,
and personally heard. Adequate opportunity
 was
provided,
and
reasons
have
been
recorded. The Government applied its mind to
the facts and came to the conclusion that the
Committee had contravened clauses (v) and (vi)
of Section 16-D(3), and therefore, the power
under Section 16-D(4) was rightly exercised.
The writ petition was dismissed. The Authorized
Controller has been directed to take charge and
conduct elections within the statutory period.
(E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
In re H.K. (An Infant), (1967) 2 QB 617;
Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala,
1968 SCC OnLine SC 9

List of Acts
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921;
Constitution of India
List of Keywords
Section 16-D(4) - Authorized Controller -
Natural justice - Administrative fairness -
Opportunity of hearing - Financial irregularities
- Committee supersession - Judicial restraint

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 19.05.2025 passed by Special
Secretary, Secondary Education Department,
Government of U.P.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Ashok Khare (Sr.
Advocate), Parmatma Nand Ojha, Abhishek
Shekhar Ojha, Anurag Kumar Ojha
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C., V.K. Singh
(Sr. Advocate), Vikas Upadhyay

## Text

_Characters 0–39,989 of 43,852. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39989 for what follows._

456 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
49 of the 1953 Act does not and cannot be
construed as a bar on the jurisdiction of the
Civil Court to determine the ownership
rights"

58. The Court further observed that
Kalyan Singh had acquired ancestral rights
as a tenure holder, that he was a co-owner
in the suit land, much before the
consolidation
proceedings
commenced.
"Hence,
the
only
declaration
and
adjudication of rights of Ramji Lal or
Kalyan Singh that a Consolidation Officer
could undertake under Section 49 of the
1953 Act was to avoid the fragmentation of
their
respective
land
holdings
and
consolidate or redistribute the parcels of
land among them", remarks the Bench

59. It was accordingly held that
section
49
does
not
enable
the
Consolidation Officer to grant ownership to
Ramji Lal in respect of a property, which,
before the consolidation proceedings, never
vested in him, and clarified that vice versa,
the Consolidation Officer could not take
away the ownership rights of Kalyan Singh,
which he had already inherited much
before
the
commencement
of
the
consolidation proceedings.

60. Considering the facts of the
present case, we find that the petitioner is
claiming his rights through Smt Kulvanta
Devi, his mother, on the basis of a
registered sale deed dated 19/03/1959.
Therefore, even before the consolidation
proceedings, Smt Kulvanta Devi was the
joint owner of the property, and such rights
cannot
be
taken
away
during
the
consolidation proceedings, and this court
relies upon the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Prashant Singh and others Vs. Meena and
others (Supra). With regard to the delay,
we have already considered the said aspect
and found that the same was duly explained
and no objections were ever filed by the
respondents
and
in
the
peculiar
circumstances of the case, where the order
impugned was based on fraud, the benefit
of section 17 of the Limitation Act would
accrue to the petitioner, and accordingly,
the delay ought to have been condoned.

61. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned orders dated
11/03/2015 and 16/02/2019 are illegal and
arbitrary, and are accordingly set aside. The
order dated 02/03/1960, having been
obtained by fraud, is also quashed.

62. As the land was purchased jointly
in the names of Lalta Singh and Smt.
Kulvanta Devi, it shall vest jointly in both
and, after their death, with their legal heirs.

63. The parties would be at liberty to
move an appropriate application before the
competent
authority/court
for
passing
orders in compliance with the directions
issued herein.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 456
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.

Writ C No. 18053 of 2025

C/M Hindu Inter College, Kandhla & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Abhishek Shekhar Ojha, Anurag Kumar
Ojha, Parmatma Nand Ojha, Sr. Advocate
9 All. C/M Hindu Inter College, Kandhla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
457
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Vikas Upadhyay

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the State Government before passing
the order under Section 16 (D) (4) of the Act is
bound to give an opportunity to Committee to
show cause.

HEADNOTE
Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921
- Section 16-D(3), 16-D(4) - Appointment of
Authorized Controller - Financial irregularities
- Violation of Scheme of Administration -
Opportunity of hearing - Principles of natural
justice - Recording of reasons
HELD
On plain reading, sub-section (4) is silent
regarding requirements of notice to be served
upon the Committee of Management before any
order is passed by the State Government. What
is required is application of mind to the relevant
facts placed before the Administrative Authority;
short reasons that weight with them to take
action need to be recorded.It is settled law that
High Court exercising the power under Article
226 of the Constitution is not like an appellate
authority to consider the dispute. It has to see
whether the impugned order is based on
records or whether the authorities have applied
their own mind to the relevant facts. (Para 23,
32, 33)
In
the
instant
case,
the
Committee
of
Management challenged the appointment of the
Authorized Controller alleging violation of the
principles
of
natural
justice
and
nonconsideration of their reply. However, in the
present case, the petitioners were supplied with
the enquiry reports, issued notice, granted time,
and personally heard. Adequate opportunity
 was
provided,
and
reasons
have
been
recorded. The Government applied its mind to
the facts and came to the conclusion that the
Committee had contravened clauses (v) and (vi)
of Section 16-D(3), and therefore, the power
under Section 16-D(4) was rightly exercised.
The writ petition was dismissed. The Authorized
Controller has been directed to take charge and
conduct elections within the statutory period.
(E-5)

CASE LAW CITED
In re H.K. (An Infant), (1967) 2 QB 617;
Suresh Koshy George v. University of Kerala,
1968 SCC OnLine SC 9

List of Acts
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921;
Constitution of India
List of Keywords
Section 16-D(4) - Authorized Controller -
Natural justice - Administrative fairness -
Opportunity of hearing - Financial irregularities
- Committee supersession - Judicial restraint

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 19.05.2025 passed by Special
Secretary, Secondary Education Department,
Government of U.P.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Ashok Khare (Sr.
Advocate), Parmatma Nand Ojha, Abhishek
Shekhar Ojha, Anurag Kumar Ojha
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C., V.K. Singh
(Sr. Advocate), Vikas Upadhyay

(Delivered by Hon'ble Chandra Dhari
Singh, J.)

1. The instant writ petition has been
filed by the petitioner to issue a writ, order
or direction in nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned order dated 19.05.2025
passed by respondent no.1 i.e. Special
Secretary,
Secondary
Education,
Government of U.P. and also prayed for
issuance of writ, order or direction in the
nature
of
mandamus
directing
the
respondent authorities not to interfere in the
peaceful
functioning
of
petitioners'
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Institution.

Factual Matrix

2. The petitioners' Institution is NonGovernment
aided
Secondary
School
recognized upto Intermediate level. The
above-said Institution is governed under the
458 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
provision of Uttar Pradesh Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 (here-in-after referred
to as "the Education Act") and regulation
made
therein.
The
school
has
an
administration
plan,
approved
and
sanctioned by the department to run the
Institution in accordance with Scheme. The
Committee of Management of School was
constituted
as
per
the
promulgated
provisions. As per the scheme, the term of
Committee of Management is three years
and one month.

3. The last election of Committee of
Management was held on 29.10.2023, in
which one Pradeep Kumar Singhal was
elected as Manager and one Satish Kumar
Mittal
was
elected
as
President
of
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Institution, which has been duly recognized
by the District Inspector of Schools, Shamli
(for short the "D.I.O.S.").

4. Due to bad health, the then Manager
Sri Pradeep Kumar Singhal had resigned
from the post of Manager and the same had
been accepted by the Committee of
Management
and
Committee
of
Management has elected Sri Akash Kumar
Singhal as a Manager for remaining period
of Committee of Management of the
Institution.

5. One Raj Kumar had made a
complaint before the Director of Education
(Secondary) U.P., Prayagraj against the
Manager and requested for initiation of an
enquiry against the said Manager. On the
above-said
complaint,
Director
of
Education (Secondary) U.P., Prayagraj
directed to the Joint Director of Education
(Secondary),
Saharanpur
Region,
Saharanpur to make an enquiry against the
petitioner. The Director of Education
(Secondary) U.P., Prayagraj issued a show
cause notice on 16.08.2023 under Section
16-D(3) of the Education Act to the
petitioner. Against the said show cause
notice
dated
16.08.2023,
petitioner
preferred a writ petition bearing Writ - C
No.32169 of 2023 before this Court for
quashing the said show cause notice on the
ground
that
Director
of
Education
(Secondary) U.P., Prayagraj has initiated
the proceeding with mala fide intention on
the complaint of the complainant.

6. The above-said Writ - C No.32169
of 2023 has been dismissed by this Court
on the ground that the instant writ petition
was filed at premature stage as no final
order had been passed. After completion of
initial enquiry, the Divisional Finance and
Account Officer, office of Joint Director of
Education,
Saharanpur
Division,
Saharanpur has submitted a report dated
25.01.2022 to the Joint Director of
Education,
Saharanpur
Division,
Saharanpur and subsequently the said
report was forwarded to the Director of
Education (Secondary) U.P., Prayagraj vide
covering letter dated 03.02.2022. The
Additional
Director
of
Education
(Secondary) U.P. issued a notice on
25.02.2022 to the petitioner and sought the
explanation within thirty days.

7.
The
Additional
Director
of
Education (Secondary) U.P. made a report
on 11.12.2024 and submitted it to the
Deputy
Secretary
U.P.
Government,
Sanskriti Education Section (Secondary
Education Section-9), Lucknow.

8.
The
Director
of
Education
(Secondary) U.P. made a report dated
07.02.2025 and submitted it before Special
Secretary, U.P. Government, Secondary
Education Section-9 (Sanskriti Education
Section), Lucknow. After considering the
9 All. C/M Hindu Inter College, Kandhla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
459
above-said reports dated 11.12.2024 and
07.02.2025, the State Government passed
an order dated 19.02.2025. The said order
dated 19.02.2025 was challenged in Writ
Petition No.6941 of 2025. This Court
passed the order dated 19.03.2025, by
which
the
impugned
order
dated
19.02.2025 therein had been set aside on
the ground that the report dated 11.12.2024
and 07.02.2025 were not supplied to the
petitioners and direction had been issued to
respondent
no.1,
Special
Secretary
(Secondary Education) Government of
U.P., Lucknow to pass a fresh order, in
accordance with law, within a period of
two months.

9. In pursuance of said order, the
petitioner
made
a
representation
on
07.04.2025
and
subsequently
the
Government of U.P. had issued a notice
dated 02.05.2025, by which it was
intimated that the petitioners may submit
the explanation/reply and date had been
fixed for hearing on 07.05.2025 at 3.30
p.m. in the office of Special Secretary
(Secondary Education). The petitioners
appeared before the respondent no.1
and sought further time for filing
explanation and the time was granted
and date was fixed on 14.05.2025. The
petitioners appeared before the Special
Secretary (Secondary Education) and
submitted
the
written
explanation.
D.I.O.S. had also appeared before the
Special Secretary after considering the
oral
submissions
and
written
submissions
of
the
petitioners.
Respondent no.1 passed impugned order
dated
19.05.2025,
by
which
the
authorized
controller
has
been
appointed for the period of six months.

10. Hence, the instant writ petition has
been filed.

Submissions:

11. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submitted that the
impugned order dated 19.05.2025 was
passed
by
respondent
no.1
without
considering the averments made in the
reply submitted on 14.05.2025, 24.03.2022,
14.03.2022 and 24.07.2024. It is further
submitted that while passing the impugned
order, respondent no.1 has not even
accorded any reason, therefore, the said
order is non- speaking and vague and
passed without application of mind.

12. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submitted that the
impugned
order
is
contrary
to
the
provisions under Section 16-D(4) (8) of the
U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921
(here-in-after referred to as "the Education
Act") on account of fact that no notices
were issued by any of the Education
Authority to the petitioners with regard to
election dated 29.01.2024. It is also
submitted that the impugned order passed
by respondent no.1 is only passed upon the
ex parte reports sent by the Educational
Authorities from time to time against the
petitioners, since the petitioners' averments
have not been considered by the respondent
no.1 while passing the impugned order and
there
were
no
finding
recorded
by
respondent no.1 for rejecting the averments
of the petitioners.

13. Learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners submitted that as
per
Clause
10
of
the
Scheme
of
Administration clearly provides that any
person who has been elected by the
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Institution for remaining period of term of
Committee
of
Management
of
the
Institution is legal and valid. It is submitted
460 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
that in pursuance of the directions given by
Director of Secondary Education, U.P.
Prayagraj to the District Inspector of
Schools, Shamli on 04.08.2023 and the
direction
given
by
the
Director
of
Education, U.P. Prayagraj to the Joint
Director of Education, Saharanpur Region
Saharanpur on 02.04.2023 and 02.05.2023,
neither the District Inspector of Schools,
Shamli nor the Joint Director of Education
(Secondary),
Saharanpur
Region,
Saharanpur has afforded any opportunity of
hearing
to
the
petitioners
prior
to
submitting the recommendation to the
Director of Secondary Education, U.P.
Prayagraj. Therefore, the impugned order
dated 19.05.2025 passed by respondent
no.1
is
arbitrary
and
discriminatory
exercise of power violating the principle of
natural justice and deserves to be set aside.

14. Per contra, learned Standing
Counsel appearing on behalf of the Staterespondents
vehemently
opposed
the
instant writ petition and submitted that
there are no illegality or error in the
impugned order. The impugned order has
been passed by respondent no.1 after
considering the entirety of the matter and
material on record. It is submitted that on
early occasion, an audit/enquiry report
dated 25.01.2022 was submitted by the
Divisional Finance and Account Officer,
office of Joint Director of Education,
Saharanpur before the Joint Director of
Education,
Saharanpur
Division,
Saharanpur and subsequently, it was
forwarded
before
the
Director
of
Education (Secondary), U.P., Prayagraj
by a covering letter dated 03.02.2022 and
in pursuance of it, the Additional Director
of Education (Secondary), U.P. issued a
notice
on
25.02.2022
to
the
petitioners/Manager,
Committee
of
Management,
Hindu
Inter
College,
Kandhla, District Shamli and sought
explanation within 30 days.

15. It is further submitted that the
Additional
Director
of
Education
(Secondary), U.P. made a report on
11.12.2024 and submitted it before
Deputy
Secretary,
Uttar
Pradesh
Government, Sanskriti Education Section
(Secondary
Education
Section-9),
Lucknow. The Director of Education
(Secondary) U.P. made a report on
07.02.2025 and submitted it before
Special
Secretary,
Uttar
Pradesh
Government,
Secondary
Education
Section-9 (Sanskriti Education Section)
Lucknow. After considering the abovesaid
reports
dated
11.12.2024
and
07.02.2025, the State Government passed
an
order
dated
19.02.2025
and
subsequently it was challenged by means
of writ petition bearing Writ Petition
No.6941 of 2025. The Co-ordinate Bench
of this Court passed the order dated
19.03.2025, by which the impugned order
dated 19.02.2025 has been quashed on
the
ground
that
the
report
dated
11.12.2024 and 07.02.2025 were not
supplied to the petitioners and directions
has been issued upon respondent no.1,
Special Secretary (Secondary Education)
Government of U.P., Lucknow to pass a
fresh order, in accordance with law,
within a period of two months.

16. It is further submitted that in
pursuance of the said order, the petitioners
made a representation on 07.04.2025 and
subsequently the Government of U.P. had
issued a notice dated 02.05.2025, by which
it had been intimated that the petitioners
may submit the explanation as per his
requirement in the matter concern and date
was fixed for hearing in the office of
Special Secretary (Secondary Education). It
9 All. C/M Hindu Inter College, Kandhla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
461
is further submitted that in the instant
notice dated 02.05.2025, the reports dated
11.12.2024 and 07.02.2025 had also been
enclosed, therefore, the petitioners have full
knowledge about the facts of the case and
also have knowledge about two reports i.e.
11.12.2024 and 07.02.2025.

17. Learned Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents further clarified that
since on the earlier occasion this Court had
set aside the order passed by the Special
Secretary only on the ground that both the
reports dated 11.12.2024 and 07.02.2025
were not supplied to the petitioners. It is
vehemently submitted that on 07.05.2025,
the petitioners appeared before the Special
Secretary and sought time for filing their
replication/explanation for their case and
the next date was fixed on their request on
14.05.2025. On 14.05.2025, the D.I.O.S.,
Shamli and the Manager of the Institution
appeared before the Special Secretary
(Secondary Education) and the Manager
submitted his oral statement as well as his
written submissions. Thereafter, the Special
Secretary after considering the reply and
submissions of respective parties, passed
the impugned order dated 19.05.2025.

18.
Learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
Staterespondents submitted that in view of the
above-said facts, the petitioners have failed
to make out any case for issuance of writ,
order or direction as prayed in the instant
writ petition. The instant writ petition is
devoid of merit and has to be dismissed.

19. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned
Senior Advocate assisted by Sri P.N. Ojha,
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners, Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh,
learned Standing Counsel appearing on
behalf of the State-respondents, Sri V.K.
Singh, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Sri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel
appeared to assist the Court.

Analysis and Findings

20. Taking into consideration the
submissions made in forgoing paragraphs,
the short question for determination is as to
whether the State Government before
passing the order under Section 16 (D) (4)
of the Act is bound to give an opportunity
to Committee to show cause.

21. Provisions under Section 16-D of
the Act is quoted as under:

"[16-D. (1) The Director may
cause a recognized institution to be
inspected from time to time.

(2) The Director may direct a
management to remove any defect or
deficiency
found
on
inspection
or
otherwise.

(3)
If
on
the
receipt
of
information or otherwise, the Director is
satisfied that -

(i) the Committee of Management
of an institution has failed to comply with
the judgment of any court or any direction
made under this Act or any other law for
the time being in force; or

(ii) the Committee has failed to
appoint teaching staff possessing such
qualifications as are necessary for the
purpose of ensuring the maintenance of
academic standard in the institution or has
appointed or retained in service any
teaching
or
non-teaching
staff
in
contravention of the provisions of this Act
or the Regulations; or
462 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iii) any dispute with respect to
the right claimed by different persons to be
lawful office-bearers of the Committee of
Management has affected the smooth and
orderly administration of the institution
concerned; or

(iv)
the
Committee
has
persistently failed to provide the institution
with
such
adequate
and
proper
accommodation,
library,
furniture,
stationery, laboratory equipment or other
facilities as are necessary for the efficient
administration of such institution; or

(v)
the
Committee
has
substantially
diverted
misapplied
or
misappropriated
the
property
of
the
institution
to
its
detriment
or
has
transferred any property in contravention
of the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh
Educational Institutions (Prevention of
Dissipation of Assets) Act, 1974 (U.P. Act
No.3 of 1975);or

(vi) the draft of the Scheme of
Administration has not been submitted
within the time allowed therefore under
Section 16-B, or that the Management of
the institution is being conducted otherwise
than in accordance with the Scheme of
Administration or the affairs of the
institution
are
being
otherwise
mismanaged;

(vii)
the
Scheme
of
Administration in relation to an institution,
approved before the commencement of the
Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act,
1980, is inconsistent with the provisions of
this Act and the management of the
institution has failed to alter or modify it
within a reasonable time despite notice
under section 16-CCC; he may refer the
case to the Board for withdrawal of
recognition of such institution, or issue
notice to the Committee of Management to
show cause within thirty days from the date
of receipt of notice why an order under
sub-section (4) should not be made.

(4) Where the Committee of
Management of an institution fails to show
cause within the time allowed under subsection (3) or within such extended time as
the Director may, from time to time allow,
or where the Director, is after considering
the cause shown by the Committee of
Management satisfied that any of the
grounds mentioned in sub-section (3)
exists, he may recommend to the State
Government to appoint an Authorized
Controller
for
that
institution,
and
thereupon, the State Government may, by
order,
for
reasons
to
be
recorded,
authorize any person (hereinafter referred
to as the Authorized Controller) to take
over, for such period not exceeding two
years,
as
may
be
specified,
the
Management of such institution and its
properties:

Provided
that
if
the
State
Government is of opinion that it is
expedient so to do in order to continue to
secure the proper management of the
institution and its properties, it may, from
time to time, extend the operation of the
order, for such period, not exceeding one
year at a time, as it may specify, so
however, that the total period of operation
of the order, including the period specified
in the initial order, but excluding the
period specified in sub-section (8), does not
exceed five years :

Provided further that if at the
expiration of the said period of five years,
there is no lawfully constituted Committee
of Management of the institution, the
9 All. C/M Hindu Inter College, Kandhla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
463
Authorized Controller shall continue to
function
as
such,
until
the
State
Government is satisfied that a Committee
of
Management
has
been
lawfully
constituted."

22. As per aforesaid scheme of the
statute contained in Section 16(D)(1)
provides that Director may cause a
recognized institution to be inspected from
time to time, sub Clause (2) would provide
that
the
Director
may
direct
the
management to remove any defect or
deficiency found during the inspection or
otherwise, whereas, sub Clause 3 provides
the eventualities upon which the Director
may refer the case of the Institution to the
Board for withdrawal of recognition of
such Institution and issue notice to the
Committee of Management to show cause
within thirty days from the date of receipt
of such notice why an order under sub
Section (4) should not be made. Sub Clause
(4)
would
provide
that
where
the
Committee
of
Management
of
an
Institution fails to show cause within the
time allowed under Sub Section (3) or
within such extended time as the Director
may from time to time allow, where the
Director, after considering the show cause
shown by the Committee of Management is
satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned
in sub Section (3) exists, he may,
recommend to the State Government to
appoint an authorized controller for that
Institution.

23. On plain reading, sub-section (4) is
silent regarding requirements of notice to
be
served
upon
the
Committee
of
Management before any order is passed by
the State Government.

24. The question how far the principle
of natural justice govern administrative
enquiries came up for consideration before
the Queen's Bench Division In re H. K.
(An Infant)1 Therein the validity of the
action taken by an Immigration Officer
came up for consideration. In the course of
his Judgement Lord Parker C.J. observed
thus:

"But at the same time, I myself
think that even if an immigration officer is
not in a judicial or quasi-judicial capacity,
he must at any rate give the immigrant an
opportunity of satisfying him of the matters
in the sub-section, and for that purpose let
the immigrant know what his immediate
impression is so that the immigrant can
disabuse him. That is not, as I see it, a
question of acting or being required to act
judicially, but of being required to act
fairly. Good administration and an honest.
or bona fide decision must, as it seems to
me, require not merely impar-tiality, nor
merely bringing one's mind to bear on the
problem, but acting fairly, and to the
limited extent that the circumstances of any
particular case allow, and within the
legislative framework under which the
administrator is working, only to that
limited extent do the so-called rules of
natural justice apply, which in a case such
as this is merely a duty to act fairly. I
appreciate that in saying that it may be
said that one is going further than is
permitted on the decided cases because
heretofore at any rate the decisions of the
courts do seem to have drawn a strict line
in these matters according to whether there
is or is not a duty to act judicially or quasijudicially."

25. In the same case Blain J., observed
thus:

"I would only say that an
immigration officer having assumed the
464 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
jurisdiction granted by those provisions is
in a position where it is his duty to exercise
that assumed jurisdiction whether it be
administrative, executive or quasi-judicial,
fairly, by which I mean applying his mind
dispassionately to a fair analysis of the
particular problem and the information
available to him in analysing it. If in any
hypothetical case, and in any real case, this
court was satisfied that an immigration
officer was not so doing, then in my view
mandamus would lie."

26. In the case of Suresh Koshy
George v. University of Kerala,2 Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that rules of natural
justice are not embodied rules. What
particular rule of natural justice should
apply to a given case must depend to a
great extent on the facts and circumstances
of that case, the framework of the law
under which the enquiry is held and the
constitution of the Tribunal or body of
persons
appointed
for
that
purpose.
Whenever a complaint is made before a
court that some principle of natural justice
had been contravened the court has to
decide whether the observance of that rule
was necessary for a just decision on the
facts of that case.

27. I may, however, hasten to add that
no general rule of universal application can
be laid down as to the applicability of the
principle of natural justice, in addition to
the language of the provision, undoubtedly,
that can be exceptions to the said doctrine.

28. The question whether the principle
has to be applied or not is to be considered
bearing in mind the express language and
the basic schemes of the provision
conferring the power; the nature of the
power conferred; the purpose for which the
power is conferred and the final effect of
the exercise of that power.

29. The relevant paragraphs of the
impugned order dated 19.05.2025 are
reproduced here-in-below:-

"6- मदनांक 14.05.2025 को मवशेि समचव,
माध्यममक मशक्षा मवभाग, उत्तर प्रदेश शासन की अध्यक्षता में सम्पन्न
सुनवाई बैठक में संटथा प्रबंधक द्वारा प्रटतुत मकये गये उपयुटि प्रटतर5 में वमणटत पक्ष / मबन्दुओं के सम्बन्ध में वटतुमटथमत मनम्नवत् हैैः-

> महंदू इंटर कॉलेज, कांधला, शामली एक
अशासकीय सहायता प्राप्त माध्यममक संटथा है, मजस पर इंटरनीमडयंट
मशक्षा अमधमनयम 1921. व वेतन मवतरण अमधमनयम 1971 से
प्रमवधान प्रभावी व पोमित है।

> संटथा में व्याप्त मवत्तीय अमनयममतताओं के संबंध
में प्राप्त मशकायतों के आधार पर मंडलीय संयुि मशक्षा मनदेशक
सहारनपुर ने मवत्तीय अमनयममतता होने के दृमष्गत प्रकरण की जााँच
मंडलीय ऑमडट इकाई, सहारनपुर से करायी गयी।

> मंडलीय ऑमडट इकाई सहारनपुर ने अपनी
संप्रेक्षण आख्या में मनम्नवत मवत्तीय अमनयममतता के पुमष्त होने के
सबंध में मटथमत से अवगत कराया गया-

ऑमडट के दौरान उपलब्ध कराये गये ररकाडट की
जााँच से मनम्न तथ्य / मवत्तीय अमनयममतताएं संज्ञामनत हुयी-

कैशबुक के अनुसार नकद धनरामश उपलब्ध होते हुए
भी प्रत्येक माह नकद आहरण बैंक से मकया जाता रहा मजसका कोई
औमचत्य टपष् नहीं मकया गया।

अमधकांशतैः भुगतान नकद ही मकये गये हैं जबमक
मनयमानुसार समटत भुगतान चौक के माध्यम से मकये जाने चामहए।

मनमाटण कायों में मकये गये व्यय मबल बाऊचसट
इत्यामद की जााँच के समय यह तथ्य भो प्रकाश में आया मक मकसी
भी प्रकार की टेण्डर/कोटेशन की प्रमकया नहीं अपनायी गयी है।

मदनांक 09.10.2019 को कैशबुक (बैंक /
दुकानों से प्राप्त मकराये के सम्बन्ध में) में 22,000.00 का व्यय
9 All. C/M Hindu Inter College, Kandhla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
465
लोन के ररपेयमेंट के नाम से मकया गया है मजस सम्बन्ध में कोई
मववरण उपलब्ध नहीं कराया गया।

मदनांक
17.01.2020
को
कैशबुक
में
1,25,000.00 रु० का नकद व्यय दशाटया गया है जबमक इस
सम्बन्ध में मवद्यालय द्वारा कोई भी मटथमत टपष् नहीं की गयी।

कैशबुक के अनुसार उपलब्ध नकद का माहवार
भौमतक सत्यापन मकया जाना चामहए मजसके सम्बन्ध में कोई मटथमत
टपष् नहीं की गयी।

ऑमडट की अवमध के दौरान वतटमान में अवशेि
नकद का भौमतक सत्यापन भी ऑमडंट टीम को नहीं कराया गया।

मवद्यालय कैशबुक के परीक्षण से संज्ञामनत है मक
अनेको मनमाटण कायों के प्रमत नकद व्यय दशाटये गये है परन्तु मजदूरी
के सम्वन्ध में दैमनक मटटर रोल प्रटतुत नहीं मकये गये।

> उपरोि मटथमत टपष् हो जाने के उपरांत संटथा में
व्याप्त मवत्तीय अमनयममतता के मनराकरण हेतु मंडलीय संयुि मशक्षा
मनदेशक, सहारनपुर ने संटथा प्रकरण समममत के मवरुद्ध इंटरमीमडयट
मशक्षा अमधमनयम 1921 की धारा 16डी(2) के अधीन कायटवाही
मकये जाने के संबंध में मनदेशालय को प्रकरण संदमभटत मकया गया।

> उपरोि प्राप्त प्रटताव के आलोक में इंटरमीमडयट
मशक्षा अमधमनयन 1921 की धारा 16 डी (2) के अधीन संटथा
प्रबन्धक को मनदेश मनगटत करते हुये प्राप्त मवत्तीय अमनयममतता की
मनराकरण आख्या उपलब्ध कराये जाने के संबंध में मनदेमशत मकया
गया।

> तत्िम में संटथा प्रबन्धक से प्राप्त उनके अमभकथन
पर मजला मवद्यालय मनरीक्षक शामली से संटतुमत उपलब्ध कराये जाने
के संबंध में मनदेमशत मकया गया, मजसके अनुपालन में मजला
मवद्यालय मनरीक्षक शामली ने मवत्तीय अमनयममतता टपष् होने की
मटथमत में संटथा प्रबंध समममत के मवरुद्ध इंटरमीमडयट मशक्षा
अमधमनयम 1921 की धारा 16 डी के अधीन कायटवाही मकये जाने
के संबंध में संटतुमत की गयी।

> इसी िम में मंडलीय संयुि मशक्षा मनदेशक,
सहारनपुर ने भी संटथा मवत्तीय अमनयमनतता संज्ञामनत व टपष् हो
जाने के दृमष्गत संटथा प्रबंध समममत के मवरुद्ध इंटरमीमडयट मशला
अमधमनयम 1921 की धारा 16 डी के अधीन कायटवाही मकये जाने
के संबंध में संटतुमत की गयी।

> उपरोि मंडलीय/जनपदीय अमधकाररयों से प्राप्त
प्रटताव / संटतुमत के आलोक मे इंटरमीमडयट मशक्षा अमधमनयम
1921 की धारा 16 डी (3) के अधीन मनदेशालय द्वारा संटथा
प्रबन्धक, महन्दू इण्टर कालेज, कांधला, शामली को कारण बताओं
नोमटस मनगटत करते हुये अमधमनयम में टथामपत व्यवटथा के अधीन
३० मदवस के भीतर अपना पक्ष प्रटतुत मकये जाने के संबंध में
आदेमशत मकया गया।

> संटथा प्रबन्धक द्वारा उपरोि मनधाटररत 30 मदवस
के भीतर अपना अमभकथन प्रटतुत न मकये जाने के दृमष्गत
इंटरमीमडयट मशक्षा अमधमनयम 1921 की धारा 16 डी की
उपधारा-4 के अधीन मनदेशालय द्वारा प्रकरण की मटथमत से अवगत
कराते हुये संटथा की पररसंपमत्तयों के प्रबंधन हेतु प्रामधकृत मनयंत्रक
मनयुि मकये जाने के संबंध में प्रकरण को शासन संदमभटत कर मदया
गया।

> संटथा प्रबन्धक ने मनदेशालय द्वारा मनगटत धारा-
16 डी-3 की नोमटस के मवरुद्ध एक यामचका संख्या
32169/2023 व मशकायतकताट द्वारा एक यामचका संख्या
20059/2023 योमजत की गयी उि दोनों मान० उच्च न्यायालय
द्वारा सम्बद्ध करते हुये अपने मनणटय मदनांक 31-01-2024 द्वारा
उपरोि यामचकाओं को खाररज कर मदया गया।

> संटथा प्रबंध समममत ने अपना पक्ष शासन के
समक्ष मदनांक 27.04.2024 को सम्पन्न सुनवाई बैठक में प्रटतुत
मकया गया मजसके सापेक्ष शासन ने संटथा प्रबन्धक की व्यमिगत
सुनवाई मकये जाने के उपरांत द्वारा शासन को प्रटतुत मकये गये
अमभकथन पर संटतुमत उपलब्ध कराये जाने के सबंध में मनदेमशत
मकया गया।

7- इस सम्बन्ध में उकलेखनीय है म़ि संटथा प्रबंधतंत्र
द्वारा संटथा की मवत्तीय पररसंपमत्तयों को मवभागीय मवत्तीय मनयमों के
मवपरीत जाकर नगद कैश के रूप में लेन-देन मकया गया। उि नगद
लेन देन मे प्रबंधतंत्र यह टपष् करने में असफल रहा मक, लेन देन की
गयी धनरामश संटथा महत में की गयी थी अथवा व्यमिगत? यमद
संटथा प्रबंधतंत्र द्वारा मवत्तीय मनयमों के अनुरूप धनरामश का अंतरण
बैंक अथवा सरकार द्वारा प्रचमलत प्रमियाओं (ई-पेमेंट, चेक आमद)
के माध्यम से मकया जाता तो यह प्रमामणत हो सकता था मक संटथा
की मनमध मकसको अंतररत की गयी व मकस प्रयोजन हेतु ? मकन्तु
उि मटथमत के मवपरीत जाकर संख्था प्रबंधतंत्र ने जानबूझकर संटथा
मनमध को मवत्तीय मनयमों के मवपरीत लेन देन मकया गया जोमक
466 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
मवत्तीय अमनयममतता की श्रेणी में आता है, मजस हेतु संटथा की
पररसंपमत्तयों के प्रबंधन हेतु इंटरमीमडयट मशक्षा अमधमनयम 1921
की धारा 16 डी (4) के अधीन् प्रामधकृत मनयंत्रक मनयुि मकये
जाने के सम्बन्ध में मशक्षा मनदेशक, माध्यममक, उ०प्र० प्रयागराज
द्वारा शासन को की गयी संटतुमत उमचत है।

8-उि के अमतररि मशक्षा मनदेशक, माध्यमगक द्वारा
अपनी संटतुमत में शासन को यह भी अवगत कराया गया है मक श्री
प्रदीप कुमार मसंघल, प्रबन्धक, महन्दू इण्टर कॉलेज, कांधला,
शामली द्वारा अपनी टवाटथ्य सम्बन्धी समटयाओं के कारण मदनांक
18.01.2024 को उपाध्यक्ष, प्रबन्ध समममत, महन्दू इण्टर कालेज,
कांधला शामली को अपना त्याग-पत्र प्रटतुत मकया गया। फलतैः
प्रबन्ध समममत की मदनांक 29.01.2024 को आह त बैठक में श्री
प्रदीप कुमार मसंघल का त्याग पत्र टवीकार करते हुए शेि अवमध के
मलए प्रबन्धक का कायटभार साधारण सभा के आजीवन सदटय श्री
आकाश कुमार मसंघल को मदये जाने का मवमनश्चय मकया गया। प्रबन्ध
समममत के उपरोि प्रटताव के आधार पर मजला मवद्यालय मनरीक्षक,
शामली की आख्यानुसार मवद्यालय की टवीकृत / अनुमोमदत
प्रशासन योजना की धारा-10 (1) में मनमहत व्यवटथानुसार शेि
अवमध हेतु श्री आकाश कुमार मसंघल के हटताक्षर संटथा प्रबन्धक
के रूप में मजला मवद्यालय मनरीक्षक, शामली द्वारा प्रमामणत कर मदये
गये।

9-प्रकरण में पूवट में मण्डलीय संयुि मशक्षा मनदेशक,
सहारनपुर की आख्या मदनांक 27.06.2024 के साथ प्राप्त संटथा
महन्दू इण्टर कालेज, कांधला, शामली की अनुमोमदत / टवीकृत
प्रशासन योजना की धारा-10 (1) में उमकलमखत है मक "समममत के
सदटयों (पदेन सदटयों से मभन्न) या समममत के पदामधकाररयों के पद
में होने वाली मकसी आकमटमक ररमि की पूमतट समममत द्वारा
कायटकाल की शेि अवमध के मलए की जाएगी और इस प्रकार
मनयुि व्यमि उस शेि काल के मलए संमममत का सदटय या
पदामधकारी (जैसी भी दशा हो) होगा, मजसके मलए वह व्यमि
रहता, मजसके टथान की वह पूमतट करता है। ऐसी ररमि की पूमतट हेतु
पदेन तथा मनोनीत सदटय भी वोट देने के अमधकारी होंगे।"

10-उपरोि अनुमोमदत/टवीकृत प्रशासन योजना में
समममत का तात्पयट टकूल की प्रबंध समममत से है का उकलेख है। इस
प्रकार मजला मवद्यालय मनरीक्षक, शामली द्वारा मवद्यालय में सवटप्रथम
श्री प्रदीप कुमार मसंहल की मदनांक 29.01.2024 को त्याग-पत्र
से फमलत आकमटमक ररमध पर साधारणसभा के सदटय श्री आकाश
कुमार मसंहल के चयन को अनुमोमदत करते हुए उनके हटताक्षर
प्रमाणन की कायटवाही की गयी, जो मवद्यालय की अनुमोमदत/टवीकृत
प्रशासन योजना से मनम्न कायटवाही है। श्री आकाश कुमार मसंहल
साधारण सभा के पदेन सदटय है, जबमक संटथा की अनुमोमदत /
टवीकृत प्रशासन योजना के अंतगटत प्रबन्ध समममत के सदटयों या
पदामधकाररयों से ही प्रबन्धक के पद की आकमटमक ररमि की पूमतट
की जानी थी। इस प्रकार मजला मवद्यालय मनरीक्षण, शामली द्वारा की
गयी उपरोि कायटवाही अनुमोमदत / टवीकृत प्रशासन योजना के
मवपरीत है।

11-मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा ररट यामचका सी०
संख्या-6941/2025 में पाररत आदेश मदनांक 19.03.2025
के अनुपालन में शासन टतर पर आह त सुनवाई बैठक मदनांक
07.05.2025 एवं मदनांक 14.05.2025 में याची प्रबंध
समममत / प्रबंधक द्वारा प्रटतुत मकये गये मौमखक एवं मलमखत
पक्ष/तकट (मजनका उकलेख प्रटतर-5 में मकया गया है) उपयुटि
प्रटतर-6 से 10 में वमणटत वटतुमटथमत एवं तथ्यों के दृमष्गत पूणटतैः
आधारहीन एवं बलहीन है।

12-अतैः मा० उच्च न्यायालय द्वारा ररट यामचका
सी० संख्या-6941/2025 में पाररत आदेश मदनांक
19.03.2025 के अनुपालन में शासन सार पर आह त सुनवाई
बैठक मदनांक 07.05.2025 एवं मदनांक 14.05.2025 में
याची प्रबंध समममत / प्रबंधक द्वारा प्रटतुत मकये गये मौमखक एवं
मलमखत पक्ष/तकट उपयुटि प्रटतर-6 से 10 में वमणटत वटतुमटथमत एवं
तथ्यों के दृमष्गत पूणटतैः आधारहीन एवं बलहीन होने के कारण
संख्या महंदू इंटर कॉलेज, कांधला, शामली की प्रबंध समममत के
मवरुद्ध माध्यममक मशक्षा अमधमनयम, 1921 की धारा 16 डी (4)
के अंतगटत प्रबन्ध तंत्र को अमतिममत करते हुए संटथा एवं उसकी
पररसम्पमत्तयों के प्रबन्धन हेतु मजला बेमसक मशक्षा अमधकारी,
शामली (पदेन) को श्री राज्यपाल इस शतट के साथ छ (06) माह
हेतु प्रामधकृत मनयंत्रक मनयुि करते हैं मक प्रामधकृत मनयंत्रक द्वारा
मनधाटररत समयावमध में संटथा में व्याप्त अमनयममतताओं का मनराकरण
करते हुए संटथा में मान्य प्रबन्ध समममत के गठन की कायटवाही की
जाएगी।"

30. After perusal of the aforesaid
impugned order dated 19.05.2025, by
which an authorized controller has been
appointed in the school due to alleged
financial irregularities. As per the pleadings
and material on record in the instant matter,
9 All. C/M Hindu Inter College, Kandhla & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
467
an audit report dated 25.01.2022 was
submitted by the Divisional Finance and
Account Officer, office of Joint Director of
Education,
Saharanpur
before
Joint
Director of Education, subsequently it was
forwarded
to
Director
of
Education
(Secondary), Prayagraj vide letter dated
03.02.2022. In pursuance of it, the
Additional
Director
of
Education
(Secondary), Uttar Pradesh issued a notice
on 25.02.2022 to the petitioner and sought
the explanation within 30 days. The
Additional
Director
of
Education
(Secondary), U.P. made a report on
11.12.2024 and same was submitted to
Deputy Secretary, U.P. The Director of
Education (Secondary), U.P. made a report
on 07.02.2025 and submitted to Special
Secretary (Secondary Education), U.P.
After considering the aforesaid reports, the
State Government passed an order dated
19.02.2025. The said order was challenged
in the High Court vide Writ Petition
No.6941 of 2025. The Co-ordinate Bench
quashed the order dated 19.02.2025 passed
by the Government vide order dated
19.03.2025 on the ground that the aforesaid
both
reports
dated
11.12.2024
and
07.02.2025 were not supplied to the
petitioners. It was further directed to pass
fresh order in accordance with law.

31. In pursuance of the aforesaid order
dated 19.03.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate
Bench, the Government of U.P. has issued
notice dated 02.05.2025 to the petitioners
and called for explanation and date was
fixed for hearing on 07.05.2025 at 3.30
p.m. in the office of Special Secretary
(Secondary
Education).
On
07.05.2025,
petitioners appeared and sought the time for
filing his reply of show cause and next date
was fixed on 14.05.2025. On 14.05.2025, the
D.I.O.S., Shamli and the petitioners appeared
before the Special Secretary. The petitioners
submitted their oral submissions as well as
written submissions before the Special
Secretary, then the impugned order dated
19.05.2025
was
passed
by
which
an
authorized controller has been appointed for
period of six months.

32. Learned Senior Counsel for the
petitioners has contended that requirement of
recording reasons mentioned in Sub-Section
(4) of Section 16(D) of the Act has not
complied with. After perusal of aforesaid facts,
the petitioners had been given opportunity for
hearing and for submitting the explanation
before the Special Secretary. The officer
concerned after taking into the consideration
the explanation and material on record before
him rejected the explanation of the petitioners
and passed the impugned order. Recording of
reasons is preceded by consideration of the
explanation
followed
by
agreement
or
disagreement with the explanation submitted
by the Management. Reasons recorded in that
behalf would not constitute compliance of subsection (4) of Section 16(D) of the Act. It is
settled law that Administrative Authorities are
not required to record reasons as elaborately as
an order by a Court.