# C/M Pandit Ram Murat Ram Surat Mishra Pvt Indu. Training Institute, Azamgarh & Ors v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 6 ILRA 938
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-05-17
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 111 of 2022
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-pandit-ram-murat-ram-surat-mishra-pvt-indu-training-institute-azamgarh-ors-48686
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-
Order
passed
by
Government of India, Ministry of Skill
Development
and
Entrepreneurship,
Directorate
General
of
Training,
-
appellants-Institutes
(40
ITIs)
deaffiliated and debarred for three years - no
further admissions allowed to them from
session 2021 - appellants furnished forged
bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- per unit -
found to be forged - punishment imposed
by Central Government - disproportionate.
(Para - 2,3,6)

HELD:-40 Institutes inflicted with punishment
and only 13 Institutes joined writ petition. Only
8 Institutes come in appeal. One Institute in
another appeal. All Institutes not challenged
order, realising that they had committed fraud
by submitting forged bank guarantees, hence
were liable to be punished for the same.(Para -
9)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

## Text

938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
directions given in the judgment and,
therefore, we are of the considered opinion
that this Court cannot entertain the present
writ petition.

30. Accordingly, the writ petition is not
maintainable before this Court and is
dismissed as such. However, there shall no
order as to costs.
----------
(2022)06ILR A938
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.05.2022

BEFORE

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

Special Appeal No. 111 of 2022

C/M Pandit Ram Murat Ram Surat Mishra
Pvt Indu. Training Institute, Azamgarh &
Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellnts:
Sri Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.), Sri Siddhrth Khare,
Sri Parashar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Mahabir Singh, Sri Rajesh Tripathi,
Sri Ramanand Pandey (Addl. C.S.C.)

(A)
Misc.
Law
-
Order
passed
by
Government of India, Ministry of Skill
Development
and
Entrepreneurship,
Directorate
General
of
Training,
-
appellants-Institutes
(40
ITIs)
deaffiliated and debarred for three years - no
further admissions allowed to them from
session 2021 - appellants furnished forged
bank guarantee of Rs. 50,000/- per unit -
found to be forged - punishment imposed
by Central Government - disproportionate.
(Para - 2,3,6)

HELD:-40 Institutes inflicted with punishment
and only 13 Institutes joined writ petition. Only
8 Institutes come in appeal. One Institute in
another appeal. All Institutes not challenged
order, realising that they had committed fraud
by submitting forged bank guarantees, hence
were liable to be punished for the same.(Para -
9)

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

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

1. Order dated January 17, 2022
passed by learned Single Judge has been
impugned by filing the present intra-court
appeal. Vide aforesaid order, two writ
petitions including the writ petition filed by
the appellants herein, bearing Writ-C
No.28322 of 2021, were dismissed.

2. Challenge in the aforesaid writ
petition was to the order dated September
17, 2021 passed by the Government of
India, Ministry of Skill Development and
Entrepreneurship, Directorate General of
Training, vide
which
the
appellantsInstitutes were de-affiliated and debarred
for three years and no further admissions
were to be allowed to them from the
session 2021. The relevant portion of the
order dated September 17, 2021 is
reproduced below:

"Committee
approved
for
Deaffiliation of these 40 ITIs and debarred
them for 3 years. No further admissions to
be allowed to these ITIs from session
2021."

3. The aforesaid order was passed on
account of the fact that the appellants had
furnished
forged
bank
guarantee
of
₹50,000/- per unit.

4. Learned counsel for the appellants
submitted that the condition for submission
6 All. C/M Pandit Ram Murat Ram Surat Mishra Pvt. Indu. Training Institute, Azamgarh & Ors.
 Vs. Union of India & Ors.
939
of bank guarantee was imposed by the State
Government vide order dated September
25, 2020. Finding that certain bank
guarantees
were
fake,
the
State
Government recommended to the Central
Government that the said Institutes be not
allowed to make any admission for the
session 2021-22. The imposition of higher
penalty by the Central Government was
totally uncalled for, as there was no
violation of any of the conditions imposed
by the Central Government. The penalty
imposed was disproportionate to the guilt
and the idea for furnishing bank guarantee
was to compensate the students in case
courses are closed midway. Such an
eventuality has not yet arisen. The
appellants are ready to furnish fresh bank
guarantees.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants
further submitted that in a matter pending
before the Lucknow Bench of this Court
bearing Writ-C No. 1948 of 2022, vide
order dated April 5, 2022, the respondents
therein have been restrained from taking
any coercive action against the petitioners
therein, in case they deposit ₹50,000/- each
per unit within 7 days with the authority
concerned.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel
for the respondents submitted that it is a
case in which the appellants had furnished
forged
bank
guarantees.
Hence,
the
punishment
imposed
by
the
Central
Government
cannot
be
said
to
be
disproportionate, seeing their conduct.

7. After hearing learned counsel for
the parties, we do not find any case is made
out for interference in the present appeal.

8. Vide order dated September 25, 2020,
the State Government had imposed a
condition that the Institutes are required to
furnish bank guarantee of ₹50,000/- per
unit. There was no challenge to the
aforesaid condition imposed by the State
Government which was applicable after the
issuance thereof. Rather, in compliance
thereof, the appellants furnished bank
guarantees, which were found to be forged.
Finding the bank guarantees furnished by
40 Institutes to be forged, the State
Government recommended to the Central
Government that they should not be
allowed to make any admission for the
session 2021-22. However, the Central
Government, finding that it was a case of
submission of forged bank guarantee,
passed the order dated September 17, 2021,
impugned in the writ petition giving rise to
the present intra-court appeal.

9. The argument raised by learned
counsel
for
the
appellants
that
the
punishment imposed is disproportionate, is
merely to be noticed and rejected, for the
reason that it was a case of submission of
fake bank guarantee and fraud committed
on the State, which vitiates everything. The
argument that the Central Government had
no authority to impose punishment for
submission of fake bank guarantee as the
condition for submission of bank guarantee
was imposed by the State Government is
also to be noticed and rejected, for the
reason that in case of submission of fake
document/bank guarantee, the Institutes
concerned have to face the consequences as
these are the Institutes which were meant to
impart education to students. Still, we find
that 40 Institutes have been inflicted with
the punishment and only 13 Institutes
joined the writ petition. However, in
appeal, only 8 Institutes have come in. It
was stated by learned counsel for the
respondents that there is another special
appeal bearing Special Appeal No. 87 of
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2022 in which only one Institute is there.
That means, all the Institutes have not even
challenged the order, realising that they had
committed fraud by submitting forged bank
guarantees, hence were liable to be
punished for the same.

10. We do not find any reason to take
a view different than the view taken by the
learned Single Judge. There is no merit in
the
present
appeal.
The
same
is,
accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2022)06ILR A940
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 14.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

Special Appeal No. 212 of 2022

Smt. Girija Singh (In Wric 1004847 of
2012) ...Petitioner
Versus
C/m Intermediate College Amethi & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Anupam Mehrotra, Diwakar Singh Kaushik

Counsel for the Respondents:
Mahendra Bahadur Singh, C.S.C., Ram Kumar
Singh

(A) Election - The Allahabad High Court
Rules, 1952 - Chapter VIII Rule 5 - Special
Appeal - Societies Registration Act of 1860
- Section 3 - registration of a society,
Section 3A - renewal of certificate of the
registration of a Society - renewal of
certificate of the registration of a Society -
applicable in the State of Uttar Pradesh -
permits
renewal
of
certificate
of
registration even after expiry of the period
of registration on payment of late fee -
Section 6 - Suits by and against societies ,
Section
25(1)
-
Disputes
regarding
election of office -bearers - preliminary
objection must be adjudicated upon first -
Existence
of
society
will
not
get
extinguished only because of non-renewal
of its registration certificate.(Para - 22)
Non renewal of registration of Society - list of
112 members of General Body of Society in
question - declared to be valid for purposes of
holding election of Executive Body of Society -
Single Judge while passing the judgment and
order under appeal not considered issue relating
to maintainability of writ petition - allowed writ
petition - addition in list of 60 members of
General Body of the Society - whether legally
permissible. (Para -2,14,21)

HELD:-Society once duly registered, does not
lose its entity as a society on account of nonrenewal of certificate of registration. Society will
get extinct only when it is dissolved as per the
provisions contained in section 13 or 13-A of the
Act. Persons added in list of 60 members of
General Body of Society were illegally added. No
interference in the judgment and order passed
by learned Single Judge.(Para -22,23,28 )

Special Appeal dismissed. (E-7)

List of Cases cited:-

1. PBNC Committee Vs Govt. of A.P., AIR 1958
AP 773

2. Pattada Uthayya Vs Pattada Somayya, AIR
1955 Mysore 149

3. Mahabir Prasad Vs Satyanarain, AIR 1963
Patna 131

4. Arya Samaj Vs Manmohan Tewari, 1994 (12) LCD 205

5. Adare Madarsa Ziaul-Ulum & ors. Vs
Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits &
anr. , 2005 (23) LCD 1021

6. Umesh Chandra Vs Mahila Vidyalaya Society,
2006 (24) LCD 1373

7. Baba Bariyar Shah Association Vs St. of U. P.,
2019 (37) LCD 887