# C/M Rampur Ucchhtar Madhyamik Viddyalaya & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 494
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-18
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 25643 of 2021
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/c-m-rampur-ucchhtar-madhyamik-viddyalaya-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46586
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 14 and 21 -
Committee
of
management
-
Single
operation of bank account - Administrative
order
-
Principle
of
natural
justice
-
Applicability - No opportunity of hearing was
given - Failure in recording the reason -
Effect - Held, even in administrative matters,
the reasons should be recorded as it is
incumbent upon the authorities to pass a
speaking and reasoned order - Any order
which has been passed without affording any
opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved
person, is clearly in violation of principle of
natural justice, which is the requirement of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. (Para 12 and 18)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

19. The writ petition is dismissed.
----------
(2021)12ILR A494
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No. 25643 of 2021

C/M Rampur Ucchhtar Madhyamik Viddyalaya
& Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri P.K. Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Constitution of India - Article 14 and 21 -
Committee
of
management
-
Single
operation of bank account - Administrative
order
-
Principle
of
natural
justice
-
Applicability - No opportunity of hearing was
given - Failure in recording the reason -
Effect - Held, even in administrative matters,
the reasons should be recorded as it is
incumbent upon the authorities to pass a
speaking and reasoned order - Any order
which has been passed without affording any
opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved
person, is clearly in violation of principle of
natural justice, which is the requirement of
Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of
India. (Para 12 and 18)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

1. Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & ors. Vs St. of U.P. &
ors.; AIR 1991
SC 537
2. L.I.C. Vs Consumer Education and Research
Centre; (1995) 2 SCC 480
3. Mahesh Chandra Vs Regional Manager, U.P.
Financial Corporation & Ors.; AIR 1993 SC 935
4. U.O.I. Vs M.L. Capoor; AIR 1974 SC 87
5. St. of W.B. Vs Atul Krishna Shaw & anr.; 1991
(Suppl.) 1 SCC 414
6. S.N. Mukherjee Vs U.O.I.; AIR 1990 SC 1984
7. Krishna Swami Vs U.O.I. & ors.; AIR 1993 SC 1407
8. Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs L.K.
Ratna & ors.; (1986) 4 SCC 537
9. Board of Trustees of the Port of Bombay Vs
Dilipkumar Raghavendranath Nadkarni & ors.; AIR
1983 SC 109
10. Rameshwari Devi Vs St. of Raj. & ors.; AIR 1999
Raj. 47
11. Vasant D. Bhavsar Vs Bar Council of India & ors.;
(1999) 1 SCC 45
12. M/s. Indian Charge Chrome Ltd. & anr. Vs U.O.I.
& ors; 2003 AIR SCW 440
13. Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals & Fertilizers,
Govt.of India Vs CIPLA Ltd. & ors.; (2003) 7 SCC 1
14.U.O.I. & anr. Vs International Trading Co. & Anr.;
(2003) 5 SCC 437
15. Raj Kishore Jha Vs St. of Bihar & ors.; (2003) 11
SCC 519
16. St. of Uttranchal Vs Sunil Kumar Negi; 2008 (4)
ALJ. 226
(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner for quashing the impugned order dated
31.07.2021 passed by respondent no.3, which
has been communicated to the petitioners'
institution under the letter of the Finance and
Accounts Officer of the Office of District Basic
Education Officer, Mirzapur dated 31st July,
2021, whereby he has directed the single
operation of bank accounts of the petitioners'
institution. He has also prayed for a mandamus
directing the respondents to consider the
application dated 18.08.2021 made by the
petitioner and not to interfere in the peaceful
11 All. C/M Rampur Ucchhtar Madhyamik Viddyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
495
functioning of the petitioners' institution in
accordance with law.

2. On 11th December, 2021, on the
submission made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that the order impugned 31st July,
2021 has been without jurisdiction as the
Finance and Accounts Officer of the Office of
District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur has
no power to pass such order, this Bench passed
following order:

"Heard Sri P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel
for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel
for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits
that the impugned order dated 31.07.2021 has
been passed by respondent no.4-Finance and
Account Officer (Basic), Mirzapur, which is
without jurisdiction. He further submits that on
communication letter dated 31.07.2021 sent by
the District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur,
the order impugned has been passed by the
Finance and Account Officer, Basic Education,
Mirzapur on the same day, i.e. 31.07.2021.

With respect to the aforesaid facts, twice
time was granted to the learned Standing
Counsel to obtain instructions in the matter.
However, inspite of letters being sent by the
Office of the Chief Standing Counsel, no one has
turned up.

In such circumstances, this Court has no
other option but to direct the respondent no.3District Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Mirzapur to
remain present before this Court on the next
date fixed, i.e. 18.11.2021.

Put up this case on 18.11.2021 as fresh, on
which date the respondent no.3 shall remain
present before this Court alongwith all the
relevant records. "

3. In compliance of the aforesaid order,
today, Mr. Gautam Prasad, District Basic
Education Officer, Mirzapur (respondent no.3
herein) is present in the Court today along with
exemption
application.
The
exemption
application is taken on record.

4. On the pointed query being made by the
Court as to under which authority of law, the
Finance and Accounts Officer of the Office of
District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur has
passed the order dated 31st July, 2021 directing
single operation of accounts of the petitioners'
institution, Mr. Shailendra Singh, learned
Standing Counsel submits that the document
dated 31st July, 2021, which has been signed by
the Finance and Accounts Officer of the Office
of District Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur is
only a communication letter, which has been
issued to the petitioners' institution under the
order of the District Basic Education Officer,
Mirzapur dated 31st July, 2021, wherein he has
directed single operation of accounts of the
petitioners' institution, a copy of which has been
brought on record at page-22 of the exemption
application filed today.

5. In view of the averments made in the
affidavit
accompanied
the
exemption
application, the future presence of Mr. Gautam
Prasad is exempted unless directed otherwise.

6. Mr. P.K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for
the petitioner and Mr. Shailendra Singh, the
learned Standing Counsel for the Staterespondents agree that the present writ petition
may be decided at this stage, without calling for
any further affidavits specifically in view of the
order proposed to be passed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the order passed by the District
Basic Education Officer, Mirzapur dated 31st
July, 2021 directing single operation of bank
accounts of the petitioners' institution is in
violation of principal of natural justice, as there
is no whisper as on which date the petitioner has
been afforded opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner.
In
support
of
the
aforesaid
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submission,
the
learned
counsel for
the
petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment
of this Court in the case of Committee of
Management,
Raja
Tej
Singh
Vidyalaya
Aurandh,
Mainpuri-Appellant
Vs.
District
Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri-Respondents
reported in 2000 0 Supreme (All) 32, wherein it
has been held as follows:

"29.......no order for single operation of
accounts can be passed without reasonable
opportunity
to
the
Committee
of
Management......"

8. Apart from the above, learned counsel
for the petitioner further submits that the order
impugned directing single operation of the bank
accounts of the petitioners' institution contains
no reason. He, therefore, submits that the order
impugned is illegal, hence the same is liable to
be quashed.

9. Learned Standing Counsel has not
satisfactorily controverted or rebutted the
aforesaid submissions made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner.

10. Having heard the learned counsel for
the parties, considered their submissions and
gone through the order impugned, this Court
finds substance in the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the petitioner.

11. From bare reading of the order passed
by the District Basic Education Officer,
Mirzapur dated 31st July, 2021 and the
communication letter issued by the Finance and
Accounts Officer of the Office of District Basic
Education Officer, Mirzapur dated 31st July,
2021, it has apparently clear that the petitioner
has not been afforded any opportunity of hearing
before the passing of the impugned order, as
there is no whisper in both order and letter as to
on which date the petitioner has been called
upon to set up his case with regard to any
complaint made against him. Perusal of the both
the order and letter also indicate that the same
does not contain any reason.

12. So far as the second submission made
by the learned counsel for the petitioner is
concerned, this Court may record that it is
settled proposition of law that even in
administrative matters, the reasons should be
recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities
to pass a speaking and reasoned order. In
Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors. Vs. State
of U.P. & Ors., reported in AIR 1991 SC 537,
the Apex Court has observed as under:-

"Every such action may be informed by
reason and if follows that an act un-informed by
reason is arbitrary, the rule of law contemplates
governance by law and not by humour, whim or
caprice of the men to whom the governance is
entrusted for the time being. It is the trite law
that "be you ever so high, the laws are above
you." This is what a man in power must
remember always."

13. In Life Insurance Corporation of
India Vs. Consumer Education and Research
Centre, reported in (1995) 2 SCC 480, the Apex
Court
observed
that
the
State
or
its
instrumentality must not take any irrelevant or
irrational factor into consideration or appear
arbitrary in its decision. "Duty to act fairly" is
part of fair procedure envisaged under Articles
14 and 21. Every activity of the public authority
or those under public duty must be received and
guided by the public interest. Same view has
been reiterated by the Apex Court in Mahesh
Chandra
Vs.
Regional
Manager,
U.P.
Financial Corporation & Ors., reported in AIR
1993 SC 935; and Union of India Versus M.L.
Capoor, reported in AIR 1974 SC 87.

14. In State of West Bengal Vs. Atul
Krishna Shaw & Anr., 1991 reported in
(Suppl.) 1 SCC 414, the Apex Court observed
11 All. C/M Rampur Ucchhtar Madhyamik Viddyalaya & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
497
that "giving of reasons is an essential element of
administration of justice. A right to reason is,
therefore, an indispensable part of sound system
of judicial review."

15. In S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of
India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984, it has
been held that the object underlying the rules of
natural justice is to prevent mis-carriage of
justice and secure fair play in action. The
expanding horizon of the principles of natural
justice provides for requirement to record
reasons as it is now regarded as one of the
principles of natural justice, and it was held in
the above case that except in cases where the
requirement to record reasons is expressly or by
necessary implication dispensed with, the
authority must record reasons for its decision.

16. In Krishna Swami Vs. Union of India
& Ors., reported in AIR 1993 SC 1407, the
Apex Court observed that the rule of law
requires that any action or decision of a statutory
or public authority must be founded on the
reason stated in the order or borne-out from the
record. The Court further observed that "reasons
are the links between the material, the
foundation for these erection and the actual
conclusions. They would also administer how
the mind of the maker was activated and
actuated and there rational nexus and syntheses
with the facts considered and the conclusion
reached. Lest it may not be arbitrary, unfair and
unjust, violate Article 14 or unfair procedure
offending Article 21."

17. Similar view has been taken by the
Apex
Court
in
Institute
of
Chartered
Accountants of India Vs. L.K. Ratna & Ors.,
(1986) 4 SCC 537; Board of Trustees of the
Port
of
Bombay
Vs.
Dilipkumar
Raghavendranath Nadkarni & Ors., AIR
1983 SC 109. In Rameshwari Devi Vs. State
of Rajasthan & Ors., AIR 1999 Raj. 47. In
Vasant D. Bhavsar Vs. Bar Council of India
& Ors., (1999) 1 SCC 45, the Apex Court held
that an authority must pass a speaking and
reasoned order indicating the material on which
its conclusions are based. Similar view has been
reiterated in M/s. Indian Charge Chrome Ltd.
& Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors, 2003 AIR
SCW 440; Secretary, Ministry of Chemicals
& Fertilizers, Government of India Vs.
CIPLA Ltd. & Ors., (2003) 7 SCC 1; and
Union of India & Anr. Vs. International
Trading Co. & Anr., (2003) 5 SCC 437.

17. The Apex Court in the case of in Raj
Kishore Jha vs. State of Bihar and Ors.
Reported in (2003) 11 SCC 519 and in the case
of State of Uttranchal Vs. Sunil Kumar Negi
reported in 2008 (4) ALJ. 226, has held that
reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion and
without the same, it becomes lifeless.

18. So far as the first submission made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner is
concerned, this Court may record that any order
which has been passed without affording any
opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved person,
is clearly in violation of principle of natural
justice, which is the requirement of Articles 14
and 21 of the Constitution of India.

19. in such circumstances, the order dated
31st July, 2021 passed by the District Basic
Education Officer, Mirzapur directing single
operation of bank accounts of the petitioners'
institution is set aside and the matter is remitted
back to the District Basic Education Officer,
Mirzapur for decision afresh. While considering
the matter afresh, the District Basic Education
Officer, Mirzapur shall call for the reply and
other document from the petitioner regarding
any complaint made against him, within two
weeks from date of production of certified copy
of this order. On such letter being received, the
petitioner shall file his reply supported by such
documents, as he may be advised within two
weeks thereafter. In case such reply is filed
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
within the aforesaid time, the District Basic
Education Officer, Mirzapur shall consider and
decide the same, strictly in accordance with law,
by means of a reasoned and speaking order
preferably within two weeks thereafter.

22. The present writ petition is allowed
subject to the observations made above.
----------
(2021)12ILR A498
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-C No. 25840 of 2021

C/M Sri Mahanth Ramashray Das Snakottar
Mahavidyalaya & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Vinod Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ram Vijay Singh, Ms. Pooja Agarwal, Sri
Shailendra Singh

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ -
Maintainability - Alternative remedy - Order
passed by the Vice-chancellor to extend the
term of committee of management - Statutory
remedy of reference before the Chancellor was
available u/s 68 of the U.P. St. Universities Act
- Maintainability of writ challenged - Held, writ
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
should not be entertained when the statutory
remedy is available under the Act, unless
exceptional circumstances are made out - High
Court issued direction to avail alternative
remedy. (Para 33)
Writ petition disposed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. K.S. Rashid & Son Vs Income Tax Investigation
Commission & ors.; AIR 1954 SC 207
2. Sangram Singh Vs Election Tribunal, Kotah & anr.;
AIR 1955 SC 425
3. U.O.I. Vs T.R. Varma; AIR 1957 SC 882
4. St. of U.P. Vs Mohammed Nooh; AIR 1958 SC 86
5. N.T. Veluswami Thevar Vs G. Raja Nainar & ors.;
AIR 1959 SC 422
6. St. of M.P. & anr. Vs Bhailal Bhai etc. etc.; AIR
1964 SC 1006
7. Municipal Council, Khurai & anr. Vs Kamal Kumar &
anr.; AIR 1965 SC 1321
8. Siliguri Municipality & ors. Vs Amalendu Das & ors.;
AIR 1984 SC 653
9. S.T. Muthusami Vs K. Natarajan & ors.; AIR 1988
SC 616
10. Kerala St. Electricity Board & anr. Vs Kurien E.
Kalathil & ors.; (2000) 6 SCC 293
11. A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu Vs S. Chellappan & ors.;
(2000) 7 SCC 695
12. Rajasthan St. Road Transport Corporation & anr.
Vs Krishna Kant & Ors.; (1995) 5 SCC 75
13. L.L. Sudhakar Reddy & Ors. Vs St. of A.P. & ors.;
(2001) 6 SCC 634
14. Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri
Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha & anr. Vs
St. of Mah. & Ors.; (2001) 8 SCC 509
15. G K N Driveshafts (India) Ltd. Vs Income Tax
Officer & Ors.; (2003) 1 SCC 72
16. Pratap Singh & anr. Vs St. of Har.; (2002) 7 SCC
484
17. Harbanslal Sahnia & anr. Vs Indian Oil
Corporation Ltd. & ors.; (2003) 2 SCC 107
18. Whirlpool Corporation Vs Registrar of Trade
Marks, Mumbai & ors.; (1998) 8 SCC 1
19. G. Veerappa Pillai Vs Raman & Raman Ltd. & ors.;
AIR 1952 SC 192
20. Assistant Collector of Central Exicse, Chandan
Nagar, West Bengal Vs Dunlop India Ltd. & ors.; AIR
1985 SC 330