# Committee of Management and another v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 759
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-09-18
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.43575 of 2009
- **Bench:** Ran Vijai Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-and-another-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-41446
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Sri Vinod Sinha
Sri Mahesh Sharma

Counsel forthe Respondents:
Sri P.N. Saxena
Sri K.C. Shukla
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Article-226-
Appointment of authorized controller
without affording opportunity- while the
order of withdrawal of approval granted
to the selection of petitioner was stayed
by single judge with specific direction
restraining
the
authorities
from
interfering with functioning of petitioner
as
manage-special
appeal
also
dismissed-held-order impugned passed
in utter violation of principle of natural
justice-can not sustain.
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

Held: Para-10

After going through the records I am of
the view that the impugned order suffers
from breach of principles of natural
justice and biased one as Sri Bhuri Singh
has associated himself throughout and
vitiated the decision making process.

## Text

3 All] Committee of Management and another V. State of U.P. and others

759
back to the High Court for being heard.
Breach of Article 14 is averred in at least
the lead writ petition filed in this Court
[WP (C) No. 242 of 2001]. The writ
petition which was dismissed by the High
Court and against which order an appeal
is pending in this Court was filed under
Article 226, as was the transferred writ
petition.
This
Court,
therefore,
has
jurisdiction to issue a writ of quo
warranto. We propose to pass the order in
the lead writ petition, and dispose of the
other writ petitions, the appeal and the
transferred writ petition in the light
thereof."

19. In the instant case, there being
no doubt about the admitted position of
disqualification having been incurred by
the respondent no. 7, there is no occasion
for this Court to dismiss the writ petition
on the ground of availability of any other
alternative remedy. Apart from this, it is
evident that the respondent no. 7 had been
restrained by this Court by an interim
order commanding the opposite parties
not to allow the said respondent to
function as Gram Pradhan. It is to be
noted that the order was passed by this
Court on 25th July, 2007 whereas the
District Magistrate took 5 months to pass
a consequential order. The aforesaid
situation
is
absolutely
unfortunate,
inasmuch as, the authorities are required
to obey the orders forthwith without any
hesitation. It is not understood as to why
the District Magistrate took 5 months to
obey the command of this Court.

20. In view of the aforesaid
conclusion drawn and in view of the fact
that the respondent no. 7 admittedly
suffers from an inherent disqualification
as provided under Section 5-A, a
declaration is hereby issued that the
election of the respondent no. 7 as Gram
Pradhan was illegal and invalid and he
shall not be construed to hold the public
office of Gram Pradhan of Gram
Panchayat Muriari, District Ghazipur
forthwith
as
it
stands
accordingly
annulled. The impugned order dated
30.03.2007 is also quashed.

21. The writ petition is allowed with
the directions aforesaid with no order as
to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.09.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAN VIJAI SINGH, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.43575 of 2009

Committee of Management and another

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinod Sinha
Sri Mahesh Sharma

Counsel forthe Respondents:
Sri P.N. Saxena
Sri K.C. Shukla
C.S.C.

Constitution
of
India
Article-226-
Appointment of authorized controller
without affording opportunity- while the
order of withdrawal of approval granted
to the selection of petitioner was stayed
by single judge with specific direction
restraining
the
authorities
from
interfering with functioning of petitioner
as
manage-special
appeal
also
dismissed-held-order impugned passed
in utter violation of principle of natural
justice-can not sustain.
760 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

Held: Para-10

After going through the records I am of
the view that the impugned order suffers
from breach of principles of natural
justice and biased one as Sri Bhuri Singh
has associated himself throughout and
vitiated the decision making process.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ran Vijai Singh, J.)

1. I have heard Sri Vinod Sinha,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.N.
Saxena, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri K.C. Shukla, learned counsel
appearing for respondent no. 4 and
learned Standing Counsel appearing for
respondents no. 1 to 3.

2. This writ petition has been filed
against the orders dated 06.08.09 passed
by the Regional Committee, Meerut
region Meerut and the order dated
24.06.09 passed by the Joint Director of
Education, Meerut region Meerut. Vide
order
dated
06.08.09
the
Regional
Committee had derecognized the election
of
the
Committee
of
Management,
Intermediate College, Kakod, district
Bulandshahr pursuant to the election
dated 22.12.08. Through this election, the
petitioner was elected as a Manager of
Committee. While passing this order a
direction was also issued for holding fresh
election of the Committee of Management
within a period of two months by the
Authorised Controller of the Institution.
Whereas by order dated 24.06.09 the Joint
Director of Education has appointed
Authorised
Controller
in
the
said
institution on the recommendation of
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Bulandshahr dated 08.06.09.

3. It appears that election of
Committee of Management was held on
22.12.08 of which the petitioner was
elected as Manager. The election was
approved by the Regional Committee on
03.01.09. This order of approval was
recalled by the District Inspector of
Schools on 14.03.09 (Sri Bhuri Singh,
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Bulandshahr). This order was challenged
through Writ Petition No. 21427/09. This
Court has interfered with the matter and
not only stayed the operation of the order
dated 14.03.09 passed by the District
Inspector of Schools withdrawing the
recognition/approval of the petitioner's
election but also directed the District
inspector of Schools not to interfere in the
functioning of the petitioner as a Manager
of the institution.

4. Aggrieved by this order the
respondent no. 4 has filed a Special
Appeal No.719/09 which was dismissed
by this Court on 15.05.09 and the writ
petition was allowed by quashing the
order dated 14.03.09 passed by the
District Inspector of Schools withdrawing
the recognition/approval of the petitioner's
election. While dismissing the appeal,
however, this Court has directed the
Regional Committee to consider the
application of respondent no. 4 for
recalling the order dated 03.01.09.

5. After the order of special appeal it
appears that the District Inspector of
Schools has made recommendation for
appointment of Authorised Controller in
the petitioner's institution. Thereafter, the
Joint Director of Education has appointed
Authorised Controller vide order dated
24.06.09 and thereafter recall application
of respondent no. 4 was taken up for
disposal by the Regional Committee of
which the District Inspector of Schools
3 All] Committee of Management and another V. State of U.P. and others

761
namely Sri Bhuri Singh was made a
member.

6. Sri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that while
passing the impugned order reliance has
been placed upon a report of Committee
dated 23.05.08 headed by Sri Bhuri Singh
in which he has reported that there are 56
valid members of the society. He has also
submitted that one of the principles of
natural justice is that no person shall be a
Judge
of
his
own
cause
or
the
adjudicating authority must be impartial
and must act without any kind of bias.
The said Rule is based on the principle
that justice not only be done but should
manifestly be seen to be done. This could
be possible only when a Judge or
adjudicating authority decide the matter
impartially and without carrying any kind
of bias. It may be pecuniary, personal or
there may be bias as to the subject matter.
In the present case Sri Bhuri Singh,
District Inspector of Schools was a
member of the Committee which has
found 56 valid members to which the
petitioner has made his objection and that
is still undisposed of. Secondly, even after
passing of the order by this Court, staying
the operation of the order dated 14.03.09
withdrawing the recognition of the
petitioner's
election
and
even
after
allowing the writ petition vide order dated
15.05.09 by the special appeal court, he
has made recommendation to the Joint
Director of Education for appointment of
Authorised Controller and not permitted
the petitioner to function in spite of the
clear direction of this court in the writ
petition. Thereafter he sat as a member of
Regional Committee and passed the
impugned order. In his submission, the
impugned order not only suffers from the
breach of principles of natural justice, but
also suffers from bias. Therefore, it
deserves to be quashed.

7. Refuting the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.N.
Saxena,
learned
Senior
Advocate
submitted that in the present election
proceedings
146
members
have
participated whereas in the report of
Committee
dated
23.5.08
only
56
members were found to be genuine and
valid. In his submission Sri Jagdishwar
Singh Tomar had continuously been
functioning as a Manager and thereafter
Authorised Controller was appointed,
therefore, there was no scope to induct
new members and the election in question
is unsustainable as it has not been held in
accordance with the societies bye laws.
He has also submitted that no objection
has been filed against the report dated
23.5.08. In his submission the impugned
order has been passed in accordance with
law and it should not be interfered with
because Sri Bhuri Singh has been member
of the Committee.

8. I have heard learned counsel for
the parties. Counsel for the parties has
agreed for final disposal of the present
writ petition, therefore, with the consent
of the parties counsel, the matter is taken
up for final disposal. After hearing
counsel for the parties and perusing the
record without discussing the other points
involved in this case I find it appropriate
to discuss the principle of breach of
natural justice and bias. In case it is found
that impugned decision is biased one and
suffers from breach of principles of
natural justice, the other points involved
in this case need not be discussed.

9. It has not been disputed either by
learned standing counsel or by Sri Saxena
762 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

that Sri Bhuri Singh, the present District
Inspector of Schools in the capacity of
associated District Inspector of Schools
has participated in the inquiry and as a
Chairman of the enquiry committee has
submitted the report dated 23.5.08 in
which 56 members were found to be
genuine and valid and it has been made
basis for passing the impugned order
dated 08.06.09. It could also not be
disputed by the learned counsel for the
respondents that the election of the
petitioner's institution was approved on
03.01.09 by the then District Inspector of
Schools Smt. Indu Bala Ghosh and
subsequently,
on
the
instance
of
respondent no. 4 the present District
Inspector of Schools has withdrawn the
order dated 3.01.09 on 14.03.09. This
order was stayed by this Court in Writ
Petition No. 21427/09 and the direction
was given to the District Inspector of
Schools not to interfere in the functioning
of the petitioner as a Manager of the
institution. The special appeal against the
said order was dismissed and the writ
petition was allowed after quashing the
order dated 14.03.09 passed by the
District Inspector of Schools even then
the present District Inspector of Schools
who
is
member
of
the
Regional
Committee
has
recommended
for
appointment of the Authorised Controller
and associated himself in the process of
decision making body as member of the
Committee and passed the impugned
order. The Apex Court in the case of
Amar Nath Chowdhary Vs. Braithwaite &
Company Ltd & Others reported in J.T.
2002 V. 1 S.C. Page 156 while dealing
such mater has found that this kind of
order are not only biased but also amounts
to have been passed in breach of
principles of natural justice. In paragraphs
6 and 8, the Apex Court has observed as
under:-.

(6)..........Where an authority earlier
had taken a decision, he is disqualified to
sit in appeal against his own decision, as
he
already
prejudged
the
matter
otherwise, such an appeal would be
termed an appeal from caesar to caesar
and filing of an appeal would be an
exercise in futility. In that view of the
matter, in the present case, fair play
demanded that Shri Krishnaswami, the
then chairman-cum-managing director of
the
company
ought
not
to
have
participated in the deliberations of the
meeting of the board when the board
heard and decided the appeal of the
appellant.(para-6)
(8)........The
board
could
have
constituted
a
committee
of
the
board/management or any officers of the
company by excluding chairman-cummanaging director of the company and
delegated any of its power, including the
appellate power, to such a committee to
eliminate any allegation of bias against
such an appellate authority. It is therefore,
not correct to contend that rule against
bias is not available in the present case in
view of doctrine of necessity'. We are ,
therefore, of the view that reliance of the
doctrine of necessity in the present case is
totally misplaced.( para 8)"

10. After going through the records I
am of the view that the impugned order
suffers from breach of principles of
natural justice and biased one as Sri Bhuri
Singh has associated himself throughout
and vitiated the decision making process.

11. In view of that writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. The order dated
24.06.09 passed by the Regional Joint
3 All] Constable 3461 Baliram Singh V. State of U.P. and others

763
Director of Education, Meerut region,
Meerut as well as the order dated
06.08.09
passed
by
the
Regional
Committee are hereby quashed. The
matter is remitted back to the Regional
Committee to pass a fresh order on the
recall application of respondent no. 4 after
hearing all concerned in accordance with
law. It is also provided that while
constituting the Regional Committee
some other District Inspector of Schools
of other district be made a member of the
Committee and the Committee shall
decide
the
matter
expeditiously,
if
possible, within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of certified copy
of the order of this Court. It is further
directed that in the meantime the
petitioner shall be permitted to function as
a
Manager
of
the
Committee
of
Management.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAKESH SHARMA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 25657 of 2006
Alongwith
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 42771 of 2004

Constable 3461 Baliram Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri G.K. Singh
Sri V.K. Singh
Sri Pramod Kumar Pandey
Sri Satyendra Nath Srivastava
Sri S.K. Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri A.C. Misra
Sri S.M. Haider Zaidi
S.C.

Constitution of India Art. 226-311 (2)-
Dismissal order-petitioner being P.A.C.
personal-being shocked with accidental
death
of
his
colleague-used
un
constitutional language against Seniorother P.A.C. personal who were also
involved
have
been
reinstated-helddiscriminatory and the punishment of
dismissal too harsh-order set-a side with
all consequential entitle benefits.

Held: Para 17 & 20

In view of the above, it is amply clear
that the departmental enquiry was not
conducted fairly and only on the basis of
evidence of Vikas Srivastava, Company
Commander, who was also facing a
criminal case relating to the same
incident, the petitioners have been held
guilty without any corroboration. The
Enquiry
Officer
and
the
Punishing
authority ought to have considered this
aspect of the matter, which it did not.

Undoubtedly,
the
petitioners,
being
members of a disciplined force, have
acted
in
an
irresponsible
manner,
however, considering the totality of the
circumstances, it would be appropriate
that they may be awarded a minor
penalty and not a major penalty, that is,
removal or dismissal from service or
reduction in rank. The petitioners' cases
are covered by the judgments of the
Hon'ble Apex Court cited above.
Case law discussed:
2007 SCCL.COM 1235, AIR 1983 SC 454, AIR
1992 SC 417, (1999) 8 SCC 582, (1998)9 SCC
666, (2005) 1 UPLBEC 276.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rakesh Sharma, J.)

1. Since similar and common
controversy is involved in these two writ
petitions, both the writ petitions are being
decided by this one and common
judgment.