# Committee Of Management Janta Janardan Shiksha Sadan Inter College Tilaon & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1302
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-10
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 1656 of 2026
- **Bench:** Siddharth Nandan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-janta-janardan-shiksha-sadan-inter-college-tilaon-anr-v-54743
- **Pages:** 19

## Text

_Characters 0–39,915 of 63,938. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39915 for what follows._

1302 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. Upon perusal of the present Mukhymantri Yojna, we are of the view that the events
provided under the Eligibility Clause are specific and benefit can only be provided if the deceased
falls within the said eligibility criteria. It may be noted that the present Mukhymantri Yojna is
different from the Scheme that was in operation and was interpreted by the Co-ordinate Bench in
Smt. Bindu Devi (Supra). Thus, the said Co-ordinate Bench Judgment does not come to the aid of
the petitioner.

8. Further, upon a perusal of the above Mukhymantri Yojna, we are of the view that
accidental death caused due to railways, roadways and air travel would be included in the present
scheme. If a person meets with an accident on the railway tracks, or on any road or dies in a plane
crash, the same benefit would be available to the relatives of the deceased. However, this accidental
claim cannot be extended to cases where persons are murdered. Even though, loosely termed one
may treat a murder as an accidental phenomenon, however such accidents are not covered under
the said Mukhymantri Yojna. The eligibility criteria has been specifically defined and the same can
be interpreted for events which are ejusdem generis to the events enumerated therein. Surely, a
murder or an incident of like nature as is narrated in the present facts and circumstances, is not an
accident as envisaged under the Mukhymantri Yojna for availing compenstion.

9. No doubt, the said Mukhymantri Yojna is a beneficial scheme/Yojna, which provides for
financial help to the needy, however, the object behind the said scheme is loud and clear, inasmuch
it not only mentions the scheme is applicable for uncertain and unfortunate events, but also
enumerates these events which ought to have happened with any person, before the relatives can
become eligible for benefit under the said scheme. The said Mukhymantri Yojna is not applicable
due to death covered by any reason, except as provided in the scheme/Yojna itself.

10. In light of the same, we are unable to grant any relief to the petitioner and as such the
present writ petition fails. We make it clear that the petitioner may be eligible for other benefits
under various other schemes of the Government as may be prevalent on the date of the death of the
deceased and may avail the same in accordance with law.

11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
----------
(2026) 4 ILRA 1302
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

Writ C No. 1656 of 2026

Committee Of Management Janta Janardan Shiksha Sadan Inter College Tilaon & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
4 All. Committee Of Management Janta Janardan Shiksha Sadan Inter College Tilaon & Anr. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
1303
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the decision of the Regional Level Committee (constituted under G.O. dated 19.12.2000 in aid of
Section 16A-(7) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921) taken by only two members, with one acting in dual
capacity, is valid in law; and whether quorum defect vitiates the order.

HEADNOTES
Civil Law - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Section 16A-
(7) - Societies Registration Act, 1860 - Section 4(B: - Writ Petition under Article 226 - filed against
orders of the Regional Level Committee and order of the District Inspector of Schools and seeking quashing
thereof and further for mandamus to permit petitioner Committee of Management to function on strength of
valid election dated 24.07.2024 approved on 26.07.2024 - Facts reveal long-standing disputes over elections of
Janta Janardan Shiksha Samiti institution, with multiple writ petitions and directions since 2017 - whether the
Regional Level Committee could decide with only two members, one acting in dual capacity, in absence of
quorum mandated by G.O. dated 19.12.2000 - Petitioner pleaded violation of quorum, dual capacity signing,
non-supply of adverse material, and disregard of earlier directions - respondents invoked doctrines of
necessity, silence, and substantial compliance, contending no prejudice was caused - Court finds that,
Regional Level Committee - quorum requirement - dual capacity signing - doctrine of necessity - doctrine of
silence - dissent as integral to judicial process - decentralization of powers - transparency in management
disputes - quorum defect fatal, dissent indispensable, and alternatives available for substitution - stress
decentralization and transparency as objectives of G.O. 19.12.2000 - held, impugned orders are not
sustainable and hence set aside with directions to reconstitute RLC with proper quorum, decide afresh within
three weeks, and government to issue SOP for such contingencies - direction issued for compliance - Writ
petition allowed accordingly.
(Para - 56, 57, 58, 60, 61, 62)
WP Allowed. (E-11)

CASE LAW CITED
State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhyay, AIR 1961 SC 751
Deepak Yadav v. State of U.P., 2022 AHC-Lko-41271
CCE v. Hari Chandra Shri Gopal, (2011) 1 SCC 236
Election Commission of India v. Dr. Subramanian Swamy, (1996) 4 SCC 104
Smt. Kamla Devi v. State of U.P., 2014 (8) ADJ 525 (DB)
State of A.P. v. Dr. Mohanjit Singh, 1988 Suppl. SCC 562
Arshad Ahmad v. State of Chhattisgarh, W.A. No. 31 of 2022 (decided 01.08.2023)
X v. O/O Speaker of the House of People, 2026 (2) ADJ 523 (SC)
State of U.P. v. Sudhir Kumar Singh, (2021) 19 SCC 706
Committee of Management Shri D.C. Vedic Inter College v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 7644 of 2025
Committee of Management Kakori Shaheed Inter College v. State of U.P., Writ-C No. 24221 of 2025.

LIST OF ACTS
Constitution of India - Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Societies Registration Act, 1860.

LIST OF KEYWORDS
Writ Petition - Quorum defect, dual capacity, doctrine of necessity, doctrine of silence, dissent, transparency,
decentralization, Regional Level Committee, Committee of Management disputes, natural justice.

CASE ARISING FROM
Challenge to orders dated 08.08.2025 (Regional Level Committee) and 02.09.2025 (District Inspector of
Schools, Mirzapur) concerning rival elections of Committee of Management of Janta Janardan Shiksha Samiti
institution.

APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
1304 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for Appellant(s): - Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sr. Counsel with Shri Saurabh Tripathi and Shri Chandra
Jeet Yadav,
Counsel for Respondent(s): - Shri R.K. Ojha, Sr. Counsel with Shri Satya Prakash Rai and Shri Vashishtha Dhar
Shukla for respondent no. 5 and Shri Kartikeya Saran, Additional Advocate General with Standing Counsel for
State.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Siddharth Nandan, J.)

1. With the consent of the parties, since the question is purely legal in nature, the present writ
petition is being decided at the admission stage.

2. Heard Shri Prabhaker Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Saurabh
Tripathi, Advocate and Shri Chandra Jeet Yadav, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner. Shri R.K.
Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Satya Prakash Rai, Advocate and Shri Vashishtha
Dhar Shukla, Advocate on behalf of respondent no.5 and Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned Additional
Advocate General along with learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

3. The present writ petition has been filed with the following reliefs:

 " i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of
the case and to quash the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the Regional Level
Committee, respondent no. 2 (Annexure no. 1 to the writ petition).

 ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari calling for the records of the
case and to quash the impugned order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the District Inspector of
Schools, Mirzapur, (Annexure no. 2 to the writ petition).

 iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondents to permit the petitioner Committee of Management to continue to discharge day-to-day
affairs of the Institution on the strength of valid election having been held on 24.07.2024 which has
been approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 26.07.2024."

4. Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel has assailed the order dated 08.08.2025
to submit that in District Mirzapur, a society in the name and style of Janta Janardan Shiksha
Samiti, was registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 18601 in the year 1973.

5. The aforesaid society initially established a Junior High School, which was subsequently
upgraded as High School and thereafter as an Intermediate School. The Junior High School was
under grand-in-aid and the High School Section and Intermediate, is not under the grand-in-aid of
the State Government.

6. Certain dispute arose, with respect to the Committee of Management, which led to filing
of various writ petitions and eventually vide order dated 19.09.2017 passed in Lal Chandra Singh
vs. State of U.P. and others2; this Court found that the parties are at variance, as to whether, there
has been a determination of the Members of the General Body of the Society; and as contemplated
by Section 4B of the Act, pursuant to the directions given by this Court in Writ-C No.25100 of
4 All. Committee Of Management Janta Janardan Shiksha Sadan Inter College Tilaon & Anr. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
1305
2017, vide order dated 19.09.2017, the writ petition was disposed of, by requiring the Regional
Level Committee to examine, whether there has been a determination of the General Body as
contemplated by Section 4B of the Act or not.

7. In compliance of the observations made by this Court, the Regional Level Committee
proceeded to pass an order dated 20.12.2017, discarding the election dated 09.04.2017; which was
a subject matter of challenge in Writ-C No.3861 of 2018; and vide order dated 30.01.2018, the writ
petition was partly allowed with the following directions:

 "(a) The order dated 20.12.2017 passed by the Regional Level Committee to the extent it
refuses to accord approval to the election dated 09.04.2017 is affirmed;

 (b) the order impugned dated 20.12.2017 to the extent it determines the electoral college
of the institution as comprising of 30 members with a direction to hold election with the said 30
members general body is hereby set aside;

 (c) the Regional Level Committee shall undertake a fresh exercise to determine the
general body of the Institution in the light of the observations and the directions contained in the
order dated 19.09.2017 passed in Writ-C No.43472 of 2017. The said exercise shall be completed
within a period of eight weeks from the date of furnishing certified copy of this order upon the Joint
Director of Education, Vindhaychal Region, Mirzapur. The parties concern would be at liberty to
file their respective evidences to enable the Regional Level Committee to effectively conclude the
aforesaid exercise.

 (d) The fresh elections, alleged to have been held on

 21.01.2018, shall abide the result of the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee
pursuant to the direction given herein above."

8. Eventually, the District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 18.04.2018, approved the
election of one Virendra Pratap Singh, as Manager and the Regional Level Committee vide its
order dated 10.07.2018, approved the list of 13 Members as submitted by Shri Virendra Pratap
Singh; and being aggrieved against the aforesaid orders one Lal Chandra Singh filed Writ-C
No.28345 of 2018, specifically raising a ground that the Regional Level Committee is repeatedly
not following the directions issued by this Court, for determining the list of valid members of the
society, as per directions/observations made by this Court on 19.09.2017 and 30.01.2018, in true
spirit. This Court issued notices to the respondents vide its order dated 21.08.2018 in Writ-C
No.28345 of 2018 and against the same a Special Appeal No.840 of 2018 was preferred which was
disposed of vide order dated 11.09.2018, to decide the writ petition expeditiously.

9. Subsequently, one Shri Awadh Narain Singh filed Writ-C No.34780 of 2019 with a
prayer that his signatures be attested as Manager, which petition was disposed of vide order dated
01.11.2019 that District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur, may decide the representation of the
petitioner, for attestation of the signature of the newly elected Manager of the Institution. However,
the District Inspector of Schools vide its order dated 09.01.2021 discarded the election set up by
1306 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Shri Awadh Narain Singh and directed for fresh elections. Subsequently, elections were held on
23.01.2021, wherein, Shri Lal Chandra Singh is said to be elected as Manager and his signatures
were attested and approved on 01.02.2021.

10. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, Shri Virendra Pratap Singh filed Writ-C
No.10788 of 2021, which is pending. The term of the Committee of Management being 3 years, is
said to have expired on 22/23.01.2024; but it has been alleged that one Shri Virendra Pratap Singh
had set up an election dated 17.12.2023 and the District Inspector of Schools attested his signatures
vide order dated 16.02.2024; and against which Writ-C No.16396 of 2024 was filed and an interim
order has been granted on 31.05.2024 and subsequently an order of single operation has been
passed on 21.06.2024.

11. Rival election has been set up by the petitioner's Committee of Management on
24.07.2024, which has also been approved by the District Inspector of Schools vide its order dated
26.07.2024; where after Writ-C No.16396 of 2024 was rendered infructuous, vide order dated
05.09.2024 as the term of the earlier Committee of Management had expired on 23.01.2024; and
thereafter fresh election had also taken place, which was approved by the District Inspector of
Schools.

12. The order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 26.07.2024, was challenged by Shri
Virendra Pratap Singh in Writ-C No.32375 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court vide
order dated 13.11.2024, granting liberty to approach the Regional Level Committee.

13. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 13.11.2024, notices were issued by the
Joint Director of Education on 30.01.2025, fixing 06.02.2025. It transpires that on the basis of a
report of the District Inspector of Schools dated 29.07.2025 and the objection of Shri Virendra
Pratap Singh dated 06.05.2025 (which the petitioner alleges were never supplied to him), the
impugned order dated 08.08.2025 has been passed. Thereafter, the consequential order has also
been passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur on 02.09.2025, approving and attesting
the signatures of respondent no.6.

14. Hence, the present writ petition.

Issues

15. As a preliminary issue has been raised by Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior
Counsel, the following issue is framed, as such:-

 (i) Since, as per the Government Order dated 19.12.2000, a three Member, Regional
Level Committee has been constituted, in aid to Section 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act,
1921; whether in absence of any one Member, the decision taken by the remaining two Members,
will be a valid decision; and for a want of Quorum, can be said to be in substantial compliance of
the Government Order dated 19.12.2000; and further whether the doctrine of necessity or doctrine
of silence, can be invoked in aid to the decision of the Regional Level Committee (as constituted by
the Government Order dated 19.12.2000).
4 All. Committee Of Management Janta Janardan Shiksha Sadan Inter College Tilaon & Anr. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
1307
Discussion

16. Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel has argued that perusal of the
impugned order dated 08.08.2025, will clearly indicate that the Joint Director of Education,
Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur has appended his signature in dual capacity of (i) Joint Director of
Education; and (ii) Deputy Director of Education; and as such the impugned order dated
08.08.2025 along with consequential order dated 02.09.2025 is liable to be vitiated, as neither the
quorum was complete nor there was substantial compliance, pertaining to the quorum of the
committee, as envisaged under the Government Order dated 19.12.2000.

17. It is an admitted fact that Deputy Director of Education, who was a Member of the
Regional Level Committee, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur, was transferred and one Shri Udai
Bhan, Joint Director of Education, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur, was given the additional charge
on 06.03.2025, i.e. much prior to the passing of the order dated 08.08.2025; and the said fact has
not been disputed by the State-respondents.

18. Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel has placed heavy reliance on the
following extract of the Government Order dated 19.12.2000, which is reproduced below:

 " शािन स्तर पर िनरन्तर यह िशकायतें प्राप्त हो रह है िक माध्यिमक िशक्षा ििधिनयम 1921 एवं
वेतन िवतरण ििधिनयम 1971 द्वारा प्राप्त ििधकारों का कितपय ििधकाररयों द्वारा दुरूपयोंग िकया जा रहा।
इििलए मण्डल य िंयुक्त िशक्षा िनदेशक क िध्यक्षता में एक ि िमत का गठन िकया जाता है िजिमें
मण्डल य उप िशक्षा िनदेशक तथा िंबंिधत जनपद के िजला िवद्यालय िनर क्षक िदस्य होगें।

 यह ििमित िनम्निलम्बखत प्रकरणों पर िवचार करेग :-

 1- प्रबन्धकों के हस्ताक्षर प्रमािणत करना।

 2- वेतन िवतरण ििधिनयम के िन्तगत िािधकार िनयंत्रक क िनयुम्बक्त।

 3- िमस्त प्रकार के प्रबन्धक य िववाद

 4- िशक्षकों के वररष्ठता िंबंध िववाद

 5- वेतन िनुमन्यता िे िंबंिधत िमरूप प्रकरण न्यायाल य प्रकरणों को छोडकर।

 यह ििमित उक्त प्रकरणों का पर क्षण करने के उपरान्त िपन िंस्तुित उि ििधकार को प्रस्तुत
करेग , जो ििधिनयमों के िन्तगत इन कायों को करने के िलए ििधकृत है। इि ििमित क माह में दो बार
िनयिमत रूप िे बैठकें आयोिजत होग । न्यायालय य प्रकरणों पर उक्त ििमित िपन िंस्तुित िशक्षा िनदेशक
को प्रेिषत करेग िजनक आख्या एवं िंस्तुित प्राप्त होने पर शािन द्वारा कायतवाह हेतु िनदेश िदया जायेगा।"

19. He has submitted that the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 has been issued in aid to
Section 16A-(7) of the Act, 1921; and placing heavy reliance on the aforementioned extract of the
1308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Government Order dated 19.12.2000, he has submitted that the necessity for issuance of the
Government Order dated 19.12.2000, arose on account of the fact, that the Government was
continuously receiving complaints, with respect to the Prescribed Authorities/Competent
Authorities under the Intermediate Act, 1921 and U.P. High School and Intermediate
Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971; who were allegedly
misusing their powers and therefore with an object to de-centralize the powers of the prescribed
authorities, the Regional Level Committee was constituted, under the Chairmanship of the
Regional Joint Director of Education, in which Regional Deputy Director of Education and
the District Inspector of Schools of the concerned district, shall be the Members.

20. He has further submitted that in spite of the fact that the powers/functions of different
authorities, were provided under the aforementioned enactments, the following functions were
assigned to the Regional Level Committee:-

 (a) Attesting the signatures of the Manager (which is otherwise the function/power of the
District Inspector of Schools)

 (b) Appointment of Authorized Controller (which is otherwise the function/power of the
Joint Director of Education)

 (c) All Management related disputes (which is otherwise the function/power of the Joint
Director of Education,

 (d) Seniority disputes of the teachers (which is to be determined by the Manager and
against the same the appeal lies before the Joint Director of Education)

 (e) Salary Approvals, except court cases

21. He has further submitted, to buttress his argument, that though different prescribed
authorities, were nominated for the exercise of powers with respect to the aforementioned domains,
which is now to be exercised by the Regional Level Committee; but in spite of the same, the
Government has issued the Government Order in purported exercise of Article 162 of the
Constitution of India with an object to bring transparency and decentralize the decision making
process, bringing efficiency; and in case any one Member of the Regional Level Committee, does
not participate in the proceedings, the order is liable to be vitiated, since the very objective to
decentralize the powers and to bring in more transparency, as well as, accountability, shall be
defeated.

22. He has further argued that the plain reading of the Government Order, clearly spells out
the objective and the necessity of complete quorum, and nothing can be read into the said
Government Order; and as such the Committee can only function with the presence of all the three
Members, but for a situation, there is an impossibility, to complete the quorum.

23. Per contra, Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted
that though it is not disputed that the Joint Director of Education, Vindhyachal Mandal, Mirzapur
4 All. Committee Of Management Janta Janardan Shiksha Sadan Inter College Tilaon & Anr. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
1309
was acting in a dual capacity of Deputy Director of Education (Intermediate), Vindhyachal Mandal,
Mirzapur as well; but merely on account of non-availability of the Deputy Director of Education,
the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 cannot be said to be vitiated. He has laid stress on the fact
that the Government Order dated 19.12.2000, itself requires that the Regional Level Committee
shall meet atleast twice within a month and the said contemplation is evident of the fact, that the
disputes which are to be decided and within the domain of the Regional Level Committee, by virtue
of the Government Order dated 19.12.2000, are itself of urgent nature; and out of 18 regions in the
State of U.P., there are more than 8 regions, where one of the three Members are not available; and
as such considering the urgency to the resolution of the disputes of the Committee of Management,
as enumerated in the Government Order itself, it is of paramount importance that the Regional
Level Committee, continues to function, unless there is an alternative available; and hence he
submits that the Doctrine of Necessity is attracted in the present case.

24. He has further submitted that though the object for issuing the Government Order, in
question, apart from increasing efficiency in the administration of Educational Institution, was also
distribution of the work, by referring certain issues to the Regional Level Committee; but in
absence of any allegations of mala fides or by not raising any objections, regarding the
incompetence of the Regional Level Committee, on account of non-compliance of the quorum and
the decision having been taken unanimously, there has been a substantial compliance. He submits
that it is trite law that the Government Order cannot override a statute, however since there is no
mandatory stipulation as regard the requirement of a quorum in Section 16A(7) of the Act, 1921,
the composition of the Committee is not mandatory but directory.

25. He has relied upon the decision of the Constitution Bench in State of U.P. and others
vs. Babu Ram Upadhyay3, to submit that where the statute does not provide for a contingency of
the non-compliance with the provision, the provision shall always be directory; but the Court may
ascertain the real intention of the legislature, by examining entire scheme of the Act. For ready
reference para-29 of Babu Ram Upadhyay (supra) is reproduced below :

 "29. The relevant rules of interpretation may be briefly stated thus: When a statute uses
the word "shall", prima facie, it is mandatory, but the Court may ascertain the real intention of the
legislature by carefully attending to the whole scope of the statute. For ascertaining the real
intention of the Legislature the Court may consider, inter alia, the nature and the design of the
statute, and the consequences which would follow from construing it the one way or the other, the
impact of other provisions whereby the necessity of complying with the provisions in question is
avoided, the circumstance, namely, that the statute provides for a contingency of the noncompliance with the provisions, the fact that the non-compliance with the provisions is or is not
visited by some penalty, the serious or trivial consequences that flow therefrom, and, above all,
whether the object of the legislation will be defeated or furthered.

(emphasis supplied) "

26. He further relies upon the decision in the case of Deepak Yadav vs. State of U.P. and
others4, to submit that where the Government Order also do not prescribe the consequence of non-
1310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
compliance, the same shall only be directory and not mandatory. For ready reference para-34 of the
Deepak Yadav (supra) is reproduced below:

 "34. The provisions of Government Orders dated 9th May, 1997 and 1st August, 1997
are only to ensure that a public servant is not harassed and is not faced with base less and false
allegations. It is not the mandate of the said Government Orders that no preliminary inquiry can
proceed unless and until the complaint is given on affidavit It is only a measure as to filter baseless
and motivated complaints and to provide guidelines to the authorities to see that a person making
complaint is serious about his complaint and there is substantial material in the same and is not
made with oblique motive without having any basis. The said Government Orders also do not
prescribe the consequences of non compliance and therefore, this Court is of the considered view
that the said Government Orders are, only 'guidelines' and are directory and not mandatory. [...]

(emphasis supplied)"

27. Therefore, insisting upon the strict compliance with the composition of the Committee,
as prescribed in the Government Order, will only be a futility and an empty formality, which will
militate against the object of the Government Order, i.e. to introduce fairness and efficiency in the
resolution of disputes, pertains to the administration and management of the Institution.

28. He has relied upon a decision of a Constitution Bench in CCE vs. Hari Chandra Shri
Gopal5, to submit that applying the Doctrine of substantial compliance, the question whether
the requirements relate to the substances or essence of the statute is to be seen and if the
strict adherence to those requirement is a pre-condition. For ready reference para-24 of Hari
Chandra Shri Gopal (supra) is reproduced below:

 "34. The test for determining the applicability of the substantial compliance doctrine has
been the subject of a myriad of cases and quite often, the critical question to be examined is
whether the requirements relate to the "substance" or "essence" of the statute, if so, strict
adherence to those requirements is a precondition to give effect to that doctrine. On the other hand,
if the requirements are procedural or directory in that they are not of the "essence" of the thing to
be done but are given with a view to the orderly conduct of business, they may be fulfilled by
substantial, if not strict compliance. In other words, a mere attempted compliance may not be
sufficient, but actual compliance with those factors which are considered as essential"

(emphasis supplied)"

29. He lastly submits that the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 is silent on the issue, as
to what recourse is to be taken in case any one of the Members of the three Member Committee is
indispensable.

30. Per contra, Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner
has submitted that the Doctrine of necessity can only be invoked when there is an
impossibility in meeting out the contingencies of completion of the quorum; while the
remaining two Members of the Committee of Management had an option to seek guidance from the
4 All. Committee Of Management Janta Janardan Shiksha Sadan Inter College Tilaon & Anr. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
1311
Government, and by way of nomination of a member from the neighboring region, till the time
regular appointment is made to the said post and the concerned Member by its designation is
available, the Government could have made a stop gap arrangement; and as such the doctrine
of necessity is not attracted in the present case, since a plausible re-course was available, to the
chairman of the RLC, to meet the mandate of the G.O. dated 19.12.2000, which holds the field.

31. As far as, the Doctrine of Silence being referred is concerned, it is linked to the
living tree doctrine i.e. to fill the gaps to meet out the contingencies which may arise due to
silence in the enactment or the Government Order; and the purpose is to keep the provision of
law relevant and effective, by allowing the Courts to fill gaps where the enactment does not
explicitly provide for a situation. However, the interpretation must be objective, based on
constitutional principles rather than subjective judicial satisfactions.

32. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon a decision of the coordinate
Bench of this Court dated 04.04.2025 in Committee of Management Shri D.C. Vedic Inter
College and another vs. State of U.P. and others6 to submit that in an identical circumstances,
where the quorum of the Regional Level Committee was incomplete, direction was issued to
the District Inspector of Schools, to remit the records to the Regional Level Committee, who shall
decide the dispute of the parties, with complete quorum. He has also submitted that the issue of
prejudice was also raised in the aforesaid decision but the same was rejected and the matter was
remitted back, since the constitution of the Regional Level Committee was not proper,
inasmuch as instead of three Members, only two Members heard the matter.

33. He has also relied upon a decision of this Court dated 08.10.2025 in Committee of
Management Kakori Shaheed Inter College and another vs. State of U.P. and others7
wherein, also the issue as to whether one of the Member could act in dual capacity, to complete the
quorum on the ground of necessity arose but however keeping the said issue open, the writ petition
was disposed of with a direction that a fresh decision shall be taken by the Regional Level
Committee, comprising of all the three Members.

34. In order to meet the aforesaid arguments, Shri Kartikeya Saran, learned Additional
Advocate General has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Election
Commission of India and another vs. Dr. Subramaniam Swamy and another8 specifically on
paras-15, 16 and 17, which is being reproduced hereinbelow:

 "15. The next question then is if the Chief Election Commissioner, for reason of possible
bias, is disqualified from expressing an opinion, how should the Election Commission conduct
itself? As pointed out earlier Shri Sanghi, the learned counsel for the appellant, has very frankly
and with his usual fairness stated that the Chief Election Commissioner preferred this appeal only
because he genuinely believed that the scheme of Article 324 did not conceive of a decision by
majority, but if the Court comes to the conclusion that a decision can be reached without the Chief
Election Commissioner participating in decision-making in the special circumstances of the case,
the latter is not at all keen or anxious to hear and adjudicate upon the matter at issue before the
Election Commission. We are quite conscious of the high office the Chief Election Commissioner
occupies. Ordinarily we would be loath to uphold the submission of bias but having regard to the
1312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
wide ramification the opinion of the Election Commissioner would have on the future of Ms J.
Jayalalitha, we think that the opinion, whatever it be, should not be vulnerable. The participation
of the Chief Election Commissioner in the backdrop of the findings recorded by the learned Single
Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court would certainly permit an argument of
prejudice, should the opinion be adverse to Ms J. Jayalalitha. Therefore, apart from the legal
aspect, even prudence demands that the Chief Election Commissioner should recuse himself from
expressing any opinion in the matter. However, the situation is not so simple, it is indeed complex,
in that, what would happen if the two Election Commissioners do not agree and there is a conflict
of opinion between them? That would lead to a stalemate situation and the Governor would find it
difficult to take a decision based on any such opinion. In such a situation, can the doctrine of
necessity be invoked in favour of the Chief Election Commissioner?

 16. We must have a clear conception of the doctrine. It is well settled that the law permits
certain things to be done as a matter of necessity which it would otherwise not countenance on the
touchstone of judicial propriety. Stated differently, the doctrine of necessity makes it imperative for
the authority to decide and considerations of judicial propriety must yield. It is often invoked in
cases of bias where there is no other authority or Judge to decide the issue. If the doctrine of
necessity is not allowed full play in certain unavoidable situations, it would impede the course of
justice itself and the defaulting party would benefit therefrom. Take the case of a certain taxing
statute which taxes certain perquisites allowed to Judges. If the validity of such a provision is
challenged who but the members of the judiciary must decide it. If all the Judges are disqualified
on the plea that striking down of such a legislation would benefit them, a stalemate situation may
develop. In such cases the doctrine of necessity comes into play. If the choice is between allowing a
biased person to act or to stifle the action altogether, the choice must fall in favour of the former as
it is the only way to promote decision-making. In the present case also if the two Election
Commissioners are able to reach a unanimous decision, there is no need for the Chief Election
Commissioner to participate, if not the doctrine of necessity may have to be invoked.

 17. We think that is the only alternative in such a situation. We are, therefore, of the
opinion that the proper course to follow is that the Chief Election Commissioner should call a
meeting of the Election Commission to adjudicate on the issue of disqualification of Ms J.
Jayalalitha on the grounds alleged by Dr Swamy. After calling the meeting he should act as the
Chairman but then he may recuse himself by announcing that he would not participate in the
formation of opinion. If the two Election Commissioners reach a unanimous opinion, the Chief
Election Commissioner will have the opinion communicated to the Governor. If the two Election
Commissioners do not reach a unanimous decision in the matter of expressing their opinion on the
issue referred to the Election Commission, it would be necessary for the Chief Election
Commissioner to express his opinion on the doctrine of necessity. We think that in the special
circumstances of this case this course of action would be the most appropriate one to follow
because if the two Election Commissioners do not agree, we have no doubt that the doctrine of
necessity would compel the Chief Election Commissioner to express his views so that the majority
opinion could be communicated to the Governor to enable him to take a decision in accordance
therewith as required by Article 192(1) of the Constitution. "
4 All. Committee Of Management Janta Janardan Shiksha Sadan Inter College Tilaon & Anr. Vs. State of
 U.P. & Ors.
1313
35. He has contended that in the aforesaid decision, the Apex Court was ceased with an
issue regarding the participation of the Chief Election Commissioner as a Member/Chairman of
the Committee, in the background of the findings of the learned Single Judge, as well as, the
Division Bench, to the effect that his participation may cause prejudice and may be adverse to Ms.
J. Lalita; but in spite of the aforesaid, the Apex Court had opined that the proper course to be
followed is that the Chief Election Commissioner, should call the meeting of the Election
Commission, to adjudicate the issue of disqualification of Ms. J. Lalita; and after calling upon the
meeting he may recuse himself and in case if the two Election Commissioners do not reach a
unanimous decision in the matter of expressing their opinion, invoking the doctrine of necessity,
the Chief Election Commissioner may also express his opinion.

36. Learned Additional Advocate General has also placed reliance on the ratio of the case
in Smt. Kamla Devi vs. State of U.P. and others9 to rely upon paras-15, 16, 17 and 18, which is
reproduced below:

 "15. In accordance with the provisions of Adhiniyam 1961, elected members of Zila
Panchayat shall constitute an electoral college to participate and cast their vote in the meeting
called to consider the Motion of No Confidence in Pramukh or Up-Pramukh of Kshettra panchayat.
There is no dispute between the parties on the fact that all the members, who participated in the
meeting of No Confidence were elected members of Zila Panchayat. The only point of issue
between them is that 11 members, details of whom, have been set out in paragraph 14 of the writ
petition, who had undisputedly not subscribed to the oath or affirmation and participated and voted
of the meeting of No Confidence, could have done so and their participation and voting was
invalid, on account of their having not subscribed to oath or affirmation.

 16. The provisions of Adhiniyam 1961 do not contain any provision with respect to any
oath or affirmation by any of the elected member of Kshettra panchayat. Since no such provision
exists in the Adhiniyam, there is also no consequence provided for not subscribing or affirmation to
oath. The provisions for subscribing to oath or affirmation by a Pramukh or elected member of
Kshettra panchayat was introduced for the first time by the Uttar Pradesh Kshettra Panchayats
and Zila Panchayats (Oath of Office of Adhyaksha or Pramukh Etc.) Rules 1994 framed in exercise
of powers conferred by Uttar Pradesh (Kshettra Panchayats and Zila Panchayats) Adhiniyam,
1961. The relevant provision of the Rules pertaining to oath or affirmation, in case of elected
member of Zila Panchayat is contained in Rule 3 (3), which is as under.

 ''3- Manner of taking oath or affirmation.

 (1) ..........

 (2) ............

 (3) The members of Zila Panchayat and Kshettra Panchayat before taking their seats for
the first time as such members shall make or subscribe oath or affirmation, in the case of member
of Zila Panchayat before the Adhyaksha and in his absence before the Mukhya Adhikari and in the
1314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
case of members of the Kshettra Panchayat before the Pramukh and in his absence before the
Khand Vikas Adhikari, in the form set out in the Appendix.''

 17. The 1994 Rules does not provide for any consequence of not taking oath or
affirmation by a member. The Adhiniyam of 1961 also neither prescribes any provision for any
oath to be taken or the affirmation to be made nor it prescribes any consequence fur such an
omission.

 18.