# Committee of Management Lalauli Inter College & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2019) 2 ILRA 1628
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-05-30
- **Case number:** Writ- C No. 63354 of 2015
- **Bench:** Ashok Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-lalauli-inter-college-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-44616
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Art. 226 -
Scope and ambit of Writ - Dispute about
the number of members of committee of
management - This kind of dispute is
purely factual dispute - It cannot be
considered or decided by a writ court.
(Para 10)

Writ Petition dismissed (E-1)

## Text

1628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
attestation form clearly indicates that the
petitioner has disclosed the facts relating
to pendency of criminal case against him.
Therefore, even in the light of the dictum
of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re; Avtar
Singh (supra), the petitioner should have
not been refused to submit his joining
when one identically placed person,
namely, Sri Dilip Kumar Jaiswal, whose
antecedents/ material is more serious than
the petitioner, has been permitted to
submit his joining.

10. The Hon'ble Apex Court in re;
Commissioner of Police and others v.
Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644, in
para-12 has held as under:-

"12. It is true that in the
application form the respondent did not
mention that he was involved in a criminal
case under Sections 325/34 IPC. Probably he
did not mention this out of fear that if he did
so he would automatically be disqualified. At
any event, it was not such a serious offence
like murder, dacoity or rape, and hence a
more lenient view should be taken in the
matter."

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held
that the offence under Section 325/34 IPC is
not so serious to refuse appointment of any
person. In the light of the aforesaid dictum
of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the present
case, the offence of the petitioner is less
serious than the offence under Section 325
IPC inasmuch as under Section 325 IPC, the
punishment prescribed as seven years
whereas in none of the sections, the
petitioner's charge is having punishment of
about seven years. Therefore, it appears that
while passing the impugned order dated
28.1.2019, the competent authority has not
invoked his discretion reasonably and the
reason so indicated in the impugned order is
misconceived inasmuch as the petitioner
has disclosed his details regarding criminal
case in his attestation form, therefore, the
impugned orders dated 28.1.2019 and
6.2.2019, which have been passed by the
Secretary, Home (Police), Lucknow and the
Director General of Prosecution, U.P.,
Lucknow whereby claim of the petitioner
on the post of A.P.O. has been cancelled are
liable to be quashed and accordingly, both
the orders dated 28.1.2019 and 6.2.2019,
which are contained in Annexures No.1 & 2
to the writ petition, are hereby quashed.

12. The opposite parties are directed
to permit the joining of the petitioner on
the post of A.P.O. in the same manner the
order has been passed in the case of Sri
Dilip Kumar Jaiswal. It is needless to say
that such order would be conditional one
and shall depend upon the final outcome
of the criminal proceedings.

13. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed.

14. No order as to costs.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1628

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHOK KUMAR, J.

Writ- C No. 63354 of 2015
connected with
Writ- C No. 60856, 10636 of 2015

Committee of Management Lalauli Inter
College & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
2 All. Committee of Management Lalauli Inter College & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1629
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Siddhartha Srivastava.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Prabhakar Awasthi.

A. Constitution of India - Art. 226 -
Scope and ambit of Writ - Dispute about
the number of members of committee of
management - This kind of dispute is
purely factual dispute - It cannot be
considered or decided by a writ court.
(Para 10)

Writ Petition dismissed (E-1)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashok Kumar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. By means of the present writ
petition (W.P. No. 63354 of 2015) the
petitioner has challenged the order dated
1.10.2015 passed by the DIOS, Fatehpur
by which the DIOS has attested the
signature of the manager of the elected
committee of management.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
the petitioner nos. 2 to 8 are the Ex-office
bearers/members
of
the
outgoing
committee of management, election of
which was held in the year 2005. Earlier a
Writ Petition No. 65152 of 2011 was filed
by one Idrish Khan in which following
order has been passed:-

"Contention of the petitioner is
that
District
Inspector
of
Schools,
Fatehpur on 11.1.2011 had written a
letter for holding of the election of the
Managing Committee of the institution by
30.1.2011. Petitioner submits that tenure
of the Manging Committee of the
institution has already run out and in
spite of same no steps whatsoever has
been taken in the direction, and even
order passed by the District Inspector of
schools has not been complied with.
Petitioner submits that there is no legal
impediment whatsoever for holding the
election
of
the
committee
of
the
Management of the institution.

Consequently, District Inspector
of schools, Fatehpur is directed to see and
ensure that final decision is taken in
respect of holding of election of the
committee of management in accordance
with law, preferably within period of next
three months from the date of production
of certified copy of this order. In case
elections have already been held then this
order question will not come to the rescue
of the petitioner.

With these observations, writ
petition is disposed of."

4. In pursuance of the order dated
16.11.2011 the DIOS called for the
relevant documents and a list of 275
members along with documents was
submitted before the Assistant Registrar.
The said list of 275 members was
objected and therefore the Assistant
Registrar has instituted an inquiry through
auditor. According to the petitioner the
inquiry was conducted and a report was
submitted before the Assistant Registrar
holding that the respondent no.4 has
illegally enrolled the members. The DIOS
in compliance of the order of this Court
dated 26.11.2011 authorised the election
officer as observer to constitute the
general body of the society by following
the bye-laws of the society and it is
alleged that the said effect was followed
and the list of 4885 members was
prepared and forwarded by the DIOS to
the Assistant Registrar for approval vide
1630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
letter dated 18.12.2013. In pursuance of
the letter dated 18.12.2013 the Assistant
Registrar has responded vide letter dated
23.1.2014, authorised to the hold the
election on the basis of general body of
4885 members prepared by the election
officer and the observer. The elections
were held according to the notified
scheduled. The election of the executive
members of the petitioner no.1 committee
of management took place on 9.3.2014.

5. The claim of the petitioner was
that on the basis of 4885 members of
general body elections were held in which
the respondent no.4 Sri Zumman Ali also
participated and elected as member of
executive committee. A writ petition
being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 16789
of 2014 was filed by the respondent no.4
Zumman Ali, which was disposed of vide
order dated 28.3.2014. The relevant
extract of the order dated 2.7.2014 are
quoted hereinbelow :

"Be that as it may, in my view,
the end of justice would be subserved in
case the petitioners are granted liberty to
file a representation before the Regional
Level Committee. The petitioners are
permitted to raise all available grounds
before the Regional Level Committee. In
the event, the petitioner submits any such
representation before the Joint Director
of Education within two weeks from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this
order, the Joint Director of Education
shall place the same before the Regional
Level Committee, which will consider the
cause of the petitioners and decide the
matter within six weeks from the date of
making such representation after hearing
the petitioners and all concerned parties.

Needless to say that this Court
has not expressed its opinion on the
merits of the case. The Regional Level
Committee
shall
pass
the
order
independently in accordance with law.

Accordingly, the writ petition is
disposed of.

No order as to costs."

6. Further against the order
dated 28.3.2014 another writ petition was
filed by the petitioner no.2 Badruddin
Khan being writ Petition No. 29044 of
2014 in which this Court has passed the
following order dated 2.7.2014 :

"Having
considered
the
submissions of the learned counsel for the
parties, I find substance in the submission
of Sri Ashok Khare, inasmuch as, the U.P.
Intermediate and Education Act, 1921
does not govern primary education. It is
noteworthy that Chapter III of the
Regulations framed under the Act, 1921
are
Regulations
prescribing
service
condition of teachers and employees of
recognised institution framed under subsection (1) of Section 16G of the Act,
1921. The use of the expression "
members of the teaching staff or the
Principal or Headmaster" is necessarily
in reference to an institution which is
governed by the provisions of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and it,
therefore, does not relate to teachers of a
Primary School. I, therefore, do not find
substance in the submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioners that the
respondent No.5 was not eligible for
being appointed as an office-bearer of the
Committee of Management by virtue of
Regulation 5 of Chapter III of the
Regulations framed under the Act, 1921.

So far as the validity of election
in general is concerned, another writ
petition was filed by one Jumman Ali, an
elected member of the Committee of
2 All. Committee of Management Lalauli Inter College & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1631
Management, challenging the elections of
the office-bearers which was numbered as
Writ C No. 16789 of 2014. In the said writ
petition, this court disposed of the petition
with observation that if petitioners have
any grievance with regards to the
election, they can make a representation
to the Regional Level Committee and in
that event, the Regional Level Committee
can consider the issue in accordance with
law. Therefore, if the petitioners are
aggrieved by the election for any other
reason, they may, on similar terms,
ventilate their grievance.

With the aforesaid liberty to the
petitioners, the writ petition is disposed of."

7. Against the order dated 2.7.2014
the petitioner no.2 Badruddin Khan has
filed a special appeal being Special
Appeal No. 686 of 2014, which according
to the petitioner is pending.

8. Pursuant to the order dated
28.3.2014 passed by this Court the
Regional Level Committee has passed an
order dated 29.8.2014 by which it has
held that the election was invalid. After
the order dated 29.8.2014 passed by the
Regional Legal Committee the DIOS has
sent a letter dated 13.10.2014 to the
petitioners to provide the attested list of
general body. In pursuance thereto the
petitioner
no.2
has
submitted
an
application dated 18.10.2014 before the
Assistant Registrar for providing the
attested list of general body. Fresh request
was also made by the petitioner no.2.
However another writ petition no.64098
of 2014 (The Committee of Management,
Lalauli Inter College vs. State of U.P. and
others) was filed by the respondent no.4
Sri Zumman Ali, which was finally
disposed of on 27.11.2014 by this Court
by making the following observations :

"In view of the above, the writ
petition is disposed of with the direction
upon the respondent No.2 to examine the
contents of the letter of the DIOS dated
13th October 2014 and offer requisite
assistance in the form of providing
records and information which may be
required for the purpose of holding of
fresh elections. The Assistant Registrar
for the purposes may also afford an
opportunity of hearing to the parties
concerned. The Assistant Registrar will
ensure that the aforesaid exercise is
carried out within a period of six weeks
from the date of production of the
certified copy of this order."

9. Based on the order dated
27.11.2014 passed by this Court the
Assistant Registrar has passed the order
impugned dated 16.1.2015. By the order
dated 16.1.2015 the respondent no.2 has
approved and attested the list of 275
members. The order dated 16.1.2015 was
challenged by means of a writ petition
No. 7778 of 2015, which is dismissed
vide order dated 30.5.2019. An order was
passed by the DIOS dated 1.4.2014 by
which he has refused to hold the election
on the ground that the writ petition no.
43229 of 2014 is pending. Another Writ
Petition No. 3847 of 2015 was filed by
the respondent no.4 with a prayer to hold
the
election
of
the
committee
of
management and the said writ petition
was finally disposed of vide order dated
13.8.2015, by which this Court has
directed the DIOS to hold the election in
pursuance of the directions issued by the
Regional Level Committee. The election
therefore are held on the basis of the order
passed on 9.9.2015 addressed to the
respondent no.4 passed by the DIOS. The
respondent
no.2
has
submitted
an
application dated 14.9.2015 before the
1632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
DIOS in compliance of his order dated
9.9.2015 and has sought the election officer
and observer. The respondent no.3 has
passed
and
order
dated
14.9.2015
appointing the Principal, Audhauli Inter
College, Audhali as Observer and Principal
of Audhauli Inter College as the Election
Officer to conduct the election. The
impugned election has been conducted and
the election took place according to the
schedule declared and the signature of the
manager are attested on 30.9.2015 and the
proceedings are concluded on 1.10.2015 in
which the signature of respondent no.4
Zumman Ali are attested and the same has
been approved.

10. From the perusal of the above
details mentioned it is crystal clear that
there is a factual disputes about the
number of members of committee of
management.
The
petitioner
claims
certain number of members to be genuine
and on the other hand the respondent no.4
claims the different number of members.
For holding the election, within a period
of two years 5/6 writ petitions are filed by
either of the parties in which certain
directions are issued, whereas from the
pleadings of the present writ petition as
well as connected writ petition being Writ
Petition Nos. 60856 of 2015 and 10636 of
2015, it is crystal clear that the dispute
involved in all the writ petitions are about
the number of members of the committee
of management. This Court has no reason
to keep the matter pending and to decide
the correctness of the claim of either of
the parties particularly, with respect of
membership
of
the
committee
of
management. This kind of dispute is
purely factual disputes, which cannot at
all be considered or decided by a writ
Court
under
Article
226
of
the
Constitution of India.

11. In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition is dismissed. The connected writ
petition are also dismissed.
----------

(2019)10ILR A 1632

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 09.09.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Service Single No.-23276 of 2019

Salil Kumar Samaiya ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, Renu
Misra.

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - Suspension - of U.P.
Government
Servant
(Discipline
&
Appeal)
Rules,
1999;
Rule
4(1)
-
petitioner who is a Junior Engineer was
suspended pursuant to the directions
issued by the State Government, who
was not the appointing authority

It is a trite law that suspension order can be
passed only by the appointing authority on his
own accord and not on the behest of some
higher authority (Para 11)

Writ Petition allowed (E-10)
Cases Referred:-

1. The Purtabpore Co. Ltd. Vs Cane Commissioner
of Bihar & 7 ors (1969) (1) SCC 308

2. Anirudhsinhji Karansinji Jadeja & anr Vs St
of
Guj
AIR
(1995)
SC
2390