# Committee of Management, Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati Vaidik Siksha Samiti, Meerut & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 5 ILRA 1492
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-24
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 34819 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-maharshi-dayanand-saraswati-vaidik-siksha-samiti-meerut-50125
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article - 226 - UP Educational Institutions
(Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act,
1974 - Section - 5: - Writ Petition - against
impugned order passed by DM, declined to
transfer of the land from an intermediate college
to a degree College - court finds that, for
transfer of land, permission under section 5 of
the Act, not been obtained - held, the
provisions of the Act, 1974 are mandatory in
nature
and
transfers
of
land
made
in
transgression of said provisions are void ab initio
- hence, court upheld the impugned order and
remitted the matter to the Director of Education,
Lucknow to decide the representation for
transfer of land assets in accordance with law
within a period of three months - writ petition,
disposed of.
(Para - 6, 12)

Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

M/s G.S. Convent School Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2019 (11) ADJ 274

## Text

1492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
presented
for
information
and
consideration.

(c) Other items, if any, shall then
be taken up and considered."

9. In view of above, as per the
procedure prescribed the meeting of the
Gaon Sabha shall be convened by the
Pradhan and he will also preside the
meeting and control the transaction of
business in the meeting. The Pradhan and
in his absence the meeting shall be presided
over by the Up-Pradhan and in his absence
the member nominated by Pradhan or
prescribed authority, as the case may be.
After meeting the proceedings of the
meeting shall be read and confirmed and
then signed by the Pradhan. Therefore the
proceedings of the meeting are not only to
be presided and controlled by the Pradhan
but confirmed and signed also by the
Pradhan after the meeting.

10. When there is a statutory
provision for proceedings of the meeting, a
proposal which has not been confirmed and
signed by the Pradhan, it cannot be said to
be a valid proposal and the proposal made
therein would be void. Admittedly the
proceedings
of
the
meeting
dated
11.10.2017 have not been confirmed and
signed by the Pradhan, therefore it cannot
be said to be a valid proposal and is void.

11. It is also noticed that the Gram
Pradhan of the Village himself had made a
written complaint in this regard to the
Tahsildar, Lalganj, Pratapgarh with request
for permission for re-voting on 11.10.2017
itself and to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Lal
Ganj. The Tehsildar had submitted a report
on 18.10.2017 annexing the list of 304
persons who were of the view that election
is valid and 340 persons who were of the
view that election was invalid and were in
favour of secret voting.

12. In view of above, the proposal
dated 11.10.2017 cannot be said to be a
valid proposal, therefore it cannot be acted
upon. Hence no direction can be issued for
taking decision in pursuance of the said
proposal. Even otherwise subsequently
another proposal was made, in which the
name
of
respondent
no.5
was
recommended and he has been appointed.
Therefore also no direction can be issued
for taking any decision on the aforesaid
proposal dated 11.10.2017 which has not
been confirmed and signed by the Pradhan
and is not in accordance with law. The
petition has been filed on misconceived and
baseless grounds and it is liable to be
dismissed.

13. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2023) 5 ILRA 1492
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.04.202

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ-C No. 34819 of 2022

Committee
of
Management,
Maharshi
Dayanand Saraswati Vaidik Siksha Samiti,
Meerut & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Prabhakar Awasthi, Sri Brijesh Kumar,
Sri Saurabh Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Avneesh Tripathi
5 All. Committee of Management, Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati Vaidik Siksha Samiti, Meerut &
 Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1493
Civil Law - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article - 226 - UP Educational Institutions
(Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act,
1974 - Section - 5: - Writ Petition - against
impugned order passed by DM, declined to
transfer of the land from an intermediate college
to a degree College - court finds that, for
transfer of land, permission under section 5 of
the Act, not been obtained - held, the
provisions of the Act, 1974 are mandatory in
nature
and
transfers
of
land
made
in
transgression of said provisions are void ab initio
- hence, court upheld the impugned order and
remitted the matter to the Director of Education,
Lucknow to decide the representation for
transfer of land assets in accordance with law
within a period of three months - writ petition,
disposed of.
(Para - 6, 12)

Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

M/s G.S. Convent School Vs St. of U.P. & ors.,
2019 (11) ADJ 274

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. By the impugned order dated
24.02.2022, the District Magistrate, Meerut
has
declined
to
issue
no
objection
certificate as regards land requirements for
setting up a degree college. The impugned
order finds that the land belongs to the
intermediate college being run by the
petitioner-committee of management and
was transferred to the degree college in the
teeth of Section 5 of the U.P. Educational
Institutions (Prevention of Dissipation of
Assets) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as
the 'Act', 1974) .

2. Brief facts are these. The land
belonging to the intermediate college run
by the petitioner-committee of management
was transferred to the degree college
without prior approval for effecting the
aforesaid transfer under Section 5 of the
Act, 1974.

3. Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned
counsel assisted by Shri Saurabh Tripathi,
learned counsel for the petitioners in his
usual fairness submits that the permission
under Section 5 of the Act, 1974 has not
been obtained. However, he contends that
no permission was required since the
institution is a degree college and only
excess land was transferred by the
intermediate college.

4. Per contra, Shri I.P.Srivastava,
learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel
submits that the provision is mandatory in
nature and the land transfer being in the
teeth of the said provision is liable to be
rendered null and void.

5. The land holdings are most critical
assets of educational institutions, and have
a direct bearing on the quality of education
imparted therein. Today land assets of
educational institutions are under constant
threat of alienation. The managements
often cut corners to break profits and land
holdings are the first casualties. Over long
years
dissipation
of
land
assets
of
institutions has almost disappeared the
playgrounds from various schools and
colleges in the State of U.P. [See: M/s G.S.
Convent School v. State of U.P. and 3
others reported at 2019 (11) ADJ 274]

6. Depletion of land assets of
educational institutions causes decline in
overall
educational
standards.
The
alienation of land assets belonging to the
intermediate college are governed and
regulated the U.P. Educational Institutions
(Prevention of Dissipation of Assets) Act,
1974. The legislation seeks to check the
menace of dissipation of land assets of an
1494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
educational institution. The said provisions
of the Act, 1974 are mandatory in nature
and have to be strictly complied with.
Transfers
of
land
and
property
of
educational
institutions
made
in
transgression of said provisions are void ab
initio. Considering the gravity of the
problem
the
legislature
may
well
contemplate more stringent provisions and
exemplary penalties to discourage acts of
dissipation
of
assets
of
educational
institutions.

7. Violation of Section 5 of the Act,
1974 is established. The transfer of land of
the intermediate college in favour of the
degree college is vitiated and void.

8. In this wake, there is no infirmity in
the impugned order dated 24.02.2022
passed by the respondent No.3-District
Magistrate, Meerut. The relief sought in the
writ petition is accordingly declined.

9. At this stage, Shri Prabhakar Awasthi,
learned counsel assisted by Shri Saurabh
Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners
contends that the institution has ample land
assets to run both the intermediate college as
well as degree college. He also submits that
the institution shall apply for necessary
approval for transfer of the aforesaid land
holdings in favour of the proposed degree
college. He recasts the relief and prays that the
application of the petitioners may be decided
within a stipulated period of time.

10. Shri I.P. Srivastava, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents No.1, 3, 4 and 5 does not
have any serious objection to the aforesaid
prayer.

11. Shri Avneesh Tripathi, learned
counsel for the respondent-No.2-University
submits that the institution can be granted
recognition only after the all relevant
eligibility criteria including the availability
of no objection certificate in respect of land
assets are made available.

12. In this wake, the matter is
remitted
to
Director
of
Education,
Lucknow
to
execute
the
following
directions:

1. The petitioner-committee of
management
shall
make
a
fresh
application for seeking approval of
transfer
of
land
assets
by
the
intermediate
college
to
the
degree
college
along
with
all
supporting
documents which shall include the
existing maps of structures in the land
holdings and also proposed structures for
the degree college.

2. The Director of Education,
Lucknow shall cause a physical inspection
of the institution to be conducted. The
inspection shall also compare existing
structures
to
those
cited
in
the
representation.

3. The Director of Education,
Lucknow shall decide the representation for
transfer the land assets in accordance with
law within a period of three months from
the date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order
along
with
a
fresh
copy
of
representation.

4. It shall be ensured that separate
playgrounds (of the prescribed dimensions)
are available in both the institutions even
after transfer of land.

With the aforesaid directions, the
writ petition is finally disposed of.
----------
5 All. M/s Shalimar Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd., Muzaffarnagar Vs. Spl. Judge/E.C. Act, Muzaffarnagar
 & Ors.
1495
(2023) 5 ILRA 1495
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-C No. 41480 of 1999

M/s
Shalimar
Paper
Mills
Pvt.
Ltd.,
Muzaffarnagar ...Petitioner
Versus
Spl. Judge/E.C. Act, Muzaffarnagar & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pramod Kumar Jain, Sri B.C. Rai, Sri
Deepak Kumar Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, Sri
Nipendra Mishra, Sri P.K. Shukla, Sri R.K.
Shukla, Sri Manoj Kumar Dwivedi

Civil Laws - Constitution of India, 1950 -
Article - 226 - Electricity Act, 1910 -
Section 26(vi), - Arbitration Act, 1996 -
Section - 34 - writ petition - assailing the
impugned order by which the Special Judge EC
Act, allowing the application preferred u/section
34 of the Arbitration Act, moved by the
respondents
department
-
an
agreement
between the parties for supply of electricity for
a sanctioned load - petitioner challenged the
electricity bills raised by the respondent, citing
section 26(vi) of the EC Act, which required
referral to an Electrical Inspector in case of
defective meters - civil suit pending - Court
finds that, the specific provision u/section 26(6)
of the Electricity Act, 1910 prevails over the
general arbitration clause in the agreement, and
therefore, the matter should be referred to the
Electrical Inspector for resolution - held, the
dispute should be resolved by the Electrical
Inspector as per Section 26(6) of the Electricity
Act, 1910, and directed the petitioner to
withdraw the civil suit and approach the
Electrical Inspector for resolution - direction
issued accordingly, writ petition is disposed of.
(Para - 13, 14, 15, 16)

Writ Petition Disposed of. (E-11)

List of Cases cited:

Belwal Spinning Mills Ltd. & ors. Vs U.P. St.
Electricity Board & anr., 1997 (6) SCC 740.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri B.C. Rai along with Sri
Deepak Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for
petitioner as well as Sri Manoj Kumar
Dwivedi, Advocate holding brief of Sri
Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel
for respondent Nos. 2 to 5.

2. The petitioner has approached this
Court assailing the judgment and order
dated 30.07.1999 passed by Special Judge,
EC Act, Muzaffarnagar thereby allowing
the application under Section 34 of the
Arbitration Act filed by the respondents for
relegating the dispute to the Arbitrator.

3. The brief conspectus of the facts is
that the petitioner and respondent had
entered into an agreement dated 15.02.1985
for supply of electricity for a sanctioned
load of 470 KVA. The petitioner is a
Papermill which has established its unit at
Muzaffarnagar for manufacturing paper.

4. The dispute pertains to the bills
raised
by
the
respondent-Electricity
Department
dated
05.06.1985
and
07.06.1985 amounting to Rs. 41527.60/-
and Rs 1,07,605.50/-. In the said bills, it
was stated that the meter installed in the
premises was defective and was not
recording the correct supply of the
electricity and hence the said bills were
raised. The petitioner disputed the said bills
and was of the view that in light of Section