# Committee of Management Sri Gandhi Inter College Harpur v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 2 ILRA 1386
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-02-17
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 118 of 2026
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/committee-of-management-sri-gandhi-inter-college-harpur-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54146
- **Pages:** 17

## Text

_Characters 0–39,726 of 52,548. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39726 for what follows._

1386 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
only with Court No. 7, whereas, the learned Single Judge Bench has passed the order while sitting
in Court No. 6. The roster dated 31.07.2025 be kept on record.

25. In view of the above discussion, as, the order passed by the learned Single Bench is in the
teeth of the law declared by Hon'ble the Supreme Court and its dictum, is without jurisdiction and
is unsustainable on the reasons given for entertaining the writ petition in spite of availability of a
statutory remedy under Section 18 of the SARFAESI Act, 2002, the same is liable to be quashed.
We accordingly quash the impugned order.

26. The respondent nos. 1 to 3 are at liberty to prefer an appeal under Section 18 of the
SARFAESI Act, 2002 and seek such reliefs as may be permissible in law.

27. The Special Appeal is allowed.
----------
(2026) 2 ILRA 1386
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.02.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 118 of 2026

Committee of Management Sri Gandhi Inter College Harpur ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Maintainability of writ petition filed by the Manager against an order of authority without having resolution
of authorization of the Committee of Management.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ - Maintainability - D.I.O.S. passed
the impugned order turning down the suspension order of the Committee of Management -
Manager challenged it without having resolution of authorization of the Committee of
Management - As per the scheme of administration, the Manager is authorised to represent on
behalf Committee of Management i.e to plead, to affirm or to file any case or swear an affidavit,
but it does not specifically authorise the Manager to take a decision to institute any suit or a writ
petition - Relevance - Preliminary objection regarding maintainability of writ was raised by the
respondent - Permissibility : (E-1)
Held : In case of any adverse order is passed by the State-Respondent, then Committee of Management has
to take a decision for further legal recourse and the Manager alone not being competent to take a decision on
it's own or on behalf of Committee of Management, to take a decision for further legal recourse as it would be
a collective decision of the Committee of Management. This is the reason that such power is not specifically
dedicated to the Manager under Scheme of Administration rather it authorise Manager to act subsequent to
decision of taking legal recourse - The Manager cannot act contrary to the decision of Committee of
Management. In a case where Committee of Management takes a decision not to challenge an action of
2 All. Committee of Management Sri Gandhi Inter College Harpur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1387
State-Respondent, can Manager under the grab of above referred clause still challenge it taking a contrary
view and answer to it obviously would be 'No' - Preliminary objection is sustained. [Para 13, 14 and 17]

Case Law Cited
Saraswati Vidya Mandir vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2003 (3) AWC 1917; C/M Junior High School Sayar vs.
State of U.P. and 2 Ors, 2019:AHC:19863; Umesh Chandra and Anr. vs. Mahila Vidyalaya Society, Aminabad,
Lucknow and Ors., 2006(24) LCD 1373 - referred to.

List of Acts
UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921 - Section 16-A - Sub-section (1) to (6); Intermediate Education
(Amendment) Act, 1980; Scheme of Administration.

List of Keywords
Preliminary objection, Maintainability, Resolution of Committee of Management, Scheme of Administration,
Collective decision, General body of society, Bye laws.

Case Arising From
Orde of District Inspector of School dated 24.12.2025, whereby a proposal dated 26.10.2025 to suspend
Respondent No. 3 has been turned down.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : R. K. Ojha, Sr. Adv.; Astha Mishra, Avneesh Tripathi.
Advs. for the Respondents : C.S.C., Ramesh Chandra Dwivedi.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.)

1. In the present case, contesting private respondent has raised a preliminary objection to the
maintainability of present writ petition in it's present form that it is not accompanied with a
resolution of the Committee of Management to challenge the impugned order and to further
authorise it's Manager to act on their behalf.

2. The present writ petition is filed by the Committee of Management of a College namely, Sri
Gandhi Inter College, Harpur Budhat, Gorakhpur being Petitioner No. 1 through its Manager being
Petitioner No. 2. against an order dated 24.12.2025 passed by District Inspector of Schools,
Gorakhpur, whereby a proposal dated 26.10.2025 to suspend Respondent No. 3 has been turned
down.

3. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Avneesh Tripathi, learned counsel
for petitioners, has submitted that there is a Scheme of Administration to run various affairs of the
College through Committee of Management, which also provides responsibility and powers of each
Office Bearer. The Manager of Committee of Management has wide powers and responsibilities
including being authorized to sign pleadings etc. on its behalf. For reference relevant clause of
Scheme of Administration is mentioned here in after:-

'17. प्रबन्ध समिमि के कितव्य एवं कृत्य- प्रबन्र् सडमडि के अडर्कार किाव्य एवं कृत्य जहां िक डवडनयमों से असंगि न हो
डनम्नडलडखि होंगेेः-

माध्यडमक डशक्षा अडर्डनयम की र्ारा 16क एवं 16ख के अर्ीन बने पररषद के डवडनयम के अध्याय-
1388 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

1- प्रशासन की योजना के अन्िगाि डवडनयम 13 में डनडहि अडर्कार एवं काया प्रबन्र् सडमडि द्वारा सम्पाडदि डकये जायेंगे, जो डनम्नडलडखि
रूप से पररभाडषि डकये गये हैं-

2- संस्था के प्रर्ान प्रबन्र्क द्वारा डशक्षकों / कमाचाररयों की सेवापंडजका में की गयी प्रडवडष्टयों के डवरूद्ध अपीलों पर डनणाय देना।

3- जहााँ प्रर्ानाध्यापक अथवा आचाया को अडर्कार प्राप्त है उनके अडिररक्त संस्था के कमाचाररयों को समस्ि अवकाश स्वीकृि करना।

4- बालकों की डनडर्यों (छात्रडनडर्यों) को छोड़कर संस्था के समस्ि र्नराडशयों, प्रडिभूडियों (जमानिों) सम्पडत्त िथा संदानों का डनयंत्रण
िथा प्रबन्र्न एवं उनकी डनरापद परररक्षा, डवडनयोग, मरम्मि, अनुरक्षण और डवडर्क रक्षा हेिु आवश्यक कायावाही करना।

5- शासन से प्राप्त अनुरक्षण और डवकास अनुदानों िथा प्रडिपूडिायों के उडचि उपयोग को सुडनडिि करना।

6- संस्था के डलए समस्ि आय (छात्रवृडत्तयााँ और बालकों की डनडर्यों को छोड़कर) चंदा, दान, भेंट, लाभांश, ब्याज, अनुदान, आडद प्राप्त
करना िथा उसके अडर्कारों एवं कायों से उठाने वाले डवडत्तय दाडयत्वों को पूरा करना।

7- डशक्षा डवभाग द्वारा समय समय पर डदये जाने वाले आदेशों / डनदेशों का पालन करना।

8- एक्ट के उपबन्र् एवं डवडनमय व अनुबन्र्ों के रहिे हुए प्रर्ानाध्यापक, प्रर्ानाचाया एवं डशक्षक पदों पर उ०प्र० माध्यडमक डशक्षा सेवा
चयन बोिा द्वारा समय समय पर संशोडर्ि शासनादेशों के अनुसार चयडनि अभ्यडथायों की डनयुडक्त उ०प्र० माध्यडमक डशक्षा सेवा चयन बोिा अडर्डनयम के
प्राडवर्ानानुसार/शासनादेशानुसार की जायेगी। डलडपक की डनयुडक्त प्रबन्र् सडमडि द्वारा िथा चिुथा श्रेणी कमाचारी की डनयुडक्त प्रर्ानाध्यापक/प्रर्ानाचाया द्वारा
डवडहि प्रडक्रया अनुसार डवभागीय अनुमोदन से की जायेगी।

6. उ०प्र० हाईस्कूल िथा इण्टरमीडिएट कालेज (अध्यापकों िथा अन्य कमाचाररयों के वेिन का भुगिान) अडर्डनयम 1971 की र्ारा 9
के अन्िगाि सृडजि ररक्त पद एवं डवडहि प्रडक्रया के आभाव में िथा उ०प्र० माध्यडमक डशक्षा सेवा चयन बोिा द्वारा चयडनि अभ्यथी समय समय पर संशोडर्ि
शासनादेशों से परे अन्य अडनयडमि/फजी डनयुडक्त की डस्थडि पाये जाने पर उक्त वडणाि अडर्डनयम/डवडनयम के प्राडवर्ानों के अन्िगाि प्रबन्र् सडमडि के
डवरूद्ध कायावाही की जायेगी।

7. डवद्यालय में छात्रों का फजी नामांकन पाये जाने की डस्थडि में प्रबन्र् सडमडि को अडिक्रडमि करने की कायावाही माध्यडमक डशक्षा
अडर्डनयम एवं अडर्डनयम में जारी शासनादेशों, डवभागीय डनदेशों के अन्िगाि की जायेगी।"

'20. प्रबन्ध समिमि के पदामधकारियों के अमधकाि िथा कितव्य- पदाडर्काररयों के अडर्कार िथा किाव्य डनम्नडलडखि होंगेेः-

1. अध्यक्ष-

क- सडमडि की बैठक की अध्यक्षिा करना।

ख- बैठक करने के डलए डिडथ समय एवं स्थान का अनुमोदन करना पररविान करना और बैठक को स्थडगि करना।

ग- इस बाि की देखभाल करना डक यह प्रशासन योजना समस्ि सम्बद्ध व्यडक्तयों द्वारा डनष्ठा के साथ कायााडन्वि की जाय।
2 All. Committee of Management Sri Gandhi Inter College Harpur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1389

घ- संस्था िथा उसकी सम्पडत्त से सम्बडन्र्ि समस्ि अनुबन्र्ों, संडवदाओं के समस्ि अडभलेखों िथा अन्य लेखों पर प्रबन्र्क के साथ संयुक्त
रूप से हस्िाक्षर करना।

ङ- सडमडि की स्वीकृडि की प्रत्याशी में अडर्क से अडर्क रूपया 500/- (रूपया पााँच सौ) िक की र्नराडश को व्यय करना।

च- आपडत्त की डस्थडि में जब कोई बैठक बुलाई न जा सके िो डजला डवद्यालय डनरीक्षक की सहमडि से सडमडि की ओर से उस सीमा िक काया करना डजस
सीमा िक उस सडमडि के संकल्प द्वारा एिथा प्राडर्कृि डकया गया हो, अपने द्वारा की गई कायावाही की सूचना ित्काल सडमडि को देना।

छ- ऐसे अन्य अडर्कारों को प्रयोग करना और ऐसे किाव्यों का पालन करना जो इस योजना या ित्तसमय प्रचडलि डकसी डनयम अथवा उप
डनयम द्वारा उसे डदये गये हो, उस पर आरोडपि डकये गये हो।

2. उपाध्यक्ष-

क- अध्यक्ष की अनुपडस्थडि में या उसके अपने किाव्यों का पालन करने से असमथा हो जाने पर अध्यक्ष के रूप में काया करना।

ख- ऐसे समस्ि अडर्कारों के प्रयोग िथा किाव्यों का पालन करना जो अध्यक्ष द्वारा उसे डलडखि रूप से प्रडिडनडहि डकये गये हो।

3. प्रबन्धक-

1. संस्था के डलए समस्ि अनुदान, दान िथा चन्दे आडद प्राप्त करना और उनके डलडए यथाडवडर् रसीद देना।

2. सडमडि के डनदेशों के अर्ीन रहिे हुए संस्था के समस्ि सम्पडत्तयों िथा र्नराडशयों के प्रबन्र् िथा प्रशासन के डलए उत्तरदायी होगा।

3. डनयमों िथा स्वीकृडि की शिों के अर्ीन रहिे हुए बजट में की गयी व्यवस्था के भीिर संस्था के डवत्त का प्रशासन िथा डनयंत्रण करना।

4. कोषाध्यक्ष के साथ संयुक्त रूप से संस्था के समस्ि लेखों को संचाडलि और उसकी वाडषाक लेखा परीक्षा का प्रबन्र् करना।

5. संस्था के डशक्षकों िथा सभी कमाचाररयों के वेिन वृडद्धयों िथा देय र्नराडश का भुगिान सुडनडिि करना और जब कोषाध्यक्ष डशफाररश
करे िो सडमडि द्वारा प्राडर्कृि व्यय में से अन्य सेवाओं िथा सामडग्रयों के डलए भुगिान सुडनडिि करना।

6. संस्था से संबंडर्ि समस्ि अनुबन्र् िथा संस्था की अचल सम्पडत्त से संबंडर्ि हस्िान्िरण संडवदा के समस्ि डवलेखों िथा अन्य लेखों पर
अध्यक्ष के साथ-साथ संयुक्त हस्िाक्षर करना।

7. वाडषाक बजट िैयार करना और सडमडि/सभा के समक्ष रखें जाने के डलए उन्हें अध्यक्ष को प्रस्िुि करना।

8. संस्था की वाडषाक ररपोटा िैयार करना।

9. संस्था को संबडर्ि मामलों में सडमडि संस्था िथा सभा की समस्ि कानूनी कायावाडहयों में प्रडिडनडर्त्व करना और उनकी कायावाडहयों
िथा मामलों में उनकी ओर से अडभकथनो (प्लीडिंग्स) पर हस्िाक्षर करना िथा उन्हें सत्याडपि करना।
1390 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. अध्यक्ष की स्वीकृडि से बैठक बुलाना और संस्था के प्रबन्र् और प्रशासन से सम्बन्र् समस्ि पत्र व्यवहार रडजस्टरों िथा पुस्िकों को
अडभलेख करना।

11. उस दशा को छोिकर जब प्रर्ानाचाया में ऐसा अडर्कार डनडहि हो, सडमडि द्वारा प्राडर्कृि सीमा िक संस्था के कमाचाररयों की छुट्टी
स्वीकृि करना।

12. सडमडि की स्वीकृडि की प्रत्याशी में अडर्क से अडर्क रू0 500/- (पााँच सौ रूपये) िक की र्नराडश व्यय करना।

13. यडद सडमडि ने िदथा अडर्कार डदया हो िो संस्था के डकसी डशक्षक, डलडपक पुस्िकालयाध्यक्ष की जााँच िथा सडमडि का अडन्िम
आदेश होने िक के डलए डवडनयमों के अनुसार डनलम्बन करना िथा की गयी कायावाही की सूचना सडमडि को देना।

14. एक ओर सडमडि िथा दूसरी ओर प्रर्ानाचाया के माध्यम से संस्था के कमाचारी वगा, डशक्षा डवभाग िथा बोिा के बीच पत्र व्यवहार के
सामान्य माध्यम के रूप में काया करना।

15. सडमडि िथा सभा के डनणायों को कायााडन्वि करने के डलए उनके मुख्य कायापालक के रूप में काया करना।

16. डवद्यालय के समस्ि कमाचाररयों को डनयुक्त करना िथा डनयुडक्त पत्र डनगाि करना।

17. ऐसे अन्य अडर्कारों का प्रयोग और ऐसे अन्य किाव्यों का पालन करना जो इस योजना द्वारा ित्समय प्रचडलि डकसी डनयम अथवा
डवडर् द्वारा उसे डदये गये हो या उस पर रोडपि डकये गये हो।

18. संस्था की िरफ से पत्र व्यवहार करना।

19. सदस्यों के नाम सदस्यिा रडजस्टर पर नोट करना।

20. संस्था के कायावाही को डलडपबद्ध करना एवं सुनाना।

4- उप प्रबन्धकः-

1. प्रबन्र्क को उसके किाव्यों का पालन करने में सहायिा देना और उसकी ओर से उन मामलों में काम करना जो उसे प्रबन्र्क द्वारा
डलडखि रूप से डनडदाष्ट िथा प्रडिडनडहि डकये गये हो िथा प्रबन्र्क को उसके किाव्यों का पालन करने में अस्मथा हो जाने पर और प्रबन्र्क का पद ररक्त होने
पर कोई स्थाई व्यवस्था होने िक प्रबन्र्क के रूप में काया करना।

5. कोषाध्यक्षः-

1. संस्था की समस्ि र्नराडशयों िथा डनडर्यों के लेखों को रखना।

2. प्रबन्र्क के साथ संयुक्त रूप से संस्था के सभी लेखों को संचाडलि करना।

3. प्राडर्कृि व्यय के डलए भुगिान की जाने वाली र्नराडशयों की डसफाररश प्रबन्र्क से करना।
2 All. Committee of Management Sri Gandhi Inter College Harpur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1391

4. सदस्यिा हेिु बैंक ड्राफ्ट प्राप्त कर प्रबन्र्क को भेजना िथा सदस्यिा स्वीकार होने पर उसे डवद्यालय के खािों में जमा करना। सदस्यिा से
प्राप्त समस्ि आय मेन्टीनेन्स खािे में जमा होगी।

5. प्राडर्कृि लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा लेखा परीक्षा के डलए सभी लेखें, रडजस्टर, प्रमाणक (बाउचर) रसीदें िथा अन्य पत्र जो लेखा परीक्षा के
डलए आवश्यक हो प्रस्िुि करना।

6. आय िथा व्यय का वाडषाक डववरण िैयार करना और लेखा परीक्षा ररपोटा के साथ उसे प्रबन्र्क को प्रस्िुि करना।"

4. Learned Senior Advocate further submits that said Scheme of Administration has
incorporated all clauses of model Scheme of Administration provided under U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 as well as various other clauses and it was approved also.

5. Learned Senior Advocate has referred a resolution dated 13.01.2026 (adopted subsequent to
filing of present writ petition) in a meeting of the Committee of management to authorise it's
Manager to sign pleadings on behalf of it, in terms of above referred clause as an abundant caution
to meet the preliminary objection, despite it was not required.

6. Learned Senior Advocate has not disputed a settled position of law that a Manager of the
Committee of Management, in sole capacity, cannot file a writ petition and it is always the
Committee of Management who could file a writ petition, if aggrieved by any action of State-
Respondent, through it's Manager.

7. According to learned Senior Advocate above referred Clauses 20 (3) (9) of Scheme of
Administration completely authorise the Manager to take a decision so as to challenge an order
passed by State-Respondent or by any other authority, before a Competent Court and for that there
is no mandatory requirement to adopt a fresh resolution by the Committee of Management to the
effect whether a proceeding is required to be instituted before a Competent Court and the Manager
being authorised to plead on it's behalf, can take a decision on his own for institution of such cases.

8. Per contra, Sri R.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for Private Respondent-3 has referred
judgments passed in the cases of Saraswati Vidya Mandir Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2003 (3)
AWC 1917; C/M Junior High School Sayar Vs. State of U.P. and 2 Ors, 2019:AHC:19863;
Umesh Chandra and Anr. Vs. Mahila Vidyalaya Society, Aminabad, Lucknow and Ors.,
2006(24) LCD 1373 that it is Committee of Management who could only be aggrieved by any act
of State-Respondent and not it's Manager independently, therefore, a decision to institute a
challenge to it, could only be taken by the Committee of Management and not by it's Manager
alone. The referred clause of Scheme of Administration authorise the Manager to act on behalf of
the Committee of Management, to plead pleadings and to represent before Court or forum, as the
case may be, and does not authorise to take a policy decision on behalf of the Committee of
Management to institute a proceeding before a Court of Law since Committee of Management may
resolve otherwise.

9. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the material available on record.
1392 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10. The Scheme of Administration provides for constitution of a Committee of Management
having authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution. Sub-section (6) of section 16A of U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921, provides that every recognized institution shall be managed in
accordance with the Scheme of Administration framed under and in accordance with sub-section
(1) to sub-section (5) of the said Section and Section 16-B and Section 16-C. Section 16-CC of the
Act provides that a Scheme of Administration in relation to an institution, whether recognized
before or after the commencement of the Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1980, shall not
be inconsistent with the principles laid down in the 3rd Schedule. The 3rd Schedule provides the
principles on which approval to a Scheme of Administration shall be accorded. It provides that
every Scheme of Administration shall provide for proper and effective functioning of the
Committee of Management.

11. In the present case, College concerned has Scheme of Administration duly approved. It
provides duties and responsibilities of Office Bearers of Committee of Management including
President and Manager. A Manager in individual capacity can not file any suit or writ petition. It is
the Committee of Management who can file a suit or writ petition and for that Manager or any
other can be authorised to file it and to sign pleadings. The Counsels for rival parties are also in
agreement on this issue.

12. In the present case, as per the scheme of administration, the Manager is authorised to
represent on behalf Committee of Management i.e to plead, to affirm or to file any case or swear an
affidavit, but it does not specifically authorise Manager to take a decision to institute any suit or a
writ petition. In other words a Manager can carry out a decision of Committee of Management. In
some eventualities, the Manager is being authorise to take decision also but such authorization must
be specific.

13. Under any circumstance, if any one could aggrieved by an action of State-Respondent
would only be the Committee of Management since in maximum cases orders are passed on basis
of decision of Committee of Management through resolutions adopted in their meetings such as
order of termination or suspension, therefore, in case of any adverse order is passed by the StateRespondent, then Committee of Management has to take a decision for further legal recourse and
the Manager alone not being competent to take a decision on it's own or on behalf of Committee of
Management, to take a decision for further legal recourse as it would be a collective decision of the
Committee of Management. This is the reason that such power is not specifically dedicated to the
Manager under Scheme of Administration rather it authorise Manager to act subsequent to decision
of taking legal recourse.

14. The Manager cannot act contrary to the decision of Committee of Management. In a case
where Committee of Management takes a decision not to challenge an action of State-Respondent,
can Manager under the grab of above referred clause still challenge it taking a contrary view and
answer to it obviously would be 'No'.

15. There is an evident difference between a decision to take legal recourse and to authorise
Manager to act accordingly. Under no circumstance, a Manager can question a decision of the
Committee of Management or General Body of a Society, as the case may be, or to proceed on it's
2 All. Committee of Management Sri Gandhi Inter College Harpur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1393
own will, since it would be against the bye laws of a society or a decision of the Committee of
Management under Scheme of Administration.

16. In above background Court takes note of Saraswati Vidya Mandir (supra), C/M Junior
High School Sayar (supra) and Umesh Chandra (supra), wherein same view was taken.
Relevant part of said judgments are reproduced hereinafter :-

Saraswati Vidya Mandir

'(3) THIS Court in Writ Petition No. 10663 of 1976, Sardar Patel Higher Secondary
School, Dev nagar, Mathura v. Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra and Ors. , 1976
AWC 18, vide judgment and order dated 1. 3. 1976 observed :

"sri N. C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, Babu Lal Sharma raised
a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition at the instance of the manager Kedar
nath. He urged that the Committee of Management had authority to hold enquiry and to dismiss the
petitioner from service, its proposal to dismiss respondent No. 3 was disapproved by the deputy
Director of Education in appeal, therefore, the aggrieved party was the Committee of management
and the petition could be filed only by it, the manager Sri Kedar Nath had no locus standi to
maintain this petition. I find considerable force in this contention. In paragraph 43 of the second
affidavit of respondent No. 3, it was clearly stated that the petition was not maintainable on behalf
of the school as it was not the legal entity itself and it ought to have been filed by the Committee of
Management. It was further stated that no proof has been shown that the Managing Committee had
directed the manager to file the petition. Reply to this assertion is contained in paragraph 45 of the
rejoinder-affidavit filed by the petitioner. It states that the contents of paragraph 43 are wholly
misconceived and are not admitted, the same being argumentative will more adequately be replied
at the time of arguments. There is thus no assertion in the rejoinder-affidavit that the Committee of
Management had adopted any resolution to challenge the order of the Deputy Director of
Education nor there is any assertion that Kedar Nath was authorised by the Committee of
Management to file the present petition. There is further no assertion in the rejoinder-affidavit that
the Committee of Management was aggrieved or that it had permitted the manager to file the
petition. In fact the averments contained in paragraph 45 of the rejoinder-affidavit have been
shown on legal advice, it does not contain any assertion of facts. The present petition has been filed
by Sadar Patel Higher Secondary School through its Manager sri Kedar Nath. The petition has not
been filed on behalf of the Committee of Management or on behalf of the Society, if any, registered
under the Societies Registration Act. Obviously, the school or the manager cannot be aggrieved on
behalf of the Committee of Management. It is the society and the Committee of Management which
is legally entitled to challenge the orders of the Deputy Director of Education. The Manager
cannot assume the functions of the Committee of Management unless he is authorised to do so.
Sardar Patel Higher Secondary School is not a legal entity to maintain any legal action on behalf
of the Society or the Committee of management. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5808 of 1970,
Mahtab Rai, Manager, Har Narain intermediate college v. Deputy Director of Education, decided
on 7th January, 1974, a learned single Judge of this Court, almost in similar circumstances, held
that the Manager or the school has no locus standi to maintain petition against the order of the
District Inspector of Schools or the Deputy director of Education refusing to grant approval. The
1394 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned single Judge observed that the appointment of Principal of college and termination of his
services were within the powers of the managing Committee or the Society and it was the
Managing Committee alone which exercises control. That being so, the Manager is not the
Managing Committee or the Society and he cannot maintain a writ petition in this Court unless he
is authorised to do so. Relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Hart Raj Swarup v.
Security to Government of U. P. , AIR 1951 All 1, the learned Judge dismissed the petition on the
ground that it was not filed on behalf of the managing Committee or the Society. I am in respectful
agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge in Mahtab Rais case. In the instant case,
neither the Society nor the managing Committee has filed the writ petition nor there is any material
before the Court to show that the Committee of Management or the Society authorised the Manager
to file this petition. In the circumstances the petition is not maintainable. During the course of
hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request for adjournment of the hearing to enable
him to file documentary evidence to show that he had been authorised by the Committee of
Management. I find no good ground to adjourn the hearing to enable the petitioner to produce
evidence to show authorisation by the Committee of Management. As already noted, respondent
No. 3 had clearly stated that the petitioner had no locus standi to maintain the petition and no
proof was placed before the Court that the Committee of management had authorised him. In the
rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner did not even whisper that he was been authorised. If the
petitioner had made any statement in the rejoinder-affidavit that the Committee of Management
had authorised him to file the petition, I would have granted adjournment but in the absence of any
such averment in the rejoinder-affidavit I do not consider it desirable to adjourn the hearing to
enable the petitioner to produce authorisation by the committee of Management. In the result the
writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There will be no order as to costs. The stay order is
vacated. Dated : 1. 3. 1976 sd. K. N. Singh. j"

( 4 ) AGAIN in the Writ Petition Nos. 6879 of 1974 and 12582 of 1975 : V. V. Inter
College, Shamli v. U. P. Shiksha Nideshak, Pratham Mandal, Meerut and Ors. , vide Judgment and
order dated 7. 4. 1976 it was observed :

". . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . These two petitions were taken up for hearing on 6th April, 1976.
At the very outset of the hearing learned counsel for the respondent-principal raised preliminary
objection about the maintainability of these two petitions. He urged that the petitions have not been
filed by the aggrieved party, instead these have been filed by V. V. Inter College, Shamli, which is
neither aggrieved party nor a juristic person to maintain the petitions. I find considerable force in
the contention. It is admitted between the parties that there is a registered society which runs and
maintains the Vaish College, Shamli, Muzaffarnagar. The college is recognised under the U. P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921. The college is run and managed by a Committee of management
constituted in accordance with the Scheme of Administration approved by the authorities under the
Act. Under the provisions of the Act and the Regulations framed thereunder, it is the Committee of
Management which is empowered to make appointments, to take disciplinary action and to pass
orders of removal or suspension against the Principal or a teacher. No other member, or authority
of the registered society has any power to exercise jurisdiction in these matters. The Committee of
Management is empowered to file appeal against the order of the District Inspector of Schools. The
Committee of Management is a statutory authority under the Act and the Regulations and it is
legally entitled to take action in matters relating to the affairs of the administration of the college.
2 All. Committee of Management Sri Gandhi Inter College Harpur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1395
The Committee of Management has not filed these petitions. There is no material on record to show
that the Committee of management adopted any resolution authorising the manager to file these
petitions. The petitions as framed are not maintainable because the V. V. Inter College, Shamli,
cannot be an aggrieved person to challenge the impugned orders. The aggrieved party, if any could
be the Committee of management of the Society itself. In Writ Petition No. 10663 of 1975 decided
on 1st March, 1976, I took a similar view. Another learned single Judge of this Court dismissed
Writ Petition no. 580 of 1970 on 7th January, 1974, precisely on this very ground. The view taken
by me and other learned single Judge is fully supported by a Full Bench decision of this Court in
Indian sugar Mills Association through its President Hari Raj Swarup v. Secretary to Government,
AIR 1951 All 1. During the course of hearing, amendment applications were filed seeking relief for
the amendment of the writ petitions for adding Committee of Management as petitioner. The
applications have been rejected by me by a separate order. So far as Writ Petition No. 12582 of
1975 is concerned, there is another reason to dismiss the same without going into merits. The writ
petition was presented before this Court on 17th december, 1975. It appears that during the course
of the preliminary hearing the Bench observed that the petitioner should file appeal before the
Deputy Director of Education. The petitioner college thereupon filed appeal before the Deputy
Director of Education, Meerut Region, against the impugned order of the District Inspector of
Schools dated 6th December, 1975. The appeal has not been disposed of as yet, instead it is still
pending. There is no dispute that the appeal against the order of the District Inspector of Schools
refusing to accord approval is maintainable under Section 16g (3) (c ). There is further no dispute
that the petitioner college has availed that remedy and appeal is pending before the Deputy
Director of Education. It is thus, clear that the petitioner has availed statutory alternative remedy
of appeal available to him in law and that remedy is still being perused by him. In the
circumstances it would not be a sound exercise of discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution
to hear and adjudicate the issues raised by the petitioner in the present petition which can
effectively be decided by the Deputy Director of education. The petitioner is not entitled to relief on
this ground also. In the result both the petitions fail and are dismissed. There will be no order as to
costs. Dated : 7. 4. 1976 sd. K. N. S. "

( 5 ) AFORESAID judgment was affirmed by Division Bench in intra court appeal, S. A.
No. 154 of 1976, V. V. Inter College, Shamli v. U. P. Shiksha Nideshak Pratham Mandal, Meerut
and Ors. , vide judgment and order dated 2. 8. 1976 quoted below :

"sri R. K. Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, states that he does not press this
appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. " dated : 2. 8. 1976 sd. G. C. M. Sd. K. C. A. "

( 6 ) IN view of the aforesaid decisions, petition is not maintainable in the name of the
petitioner as it stands today.'

C/M Junior High School Sayar

'1. When the matter was taken up a preliminary objection has been raised by Mr. Kunal
Shah, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. N. K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 that the
writ petition was filed by the Manager of the Committee of Management without their being any
resolution of the Committee of Management. In this regard, he also relied upon a judgement
1396 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
rendered by the Lucknow Bench of this Court in Misc. Single No.2694 of 2013, Baba Hulasi Das
Shiksha Sansthan Thru its Manager & Another Vs. Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits
Lucnow Region & An. decided on 2.5.2013, which is quoted belwo:-

"Short counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party no. 2 filed today in Court is taken on
record.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel and learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding
maintainability of writ petition on the ground that there is no resolution of the Committee of
Management authorizing petitioner to challenge the impugned order, as such, the writ petition is
not maintainable.

On the basis of instructions, it is further submitted by learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel that there is no dispute to the election held on 21.8.2010 wherein the petitioner no. 2 was
said to be elected as Manager and opposite party no. 2 as President, however, subsequently the
petitioner no. 2 had resigned from the post of Manager and his resignation was duly accepted by
the Committee of Management in the meeting dated 11.9.2012 and vide resolution dated 18.9.2012
list of office bearers for 2012-13 was sent to the Deputy Registrar which contain the name of one
Sunder Lal as Manager who was earlier elected as Deputy Manager in the election held on
21.8.2010. The Deputy Registrar has accepted the said list of office bearers for the year 2012-13.

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner no. 2 had categorically denied
the resignation as alleged by the opposite party no. 2, as such, there arose a dispute with respect to
continuation of an office bearer of the Society and, as such, it was required to be referred to the
Prescribed Authority for adjudication under Section 21 (1) of Societies Registration Act.

In support of his submission, learned counsel for petitioner relies on a Division Bench
judgment of this Court in the case of Maha Narayan Pandey and others Vs. Registrar, Chit Funds,
Firms & Societies, U.P. Lucknow and others; [1984 UPLBEC 550], particularly paragraphs 7 & 9
which on reproduction read as under:

"7. In his impugned order the Registrar formulated the points requiring his determination
as follows:-

(1) Removal of Mewa Ram Tewari and Bharat Singh from the membership of the Society.

(2) Resignation of Maha Narayan Pandey from the office of Manager.

(3) Amendment in Smriti Patra and Niyamawali.

(4) List of new office bearers of the Society.
2 All. Committee of Management Sri Gandhi Inter College Harpur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1397

9. In respect of the amendment of Smriti Patra and Niyamawali the Registrar held that
the Basic Education Department had been requiring the petitioner No. 1 to amend the said
documents so as to bring them in conformity with law, but petitioner No. 1 was not taking any steps
in that behalf. The Registrar further held that the amendment now made in the Smriti Patra and
Niyamawali are in accordance with the requirement of law and they are, therefore, valid. The
question of amendment of Smriti Patra and Niyamawai is not mentioned in sub-section (1) of
Section 25 reproduced above. Obviously this question was not one which was required to be
decided by the Prescribed Authority. However, point Nos. 2 and 3 are clearly covered by the
provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 25. Annexure No. 1-A shows that Bharat Singh was
Agriculture Secretary. He was, thus, an office bearer of the Society. Implicit in his alleged removal
from the membership of the Society was his removal from the office of the Agriculture Secretary.
Therefore, one of the questions that arose and which has been decided by the Registrar was
whether Bharat Singh could continue to hold office of the Agriculture Secretary. In view of the
finding recorded by the Registrar, Bharat Singh continues to hold that office. Again there was
dispute as to whether petitioner No. 1 continue to hold office of the Manager or the said office had
devolved upon opposite party No. 2 on the basis of the alleged nomination made by petitioner No.
1. This dispute became necessary to be decided in view of the new list of the office bearers
submitted to the Registrar by opposite party No. 2. The new list could be accepted or rejected only
after recording finding on the disputed question mentioned hereinbefore. In other words, point No.
4 formulated by the Registrar required determination of the question whether petitioner No. 1
continued to hold office of the Manager or he ceased to hold that office. this question was clearly
covered by sub-section (1) of Section 25. The Registrar, of course, held that it was not necessary to
decide the question of resignation, but if he had entered into the factual controversy raised in this
regard by the parties it would have involved determination of the question whether petitioner No. 1
continued to hold office of the Manager or ceased to hold the office by resigning from the office
and nominating opposite party No. 2 as his successor. This question was also necessary to be
decided as even after amendment of the Rules, Petitioner No. 1 would continue to hold the office till
fresh elections took place, unless he resigned. In view of the discussion herein the Registrar
proceeded to decide ta part of the dispute which did not fall within his jurisdiction. Reference
under sub-section (1) of Section 25 could be made by one-fourth of the members of the Society as
well as by the Registrar. In the present case no reference was made to the Prescribed Authority by
the members of the Society. But once it came to the notice of the Registrar that a dispute which
could be decided by the Prescribed Authority alone had arisen between the parties, he should have
referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority instead of assuming jurisdiction in himself to decide
the said dispute."

Before deciding the controversy involved in the writ petition, it would be appropriate to
decide the maintainability of writ petition.

Learned counsel for petitioner admits that no resolution has been passed in favour of the
Society or its Manager, Shankar Lal Yadav to challenge the impugned order.

The Deputy Registrar vide impugned order has accepted the list of office bearers of the
Committee of Management for the year 2012-13 wherein one Sunder Lal has been shown as
Manager of the Committee of the Management of the Society.
1398 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

I am of the view that in absence of a resolution authorizing the Society through its
Manager or Shankar Lal Yadav in his individual capacity, the writ petition as such is not
maintainable.

It is to be noted that Shankar Lal Yadav does not have any independent right to challenge
the impugned order.

It is to be observed that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Umesh Chandra
and another Vs. Mahila Vidyalaya Society, Aminabad, Lucknow and others; [2006 (24) LCD 1373]
has observed that the writ petition filed by the Manager on behalf of the society was not
maintainable unless he was authorized to file the same. The view of the Court is that in absence of
any resolution the writ petition by the Manager for that purpose or by any other person on behalf
of the committee of management is not maintainable.

The relevant paragraph 34 on reproduction reads as under:

"34. The Full Bench of Allahabad High Court in a case reported in AIR (38) 1951
Allahabad 1, Indian Sugar Mills Association through its President Shri Hari Rai Swarup V.
Secretary to Government, Uttar Pradesh Labour Department and others, held that writ petition
under Article 226 may be maintainable on behalf of Association through a person only in case it is
proved that the Association had right to move a writ petition on behalf of a person who preferred
the writ petition.

For convenience relevant portion from the Full Bench judgment of Indian Sugar Mills
Association is reproduced as under:

"It has been urged by learned counsel for the applicant that, though the amount may not
be payable out of the property of the Association, yet inasmuch as the payments have to be made
out of the funds of the Sugar Mills, a large number of which are members of the Association, the
Association has the right to move the application on their behalf. We have already said that it is the
interest of the applicant which must be directly affected by the statute or the order complained
against and the applicant cannot claim that its interests are directly affected."

The Full Bench judgment of this Court referred hereinabove has been relied upon in a
case reported in (2002) 3 UPLBEC 2777, Saraswati Vidya Mandir, Rewatipur, Ghazipur through
its Manager Smt. Ram Rakhi Devi V. State of U.P.