# K. Ragupathi v. Bachchu Singh & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 7 ILRA 330
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-01-22
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 40425 of 2018
- **Bench:** Bala Krishna Narayana, Ravi Nath Tilhari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/k-ragupathi-v-bachchu-singh-ors-45890
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - The Uttar Pradesh Gautam
Buddha University Act, 2002 - Section 13
(1) - Quo warranto to the Registrar holding an
independent substantive public statutory office -
- Registrar shall be appointed by the Chancellor
- The Uttar Pradesh Gautam Buddha University
(Amendment) Act, 2008 - Section 13 subsection (1) of the Act amended by Section 3
sub-section (1) - power of appointing Registrar
conferred on the Board of Management -
Section 10 (5) and Section 47 - writ of quo
warranto can only be issued when the
appointment is contrary to statutory rules -
appointment of Registrar adjudged to be illegal
and dehors the provisions of the Act - writ of
Quo Warranto issued - appointment of Registrar
quashed. (Para-35,38,39)

The respondent no.1 has been appointed as
Registrar of the University by the State
Government i.e respondent no. 2 - The
7 All. K. Ragupathi Vs. Bachchu Singh & Ors.
331
appointment
of
respondent,
as
per
the
petitioner is not in consonance with the
provisions of the Act, 2002 as amended and as
such
he
is
a
usurper
of
the
office
concerned.(Para - 3,5)

HELD:- The appointment of Registrar in the
University has been made by an Authority which
had no power under the Act to appoint him.
Since his appointment dehors the provisions of
Section 13 sub-section (1) of the Act, the same
cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.
(Para-37)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

## Text

330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

36. In Lalla Vs. State of U.P.
reported in 2014 (9) ADJ 524, this Court in
paragraph 11 of the judgement has held as
hereunder :-

"The law does not contemplate
transfer of possession by Government
orders. It needs to be clarified that the land
for the purposes of management would vest
in
the
local
authorities/development
authorities only when the State came in
valid possession over land, pursuant to
lawful proceedings under Section 10 (5) or
10
(6)
of
the
Act.
The
local
authorities/development authorities merely
steps into shoes of the State Government. If
the
State
Government
through
the
Collector/District Magistrate has not taken
possession over the land in question, as
contemplated by law, the transfer of
possession
in
favour
of
the
local
authorities/development authorities cannot
be presumed under Government order. If
the possession of land has not been taken
by the State, as per the procedure already
determined by the Apex Court, the local
authorities//development authorities cannot
claim independent right over the land
merely on the strength of the Government
order."

37. Thus, we find that actual physical
possession of the petitioner's surplus land
was never taken by the State Government
from the petitioner and the petitioner stood
in possession of the land in question on the
date of the coming into force of the Repeal
Act, 1999. This writ petition deserves to be
allowed.

38. Accordingly, the writ petition is
allowed.

39. The impugned order dated
06.08.2018 is hereby quashed. A further
direction is issued to the respondents to
expunge the name of respondent-State from
the revenue record and to restore that of the
petitioner who is the owner of the land in
question.
----------
(2020)07ILR A330
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.01.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BALA KRISHNA NARAYANA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.

Writ C No. 40425 of 2018

K. Ragupathi ...Petitioner
Versus
Bachchu Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
In Person

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rahul Agarwal, Sri Ashutosh Mishra,
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - The Uttar Pradesh Gautam
Buddha University Act, 2002 - Section 13
(1) - Quo warranto to the Registrar holding an
independent substantive public statutory office -
- Registrar shall be appointed by the Chancellor
- The Uttar Pradesh Gautam Buddha University
(Amendment) Act, 2008 - Section 13 subsection (1) of the Act amended by Section 3
sub-section (1) - power of appointing Registrar
conferred on the Board of Management -
Section 10 (5) and Section 47 - writ of quo
warranto can only be issued when the
appointment is contrary to statutory rules -
appointment of Registrar adjudged to be illegal
and dehors the provisions of the Act - writ of
Quo Warranto issued - appointment of Registrar
quashed. (Para-35,38,39)

The respondent no.1 has been appointed as
Registrar of the University by the State
Government i.e respondent no. 2 - The
7 All. K. Ragupathi Vs. Bachchu Singh & Ors.
331
appointment
of
respondent,
as
per
the
petitioner is not in consonance with the
provisions of the Act, 2002 as amended and as
such
he
is
a
usurper
of
the
office
concerned.(Para - 3,5)

HELD:- The appointment of Registrar in the
University has been made by an Authority which
had no power under the Act to appoint him.
Since his appointment dehors the provisions of
Section 13 sub-section (1) of the Act, the same
cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.
(Para-37)

Petition allowed. (E-7)

List of cases cited: -

1. B. Srinivasa Reddy Vs Karnataka Urban
Water Supply and Drainage Board Employees'
Assc. & ors. (2006) 11 SCC 731 (II)

2. A.N. Sashtri Vs St. of Punjab & ors. (1988)
Supp SCC 127

3. Dr. Kashinath G. Jalmi & anr. Vs The
Speaker & ors. (1993) 2 SCC 703

4. N. Kannadasan Vs Ajoy Khose & ors.
(2009) 7 SCC 1

5. R.K. Jain Vs U.I.O. & ors. (1993) 4 SCC 119

6. Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd Vs
Financial Commr. & Secy. (2002) 6 SCC 269

7. High Court of Gujarat & ors. Vs. Guj.
Kishan Mazdoor Panchayat & ors. (2003) 4
SCC 712

8. Mor Modern Cooperative Transport Society
Ltd. Vs Financial Commissioner & Secretary to
Govt.
of
Haryana
&
anr.
MANU/SC/0574/2002MANU/SC/0574/2002:
(2002) SUPP1SCR87

9. Rajesh Awasthi Vs Nand Lal Jaiswal & ors.
(2013)1 SCC 501

10. Mor Modern Coop. Transport Coop.
Transport Society Ltd. Vs Govt. of Haryana
(2002) 6 SCC 269
(Delivered by Hon'ble Sri Bala Krishna
Narayana &
Hon'ble Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.)

1. Heard Sri K. Raghupathi, the
petitioner in person, Sri Ashutosh Mishra,
learned counsel for respondent no.1, Sri
Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for respondent no.2 and
Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for
respondent no.3.

2. This writ petition has been filed by
the petitioner with the following prayers to
issue :-

"a) A Writ, order, declaration or
direction in the name or form and nature of
Quo warranto to the Respondent to show
cause on what rights he is holding an
independent substantive public statutory
office of Registrar of State.

b) A writ, order or direction as
this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
to grant interim relief to the effect that the
Respondent be restrained not to participate
in any decision or policy making processes
concerning any of the academic and
research activities and administration of
the University until the pendency of this
present writ petition,

c)
Any
other
writ,
order,
declaration or direction as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the
circumstances of the case to meet the ends
of justice; and

d) Award cost of the petition to
petitioner."

3. Following order was passed in this
writ petition by another coordinate Bench
of this Court on 5.3.2019 :-
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"The case of the petitioner is that
though as per Section 13 of the Uttar
Pradesh Gautam Buddha University Act,
2002, as amended, the Registrar shall be
appointed by the Board of Management of
the University in such manner and on such
terms and conditions as may be prescribed,
but by the order impugned dated 24.8.2018,
the respondent, Shri Bachchu Singh has
been appointed as Registrar of the
University by the State Government. The
appointment of respondent, Shri Bachchu
Singh as per the petitioner is not in
consonance with the provisions of the Act,
2002 as amended and as such he is a
usurper of the office concerned. It is also
brought to our notice that by filing Writ-A
No.12027 of 2018, the petitioner assailed
the validity of appointments made to the
post of Vice Chancellor, Registrar and the
Finance Officer, but that petition for writ
was dismissed on 07.12.2018. In the
petition aforesaid, the appointment of Vice
Chancellor was not interfered by the Court
as the same was in officiating capacity.
With regard to appointments to the post of
Registrar and Finance Officer, the court
held that the petitioner failed to show as to
how the appointments on the posts
aforesaid are illegal. The Court also
observed that nothing has been disclosed in
the petition for writ about deficiencies in
the appointments concerned. Reference of
the case aforesaid is also given in the
petition for writ.

A co-ordinate bench of this Court
vide order dated 10.12.2018 issued notice
to the respondent, Shri.Bachchu Singh and
thereafter under an order dated 13.2.2019,
the petitioner was permitted to implead the
State of U.P. as party respondent.

We are of the considered opinion
that for appropriate adjudication of the
issue involved in the petition for writ,
Gautam
Buddha
University,
Greater
Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar is also a
party necessary to the writ proceedings.
The petitioner is permitted to implead the
Gautam
Buddha
University,
Greater
Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar also as party
respondent.

The amended cause title is
required to be filed by the petitioner by
tomorrow.

The notice issued to respondent,
Shri.Bachchu Singh has not yet been
served.

Let a fresh notice be issued to the
respondent, Shri.Bachchu Singh and the
same be given Dasti by the learned counsel
for the petitioner with liberty to remit the
same
through
Registered
Post
Acknowledgement Due. A notice be also
issued to the newly impleaded Gautam
Buddha University, Greater Noida,Gautam
Buddh Nagar.

Learned Standing Counsel on
behalf of the Government of Uttar Pradesh
wants
sometime
to
complete
the
instructions and also to file a short counter
affidavit to the petition for writ, if required
to satisfy the court as to how the order
dated 24.8.2018 has been passed by the
Joint Secretary to the Government of Uttar
Pradesh, Department of Appointment,
Section-2
giving
appointment
to
the
respondent,
Shri.Bachchu
Singh
as
Registrar
of
the
Gautam
Buddha
University, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddh
Nagar.

Let this petition for writ be listed
on 02.4.2019."
7 All. K. Ragupathi Vs. Bachchu Singh & Ors.
333

4. In view of the aforesaid order, the
learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 and 3
have filed their counter affidavits to which
the petitioner has filed his rejoinder
affidavit. Despite order passed in this case
on 4.12.2019, no counter affidavit has been
filed by respondent no.2. However, when
this matter was taken up today, Sri Suresh
Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel appearing for respondent no.2
produced before us the written instructions
which are in the form of a written narrative
received by him from respondent no.2,
which have been taken on record.

5. Facts of the case as stated in the
writ petition are that the petitioner is an
Indian citizen, independent legal researcher
and a public spirited person who was in the
service of Gautam Buddha University,
Uttar Pradesh as Senior Scientific Officer
until 12.8.2014 (hereinafter referred to as
"the University"). While in service of the
University, the petitioner was allotted
official residence at D-2, Type-V, Faculty
Housing,
Gautam
Buddha
University,
Greater Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar,
District Uttar Pradesh, which he continued
to occupy till 2018 on which date, he and
his family were forcibly and illegally
evicted by the illegally appointed officers
of the University without following due
procedures and observing principles of
natural justice and apart from that, the
University also took physical possession of
the properties of the petitioner including
case files documents, valuables primarily to
frustrate Writ Petition (C) No. 51962 of
2014 filed by the petitioner wherein the
petitioner had challenged the order of
termination dated 12.8.2014 passed by the
University by which the University had
refused to extend the contract of his
service. The aforesaid writ petition was
eventually dismissed by this Court vide
order dated 23.5.2018. Bachchu Singh,
respondent no.1 in this writ petition, was
appointed as Registrar of the University by
respondent no.2 on 24.8.2018. Copy of his
appointment order has been brought on
record as Annexure-2 to this writ petition.
The petitioner alleges that the University
was established under The Uttar Pradesh
Gautam Buddha University Act, 2002
(hereinafter referred to as "the Act").
Section 13 (1) of the Act before its
amendment in the year 2008, provided that
the Registrar shall be appointed by the
Chancellor in such manner and on such
terms and conditions as may be prescribed.
Section 13 sub-section (1) of the Act was
amended by Section 3 sub-section (1) of
The
Uttar
Pradesh
Gautam
Buddha
University (Amendment) Act, 2008 (U.P.
Act No.21 of 2008) by which the power of
appointing Registrar was conferred on the
Board of Management in such manner and
on such terms and conditions as may be
prescribed.

6. Respondent no. 1 Bachchu Singh in
the counter affidavit filed by him has taken
the stand that he was appointed by the
Vice-Chancellor of the University in the
exercise of his powers under Section 10
sub-section (5) of the Act and his
appointment was subsequently approved by
the Board of Management and hence, it
cannot be said that the respondent no.1 was
appointed by an Authority not competent.

7. As regards the respondent no.3, the
stand taken is that the conduct of the
petitioner disentitles him to maintain this
writ petition. In the counter affidavit, it has
been stated that before filing the present
quo-warranto petition, the petitioner had
filed three writ petitions namely, Writ
Petition Nos.54883 of 2014, 63625 of 2014
and 12027 of 2018.
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

8. Writ Petition (PIL) No. 54883 of
2014
was
filed
by
the
petitioner
challenging the order of appointment of Sri
Pushyapati Saxena, the then Registrar of
the University, which was dismissed as
withdrawn by the petitioner as the Officer
stood transferred.

9. Writ - A No. 63625 of 2014 was
filed by the petitioner assailing the removal
of Dr. J.P. Sharma, the then ViceChancellor of the University, which was
dismissed by this Court by an order dated
26.11.2014 with cost of Rs.5,000/- upon
the petitioner.

10. Writ - A No. 12027 of 2018 was
filed by the petitioner challenging the
appointment of the then acting ViceChancellor, the Registrar and the Finance
Officer which was dismissed by order
dated 7.12.2018 with cost of Rs.5,000/-
upon the petitioner.

11. In the counter affidavit of
respondent no.3, it has also been averred
that since during the pendency of the three
writ petitions before this Court, which were
filed by the petitioner challenging the
refusal of the University to extend the term
of
his
contractual
appointment,
the
University had not dispossessed him from
his official residence in view of the oral
undertaking given by the counsel for the
respondent no.3 before this Court in this
regard, he kept quiet of the dismissal of the
successive writ petitions filed by him
before this Court but when dispossessed
from his official residence, he has filed the
instant writ petition. It is apparent that the
filing of this writ petition is motivated by
malice and vendetta and hence the writ
petition is liable to be dismissed on that
ground alone. Moreover, the issuance of
quo
warranto
being
discriminatory,
considering the conduct of the petitioner,
the same is liable to be dismissed.

12. It has further been stated in the
counter affidavit that in case this Court
eventually comes to a conclusion quashing
the appointment of respondent no.1, in that
case, this Court keeping in view the interest
of the University, allow respondent no.1Bachchu Singh, to function as Registrar of
the University till a regular appointment is
made.

13. It is contended by the learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
that
the
appointment of respondent no.2 in the
University as Registrar has been made
dehors the provisions of The Uttar Pradesh
Gautam Buddha University (Amendment)
Act, 2008 (U.P. Act No.21 of 2008), hence,
a writ of Quo Warranto be issued quashing
his appointment and restraining him from
functioning as Registrar of the University.

14. Sri Suresh Singh, Additional
Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondent no.2 has submitted that since
the order passed by the State Government
appointing
respondent
no.1
as
the
Registrar of the University has been
ratified by the Board of Management of
the University, it will be deemed to be an
appointment made by the Board of
Management and not by the State
Government. In case the Board of
Management of the University was not
inclined to accept the appointment of
respondent no.1 as the Registrar of the
University, it could have refused to ratify
the appointment of respondent no.1 and
this having not been done, respondent
no.1 by fiction of law, shall be deemed to
be
appointed
by
the
Board
of
Management. He has referred to Section
47 of the Act.
7 All. K. Ragupathi Vs. Bachchu Singh & Ors.
335

15. Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned
counsel for respondent no.3 made his
submissions supporting the appointment of
respondent no.1 as Registrar in the
University
and
raised
a
preliminary
objection regarding the maintainability of
this writ petition at the behest of the
petitioner on account of his conduct which
disentitles him from grant of any relief by
this Court.

16. We have heard learned counsel
for the parties and perused the pleadings.

17. Before proceeding to examine the
contention of the petitioner on merits, we
proceed
to
examine
the
matter
on
maintainability. The preliminary objection
raised by Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned
counsel for respondent no.3 that this writ
petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of the same being not bonafide
exercise, but vitiated by malice and
vendetta. In support of his contention Sri
Rahul Agarwal has placed reliance upon
the judgement of the Apex Court in the
case of B. Srinivasa Reddy vs. Karnataka
Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board
Employees' Association and others (2006)
11 SCC 731 (II) in which the Apex Court
while dealing with the challenge to the
orders passed by the learned Single Judge,
quashed the orders passed by the High
Court holding that the writ petition filed by
the Employees' Union and the President of
the Union Halakatte was absolutely lacking
in bonafides. Paragraphs 52 and 53 of the
aforesaid judgement which are relevant for
our
purpose
are
being
reproduced
hereinbelow :-

"52. The judgment impugned in
this appeal not only exceeds the limit of
Quo Warranto but has not properly
appreciated the fact that writ petition filed
by the Employees' Union and the President
of the Union Halakatte was absolutely
lacking in bonafides. In the instant case,
the motive of the second respondent
Halakatte is very clear and the Court might
in its discretion declined to grant a Quo
Warranto.

53. This Court in A.N. Sashtri vs.
State of Punjab and Others, (1988) Supp
SCC 127 held that the Writ of Quo
Warranto should be refused where it is an
outcome of malice or ill-will. The High
Court
failed
to
appreciate
that
on
18.01.2003 the appellant filed a criminal
complaint against the second respondent
Halakatte that cognizance was taken by the
criminal court in CC No. 4152 of 2003 by
the
jurisdictional
magistrate
on
24.02.2003, process was issued to the
second respondent who was enlarged on
bail on 12.06.2003 and the trial is in
progress.
That
apart,
the
second
respondent has made successive complaints
to the Lokayukta against the appellant
which were all held to be baseless and
false. This factual background which was
not disputed coupled with the fact that the
second respondent Halakatte initiated the
writ petition as President of the 1st
respondent Union which had ceased to be a
registered trade union as early as on
02.11.1992 suppressing the material fact of
its registration having been cancelled,
making allegations against the appellant
which were no more than the contents of
the complaints filed by him before the
Authorities which had been found to be
false after thorough investigation by the
Karnataka Lokayukta would unmistakably
establish that the writ petition initiated by
the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 lacked in bona
fides and it was the outcome of the malice
and ill-will the 2nd respondent nurses
against the appellant. Having regard to this
336 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aspect of the matter, the High Court ought
to have dismissed the writ petition on that
ground alone and at any event should have
refused to issue a Quo Warranto which is
purely discretionary. It is no doubt true
that the strict rules of locus standi is
relaxed to an extent in a Quo Warranto
proceedings. Nonetheless an imposture
coming before the Court invoking public
law remedy at the hands of a Constitutional
Court suppressing material facts has to be
dealt with firmly."

18. Per contra, refuting the contention of
Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned counsel for
respondent no. 3, the petitioner submitted that
where it is found that the appointment of a
public servant is wholly dehors the rules,
irrespective of the conduct of the person
challenging the said appointment, a writ of
quo warranto has to be issued by this Court. In
support of his contention, he has relied upon
Dr. Kashinath G. Jalmi and another vs.
The Speaker and others (1993) 2 SCC 703
and N. Kannadasan vs. Ajoy Khose and
others (2009) 7 SCC 1 and submitted that in a
writ of quo warranto proceedings, the conduct
and motive of the petitioner is wholly
irrelevant.

19. Paragraphs 134 and 136 of N.
Kannadasan (supra) which are relevant for
our
purpose,
are
being
reproduced
hereinbelow :-

"134. Indisputably a writ of Quo
Warranto can be issued inter alia when the
appointment is contrary to the statutory rules
as has been held by this Court in High Court
of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan Mazdoor
Panchayat, (supra) and R.K. Jain v. Union of
India and , [ (1993) 4 SCC 119 ]. See also Mor
Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd. v.
Financial Commr. & Secy. [(2002) 6 SCC
269].

136. In Dr. Kashinath G. Jalmi
(supra), it was held that even the motive or
conduct of the appellants may be relevant only
for denying them the costs even if their claim
succeeds but it cannot be a justification to
refuse to examine the merits of the question
raised therein, since that is a matter of public
concern and relates to good governance of the
State. "

20. Paragaph 34, 35 and 36 of Dr.
Kashinath G. Jalmi and another (supra)
which are also relevant for our purpose are
being extracted hereinbelow :-

"34. In our opinion the exercise
of discretion by the court even where the
application is delayed, is to be governed by
the objective of promoting public interest
and good administration; and on that basis
it cannot be said that discretion would not
be exercised in favour of interference
where
it
is
necessary
to
prevent
continuance of usurpation of office or
perpetuation of an illegality.

35. We may also advert to a
related aspect. Learned counsel for the
respondents were unable to dispute, that
any other member of the public, to whom
the oblique motives and conduct alleged
against the appellants in the present case
could not be attributed, could file such a
writ petition even now for the same relief,
since the alleged usurpation of the office is
continuing, and this disability on the
ground of oblique motives and conduct
would not attach to him. This being so, the
relief claimed by the appellants in their
writ petitions filed in the High Court being
in the nature of a class action, without
seeking any relief personal to them, should
not have been dismissed merely on the
ground of laches. The motive or conduct of
the
appellants,
as
alleged
by
the
7 All. K. Ragupathi Vs. Bachchu Singh & Ors.
337
respondents, in such a situation can be
relevant only for denying them the costs
even if their claim succeeds, but it cannot
be a justification to refuse to examine the
merits of the question raised therein, since
that is a matter of public concern and
relates to the good governance of the State
itself.

36. Shri R.K. Garg submitted that
laches of the appellants can not legitimise
usurpation of office by Ravi S. Naik,
Chopdekar
and
Bandekar;
and
Shri
Jethmalani submitted that manifest illegatlity
will not be sustained solely on the ground of
laches when it results in continuance in a
public office of a person without lawful
authority. The fact that the situation continues
unaltered, since these persons continue to hold
the public offices, to which they are alleged to
be disentitled, is in our opinion sufficient to
hold that the writ petitions ought not to have
been dismissed merely on the ground of laches
at the admission stage, without examining the
contention on merits that these offices
including that of the Chief Minister of the
State, are being held by persons without any
lawful authority. The dismissal of the writ
petitions by the High Court merely on this
ground can not, therefore, be sustained."

21. It is relevant to note that the
judgement relied upon by Sri Rahul Agarwal
is a judgement of Division Bench while the
judgement on which the petitioner has placed
reliance in Dr. Kashinath G. Jalmi and
another (supra) has been rendered by a Bench
of three Judges.

22. Thus, upon a careful reading of the
law reports cited by the learned counsel for the
parties, we find that although in the case of B.
Srinivasa Reddy (supra), the Apex Court held
that where the filing of a quo warranto petition
is not bona fide, the Court may refuse to issue
writ of quo warranto. However, in the two
judgements which have been cited by the
petitioner, it has been categorically held that a
writ of quo warranto can be issued when the
appointment is contrary to the statutory rules
and motive or conduct of the person
challenging such appointment may be relevant
only for denying them the costs even if their
claims succeeds, but it cannot be a justification
to refuse to examine the merits of the question
raised by them since that is the matter of
public concern and relates to the good
governance of the State.

23. In view of above, we do not find
any merit in the preliminary objection
raised by Sri Rahul Agarwal, learned
counsel for respondent no.3 and hence,
we proceed to examine the matter on
merits.

24. In order to appreciate respective
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties, it would be appropriate to
extract
unamended
Section
13
(1),
amended Section 3, Section 10 (5) and
Section 47 of the Act.

25. Section 13 (1) of the Act reads as
hereunder:-

"13(1) The Registrar shall be
appointed by the Chancellor in such
manner and on such terms and conditions
as may be prescribed."

26. Section 3 (1) of The Uttar Pradesh
Gautam Buddha University (Amendment)
Act, 2008 (U.P. Act No.21 of 2008) reads
hereinunder:-

"3(1) The Registrar shall be
appointed by the Board of Management in
such manner and on such terms and
conditions as may be prescribed."
338 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

27. Section 10(5) of the Act reads
hereinunder :-

"10(5) Where any matter other
than the appointment of a teacher is of
urgent nature requiring immediate action
and the same could not be immediately
dealt with this Act to deal with by any
officer or the authority or other body of the
University empowered by or under this Act
to deal with it, the Vice-Chancellor may
take such action as he may deem fit and
shall forthwith report the action taken by
him to the Chancellor and also to the
officer, authority, or other body who or
which in the ordinary course, would have
dealt with the matter."

28. Section 47 of the Act reads
hereinunder :-

"47. The State Government shall
have the following powers also, namely :-

(a) to issue direction with respect
to any matter required to be done by the
University by or under this Act or the rules,
the Statutes or the Ordinances made
thereunder; and

(b) to order framing of Statutes
on any subject."

29. There is no dispute about the fact
that when respondent no.1 was appointed
as Registrar on 21.4.2018, the original
Section 13 (1) of the Act stood amended
and under the amended Section 3 (1) of the
Act, it is Board of Management of the
University which alone has the power to
appoint the Registrar of the University.

30. Learned counsel for respondent
no.1 made a feeble attempt to save the
appointment
of
respondent
no.1
by
referring to and placing reliance upon
Section 10 (5) of the Act, whereas Sri
Suresh Singh, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for respondent no.2 has
endeavoured to defend the action of the
State by placing reliance upon Section 47
of the Act.

31. As far as sub-section (5) of
Section 10 of the Act is concerned, we do
not find that the same is of any help to the
respondents. It merely stipulates that where
any matter other than the appointment of a
teacher is of urgent nature, requiring
immediate action and the same could not be
immediately dealt with this Act to deal with
by any officer or the authority or other
body of the University empowered by or
under this Act to deal with it, the ViceChancellor may take such action as he may
deem fit and shall forthwith report the
action taken by him to the Chancellor and
also to the officer, authority, or other body
who or which in the ordinary course, would
have dealt with the matter. The second
proviso to sub-section (5) of Section 10
states
that the Vice-Chancellor
shall
immediately seek the approval of any such
decision taken by him from Chancellor and
Chancellor may either confirm the action
taken by the Vice-Chancellor or annul the
same or modify it in such manner, as he
thinks fit.

32. Respondent no. 1 has tried to
impress upon us that in the instant case, the
appointment of respondent no.1 has not
been made by the State Government but by
the Vice-Chancellor and he has invited our
attention to Annexure-3 of the writ petition,
which is an office order issued by the ViceChancellor. However, after going through
the office order dated 25th March, 2019,
we do not find any merit in the submission
of the learned counsel for respondent no.1
7 All. K. Ragupathi Vs. Bachchu Singh & Ors.
339
for the reason that the appointment of the
respondent was made on 24th August,
2018. The office order dated 25th March,
2019, in our opinion is of no help to the
respondent no.1. The Vice-Chancellor of
the University issued the aforesaid order on
25th March, in purported exercise of his
power under Section 10 (5) of the Act,
apparently as an afterthought and after
almost ten months from the date of the
appointment
of
respondent
no.1
as
Registrar and his assuming the charge of
the office of the Registrar. Even from the
bare perusal of the office order dated
25.3.2019, it is crystal clear that the
appointment of respondent no.1 was made
by the State Government.

33. Now coming to the submission
made by learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel that the appointment of respondent
no.1 has been made by the State
Government in exercise of its powers under
section 47 of the Act which confers power
on the State to issue directions with respect
to any matter required to be done by the
University by or under this Act or the rules,
the Statutes or the Ordinances made
thereunder; and to order framing of Statues
on any subject. The learned Standing
Counsel has failed to demonstrate that the
impugned appointment of respondent no.1
was made under Section 47 of the Act.
There is nothing under Section 47 of the
Act which may even remotely indicate that
the State Government could have appointed
the Registrar of the University and
forwarded the information about his
appointment to the Board of Management
for ratification. Learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel has also failed to bring to
our notice any provision under the Act
providing that where any appointment
which the Board of Management alone is
empowered to make, can be made by the
State Government and if the Board of
Management ratifies the same, the defect, if
any, in the appointment which should have
been made under the provisions of the Act,
is made by any other authority or the State,
stands cured.

34. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the
case of The University of Masore and
Others Vs. C.D. Govinda Rao and others
AIR 1965 SC 491 Paragraphs 7 and 8 held
as under :

"7.As Halsbury has observed :

"An information in the nature of a
quo warranto took the place of the obsolete
writ of quo warranto which lay against a
person who claimed or usurped an office,
'franchise, or liberty, to, inquire by what
authority he supported his claim, in order
that the right to the office or franchise
might be determined:"

8.
Broadly
stated,
the
quo
warranto proceeding affords a judicial
remedy by which any person, who holds an
inde- pendent substantive public office or
franchise or liberty, is called upon to show
by what right he holds the said office,
franchise or liberty, so that his title to it
may be duly determined, and in case the
finding is that the holder of the office has
no title, he would be ousted from that office
by judicial order. In other words, the
procedure of quo warranto gives the
judiciary a weapon to control the Executive
from making appointments to public office
against law and to protect a citizen from
being deprived of public office to which he
has a right. These proceedings also tend to
protect the public from usurpers of public
office, who might be allowed to continue
either with the connivance of the Executive
or by reason of its apathy. It will, thus, be
340 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
seen that before a person can effectively
claim a writ of quo warranto, he has to
satisfy the Court that the office in question
is a public office and is held by a usurper
without legal authority, and that inevitably
would lead to the enquiry as to whether the
appointment of the alleged usurper has
been made in accordance with law or not.

35. In High Court of Gujarat and
others
Vs.
Gujarat
Kishan
Mazdoor
Panchayat and others reported in (2003)4
SCC 712 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph No.24 held as under:

"A writ of quo warranto can only
be issued when the appointmen is contrary
to statutory rules. [See Mor Modern
Cooperative Transport Society Ltd. v.
Financial Commissioner & Secretary to
Govt.
of
Haryana
and
Anr.
MANU/SC/0574/2002MANU/SC/0574/20
02: [2002]SUPP1SCR87]

36. Similarly in Rajesh Awasthi Vs.
Nand Lal Jaiswal and others (2013)1
SCC 501 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph No.16 held as under :

16. A writ of quo warranto will
lie when the appointment is made contrary
to the statutory provisions. This Court in
Mor Modern Coop. Transport Coop.
Transport Society Ltd. v. Govt. of Haryana
(2002) 6 SCC 269 held that a writ of quo
warranto can be issued when appointment
is contrary to the statutory provisions. In B.
Srinivasa Reddy (supra), this Court has
reiterated the legal position that the
jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a
writ of quo warranto is limited to one
which
can
only
be
issued
if
the
appointment is contrary to the statutory
rules. The said position has been reiterated
by this Court in Hari Bans Lal (supra)
wherein this Court has held that for the
issuance of writ of quo warranto, the High
Court has to satisfy that the appointment is
contrary to the statutory rules.

37. Thus, in view of the foregoing
discussion, we have no hesitation in
holding that the appointment of respondent
no.1 - Bachchu Singh as Registrar in the
University has been made by an Authority
which had no power under the Act to
appoint him. Since his appointment is
dehors the provisions of Section 13 subsection (1) of the Act, the same cannot be
sustained and is liable to be quashed.

38. We accordingly, issue a writ of
Quo Warranto and allow this writ petition
quashing the appointment of respondent
no.1 as Registrar.

39. This order, however, shall not
preclude the Vice-Chancellor of the
University from exercising his powers
under Section 10(5) of the Act or any
other provision of the Act to meet the
vacuum created in the University on
account of the appointment of Registrar
respondent no.1 having been adjudged to
be illegal and dehors the provisions of the
Act.

40. Since we have been informed that
although the Gautam Buddha University,
Greater Noida, Gautam Buddh Nagar was
created in the year 2002 but no rules or
ordinances have been framed till date by
the University, it will be desirable if the
University acts promptly in this matter and
frames
requisite
statutes,
rules
and
regulations.

41. There shall be however, no order
as to costs.
----------
7 All. Manish Kumar Yadav & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
341
(2020)07ILR A341
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.05.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 1262 of 2020

Manish Kumar Yadav & Anr. ...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Sri Amit Dagga, Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
A.G.A.

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 - Sections 202, 482 - Challenge to
summoning order - Magistrate relied upon
doctor's statement and injury report - No mechanism
at the stage of summoning to check veracity of injury
report / documentary evidence - Facts corroborated
prosecution story - Detailed reason not required at
the stage of summoning - Held - Magistrate has
enquired into and passed sufficiently reasonable
summoning order.

Application dismissed. (E-2)

List of cases cited:-

1. National Bank of Oman Vs Barakara Abdul Ajiz &
ors. (2013) 2 SCC page 288.

2. Ram Dev Food Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs St. of Guj.
2015 ACC 90 page 53.

3. Birla Corp. Ltd. Vs Adventz Investments and
Holdings Ltd. & ors. Cr. appeal no. 875 2019 decided
on 9th May 2019. Paragraph no. 82 and 83.

4. Mahmud-Ul-Rahman & ors. Vs Khazir Md. Tunda,
AIR 2015 SC 2195.

5. Vijay Dhanuka Vs Najima Mamtaz AIR 2014 SC
(suppli;), 756.
6. Abhijit Pawar Vs Hemant Madhukar Nimbalkar &
anr. (2017) 3 SC, 528.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Heard Sri Amit Daga, Advocate
assisted by Sri Anshul Kumar Singhal, learned
counsel for the applicants, at length, learned
AGA for the State and perused the record.

2. On the preliminary submissions raised
by learned counsel for the applicants based on
solitary legal issue as to whether the
summoning order dated 24.10.2019 is in
consonance with the mandate of law required
u/s 202(1) Cr.P.C. or not? This Court, with the
assistance of learned A.G.A., finds it fit to
adjudicate the present 482 application at the
threshold/admission stage itself.

3. By means of the present application
the applicants have conjured for invoking
extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court
under Section 482 Cr.P.C. against order
dated 31.05.2019 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Saharanpur
whereby the lower Revisional court, while
allowing Criminal Revision No.231 of
2018 (Pradeep Yadav v. Manish Kumar
Yadav and others) has set aside the order
dated 09.08.2018 passed by the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Saharanpur in Criminal
Complaint No. 4578 of 2018. It has further
remanded the case to the court concerned
with the direction to pass a fresh order after
holding requisite enquiry, as per the
requirement
enunciated
under
the
provisions of Section 202(1) Cr.P.C.
Taking into account the aforesaid direction,
the learned Magisterial court, proceeded
with the case afresh, recorded statements of
the required witnesses and summoned the
applicants under Sections 323, 324, 307
and
506
I.P.C.,
vide
order
dated
24.10.2019.