# M/S P.V.F.Ltd. & others v. State of U.P. & another

- **Citation:** (1999) 2 ILRA 66
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/m-s-p-v-f-ltd-others-v-state-of-u-p-another-39340
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
66

14. It was argued by the learned counsel for the revisionists
that the date of service of notice issued by the complaint have been
mentioned in the complaint and in the absence of such particulars in
the complaint, the complaint it self is not maintainable. Learned
counsel has argued that in jthe case of a plaint, it is necessary to
mention the date on which the cause of action arose and similarly
the date on which the cause of action arose to the complainant in the
instant case should have been mentioned .

15. This Court is unable to agree with the a above contention.
In the Code of Civil Procedure there is a whole chapter devoted to
the drafting of the plaint . The rule application are to be found in
Order VIII of C.P.C In the Code of Criminal Procedure there is no
such provision . On the contrary according to the definition of
"complaint " given in Section 2 Sub-clause (d) a complaint can also
be oral. Therefore, the giving of the date of cause of action in jthe
complaint can not be made mandatory.

16. In view of the above discussion, this Court comes to the
conclusion that the learned Magistrate was right in saying that the
date of service of notice is a questionof fact which will be decided
after recording evidence. The revision therefore has no force and is
hereby dismissed.
Petition Dismissed.
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/6,'(
&,9,/6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 1. 0,75$ &-
7+( +21·%/( 1. 0,75$ &-
7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ -
7+( +21·%/( '. 6(7+ -

63(&,$/ $33($/ 12 2)

0XVOLP (GXFDWLRQDO 6RFLHW\ 6KDKMDKDQSXU
WKURXJK LWV SUHVLGHQW $]L]XU5DKPDQ.KDQ
'LVWULFW 6KDKMDKDQSXU DQG RWKHUV
« $SSHOODQWV 3HWLWLRQHU
9V
'LVWULFW ,QVSHFWRU RI VFKRROV VKDKMDKDQSXU
DQG RWKHUV
« 5HVSRQGHQW
1999
------
M/S P.V.F.Ltd.
& others
 Vs.
State of U.P.
& another
------
O.P.Jain,J.
1999
------
February, 19
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
67

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSHOODQWV
 6KUL $3 6DKL
6KUL *. 6LQJK
6KUL 516LQJK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 6KUL 5 $VWKDQD
6KUL 3LSHUVHQLD

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLDWKH SULQFLSOH RI QDWXUDO
MXVWLFH ZRXOG EH YLRODWHG LI LQ WKH PDWWHU RI JUDQWLQJ UHFRJQLWLRQ RI
WKH QHZO\ HOHFWHG FRPPLWWHH DQG DWWHVWLQJ WKH VLJQDWXUH RI WKH
0DQDJHU QR RSSRUWXQLW\ RI KHDULQJ LV JLYHQ WR WKH HUVWZKLOH
FRPPLWWHH RI PDQDJHPHQW

By the Court

1. Respondent no.2 is alleged to have held an election of
the committee of jmanagement, pursuant to which one Haji Jameel
Uddin Khan is alleged to have been elected as Manger of the
committee of managemant of the Institution , which is a miority one.
The D.I.O.S.had attested the signature of jthe said Manager despite
the fact that erswhile committee of management which was
admittedly running the Institution, had intimated the D.I.O.S.that
they should be given an opportunity before accepting the claim of
anyone else for constituting the committee of management .

2.
We have Mr. R.N. Singh assisted by Mr. A.P. Shahi
for the appellants, Mr. R.Asthana for respondent no. 2 to 5 and Mr.
Pipersenia , learned Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1.

3.
Mr. R.N. Singh , learned counsel for the appellants
submit that the appellants committee is still surviving and therefore
there cannot be any constitution of the committee of management
during the lifetime of the said committee.

4.
It is an admitted position that signature of respondent
no. 2-Haji jameel uddin khan was attested without giving
opportunity of the appellants.

5.
The facts being disputed we do not propose to enter
into the same, and the appeal is being decided on a short question as
whether any opportunity is to be given to the existing committee of
management before attesting signatures of allged newly constituted
committee of management . When it is disputed that erstwhile
committee of management is continuing , in the interest of justice, it
1999
------
Muslim
Educational
Society & ors.
 Vs.
D.I.O.S.,
Shahjahanpur
& others.
------
N.K.Mitra,CJ.
D.K. Seth,J.
THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
68
is necessary that before attesting signatures of the manager pr before
granting recognition to the newly elected committee, the D.I.O.S. has
to ascertain the fact as to whether prima facie there is something to
show that an election had been held and that the claimant had been
elected as manager . Thus , before granting recognition or attesting
signatures of THE Manager of newly elected committee of
management, the D.I.O.S. has to saisfy himself that there are
sufficient materials to arrive at a conclusion that election had taken
place and a new committee had been constituted. In the present case,
since it was intimated to the D.I.O.S. by the appellants that they
apprehend constitution of a committee of management during the
lifetime of erstwhile committee it was incumbent upon the D.I.O.S.
to ascertain the said fact .Thus, in our view, there was violation of
the principle of natural justice in matter of granting recognition to
the newly elected committee and attesting signatures of the manager
without
giving
opportunity
to
the erstwhile committee of
management . O this short point , we are unable to agree with the
view taken by learned Single Judge to the extent that for the
purpose of granting recognition or attestation of signatures, there is
no scope for natural justice for giving opportunity to the erstwhile
committee of management.

6.
The appeal, therefore succeeds and is allowed to the
extent that the question should be decided by D.I.O.S. afresh after
giving opportunity to both the parties , as early as possible preferably
within a period of six weeks from date. Both the parties will be at
liberty to support their contention by filing adequate documents
before the D.I.O.S., if it is so necessary . Since we have entered in to
the merits of the case, we have kept all the question open to dthe
D.I.O.S. to make alternative arrangement, if the circumstances so
require and till then status quo be maintained. The order dated
13.7.1998 shall be subject to jthe result of decision that might to
taken by the D.I.O.S. afresh.

Appeal Allowed.
1999
------
Muslim
Educational
Society & ors.
 Vs.
D.I.O.S.,
Shahjahanpur
& others.
------
N.K.Mitra,CJ.
D.K. Seth,J.
2 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
69
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( %. 52< -
7+( +21·%/( %. 52< -
7+( +21·%/( 0& -$,1 -
7+( +21·%/( 0& -$,1 -

&,9,/ 0,6& :5,7 357,7,21 12 2)
'U%KXPLWUDGHR 9LFH±FKDQFHOORU *RUDNKSXU
XQLYHUVLW\ JRUDNKSXU DQG RWKHUV
« 3HWLWLRQHUV
9V
,,QG $GGLWLRQDO &LYLO -XGJH *RUDNKSXU RUV « 5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV
 6KUL 'LOLS *XSWD
&RXQVHO IRU WKH UHVSRQGHQWV
 6KUL 3. 0LVKUD
6&

6HFWLRQ RI WKH VWDWH 8QLYHUVLWLHV $FW QR VXLW FDQ EH LQVWLWXWHG LQ
UHVSHFW RI DQ\WKLQJ GRQH RU SXUSRUWHG RU LQWHQGHG WR EH GRQH
SXUVXDQW WR WKH $FW RU WKH UXOHV RU WKH VWDWXWHV RU WKH RUGLQDQFH
PDGH WKHUHXQGHU

By the Court

1. The prayer of the petitioners is to quash the orders dated
7.1.91 and 8.1.91 passed by the Munsif City , Gorakhpur (respondent
no.2 ) as contained in Annexure 20 and 21 in misc. case no. 421 of
1990 arising out of Original Suit No. 2728 of 1989.

2. It appears that respondent No. 3, herein , filed the suit in
question for grant of a decree of permanent injunction on his favour
and against the defendants and for directing defendant No. 2 to 4 pay
Dearness Allowance to him as well as to other part -time Iecturers of
LawDepartment
of
Gorakhpur
University
by
Implementing
Resolution no. 2 dated April 26, 1987 passed by the Executive
committee of defendant no.2.

3. Mr. Dilip Gupta , the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners, contended that in view of the provisions of
Section 69 of the State Universities act no such suit could be
maintainable and any order passed therein shall be wholly without
jurisdiction and thus this writ petition be allowed.

1999
------
March, 23