# Picket Inter College v. D.I.O.S., Muzaffar Nagar and others

- **Citation:** (2009) 3 ILRA 822
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2009-09-07
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 500 of 2007
- **Bench:** A.P. Sahi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/picket-inter-college-v-d-i-o-s-muzaffar-nagar-and-others-41524
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

U.P. Inter Mediate Education Act 192116 D (4)-Appointment of authorized
Controller-in minority institution-clear
statutory
prohibit
fact
of
minority
institution
not
denied
in
counter
affidavit-held-unsustainable.

Held: Para 7

The only question which survives for
determination is as to whether the
Authorized Controller could have been
appointed or not. The aforesaid legal
question stands squarely answered in
favour of the petitioner and Section
16D(14)
of
the
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 recites clearly that
the provisions of supersession do not
apply in respect of minority institutions.
The aforesaid statutory bar therefore
prohibits
the
respondents
from
appointing an Authorized Controller.
Case law discussed:
1993 ALL.L.J. 318

## Text

822 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

5. Writ petition is allowed without
imposing any cost.

6. However, this order will not be
construed
as
reinstatement
of
the
petitioner. It is open for the respondent
authority to initiate proceeding or to issue
appropriate notice by saying as to why the
enquiry will be dispensed with. It is open
to the respondents to complete the enquiry
proceeding in accordance with law as
early as possible preferably within a
period of one month from the date of
communication of this order.
----------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.09.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 500 of 2007

Picket Inter College Khatauli, District
Muzaffar Nagar

 ...Petitioner
Versus
District Inspector of Schools, Muzaffar
Nagar and others
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri N.S. Chahar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Vikrant Pandey
Sri S.K. Awasthi
C.S.C.

U.P. Inter Mediate Education Act 192116 D (4)-Appointment of authorized
Controller-in minority institution-clear
statutory
prohibit
fact
of
minority
institution
not
denied
in
counter
affidavit-held-unsustainable.

Held: Para 7

The only question which survives for
determination is as to whether the
Authorized Controller could have been
appointed or not. The aforesaid legal
question stands squarely answered in
favour of the petitioner and Section
16D(14)
of
the
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 recites clearly that
the provisions of supersession do not
apply in respect of minority institutions.
The aforesaid statutory bar therefore
prohibits
the
respondents
from
appointing an Authorized Controller.
Case law discussed:
1993 ALL.L.J. 318

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

List has been revised.

1. Shri N.S. Chahar, learned counsel
for the petitioner has advanced his
submissions on behalf of the petitioner
and the learned standing counsel for the
respondent nos. 1 to 4. In spite of an
impleadment application having been
filed and allowed by this Court on
28.03.2008, the respondent no. 5-Smt.
Jaswanti Singh remains unrepresented.
None has appeared on her behalf to assist
the Court nor any counter affidavit has
been filed.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the State, wherein the fact
that
the
institution
is
a
minority
institution, has not been denied The
counter affidavit does not disclose the
source of power exercised on the basis
whereof
the
committee
has
been
superseded.

3. The writ petition has been filed
challenging
the
order
dated
16th
December, 2006, whereby the Regional
Director of Education Saharanpur, Region
Saharanpur has appointed an Authorized
3 All] Picket Inter College V. D.I.O.S., Muzaffar Nagar and others

823
Controller in the institution purporting to
exercise powers on the ground that there
are certain irregularities in the institution.

4. Shri Chahar, learned counsel for
the petitioner contends that the order is
without jurisdiction inasmuch as Minority
institutions are exempted from such
supersession
and
the
protection
guaranteed under Article 30 of the
Constitution
of
India
obliges
the
respondents
not
to
supersede
the
Committee of Management of a Minority
institution.

5. The fact that the petitioner is a
minority institution has been clearly
stated in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the writ
petition, which has not been denied in the
counter affidavit of Shri Arvind Kumar,
Associate District Inspector of Schools,
Muzaffar Nagar filed on behalf of the
respondent nos. 1 to 4. Learned standing
counsel has also not been able to point out
any provision under the U.P. Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 that may authorise
the
respondents
to
supersede
the
petitioner's Committee of Management
and appoint an Authorized Controller.
This fact was also taken notice at the time
of granting interim relief by this Court on
05.01.2007.

6. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and in view of the fact that no
one has chosen to put up any defence on
behalf of the respondent no. 5, there is no
option for this Court except to dispose of
the writ petition at this stage.

7. The only question which survives
for determination is as to whether the
Authorized Controller could have been
appointed or not. The aforesaid legal
question stands squarely answered in
favour of the petitioner and Section
16D(14)
of
the
U.P.
Intermediate
Education Act, 1921 recites clearly that
the provisions of supersession do not
apply in respect of minority institutions.
The aforesaid statutory bar therefore
prohibits the respondents from appointing
an Authorized Controller.

8. There is yet another aspect of the
matter. Even if it is presumed that the
power exists to supersede a management
under U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971, there also
it is extremely doubtful as to whether
such a power can be exercised in respect
of a management of a Minority Institution
protected under Article 30 of the
Constitution of India.

9. In the instant case the query made
by the District Inspector of Schools is in
relation
to
alleged
irregularities
of
management and not with regard to
default in payment of salary. The order of
single operation was passed in public
interest which is in violation of the
provision of U.P. act No. 24 of 1971 and
therefore the same was stayed by this
Court on 08.12.2006. The impugned order
does not record any further persistent
default of payment of salary so as to
warrant supersession. It has been held in
the case of Committee of Management,
Sahid Sansmaran Inter College, Sherpur
and another Vs. Deputy Director of
Education, Varanasi and another, 1993
ALL.L.J. 318, that it is for default in
payment of salary as defined under
Section 2 (g) of the Act that such a power
can be exercised under Section 6 of the
1971 Act. There is nothing contained in
the impugned order reflecting any such
default. A dispute about allegations of
general nature relating to mismanagment
or maladministration other than those as
824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2009

mentioned in the 1971 Act, cannot be
made subject matter of scrutiny under
Section 6 of the 1971 Act. The order
impugned is therefore unsustainable on
this ground as well.

10. There is therefore no option for
this Court except to allow the writ
petition. The impugned order dated
16.12.2006 passed by the respondent no.
4 is hereby quashed with costs on parties.
Disposed of accordingly.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.08.2009

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.P. SAHI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26204 of 1992

Ram Sahodar

...Petitioner

Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri K.D. Tripathi
Sri N.K. Saxena

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri C.B. Yadav
C.S.C.

Ceiling on Land Holdings Act 1961Section
38-B-Surplus
land-prescribed
authority
by
order
dated
25.05.78
declared 1.24 acres land as surplus-after
11 years restoration Application by state
rejected
by
Prescribed
authorityappellate authority by exceeding its
jurisdiction without valid and cogent
reasons-declared 9.84 acres land as
surplus-held-not sustainable.

Held: Para 14

Apart from this, it is surprising that if the
order dated 25.05.1978 of the Prescribed
Authority in any way prejudiced the
State then the State ought to have filed a
regular appeal against the order, which
was admittedly not done. The appeal
appears to have not been filed within
time and it is for this reason that a
restoration application appears to have
been moved after 11 years so as to avoid
limitation, for which there is no plausible
reason available on record. The action of
the Naib Tehsildar after 11 years of the
order dated 25.08.1978 was actuated by
malice
in
law
and
the
prescribed
authority was fully justified in rejecting
the same on valid and cogent reasons.
Case law discussed:
2009 (5) ADJ 529.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.P. Sahi, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned standing
counsel
for
the
respondents.
The
proceedings arise out of orders passed
under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on
Land Holdings Act, 1961 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Act').

2. The present writ petition has been
preferred
against
the
order
dated
03.07.1992
passed
by
the
learned
Additional
Commissioner,
Jhansi
Division, Jhansi, whereby the appeal filed
on behalf of the State, questioning the
order of the Prescribed Authority dated
25.10.1991, has been allowed and the
land to the tune of 9.84 acres in the
irrigated sense has been declared as
surplus in the hands of the petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the order is erroneous,
inasmuch as, the order dated 25th May,
1978 passed by the Prescribed Authority,
whereby only an area of 1.24 acres has
been declared surplus, had become final
and there was no further land available so