# Ram Veer Singh & Ors v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2014) 2 ILRA 902
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-01-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65532 of 2011
- **Bench:** Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ram-veer-singh-ors-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-43002
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Election of
committee of Management in the year
2011-Respondent-4 permitted those 101
member alleged to be enrolled 2004-05Asst. Registrar allowed only 42 validly
elected members to participate in the year
2008-Respondent
-4
never
raised
objection before Asst. Registrar-rather the
petition filed by Respondent-4 questioning
election 08 also dismissed with liberty to
filed
civil
suit-as
per
scheme
of
administration election scheduled to be
held
in
the
year
2011-Respondent-4
allowed those 101 members to participatewhich questioned by the petition-held
bonafide dispute was there-DIOS has no
power
to
adjudicate
the
validity
of
member-except the regional committeeorder impugned by DIOS set a side-with
followup direction.

Held: Para-17
Relevant it would be to mention that the
State
Government
has
issued
a
Government
Order
dated
19th
December,
2000,
which
has
been
modified
on
20th
October,
2008
(annexure-14 to the writ petition), which
provides that if the District Inspector of
Schools has any difficulty, the matter
shall be referred to the Regional Level
Committee. From a perusal of the
Government Order dated 20th October,
2008 it brings out that the District
Inspector of Schools can attest the
signature within a week of the election
of the Committee of Management where
there is no dispute in respect of the
election or the electoral college, but if
there is any dispute, then the District
Inspector of Schools should refer the
matter to the Regional Level Committee.
The District Inspector of Schools, in my
view, has no jurisdiction to decide the
electoral college or the validity of the
election, if any objection is filed before
him raising a bona fide dispute. In the
present case, the electoral college was
determined by the Assistant Registrar in
compliance with the order of this Court
dated 05th August, 2005 passed in the
special
appeals,
as
referred
above.
Therefore, there was a bona fide dispute
with regard to validity of participation of
101 members, who were admittedly
enrolled in the year 2004-05 i.e. before
the order was passed by the Assistant
Registrar. It was also admitted fact that
the newly enrolled 101 members were
not allowed to participate in the election
of 2008. Thus, in view of the aforesaid
facts, it was crystal clear that there was
a bona fide and genuine dispute raised
by the life members which ought to have
been decided by the Regional Level
Committee and not by the District
Inspector of Schools. From a perusal of
the impugned order of the District
Inspector of Schools it is established
that
he
has
travelled
beyond
his
jurisdiction as he has gone into the
validity of enrollment of 101 members.

## Text

902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.01.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 65532 of 2011

Ram Veer Singh & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Radha Kant Ojha, Sri Abhitab Kumar
Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri N.L. Pandey, Sri Anil Kumar

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Election of
committee of Management in the year
2011-Respondent-4 permitted those 101
member alleged to be enrolled 2004-05Asst. Registrar allowed only 42 validly
elected members to participate in the year
2008-Respondent
-4
never
raised
objection before Asst. Registrar-rather the
petition filed by Respondent-4 questioning
election 08 also dismissed with liberty to
filed
civil
suit-as
per
scheme
of
administration election scheduled to be
held
in
the
year
2011-Respondent-4
allowed those 101 members to participatewhich questioned by the petition-held
bonafide dispute was there-DIOS has no
power
to
adjudicate
the
validity
of
member-except the regional committeeorder impugned by DIOS set a side-with
followup direction.

Held: Para-17
Relevant it would be to mention that the
State
Government
has
issued
a
Government
Order
dated
19th
December,
2000,
which
has
been
modified
on
20th
October,
2008
(annexure-14 to the writ petition), which
provides that if the District Inspector of
Schools has any difficulty, the matter
shall be referred to the Regional Level
Committee. From a perusal of the
Government Order dated 20th October,
2008 it brings out that the District
Inspector of Schools can attest the
signature within a week of the election
of the Committee of Management where
there is no dispute in respect of the
election or the electoral college, but if
there is any dispute, then the District
Inspector of Schools should refer the
matter to the Regional Level Committee.
The District Inspector of Schools, in my
view, has no jurisdiction to decide the
electoral college or the validity of the
election, if any objection is filed before
him raising a bona fide dispute. In the
present case, the electoral college was
determined by the Assistant Registrar in
compliance with the order of this Court
dated 05th August, 2005 passed in the
special
appeals,
as
referred
above.
Therefore, there was a bona fide dispute
with regard to validity of participation of
101 members, who were admittedly
enrolled in the year 2004-05 i.e. before
the order was passed by the Assistant
Registrar. It was also admitted fact that
the newly enrolled 101 members were
not allowed to participate in the election
of 2008. Thus, in view of the aforesaid
facts, it was crystal clear that there was
a bona fide and genuine dispute raised
by the life members which ought to have
been decided by the Regional Level
Committee and not by the District
Inspector of Schools. From a perusal of
the impugned order of the District
Inspector of Schools it is established
that
he
has
travelled
beyond
his
jurisdiction as he has gone into the
validity of enrollment of 101 members.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar
Singh Baghel, J.)

1. This writ petition has been
preferred by 5 life members of a society,
namely, Shiksha Prasar Samiti, Kapsarh,
Sardhana District Meerut, for quashing of
the order dated 31st October, 2011 passed
2 All]. Ram Veer Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
903
by the District Inspector of Schools,
Meerut, the respondent no. 3, whereby he
has recognised the election of officebearers
of
the
respondent
no.
4,
Committee of Management of Janta
Adarsh Inter College, Kapsarh, Meerut.

2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the
brief facts are that Shiksha Prasar Samiti,
Kapsarh, Sardhana, District Meerut (for
short, the "Society") is a society registered
under the Societies Registration Act,
1860, as applicable in Uttar Pradesh. It
has established an Intermediate College,
namely, Janta Adarsh Inter College,
Kapsarh,
Meerut
(for
short,
the
"Institution"), which is a recognised
institution and is governed by the
provisions
of
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the
Regulations framed thereunder.

3. The Institution has its approved
Scheme
of
Administration,
which
regulates
its
affairs
in
respect
of
constitution
and
election
of
the
Committee
of
Management,
various
categories
of
Members,
duties
and
responsibilities of the office-bearers,
election process, etc.. The Society, which
has established the Institution, has its byelaws, which governs the affairs of the
Society. It is stated that the General Body
of the Society and the Institution is the
same and one. From the records, it
transpires that a dispute arose in respect
of membership of the Society which
resulted in filing of two writ petitions,
being Civil Misc. Writ Petition Nos.
27970 of 2003 (Malwa Singh v. Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Meerut and others) and 37082 of 2003
(Committee
of
Management,
Janta
Adarsh Inter College and another v. State
of U.P. and others) before this Court. Writ
Petition No. 27970 of 2003 was decided
by this Court vide order dated 17th
December, 2004, whereby Regional Level
Committee was directed to record specific
findings as to three points regarding the
election held on 11th July, 2003. The
second writ petition i.e. Writ Petition No.
37082 of 2003 came to be decided by this
Court vide judgement dated 15th April,
2005, whereby a direction was issued for
fresh
adjudication
by
the
Deputy
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits for
finalisation of the voters' list with
reference to the approved Scheme of
Administration. Against the aforesaid two
orders dated 17th December, 2004 and
15th April, 2005 passed in the abovementioned two writ petitions, two special
appeals, being Special Appeal No. 577 of
2005 (Shiv Kumar v. Mr. Malwa Singh
and others) and Special Appeal No. 201
of 2005 (Committee of Management and
another v. State of U.P. and others)
respectively, were filed. Both the special
appeals were disposed of by a common
judgement and order dated 05th August,
2005 and further a direction was also
given that the Deputy Registrar shall give
due weigh to the admission stated to be
made by Sri Malwa Singh in regard to the
eligibility of 38 members in Shiv Kumar's
group and it was left open to the Deputy
Registrar to proceed on the basis of the
admission and give it due value.

4. In compliance with the order
passed in special appeals, the Assistant
Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits,
Meerut by an order dated 18th February,
2008 accepted the list of 42 validly
enrolled members. A copy of the said
order dated 18th February, 2008 is on the
record as annexure-4 to the writ petition.
This order was challenged by some of the
members including Sri Malwa Singh by
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.
24421 of 2008 (Malwa Singh and others
v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Society and
Chits, Meerut and others), which was
dismissed by this Court vide order dated
15th May, 2008 leaving it open to the
parties to file a civil suit. A copy of the
order of this Court dated 15th May, 2008
is on the record as annexure-16 to the
counter affidavit filed by the respondent
no. 4. In pursuance of the order of the
Assistant Registrar dated 18th February,
2008, fresh election was held on 21st
September, 2008, wherein one Sri Shiv
Kumar was elected as Manager and Sri
Bhupendra
Singh
was
elected
as
President. As the term of the Committee
of Management is 3 years, therefore,
before expiring the term viz. 20th
September, 2011, the Committee of
Management proposed to hold the fresh
election on 21st August, 2011.

5. The grievance of the petitioners is
that the respondent no. 4 conducted the
said election in 2011, in which he
permitted
to
participate
101
more
members in addition to 42 members, who
were found by the Assistant Registrar as
valid members. Against the inclusion of
101 new members, who were stated to be
enrolled
sometimes
in
2004,
the
petitioners submitted their objections
before the District Inspector of Schools on
06th August, 2011 and 11th August,
2011. They have stated to have filed a
similar objection before the Election
Officer also on 12th August, 2011. Said
objections are on record as annexures-5
and 6 to the writ petition.

6. It is averred by the petitioners that
their objection was rejected by the
Election Officer and the election was held
on 21st August, 2011, wherein 142
members including 101 new members
were allowed to participate. The District
Inspector
of
Schools,
ignoring
the
objections filed before him, recognised
the election of the respondent no. 4 by the
impugned order dated 31st October, 2011.

7. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the respondent no. 4. The stand taken
in the counter affidavit is that 101
members were enrolled in 2004-05,
therefore,
their
participation
in
the
election of 2011 is legal and justified.

8. I have heard Sri R.K. Ojha,
learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri
Abhitab Kumar Tiwari, learned Counsel
for the petitioners, learned Standing
Counsel for the educational authorities i.e.
respondent nos. 1 to 3, and Sri N.L.
Pandey,
learned
Counsel
for
the
respondent no. 4.

9. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior
Advocate, submits that in compliance
with the order of this Court dated 05th
August, 2005 passed in the special
appeals, the Assistant Registrar had
determined the electoral college of the
Society i.e. General Body of the Society
as well as the institution. Said decision
was made in the year 2008 and if 101
members were enrolled in 2004-05, their
case shall be deemed to have been
rejected by the Assistant Registrar as the
fact with regard to their enrollment was
not brought to the notice of the Assistant
Registrar. He further submits that since
aforesaid 101 members were not legally
enrolled, this fact was not brought before
the Assistant Registrar. Lastly, he urged
that the last undisputed election of 2008
was held on the basis of electoral college
determined by the Assistant Registrar
vide its order dated 18th February, 2008,
2 All]. Ram Veer Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
905
therefore, in the next election, which was
held in the year 2011, there was no
justification to permit 101 new members,
who were alleged to be enrolled in the
year 2004-05. Hence, on account of
participation of 101 new members, the
election stood vitiated, therefore, a
direction may be issued to hold the fresh
election on the basis of electoral college
determined by the Assistant Registrar,
which comprises of only 42 members.

10. Sri N.L. Pandey, learned
Counsel for the respondent no. 4, submits
that 101 members were enrolled in the
year 2004-05 and they have right to
participate in the election as they were
enrolled strictly in terms of the procedure
provided in the bye-laws of the Society.
He has drawn the attention of the Court to
paragraph-47 of the counter affidavit to
show that the petitioner no. 3 Sri Sugan
Pal was the proposer of Sri Jai Pal Singh
Rana, who contested the election for the
office of Treasurer. A copy of the said
document has been brought on record as
annexure-24 to the counter affidavit.

11. Learned Standing Counsel has
tried to justify the reasons assigned by the
District Inspector of Schools in the
impugned order. However, he has fairly
submitted that in such cases of disputed
question,
only
the
Regional
Level
Committee has the authority to deal with
the matter.

12. I have considered the respective
submissions advanced by the learned
Counsel for the parties and perused the
record.

13. The Institution has been
established by the Society. It is a common
ground that the General Body of the
Society and the Institution is the same.
While deciding the special appeals, this
Court has taken note of the said fact and
has directed that till the electoral college
is determined by the Assistant Registrar,
the proceedings before the Regional Level
Committee shall be in abeyance to wait
the decision of the Assistant Registrar. In
compliance with the said direction, the
electoral college was determined by the
Assistant Registrar vide its order dated
18th February, 2008. Said order was
passed after affording opportunity to all
the concerned parties. From a perusal of
the order of Assistant Registrar it is
evident that the issue with regard to
enrollment of 101 members was not
raised before him by either of the parties.
Therefore,
the
Assistant
Registrar
confined his findings with regard to the
validity of only 42 members. He rejected
the claim of 63 members. The Assistant
Registrar in his final analysis has found
that there are 42 valid members of the
General
Body.
This
decision
was
challenged before this Court in Civil
Misc. Writ Petition No. 24421 of 2008,
which was dismissed on the ground of
disputed question of fact and it was left
open to the aggrieved party to file a civil
suit. There is nothing on record to indicate
that in pursuance of the order of this
Court any civil suit was preferred by any
aggrieved party, therefore, the order of the
Assistant Registrar attained finality.

14. Regard being had to the fact that
the fresh election of 2008 was held by the
electoral college comprising 42 members,
for the reasons best known to the parties,
the cause of 101 members was not
espoused before the Assistant Registrar
either by them or by the members
concerned, therefore, validity of 101
members was not scrutinised by the
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Assistant Registrar in its order dated 18th
February, 2008.

15. After the term of office-bearers
of the Committee of Management, who
were elected in 2008, came to expire, the
Committee of Management decided to
permit 101 new members, stated to be
enrolled in 2004, and despite the
objections raised in this regard, the
election was held.

16. After the election was over, the
papers were sent to the office of the
District Inspector of Schools, where the
petitioners and others had also raised
same dispute by filing their objections but
the
District
Inspector
of
Schools
proceeded to decide the dispute with
regard to enrollment of 101 members
himself without referring the matter to the
Regional Level Committee.

17. Relevant it would be to mention
that the State Government has issued a
Government Order dated 19th December,
2000, which has been modified on 20th
October, 2008 (annexure-14 to the writ
petition), which provides that if the
District Inspector of Schools has any
difficulty, the matter shall be referred to
the Regional Level Committee. From a
perusal of the Government Order dated
20th October, 2008 it brings out that the
District Inspector of Schools can attest the
signature within a week of the election of
the Committee of Management where
there is no dispute in respect of the
election or the electoral college, but if
there is any dispute, then the District
Inspector of Schools should refer the
matter to the Regional Level Committee.
The District Inspector of Schools, in my
view, has no jurisdiction to decide the
electoral college or the validity of the
election, if any objection is filed before
him raising a bona fide dispute. In the
present case, the electoral college was
determined by the Assistant Registrar in
compliance with the order of this Court
dated 05th August, 2005 passed in the
special
appeals,
as
referred
above.
Therefore, there was a bona fide dispute
with regard to validity of participation of
101 members, who were admittedly
enrolled in the year 2004-05 i.e. before
the order was passed by the Assistant
Registrar. It was also admitted fact that
the newly enrolled 101 members were not
allowed to participate in the election of
2008. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts,
it was crystal clear that there was a bona
fide and genuine dispute raised by the life
members which ought to have been
decided by the Regional Level Committee
and not by the District Inspector of
Schools. From a perusal of the impugned
order of the District Inspector of Schools
it is established that he has travelled
beyond his jurisdiction as he has gone
into the validity of enrollment of 101
members.

18. After careful consideration of
the matter, I am of the view that the
matter ought to have been considered by
the Regional Level Committee and not by
the
District
Inspector
of
Schools.
Therefore, the order of the District
Inspector of Schools dated 31st October,
2011, as is impugned in this writ petition,
needs to be set aside and accordingly, it is
set aside. The Joint Director of Education,
Meerut Region, Meerut is directed to
place the matter before the Regional
Level Committee in terms of the
Government Order dated 19th December,
2000 and 20th October, 2008. The
Regional Level Committee shall consider
the matter after giving opportunity to the
2 All]. Chief Account Officer & Anr. Vs. Mohd. Idrish
907
concerned parties and pass appropriate
order expeditiously preferably within a
period of three months from the date of
communication of this order. Till the
decision is taken by the Regional Level
Committee, the status quo as on today
shall be maintained by the parties.

19. Needless to say that the Regional
Level Committee shall consider the
matter independently in accordance with
law. Any observation made in this
judgement shall not cause any prejudice
to the contentions and interest of either of
the parties.

20. Accordingly, the writ petition is
disposed of.

21. No order as to costs.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.02.2014

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 66820 of 2010
along with W.P. No. 68908 of 2010

Chief Account Officer & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Mohd. Idrish ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Subodh Kumar, Sri Udit Chandra

Counsel for the Respondent:
S.C., Sri A.K. Srivastava, Sri S. Srivastava

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Service
law-recovery of excess amount-after six
year retirement-when received excess
amount knowingly not disclosed this
fact-contention that not instrumental in
getting excess amount can not be
recovered-held-Public
money
neither
belongs to payer or receiver-it can be
recovered at any time-direction to pay
entire amount within 3 month with three
installments-without
any
excess
demand-petition allowed.

Held: Para-6
So far as the payment in excess is
concerned, we are of the opinion that it
is not in dispute. The amount which has
been paid in excess was not legally due
to the respondent, it was a public money
and cannot be retained illegally.

Case Law discussed:
2012(4) ESC 509 (SC).

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.)

1. The Writ Petition No.66820 of
2010 has been filed by the Chief Account
Officer
(GPF),
Controller
of
Communication Accounts and Union of
India, and the Writ Petition No.68908 of
2010 has been filed by the Chief General
Manager U.P. East Telecom Circle,
Telecom
District Manager,
B.S.N.L.
Jaunpur and Accounts Officer (Cash), O/o
T.D.M. B.S.N.L. Jaunpur.

2. In both the writ petitions the
petitioners are challenging the order of the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Allahabad
Bench,
Allahabad
dated
11.08.2010
in
Original
Application
No.1392 of 2009.

3. The brief facts of the case are that
the respondent was the employee in the
Department of Telecommunication since
21.03.1969 and retired on 29.5.2003.
After six years from the date of retirement
a recovery notice dated 17.08.2009 has
been issued by the petitioners asking the
respondent
to
pay
the
sum
of
Rs.1,12,525/-. According to the notice,
the respondent has been paid the amount