# Saraswati Vidhya Mandir Rewatipur, Ghazipur v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2002) 3 ILRA 883
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2002-09-20
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Petition No. 4651 of 2000
- **Bench:** A.K. Yog
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/saraswati-vidhya-mandir-rewatipur-ghazipur-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40029
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Constitution of India- Article 226 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 is not
the Managing committee or the Society
and he cannot maintain a writ petition in
this Court unless he is authorized to do
so. (Held in para 13).

Learned
counsel
for
the
Petitioner,
however, submitted that he be allowed
time to correct the description. This
cannot be permitted by amendment as
has been held in the V.V. Inter College
(Supra). However, by dismissal of the
Writ Petition management/society of the
institution,
which
own,
runs
and
manage, shall not be precluded from
approaching the concerned authority to
seek redressal of his grievance and recall
the impugned order dated 16th July,
1999 providing review its decision after
affording
opportunity
to
the
management/society
running
the
institution to file documents and such
information as may be required by such
authority and holding enquiry as may be
required.

## Text

http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Saraswati Vidhya Mandir Rewatipur, Ghazipur V. State of U.P. and others 883
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.9.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE A.K. YOG, J.

Civil Misc. Petition No. 4651 of 2000

Saraswati
Vidhya
Mandir
Rewatipur,
District Ghazipur

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. through Secretary and
others

 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shamim Ahmad
Sri Om Prakash Chaubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri G.K. Pandey
S.C.

Constitution of India- Article 226 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 is not
the Managing committee or the Society
and he cannot maintain a writ petition in
this Court unless he is authorized to do
so. (Held in para 13).

Learned
counsel
for
the
Petitioner,
however, submitted that he be allowed
time to correct the description. This
cannot be permitted by amendment as
has been held in the V.V. Inter College
(Supra). However, by dismissal of the
Writ Petition management/society of the
institution,
which
own,
runs
and
manage, shall not be precluded from
approaching the concerned authority to
seek redressal of his grievance and recall
the impugned order dated 16th July,
1999 providing review its decision after
affording
opportunity
to
the
management/society
running
the
institution to file documents and such
information as may be required by such
authority and holding enquiry as may be
required.

(Delivered by Hon'ble A.K. Yog, J.)

1. Heard Sri Shamim Ahmad,
Advocate, appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Sri G.K. Pandey, learned
Standing Counsel, on behalf of the
respondents.

2. Petitioner before this Court is
'Saraswati Vidhya Mandir Rewatipur,
District Ghazipur through its Manager
Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi' purporting to be
an institution, called 'Saraswati Vidhya
Mandir Rewatipur', which is not a legal
entity.

3. This Court in Writ Petition no.
10663 of 1976, Sardar Patel Higher
Secondary School, Dev Nagar, Mathura
Versus
The
Deputy
Director
of
Education, Agra Region, Agra and
others, 1976 AWC (Journal)18, vide
judgment and order dated 1.3.1976
observed-

"Sri N.C. Upadhya, 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
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
884 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
aggrieved party was the Committee of
Management and the petitioner 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.

4. The present petition has been filed
by Sardar 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
Deputy Director of Education. The
Manager cannot assume the functions of
the Committee of Management unless he
is authorised to do so. Sardar Patel High
Secondary School is not a legal entity to
maintain any legal action on behalf of the
Society
or
the
Committee
of
Management.

5. In Mahtab Rai, Manager, Har
Narain Intermediate College V. Deputy
Director of Education (Civil Misc. Writ
No. 5808 of 1970, 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
learned Single Judge observed that the
appointment of principal of College and
termination of his services were within
the power 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 Hari Raj Swarup V. Secretary to
Government
of
U.P.
(A.I.R.
1951
Allahabad, 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
Rai's case. In the instant case, neither the
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Saraswati Vidhya Mandir Rewatipur, Ghazipur V. State of U.P. and others 885
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.

6. 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 authorization 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
authorization
by
the
Committee
of
Management.

7. In the result the writ petition is
dismissed as not maintainable. There will
be no order as to costs. The stay order's is
vacated.
Dated/-1.3.1976
 Sd/-K.N. Singh "J"

8. Again in the Writ Petition
nos.6879 of 1974 and 12582 of 1975-
V.V. Inter College, Shamli Versus U.P.
Shiksha Nideshak, Pratham Mandal,
Meerut and others, vide judgment and
order dated 7.4.1976 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 orders of 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. The Committee of
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
886 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2002
Management has not filed 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 the 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 (A.I.R. 1951 All., 1).

9. 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.

10. 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
16-G (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 persued by him. In the
circumstances it would not be a sound
exercise of discretion under Article 226 of
the Constitution to hear an 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"

11.

Aforesaid
judgment
was
affirmed by Division Bench in intra court
appeal (Special Appeal no.154 of 1976,
V.V. Inter College, Shamli, versus U.P.
Shiksha
Nideshak
Pratham
Mandal,
Meerut and others)- vide judgment and
order 2.8.1976 quoted below:-

" Sri R.K. Jain, learned counsel for
the appellant, state that he does not press
this appeal. The appeal is accordingly
dismissed."
Dated/-2.8.1976

Sd/-G.C.M.

Sd/-K.C.A."

12. In view of the aforesaid
decisions, petition is not maintainable in
the name of the petitioner as it stands
today.
http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in
3 All] Baijnath Yadav V. State of U.P. and others 887

13. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner, however, submitted that he be
allowed time to correct the description.
This cannot be permitted by amendment
as has been held in the V.V. Inter College
(Supra). However, by dismissal of the
Writ Petition management/society of the
institution, which own, runs and manage,
shall not be precluded from approaching
the concerned authority to seek redressal
of his grievance and recall the impugned
order dated 16th July, 1999 providing
review
its
decision
after
affording
opportunity to the management/society
running the institution to file documents
and such information as may be required
by such authority and holding enquiry as
may be required.

14. Writ Petition stands dismissed.

15. No order as to costs.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 9.10.2002

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J.
THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12663 of 2002

Baijnath Yadav

...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Shesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri S. Chaturvedi
Sri Atul Mehra
Sri V.B. Singh
S.C.

Land Acquisition Act- Section 3 (a)- Land
acquired
for
purpose
of
developing
colony
by
Varanasi
Development
Authority- after depositing compensation
possession taken and the land developed
as Patrkar Colony- the objection that
only the open land was acquired and not
the building and trees standing over the
plot.
Held-
'wrong'-
land
includes
building and trees- fastened to the plot
in question.

Held- Para 16

The expression 'land' includes benefits to
arise out of land, and things attached to
the earth or permanently fastened to
anything attached to the earth. '
Case law discussed:
AIR 1993 SC 2517, AIR 1971 SC- 1033, 1996
(10) SCC -721, 1989 AWC 1137, 1991 AWC
341 AIR 1969 SC-255, 1980 ACJ 583

(Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju, J.)

1. This writ petition and connected
writ petitions are being disposed of by a
common judgment.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed
for a writ of certiorari for quashing the
notifications dated 7.3.1996 and 8.1.1997
under sections 4 and 6 of the Land
Acquisition Act (Annexure 6 and 7 to the
writ petition) so far as they relate to the
petitioner's plot no. 133/1 in which the
petitioner claims 1/4th share in village
Chuppepur, paragana Shivpur, tahsil and
district Varanasi.

2A. The petitioner is claiming 1/4th
share in plot no. 133/1 situate in village
Chuppepur, pargana Shivpur, Tahsil and
district Varanasi. In paragraph 4 of the
petition it is alleged that on part of the
aforesaid
land
there
are
pakka