# The Manager Birju Yadav, Inarman Yadav Purva Madhyamik Vidyalay, Chakaundhi, Mau v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 8 ILRA 172
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2019-10-16
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 29010 of 2008
- **Bench:** Ramesh Sinha, Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/the-manager-birju-yadav-inarman-yadav-purva-madhyamik-vidyalay-chakaundhi-mau-v-45341
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
MPLAD
Fund
-
Disbursement for the Construction of
School - Misrepresentation or Fraud -
Merely because certain part of the land has
fallen in the adjoining village, it will not
amount to mis-representation or fraud on the
part of the petitioner - No whisper anywhere
that any enquiry was made from the then
Member of Parliament as to under what
circumstances the recommendation was made
- Held, It was not open for the Collector to
take into account irrelevant considerations to
record
a
finding
of
fraud
and
misrepresentation
-
The
findings
is
completely misplaced and ill-founded. (Para 7
and 9)
B.
Civil
Law
-
MPLAD
Fund
-
Recommendation
of
Member
of
Parliament - Jurisdiction of Administrative
Authority - A Member of Parliament in our
representative form of Government holds a
very
sacrosanct
position
-
His
recommendation cannot be a matter of
administrative enquiry unless he himself
complains of being misrepresented/ mislead.
(Para 8)

Held -

## Text

172 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

37. However, we may hasten to add
that in all these writ petitions the only
ground taken for passing the order is that
the offer of land made by the respective
petitioners did not meet the requirement
as per brochure and, therefore, it will be
open for the respondent to revisit the
matter from that angle only and, if
otherwise, after due evaluation and
meeting objection of the petitioners, they
are found suitable, their candidature on
other norms shall not be cancelled on any
fresh ground.

38. With the aforesaid observations
and directions, writ petitions are allowed,
with no order as to cost.
----------
(2020)08ILR A172
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.10.2019

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAMESH SINHA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ C No. 29010 of 2008

The Manager Birju Yadav, Inarman
Yadav
Purva
Madhyamik
Vidyalay,
Chakaundhi, Mau ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Naveen Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Civil
Law
-
MPLAD
Fund
-
Disbursement for the Construction of
School - Misrepresentation or Fraud -
Merely because certain part of the land has
fallen in the adjoining village, it will not
amount to mis-representation or fraud on the
part of the petitioner - No whisper anywhere
that any enquiry was made from the then
Member of Parliament as to under what
circumstances the recommendation was made
- Held, It was not open for the Collector to
take into account irrelevant considerations to
record
a
finding
of
fraud
and
misrepresentation
-
The
findings
is
completely misplaced and ill-founded. (Para 7
and 9)
B.
Civil
Law
-
MPLAD
Fund
-
Recommendation
of
Member
of
Parliament - Jurisdiction of Administrative
Authority - A Member of Parliament in our
representative form of Government holds a
very
sacrosanct
position
-
His
recommendation cannot be a matter of
administrative enquiry unless he himself
complains of being misrepresented/ mislead.
(Para 8)

Held -

8. ...We may, therefore, hold that no
recommendation qua MPLAD if made by a
member of parliament for his constituency is
subject
to
enquiry
by
administrative
authorities unless the Member of Parliament
himself
asks
for
the
same,
however
monitoring
and
enquiry
regarding
consumption of fund released under MPLAD is
always subject to administrative enquiry in
the event of complaint. This is however, not
the case in hand.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, J.)

1. Heard Sri Naveen Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
A.K. Roy, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-respondents. Perused the record.

2. By means of this petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the petitioner has challenged the order
dated 10.5.2008 directing the petitioner
to pay Rs.5 lacs which was advanced
from the fund of Member of Parliament
for local development in a district (For
8 All.The Manager, Birju Yadav, Inarman Yadav Purva Madhyamik Vidyalay Chakaundhi, Mau Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 173
short MPLAD) to which the concerned
Member represents, failing which it is
directed that coercive measures shall be
taken
against
the
petitioner
taking
recourse to the provisions prescribed for
recovery of the amount as arrears of land
revenue.

3. Briefly stated facts of the case
are that on the basis of the proposal
forwarded by the then Members of
Parliament representing district Mau a
parliamentary constituency, vide letter
dated 2.1.2006 for disbursement of
amount of Rs.10 lacs for construction of
the school, to the petitioner society which
runs Harijan Primary Pathshala situate at
Chakaudi Sultani. It appears that after
preliminary enquiry/investigation was
conducted in the matter and the revenue
records were submitted by the petitioner
the disbursement of first installment of
Rs.5 lacs i.e. 50 per cent of the total
amount
was
made
on
31.2.2006.
Although, the first disbursement had
taken place after the preliminary enquiry
got conducted relating to the matter as to
the eligibility of the petitioner in getting
aid for the purposes of the construction
of the building of the school from
MPLAD fund, some further enquiry was
conducted and a letter was forwarded by
the Magistrate, Mohammadabad, Mau on
6.12.2006 requiring the petitioner to
submit
the
computerized
copy
of
Revenue
Extract/Annual
Register
relating the land in question as there
appeared
to
be
difference
in
the
computerized
record
and
manually
prepared record. It was admitted that the
school was situate on Plot No.192
however, certain part of the land that
belonged to the school to the extent of 25
kadis fell in village Utpal, an adjoining
village and thus a conclusion was drawn
by the District Magistrate to the effect
that the petitioner got the disbursement of
fund by misrepresentation and fraud in
getting the document prepared and
submitted, which if had come to the
knowledge
of
the
authorities
the
disbursement of the land could not have
been made. Consequently, an FIR was
also lodged against the petitioner for
committing such alleged fraud under
Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC as
Case Crime No.182A/2008 on 25.2.2008.
However,
in
the
meanwhile,
the
impugned order was also got passed on
the basis of some directives issued by the
Chief Development Officer, Mau dated
23.2.2008 to get the amount of first
installment, disbursed to the petitioner,
recovered. It is in this light that the
impugned
order
has
been
passed
directing the petitioner to pay back the
amount failing which coercive measures
shall be adopted for recovery of the
same.

4. The argument advanced by
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner
assailing the order is that the school
infact is situate over Plot No.192 which
is recorded in the name of the society that
runs the Institution and which falls in the
village within the territorial limits of
district Mau represented by the then
Member of Parliament, Sri Daroga
Prasad Saroj. He submits that merely
because certain small piece of land falls
in an adjoining village falling in an
adjoining district as two revenue villages
are bordering each other, it cannot be said
that the petitioner committed any misrepresentation or fraud in getting the
amount disbursed from the MPLAD
fund. He has drawn our attention to the
computerized
khatauni
which
is
produced as Annexure No.3 in the writ
174 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petition in which Plot No.192 besides
Plot No.194 and 193 was originally
recorded in the name of Ram Awadh son
of Narman, the person in whose name the
society
exists
and
the
land
has
subsequently stood transferred in the
name of the institution. The khatauni
clearly demonstrates that the land of Plot
No.192 in the fasli year of 1409 exists in
revenue village, Chakaudi. Year 2002
corresponds to the said fasli year and so
khatauni shows record of land, prior to
the year of disbursement of the fund and
corroborates the fact that the land very
well stood in the revenue village
Chakaudi of district Mau. It is pointed
out by learned counsel for the petitioner
that this fact that the plot in question falls
in revenue village Chakaudi of district
Mau has not been disputed and hence, it
has been vehemently urged that the order
has
been
passed
completely
misinterpreting the revenue records of the
land in question, at least, the finding of
mis-representation of fraud is completely
misplaced and ill founded and thus
according to him, the order cannot be
sustained in law.

5. Learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel has submitted that the very act of
the petitioner of offering a land in exchange
as has come up from a document filed
alongwith
supplementary
affidavit
demonstrates that the petitioner was well
aware of the fact that certain part of the land
stood fell in adjoining village which is
within the territorial limits of district
Azamgarh and, therefore, a fund meant for
MPLAD could not have been utilized for a
building to be constructed over the land, part
of which fell in an adjoining district. He
further submits that the objection has been
raised
regarding
the
exchange
and,
therefore, to that extent building have been
constructed over the land which fell in an
adjoining district, the order cannot be
faulted with.

6. However, we find that while the
writ petition was entertained initially an
order was passed in which time was granted
to
the
learned
Standing
Counsel
representing the State-respondents on his
request to file counter affidavit and yet no
counter affidavit has been filed till date and
the State has virtually failed to defend the
order impugned in the present writ petition.

7. Apart from the above fact we are
of the considered opinion that if the
major portion of the school and the land
which fell in the revenue village of
district Mau which was represented by
the then Member of Parliament, Sri
Daroga
Prasad
and
on
whose
recommendation the fund was disbursed
for the construction of the school over
Plot No. 192 merely because certain part
of the land measured as 25 kadis in the
order impugned has fallen in the
adjoining village, it will not amount to
mis-representation or fraud on the part of
the petitioner. We further find though an
enquiry has been made in the matter but
there is no whisper anywhere that any
enquiry was made from the then Member
of
Parliament
as
to
under
what
circumstances the recommendation was
made. We are of the opinion that once a
Member
of
Parliament
has
made
recommendation for disbursement of the
fund meant for the construction and
development purposes in the village
concerned which fell in the territorial
limits of the district which he was
representing some sanctity has to be
attached to such letter and it was not
open for the Collector to take into
8 All. Yashraj College of Professional Studies, Kanpur Nagar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
175
account
irrelevant
considerations
to
record
a
finding
of
fraud
and
misrepresentation.

8. A Member of Parliament in our
representative form of Government holds
a very sacrosanct position and his
recommendation cannot be a matter of
administrative enquiry unless he himself
complains
of
being
misrepresented/mislead. One who holds a
responsible position after being elected
by people to parliament, is the best judge
of
development
activities
in
his
parliamentary constituency and if civil
servants and government officials are
permitted
to
question
their
recommendations in respect of development
activity
in
their
parliamentary
constituencies, it will erode faith of people
in our parliamentary system of democracy.
We
may,
therefore,
hold
that
no
recommendation qua MPLAD if made by a
member of parliament for his constituency
is subject to enquiry by administrative
authorities unless the Member of Parliament
himself asks for the same, however
monitoring
and
enquiry
regarding
consumption of
fund
released under
MPLAD is always subject to administrative
enquiry in the event of complaint. This is
however, not the case in hand.

9. The findings in our considered
opinion is completely misplaced and illfounded as has been rightly argued by
learned counsel for the petitioner.

10. The writ petition, therefore,
deserves to be allowed.

11. Accordingly, the order dated
10.5.2008 is hereby quashed and the
present petition stands allowed.
----------
(2020)08ILR A175
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.02.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

Writ-C No. 29169 of 2019
connected with
Writ-C No. 31170, 25319, 26335 of 2019

Yashraj College of Professional Studies,
Kanpur Nagar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ramesh Upadhyaya, Rajan Upadhyay

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Rohit Pandey

A. Civil Law - U.P. State Universities Act,
1973 - Section 37 - Grant of Affiliation on
temporary basis - Nature and Effect - Power
to grant affiliation vested in the Executive
Council of the University concerned with the
previous
sanction
of
the
Chancellor
-
University once admits a college to the
privileges of affiliation as per Section 37 of
the Act of 1973, after introduction of
amendment vide U.P. Act No. 14 of 2014, it
has to be treated as continuing and would not
be restricted to a limited period, unless such
privileges are withdrawn in accordance with
Section 37(8) and (9) of the Act of 1973.
(Para 30)

Held -

30. ... Clauses 10(3) and 11(2) of the
Government Order dated 27.9.2002 would
not be a relevant consideration for the
purposes of grant of affiliation to a college
after 18.7.2014 when Section 37 was
amended vide U.P. Act No. 14 of 2014.
Exercise of power by the Executive Council,
for the purposes of imposing conditions for
grant of affiliation would have to be restricted