- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Committee Of Managem... v. Regional Deputy D.E,...
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion arises from a dispute between two rival groups claiming control of the management of the Hindu Intermediate College, Kosi Kalan, Mathura. The petitioners assert they were duly elected on 19-1-1986 as the Committee of Management pursuant to directions issued by the Registrar of Firms, Societies and Chits on 4-3-1983 under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act. The respondents (represented by respondent no. 3) claim their Committee was elected on 27-1-1986 in accordance with the approved Scheme of Administration, with Mathura Prasad Sharma as President and Ram Rakshya Pal Arya as Manager.
Both parties approached the District Inspector of Schools for recognition. Finding a dispute, the District Inspector referred the matter by order dated 1-2-1986 to the Deputy Director (Regional Deputy Director) of Education for adjudication under Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act. Both parties filed written statements and adduced evidence before the Deputy Director, who issued the impugned order dated 30-5-1986 recognizing the committee represented by respondent no. 3 as constituting the Committee of Management in actual control of the institution's affairs.
The petitioners challenged that order in court, raising jurisdictional and substantive contentions; the court considered statutory provisions and the evidence and ultimately dismissed the petition, discharging interim orders.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Regional Deputy Director of Education had jurisdiction under Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act to determine the dispute over the management of the institution, despite parallel provisions in the Societies Registration Act (notably sub-section 3 of Section 25).
- Whether sub-section 3 of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act applied to bar the Deputy Director from taking cognizance of the dispute because the Registrar had earlier called a meeting under sub-section 2 of Section 25.
- Whether the executive elected by the General Body of the Society (office bearers of the society) should be treated as the managing committee of the institution, thereby conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the Registrar to decide election disputes.
- Whether the respondents were estopped from challenging the elections held on 19-1-1986 due to participation by some members in those elections.
- Whether the Deputy Director of Education erred on the merits in determining which group was in actual control of the institution's affairs.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioners' Arguments
- The Deputy Director had no jurisdiction because the rival elections (at which petitioners were elected) were held pursuant to a direction by the Registrar under sub-section 2 of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act; therefore sub-section 3 of Section 25 barred other elections and the Registrar had exclusive competence.
- The executive elected by the General Body of the Society effectively is the managing committee of the institution (since the Society's sole object is running the institution); hence disputes about the managing committee fall within the Registrar's domain.
- Certain members of the rival groups participated in the elections held under the Registrar's direction, and therefore the respondents should be estopped from challenging those elections.
- On merits, the Deputy Director incorrectly determined which group was in actual control of the institution's affairs.
Respondent no. 3's Arguments and Assertions
- The committee of respondent no. 3 was elected on 27-1-1986 in accordance with the approved Scheme of Administration and thus constituted the real managing committee.
- In paragraphs 5 and 18 of respondent no. 3's counter-affidavit (filed by Sri Madan Gopal), it is asserted that the constitution of the executive body of the society is materially different from the constitution of the Committee of Management under the Scheme of Administration, and therefore election of society office bearers does not automatically translate into election of the Committee of Management.
- Implicitly, the respondents relied on the process under Section 16-A(7) and the Deputy Director's enquiry and findings to establish actual control.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court's reasoning proceeds from statutory interpretation and application of the facts to the statutory scheme:
- Statutory scheme: The court held that Section 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act is a complete code regarding constitution and disputes about Committees of Management of recognised institutions. It begins with a non-obstante clause ("Notwithstanding anything in any law, document or decree or order of a Court or other instrument..."), signifying parliamentary intent to create an overriding regime for management disputes of recognised educational institutions.
- Scope of Section 16-A(7): The court emphasized sub-section 7 of Section 16-A, which authorizes the Regional Deputy Director of Education, upon enquiry, to recognize the persons who are in actual control of the institution's affairs as constituting the Committee of Management "for purposes of this Act" until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise; it also requires giving reasonable opportunity to rival claimants to make representations in writing. The court construed these words broadly to encompass disputes such as the present one.
- Relationship with the Societies Registration Act: The Societies Registration Act governs elections of office bearers of societies and the Registrar's power in that realm. The court found that the two enactments operate in distinct fields: the Societies Act concerns internal society office-bearer elections, whereas the Intermediate Education Act concerns constitution and management of recognised educational institutions under an approved Scheme of Administration. Even if overlap exists, the non-obstante clause and the clear provisions of Section 16-A(1) grant exclusive powers to the educational authorities in matters of management disputes of recognised institutions, subject only to a court's ultimate determination.
- Application to the facts: Given that rival groups both claimed to be validly elected under the Scheme of Administration and brought claims before the District Inspector of Schools, who referred the matter to the Deputy Director under Section 16-A(7), and that both parties submitted written claims and evidence, the court concluded a dispute within the wide language of Section 16-A(7) had arisen. Consequently, the Deputy Director lawfully took cognizance and exercised jurisdiction.
- On sub-section 3 of Section 25 (Societies Act): The court held sub-section 3 has no application here because it addresses meetings called by the Registrar under sub-section 2 for electing office bearers of the society's General Body in accordance with the society's rules. The present dispute concerned elections for constitution of the Committee of Management under the Scheme of Administration approved under the Intermediate Education Act; such disputes fall to the Deputy Director under Section 16-A(7).
- On the petitioners' contention equating the society executive with the Committee of Management: The court relied in part on respondent no. 3's counter-affidavit which asserted the executive and the Committee of Management were materially different per the Scheme of Administration. More generally, the court found that both rival groups challenged the other's compliance with the Scheme of Administration — a controversy squarely within the Dy. Director's jurisdiction under Section 16-A(7).
- On estoppel: The court rejected the estoppel argument. Even if some rival contenders participated in the Registrar-directed election of society office bearers, such participation could not oust the Deputy Director's jurisdiction to determine disputes about the Committee of Management and actual control under Section 16-A(7), because the scope of enquiry under Section 16-A(7) is not coterminous with the Registrar's enquiry under the Societies Act.
- On merits of the Deputy Director's factual conclusion: The court examined the affidavits, annexures and the impugned order and concluded the Deputy Director had given full hearing, addressed the statutory factors relevant to actual control, and reached conclusions that were correct on the record. The court noted that the Deputy Director's order is statutorily operative only until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise, meaning the petitioners retain that avenue for grievance.
Holding and Implications
Holding: The petition is dismissed; the impugned order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education recognizing the committee represented by respondent no. 3 as constituting the Committee of Management in actual control of the institution is upheld.
Implications:
- The Deputy Director of Education did not act without jurisdiction in determining the dispute under Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act; the statutory scheme gives the educational authority primary and immediate power to resolve management disputes of recognised institutions for the purposes of administration and continuity.
- The operation of sub-section 3 of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act was held not to displace the Deputy Director's jurisdiction over disputes concerning the Committee of Management constituted under an approved Scheme of Administration.
- The Deputy Director's order remains operative until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise; petitioners retain the right to seek redress before such a court if they choose.
- This decision resolves the dispute between the parties on the record before the court but does not purport to establish a broader judicial precedent beyond the application of the statutory scheme to the facts; the opinion confines itself to statutory interpretation and application to the present controversy.
Result: Petition dismissed; interim orders discharged.
A.N Varma, J.:— The petitioner claiming to represent the management of the Hindu Intermediate College, Kosi Kalan, Mathura are aggrieved by the order dated 30-5-1986 passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education Agra in the purported exercise of powers under Section 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act recognising the committee headed by Mathura Prasad Sharma as President and Sri Ram Rakshya Pal Arya as the Manager as constituting the Committee of Management in actual control of the affairs of the said institution.
2. The two groups, one represented by the petitioners and other by the respondent no. 3 vied with each other for the control of the management of the institution. The petitioners allege that they were duly elected on 19-1-1986 in pursuance of the directions Issued by the Registrar of Firms, Societies and Chits on 4-3-1983 exercising his powers under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act as the Committee of Management of the aforesaid institution. The respondents, on the other hand claim, that their Committee was elected on 27-1-1986 with Mathura Prasad Sharma as President and Ram Rakshya Pal Arya as Manager in accordance with the approved Scheme of Administration of the institution. Both the parties appear to have approached the District Inspector of Schools seeking recognition of their committees. The District Inspector of Schools finding that there was a dispute in respect of the management of the institution between the two rival groups, one represented by the petitioners and the other by the respondent no. 3 referred the same vide his order dated 1-2-1986 to the Deputy Director of Education for adjudication under Section 16-A(7). Thereafter both the rival claimants filed their written statements and adduced evidence in support of their respective cases. On a consideration of the same, the Deputy Director of Education passed the impugned order holding that it is the Committee of Management represented by the third respondent which was in actual control of the affairs of the institution and consequently recognised the same as constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution. For the petitioners, the first contention raised was that the Deputy Director of Education had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the dispute in as much as the elections set up by the respondents were barred by sub-section 3 of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. The argument was that the elections at which the petitioners were elected had been held in pursuance of the direction issued by the Registrar of the Societies under sub-section 2 of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act in accordance both with the bye-laws of the Societies as well as the approved Scheme of Administration of the Institution, and consequently sub-section 3 of section came into play.
3. The submission is misconceived and must be rejected. Section 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act is a complete Code by itself in so far as the constitution of the Committee of Management of recognised institutions and the disputes pertaining to the management of institution are concerned. It begins with a non-obstante clause and says:—
“Notwithstanding anything in any law, document or decree or order of a Court or other instrument………….”
4. It provides that there shall be a Scheme of Administration for every institution which shall provide, amongst other matters, for the constitution of a Committee of Management vested with authority to manage and conduct of the affairs of the institution. The Scheme of Administration has to be approved by the Director of Education. The provision obligates that every recognised institution shall manage its affairs in accordance with that Scheme. Then follows the all-important sub-section 7 of Section 16-A which says:—
“Whenever there is dispute with respect to the management of an institution, persons found by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, upon such enquiry, as it deemed fit to be in actual control of its affairs may, for purposes of this Act, be recognized to constitute the Committee of Management of such institution until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise:
Provided that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall, before making an order under this sub-section, afford reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make representations in writing.”
5. The legislative intent behind Section 16-A seems explicit and unambiguous. It is that so far as the constitution of the Committee of Management of a recognized institution and disputes arising in respect thereof are concerned, the Director of Education or the Regional Deputy Director of Education, as the case may be, enjoy overriding powers in that within these spheres no other authority may intrude except that where the Regional Deputy Director of Education determines a dispute in respect of the management of the institution under sub-section 16-A(7) and finds any group of persons in actual control of its affairs and accords recognition to that group, the recognition operates until a court of competent jurisdiction determines the dispute. The object behind conferring such a power on a Regional Deputy Director of Education is not far to seek. For the proper functioning of a recognized institution the educational authorities charged with the duties of ensuring that the management is carrying on its obligations under the Intermediate Education Act and for smooth day to day management of the affairs to the institution it is necessary that dispute in respect of management must be resolved expeditiously by an authority constituted for that purpose under the Intermediate Education Act. Care has, however, been taken that rival rights of the persons claiming to represent the management should be left to be determined finally by courts of competent jurisdiction. But till that decision is rendered, the Regional Deputy Director of Education has to determine that dispute for himself so that the cause of the students and teachers or employees of the institution does not suffer by the continuing uncertainty or impasse.
6. The Societies Registration Act, on the other hand, deals, inter alia with the resolution of disputes with respect to the election of the office bearers of a registered society. The power of the registrar of the prescribed authority to determine disputes in respect of the election of the office bearers of the society, as distinct from the managing committee of the institution rule by that society, operates in an altogether different field from that with which the Regional Dy. Director is concerned. The two enactments, namely, the Intermediate Education Act and the Societies Registration Act, to our mind, operate in distinct fields. There is no overlapping between the two. Even if there is, insofar as disputes pertaining to the management of a recognized institution or the constitution of the Committee of Management are concerned, the Dy. Director of Education enjoys, in view of the scheme of the Act and the non-obstante clause used in Section 16-A(1) and the clear provisions of Section 16-A(1) exclusive powers save to the extent that the decision of the Dy. Director of Education under sub-section (7) shall operate only till a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise.
7. It is in this legislative perspective that we have to examine the question whether the Dy Director of Education acted beyond jurisdiction in taking cognizance of the dispute. Admittedly, two rival groups, one represented by the petitioners and the other by the third respondent, were both claiming to have been validly elected to constitute the committee of Management. They first staked their claim before the District Inspector of schools who, finding that there existed a dispute with respect to the management, referred the same for the adjudication of the Dy. Director of Education under Section 16-A(7). There is no manner of doubt that a dispute had arisen between the two rival groups. Both the parties submitted their respective claims in writing and had also adduced evidence in support thereof. There cannot be the slightest doubt that the dispute raised by the two parties was with respect to the management of the institution. The words used in the statute, “Whenever there is a dispute with respect to the management of an institution……” are words of the widest possible amplitude and clearly comprehended within its fold the dispute such as is involved in the present case.
8. Our conclusion, therefore, is that the impugned order does not suffer from lack of jurisdiction or from any other illegality. On the facts established on record the Deputy Director of Education rightly took cognizance of the dispute and passed the impugned order.
9. Coming to the impact of sub-section 3 of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, we are clearly of the opinion that the provision has no application to the present case. It provides that where a meeting is called by the Registrar under sub-section 2 of that Section, no other meeting shall be called for the purpose of election by any other authority. The meeting contemplated under sub-section 2 of Section 25, however, is a meeting called by the Registrar of the General Body of the society for electing its office bearers in accordance with the rules of the society relating to such meetings and elections. But we are concerned here with the validity of the elections held for the constitution of the Committee of Management of the institution in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. Disputes pertaining to such elections have to be dealt with by the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-A(7) in accordance with the Scheme of Administration approved by the Director of Education under sub-section I to 5 of Section 16-A and 16-B and 16-C of the intermediate Education Act and not the rules or the bye laws of the Society as in the first instance the Deputy Director has exclusive jurisdiction to resolve the disputes pertaining to the management of recognised institution until a court of competent jurisdiction directed otherwise. Reference to sub-section 3 of Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act is hence entirely out of place.
10. Conscious of this legal position, the petitioner came out with the plea that the executive elected by the General Body for the Society is in effect also the managing committee of the institution as the Society has no other object except to run this institution. Consequently, the Registrar alone was competent to decide the disputes pertaining to the elections of the managing committee of the institution.
11. We are unable to agree. Apart from the fact that in paragraphs 5 and 18 of the counter affidavit of Sri Madan Gopal filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3, it has been categorically asserted with reference to the Scheme of Administration that the constitution of executive body of the society is materially different from the constitution of the Committee of Management of the Society and, therefore, the election of the office bearers of the society could not automatically result in the election of the Committee of Management, the contention is devoid of any substance even on merits. As already noticed two rival groups both claiming to have been elected in accordance with the Scheme of Administration had set up their claims for being recognised before the District Inspector of Schools. Each was challenging the validity of the elections held by the other on the ground that the same had not been conducted in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. In such a contingency, the dispute fell squarely within the purview of the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Education upon the plain terms of Section 16-A(7). And as demonstrated above within the sphere of management of educational institutions recognised under the Intermediate Education Act, the Deputy Director enjoys, subject to the decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, exclusive powers. The Deputy Director was therefore competent in law to pass the impugned order.
12. The second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is equally untenable. It was that the respondents were estopped from challenging the validity of the elections held on 19-1-1986 inasmuch as some of the members of the rival groups had participated in the elections held under the directions of the Registrar.
13. There is absolutely no question of estoppel here. Participation in an election of the office bearers of the society, assuming that some of the rival contenders did participate, could not take away the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Education to determine the dispute raised before him by the rival contenders with regard to election of the Committee of Management and actual control over the affairs of the institutions. The scope of enquiry under section 16-A(7) is not coterminous, in so far as management disputes are concerned, with the enquiry envisaged under the Societies Registration Act.
14. Finally, learned counsel made an attempt to challenge the impugned order on merits and submitted that the Deputy Director of Education has not correctly decided the issue of actual control over the affairs of the institution. We, however, find no merit in the contention. On an examination of the averments made by the parties in their affidavits and annexures filed therewith as well as of the impugned order, we find that the Deputy Director of Education has committed an error in determining the controversy. The Deputy Director gave full hearing to the parties. He also addressed himself to the factors which he was enjoined by the statute to consider for determining the issue of actual control. His conclusions are also right. Further, the order of the Deputy Director of Education is by the terms of the statute operative only until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise. If, therefore, the petitioners have any grievance, they can raise the dispute before a court of competent jurisdiction. That being so, we find no ground for interference with the impugned order in any view.
15. In the result, the petition fails and the same is dismissed. The interim orders are hereby discharged.
Alert