Committee Of Managem... v. Deputy Director Of E...

1. All these writ petitions are being disposed of together as the subject matter of dispute relates to the election of office bearers and effective control of the Committee of Management of the same Institution between the same parties. The learned counsel for the parties have no objections for the disposal of the above writ petitions as the dispute relating to the election of the office bearers and the effective control of the Committee of Management of the Institution which was directed to be resolved by the Deputy Director of Education, D.D.E for short by the order dated 1-11-1991 of this Court has now been decided by order dated 25-1-1992.

2. The Institution, Mahatma Gandhi Inter College, Madhpura, hereinafter referred to as the Institution, is a recognised institution under the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, and is managed under the Scheme of Administration. The undisputed elections of the Committee of Management were held on 21-8-1988 in which Sri Vishun Chandra Tiwari was elected as the President and Smt. Mira Agnihotri as the Manager. Two sets of rival Committee of Management claimed their elections to be held one on 22-9-1991 in which one Sri Suresh Narain Shukla claimed to be elected as President and Sri Sarvendra Kumar Avasthi as the Manager. In the other election held on 19-9-1991 Sri Vishun Chandra Tiwari was elected as President and Smt. Mira Agnihotri as the Manager. In Writ Petition No. 29934 of 1991, the Committee of Management of the Institution through Sri Sarvendra Kumar Avasthi as the Manager prayed for quashing the attestation of signatures dated 21-9-1991 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, D.I.O.S for short, in favour of Smt. Mira Agnihotri as the Manager of the Institution. An interim order dated 10-10-1991 was passed which is quoted below:—

Issue Notice.

Until further orders of this Court, the respondents are restrained from interfering in the petitioners functioning as the Committee of Management of M.G Inter College, Madhpura, district Farrukhabad.”

3. In Writ Petition No. 31739 of 1991, the Committee of Management of the Institution through the Manager, Smt. Mira Agnihotri prayed for quashing the order dated 3-10-1991 by which the D.I.O.S had attested the signatures of Sarvendra Kumar Avasthi. This Court passed the following order on 1-11-1991:

“Heard Sri G.C Dwivedi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, 1 am of the opinion that the order dated 30-10-1991 passed by the District Inspector of Schools recognising the signature of the respondent No. 3 should be stayed as it was never inended by order of this Court dated 10-10-1991 that the signature of the respondent No. 2 should be attested. From a perusal of the letter dated 30-9-1991 sent by the Deputy Director of Education, Kanpur to the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-11 to the writ petition, it appears that in view of the letter dated 23-9-1991 and 28-9-1991 sent by the District Inspector of Schools to the Deputy Director of Education, the Director of Education has stated that in case the District Inspector of Schools feels that the two rival Committees of the Management have staked their claim for managing of the affairs of the Committee of Management of the Institution, he may refer the dispute to the Deputy Director of Education as contemplated under S. 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act within a period of 15 days. The Deputy Director of Education will decide the dispute within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the reference by the District Inspector of Schools. During the pendency of the dispute before the Deputy Director of Education, he should pass suitable orders for managing the affairs of the Committee of Management of the Institution”.

4. In Writ Petition No. 435566 of 1991, the Committee of Management of the Institution through Sri Sarvendra Kumar Avasthi as Manager prayed for quashing the order dated 26-11-1991 by which the attestation of signature in favour of Sarvendra Kumar Avasthi as the Manager was stayed and the matter was referred to the D.D.E for adjudication of the dispute under S. 16-A(7) of the Act and in the meantime till the decision of the D.D.E Smt. Mira Agnihotri was recognised as the Manager. This petition remained pending and no interim orders were passed.

5. In Writ Petition No. 8606 of 1992, the order dated 25-1-1992 has been impugned by which the D.D.E in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 1-11-1991 adjudicated the dispute under S. 16-A(7) of the Act and granted recognition to Smt. Mira Agnihotri as the Manager of the Institution.

6. The necessary facts in all the aforesaid writ petitions which culminated in the dispute with respect to the Management of the Institution and adjudicated under S. 16-A(7) of the Act are stated below.

7. The institution is run by a Registered Society “The Mahatma Gandhi Educational Society Committee, Madhpura, District Farrukhabad” and the institution Mahatma Gandhi Inter College, Madhpura is a recognised institution under the provisions of the Act and is managed under the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. The last undisputed election of the Committee of Management was held on 21-8-1988 in which Sri Vishun Chandra Tiwari was elected as President and Smt. Mira Agnihotri as the Manager. According to the case set up by the Committee of Management of which Sri Sarvendra Kumar Avasthi is the Manager, the President Sri Vishun Chandra Tiwari by letter dated 28-7-1991 authorised the Vice-President Sri Suresh Narain Shukla to convene a meeting of the Committee of Management on 11-8-1991 and to take decision for holding fresh elections of the Committee of Management. The meeting of the Committee of Management was held on 11-8-1991 and fresh elections of the Committee of Management were decided to be held on 22-9-1991. The notice dated 9-9-1991 was circulated to all the members of the General Body for the meeting of 22-9-1991 and a request was also made to the D.I.O.S for nominating a supervisor to supervise the election. According to the petitioners, they had no idea of another meeting of the office bearers which was alleged to have been held on 15-8-1991 by Smt. Mira Agnihotri and Sri Vishun Chandra Tiwari himself in which it was decided that the elections of the Committee of Management would be held on 19-9-1991 and this news was published in a local daily newspaper ‘Aaj’ dated 17-9-1991. The petitioner contacted the President Sri Vishun Chandra Tiwari about the aforesaid meeting and the news item who denied the same and he also informed the D.I.O.S by letter dated 18-9-1991 about the election of 22-9-1991 and protested the alleged elections scheduled to be held on 18-9-1991. The petitioner claimed to hold the meeting of the General Body on 22-9-1991 in which the Committee of Management of the Institution and the office bearers were elected and intimation in this regard was given to the D.I.O.S on 23-9-1991. The D.I.O.S required some documents by letter dated 23-9-1991 but on the same day the D.I.O.S referred the dispute under S. 16-A(7) to the D.D.E The petitioner stated that to his utter surprise, on 21-9-1991, the D.LO.S attested the signatures of Smt. Mira Agnihotri as the Manager of the Institution.

8. The rival Committee of Management of which Smt. Mira Agnihotri is the Manager claimed that 64 new members were enrolled who have deposited their membership fees out of which 54 members deposited Rs. 36/- and were made members for three years and 6 members deposited Rs. 12/- and were made members for one year. It was alleged that there are 92 members of the General Body including the life members and ordinary members, The meeting of the Committee of, Management was held on 15-8-1991 in which decision for fresh elections on 19-9-1991 was taken. The news item in Daily’ Aaj’ dated 17-9-1991 was published by the President Sri Vishun Chandra Tiwari informing the members of the Society about the elections of the Committee of Management to be held on 19-9-1991. The notice dated 6-9-1991 was circulated with regard to the Agenda of the Meeting.on 19-9-1991 which was duly served on the members of the General Body. The D.I.O.S by letter dated 17-9-1991 directed the D.I.O.S Farrukhabad to send some Assistant D.I.O.S to supervise the election proceedings to be held on 19-9-1991. The elections of 19-9-1991 were conducted in the presence of Smt Nuzhat Ara Begum, Assistant District Inspectress of Girls Schools in which Sri Vishun Chandra Tiwari was elected as President and Smt. Mira Agnihotri as the Manager. The proceedings of the meeting duly verified by Smt. Nuzhat Ara Begum, Assistant District Inspectress of Girls Schools, were submitted to the office of the D.I.O.S who attested the signatures after verifying the records etc. by order dated 21-9-1991.

9. The D.I.O.S thereafter, on receipt of the orders of this Court dated 10-10-1991, revoked his order dated 21-9-1991 and attested the signatures of Sri Sarvendra Kumar Avasthi by order dated 30-10-1991. The order dated 30-10-1991 was not implemented by the D.I.O.S in pursuance of the order dated 1-11-1991 passed by this Court and thereafter the order dated 26-11-1991 was passed. The D.D.E adjudicated the dispute under S. 16-A(7). of the Act and passed the impugned order dated 25-1-1992.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the order of the D.D.E on the ground that the validity of the election was inextricably mixed with the issue of effective control, the D.D.E has not at all considered and applied his mind to prima facie find out as to which of the two elected bodies have been elected in accordance with law and has totally based his order in consideration of the effective control of the institution by the Committee of Management. The D.D.E did not examine at all as to which of the party is the valid committee before determining the question of effective control in accordance with the statutory guidelines provided under S. 16-A(7) of the Act.

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his case, placed reliance on Sankatha Prasad Srivastava v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur, 1985 UPLBEC 751 : 1985 All LJ 1289, Committee of Management, Janta Inter College, Thekma, Bijauli, District Azamgarh v. The Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur, 1982 UPLBEC 38 : 1981 All LJ 1325 and Committee of, Management, Bhakt Vatsal Inter College, Bichhwa, District Mainpuri v. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra, 1988 UPLBEC 402 : 1988 All LJ 1023.

12. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that in adjudication under S. 16-A(7) of the Act, the D.D.E is only required to decide as to which Committee of Management is in effective control of the affairs of the institution in accordance with the guidelines indicated therein. The learned counsel further submitted that it was not at all necessary that the D.D.E should have recorded a finding after considering the evidence on the record about the validity of the election and to decide which of the election of the rival Committee of Management is in accordance with law. The learned counsel placed reliance on Sudhir Kumar Pathak, Manager, Committee of Management, Shri Pyare Lal Genda Lal Inter College, Eka, District Mainpuri v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra, 1984 (2) UPLBEC 910 (sic) (P1. see—1985 All LJ 555–Ed.).

13. In my opinion, thelaw as laid down in various decisions of this Court is quite clear. The D.D.E can examine the validity of the election set up by rival groups under S. 16-A(7) of the Act if the question regarding validity of the election arises incidentally. In Committee of Management, Bhakt Vatsal Inter College, Bichhwa, Mainpuri (supra), the D.D.E has found that the elections set up by the two groups suffer from serious defects of procedure having been conducted contrary to the approved Scheme of Administration of the Institution. He has further found that on the relevant date neither of the two parties was in actual control of its affairs. He has, therefore, rightly directed the District Inspector of Schools to arrange the holding of fresh elections in accordance with the Scheme of Administration within 3 months.

14. In Committee of Management, Janta Inter College, Thekma (supra), it has been held as under:—

“Before the Deputy Director of Education, the question required to be decided was as to who was in control of management. This question was linked with the decision about the validity of the election pleaded by the petitioner as well as by the respondent No. 3. For this purpose the Deputy Director of Education should have examined the evidence of the parties and given a finding on the same. He did not address himself to this controversy and was led away by irrelevant consideration for deciding the dispute referred to him. As the finding given by him is based on irrelevant grounds, the order cannot be sustained.”

15. In Sankatha Prasad Srivastava (supra), it has been held (at page 1294; of All LJ):—

“We find that there is really no conflict between what has been said in the case of Subhash Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and the observations made in Janta Inter College case. While examining the question of effective control, the question as to who was elected as office-bearers certainly has relevance, but its examination is only in the sense that the Deputy Director of Education cannot act as a substitute for the civil court for determining the validity or otherwise of the election but can find out as to who was prima facie entitled to be in effective control. The rationale of this enquiry is obvious because the law does not contemplate a rank outsider to meddle with the management of the institution. Whether one party or the other was the validly elected committee in accordance with law is a question for ultimate decision by the appropriate civil court. The Deputy Director of Education is to examine this aspect only in a summary manner. He has, however, to determine the question of effective control in accordance with the statutory guidelines provided in S. 16-A(7) of the Act itself and cannot, only on the basis of his opinion about the validity of the election, without anything more, take the view as to who was entitled to manage the institution,”

16. Thus from the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions it is clear that in an enquiry to be made under the provisions of S. 16-A(7), the D.D.E has to decide as to which of the two rival Commit tee of Management is in effective control of the institution. The D.D.E has also to satisfy himself that the Committee, of Management recognised by him to be in effective control has been duly elected. The scope of enquiry regarding the validity of election of the Committee of Management is, however, limited. The D.D.E is not expected to make a detailed inquiry and function like an Election Tribunal. He has only to prima facie satisfy himself about the validity of the election and that the institution is not alleged to be managed by an unauthorised person. The Regional D.D.E will have to find the nature of such control and the background in which such control is claimed by the rival factions and though an exhaustive enquiry is not postulated regarding the validity of the election, still consideration of the nature of election held and its background may be taken into consideration by the D.D.E for deciding the controversy of actual control.

17. In the light of the aforesaid observations, if we examine the impugned order, it is absolutely clear that the D.D.E has not at all adverted himself with this aspect of the matter. It is true that he has recorded findings of fact about the actual control of the institution, but, in my opinion in absence of any prima facie satisfaction or application of mind by the D.D.E as to whether the body in actual control is also validly elected or not, the order would suffer from manifest error of law and cannot be sustained. The D.D.E has not said a word about the material in support of the valid election of respondent No. 3. The finding about the actual control is in isolation without at all considering the aspect of valid election of the Committee of Management even incidentally. The order under S. 16-A(7) would not be in accordance with law in view of the law laid down by various decisions of this Court.

18. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submitted that in the order while narrating the facts and the material on record, the D.D.E has indicated about the presence of the relevant material This would establish the consideration by the D.D.E as also his prima facie satisfaction in favour of respondent No. 3 and no specific finding is required.

19. In my opinion, the learned counsel for the petitioner is not correct that, merely by stating the presence of material on record, it would be established that the authority has applied his mind and has arrived at the conclusion that the election of the respondent No. 3 was in accordance with law.

20. The D.D E has held that registration of the society had already expired on 10-5-1990 and the renewal of registration of the society has not been done by the Registrar, Firms and Societies. In the absence of a duly registered society, the election of the Committee of Management by the General Body of the Society does not appear to be in accordance with law. For the reasons stated above, the impugned order suffers from serious defect of non-consideration of the validity of the election of respondent No. 3 for recording the finding of effective control. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 25-1-1992 is quashed. The case is remanded to the D.D.E to decide the matter afresh in accordance with the observations made above after giving opportunity to both the parties. The D.D.E is directed to pass fresh order within two months of a certified copy of this order being placed before him. Till the decision of the D.D.E the D.I.O.S, Farrukhabad will continue to manage the affairs of the institution and operate the accounts etc. as directed by order dated 23-3-1992.

21. In view of the aforesaid decision in Writ Petition No. 8606 of 1992, order Writ Petition Nos. 29934 of 1991, 31739 of 1991 and 35566 of 1991 are also disposed of finally.

Order accordingly.