C/M, Kedar Narain Krishak Inter College and Another vs State of U.P. and Others

Dilip Gupta, J.—The Committee of Management of the Kedar Narain Krishak Inter College, Uchauri, District Ghazipur and Rajendra Prasad Singh claiming himself to be its Manager have filed this petition for setting aside the order dated 6th May, 2010 passed by the Regional Level Committee by which the order dated 27th May, 2009 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi has been set aside and all the orders issued subsequently to give effect to this order have also been declared to be ineffective.

It is stated that the Society namely, ''Krishak Sangh Uchauri, District Ghazipur'' (hereinafter referred to as the ''Society''), which is registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ''Act''), has established an Intermediate College known as ''Kedar Narain Krishak Inter College, Uchauri, District Ghazipur'' (hereinafter referred to as the ''Institution''). It is contended by the petitioners that though the General Body of the Society and the Institution is same, yet the manner of electing the Committee of Management of the Society and the Institution is different since the Committee of Management of the Society is elected in accordance with the provisions of the Bye-Laws of the Society, while the Committee of Management of the Institution is elected in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Scheme of Administration of the Institution.

The last undisputed election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held in 1995 in which Kuber Nath Singh was elected as the Manager. It is said that by motion of no confidence, he was removed from the post of Manager on 18th October, 1998. Number of writ petitions were filed concerning the election of Committee of Management of the Society as also the Institution. An order was passed by the Court on 26th October, 2002 directing the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the ''Assistant Registrar'') to hold fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the Society u/s 25(2) of the Act after finalising the electoral college since the term of the Committee of Management of the Society had come to an end. Two different lists were submitted by the parties and the Assistant Registrar determined the electoral college by the order dated 25th August, 2003 which was challenged by both the parties in Writ Petition No. 39354 of 2003 and Writ Petition No. 46411 of 2003. These petitions were allowed by a common judgment and order dated 9th April, 2004 with the following observations:

In this view of the fact, order dated 24.8.2003 passed by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varansi is hereby quashed and set aside. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varansi is directed to re-hear the matter after providing opportunity of hearing to both the parties in both the writ petitions and thereafter fresh reasoned and speaking order be passed. This exercise be concluded within period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order and thereafter election in question be held as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law.

The Assistant Registrar proceeded to finalise the list but the Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Lucknow, on a complaint having been made, summoned the file and decided the electoral college by the order dated 8th December, 2005 and directed that the elections should be held on the basis of the undisputed list of members of the General Body of 1995. The Assistant Registrar thereafter issued the notice dated 19th August, 2006 for holding the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society.

In the meantime, Lok Nath Singh filed Writ Petition No. 51157 of 2006 with the allegation that his name had wrongly been excluded from the list finalised by the Registrar. This petition was dismissed on 14th September, 2006 with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Registrar. The Registrar then passed an order on 11th April, 2007 for holding the elections from the list of 115 members mentioned in the order. On the basis of the list so finalised on 11th April, 2007, elections were held by the Assistant Registrar in which Lok Nath Singh was elected as the President of the Society. This order was challenged by the petitioner Rajendra Prasad Pandey in Writ Petition No. 41926 of 2007 which was dismissed with the following observations:

Under Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act, validity of election can be questioned. For this purpose there are two modes:

(1) Registrar may himself refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority, or (2) in case the group which feels dissatisfied with the election, after mustering the support of one-fourth of the members can approach the Prescribed Authority for questioning the validity of the election, and further dispute can also be raised before Civil Court where in the question of membership can much more effectively be looked into and adjudicated.

Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.

The Assistant Registrar thereafter referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 31st March, 2008 and the Prescribed Authority decided the dispute by the order dated 27th October, 2008. Objections filed by Lok Nath Singh were rejected and the list of members submitted by Rajendra Prasad Pandey (petitioner No. 2) consisting of 108 members was found to be valid and a direction was given for holding elections of the Committee of Management of the Society from this list of members of the General Body. This order dated 27th October, 2008 was challenged in Writ Petition No. 57062 of 2008 which was dismissed by the judgment and order dated 12th January, 2009. Special Appeal, however, against the said order is pending.

The Assistant Registrar thereafter proceeded to hold the elections of the Committee of Management of the Society on 8th February, 2009 in which Ram Gopal Singh was elected as the President. This list of office bearers was registered by the Assistant Registrar.

Earlier, the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 25th September, 2007 from amongst the list of 115 members finalised by the Assistant Registrar by the order dated 11th April, 2007 in which respondent No. 4-Rudra Pal Singh was elected as the Manager. Papers were submitted before the Regional Level committee which by its decision taken on 19th May, 2008 approved the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution with Rudra Pal Singh as the Manager. However, when the membership dispute was decided by the Prescribed Authority by the order dated 27th October, 2008, the petitioner informed the Regional Joint Director of Education that the election held on 25th September, 2007 was on the basis of a list that had not been accepted by the Prescribed Authority. The Regional Joint Director then, by his order dated 27th May, 2009 cancelled the earlier order dated 19th May, 2008 passed by the Regional Level Committee and also issued directions for holding fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution within three months from amongst the list of 108 members determined by the Prescribed Authority.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order of the Joint Director of Education, the Prabandh Sanchalak held the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution on 5th July, 2009 in which petitioner-Committee of Management was elected and signatures of petitioner No. 2-Rajendra Prasad Pandey were also attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 14th July, 2009.

This order was challenged by respondent No. 4-Rudra Pal Singh in Writ Petition No. 39327 of 2009 which was disposed of by the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2009 with the following observations:

In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the Regional Level Committee for redressal of the grievances raised in this petition and the Court has no reason to doubt that in case such a representation is filed, the Regional Level Committee shall consider the same and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law after hearing the parties concerned, including respondent No. 5-Committee of Management.

The petitioners approached the Regional Level Committee which by the order on 6th May, 2010 has set aside the order dated 27th May, 2009 passed by the Joint Director of Education. It is this order which has been impugned in the present petition.

It has been observed by the Regional Level Committee in the order dated 6th May, 2010 that any order passed by the Regional Level Committee could have been reconsidered only by the Regional Level Committee and so the Joint Director of Education or any other member of the Regional Level Committee did not have the jurisdiction to stay, modify or cancel the order passed by the Regional Level Committee. It has, therefore, held that the Joint Director of Education, who is merely the Chairman of the Regional Level Committee, alone had no authority to pass the order dated 27th May, 2009 cancelling the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 19th May, 2008 for granting approval to the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 25th September, 2007 with respondent No. 4 as the Manager. The Regional Level Committee has, therefore, further declared that all action taken pursuant to the order passed by the Joint Director of Education on 27th May, 2009 as ineffective. It needs to be noticed that pursuant to the order dated 27th May, 2009 passed by the Joint Director of Education, fresh election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 5th July, 2009 and the signatures of respondent No. 4 Rudra Pal Singh as Manager have been attested by the District Inspector of Schools.

Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the order dated 6th May, 2010 passed by the Regional Level Committee deserves to be set aside as the election for constituting the Committee of Management of the Society that was held on 8th February, 2010 was from the list of 115 members and not from the list of 108 members that was finally determined by the Prescribed Authority. He further submitted that the respondent-Committee of Management had challenged the order dated 27th May, 2009 passed by the Joint Director of Education in Writ Petition No. 39327 of 2009 but had not raised any issue that the Joint Director of Education did not have the jurisdiction to pass the order and all that was submitted was that there was no material change in the two lists and the Joint Director of Education should have examined this issue.

Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4, however, submitted that there is no infirmity in the order dated 6th May, 2010 passed by the Regional Level Committee as the earlier order passed by the Regional Level Committee on 19th May, 2008 could not have been set aside by the Regional Joint Director of Education alone on 27th May, 2009 even if he was the Chairman of the Regional Level Committee. He further submitted that the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage.

I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the parties.

It is not in dispute that the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution that was held on 25th September, 2007, in which respondent No. 4 Rudra Pal Singh was elected as the Manager, was approved by the Regional Level Committee on 19th May, 2008. The Regional Joint Director of Education, however, passed an order on 27th May, 2009 annulling the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 19th May, 2008 for the reason that the Prescribed Authority had passed an order on 27th October, 2008 determining a fresh electoral College. The Regional Level Committee in the impugned decision taken on 6th May, 2010, has held that the Joint Director of Education could not have set aside the order passed by the Regional Level Committee. There is no infirmity in the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee as indeed a single member of the Regional Level Committee could not have set aside the earlier decision taken by the Regional Level Committee even if he was the Chairman of the Committee.

The submission of Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that this issue could not have been agitated by the respondents before the Regional Level Committee since it was not pressed by them in Writ Petition No. 39327 of 2009, cannot be accepted since the question of jurisdiction can be raised at any stage. The respondents had raised this issue before the Regional Level Committee and it was decided against the present petitioners.

It is also the submission of Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that when the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution had been held on 25th September, 2007 on the basis of the list of 115 members and this list has been found to be invalid by the Prescribed Authority which has found the list of 108 members to be valid, then the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 19th May, 2008 granting approval to the election stands vitiated.

It is true that the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 25th September, 2007 on the basis of the list of 115 members in terms of the list prepared by the Registrar by the order dated 11th April, 2007, but ultimately the said order of the Registrar was not approved by the Prescribed Authority, which determined the list of 108 members by the order dated 31st March, 2008. The election of the Committee of Management of the Institution, as noticed above, had been held earlier on 25th September, 2007. In the present petition, what is in issue is the decision of the Regional Level Committee taken on 6th May, 2010 by which the order of the Joint Director of Education has been set aside on the ground that he alone could not have cancelled the decision of the Regional Level Committee taken on 19th May, 2008. The decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 19th May, 2008 has not been challenged in this writ petition and nor any application was moved by the petitioners before the Regional Level Committee for recalling the decision in view of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority. It will, therefore, not be appropriate to examine this issue in this petition.

Thus, for the reasons stated above, the order passed by the Regional Level Committee on 6th May, 2010 does not suffer from any infirmity. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.