AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pankaj Mithal, J.—Heard Sri Irshad Ali learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, Sri N.A. Khan learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. Sri Rajvendra Singh learned counsel appears for the Respondent No. 5 in the connected Writ Petition No. 10430 of 2014 listed along with this petition.
The order of the Regional Level Committee dated 10.02.2014, annexure No. 18 to the writ petition and the order of the District Inspector of Schools (in short DIOS) dated 11.02.2014 attesting the signatures of respondent No. 4 as Manager pursuance to the above referred the order of the Regional Level Committee are under challenge in this petition.
The said order refuses to recognize the elections of the Committee of Management of the institution as set up by the petitioners and by one Sardar Ali Siddiqui, respondent No. 5 and at the same time recognizes the elections of the Committee of Management of the institution held on 23.09.2013 in which the respondent No. 4 was elected as the Manager.
The dispute is in relation to the elections of the Committee of Management of Muslim Inter College Thakurdwara, District Moradabad.
The aforesaid institution is a minority institution which is duly recognized under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It has its own scheme of administration in accordance with Section 16-A of the Act. The said institution is run by a society known as Thakurdwara Muslim Educational Association.
The last undisputed elections of the Committee of Management of the institution were held on 15.07.2007 and the same were recognized by the order dated 23.07.2008 passed by the Regional Level Committee. The term of the Committee of Management of the institution is five years one month and, therefore, the Committee of Management of the institution elected on 15.07.2007 was to continue in office till 22.08.2013.
Two sets of the elections of Committee of Management of the institution were held on 12.07.2012 and 14.07.2014 by the rival groups i.e. petitioner and respondent No. 4. The elections dated 12.07.2012 in which respondent No. 4 was elected as Manager were recognized by the D.I.O.S. and his signatures were attested on 18.08.2012. The order of the D.I.O.S. dated 18.08.2012 was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 43604 of 2012. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 10.09.2012 and in view of the fact that there were two rival claims, on the basis of two different elections, the court opined that the matter ought to have been referred to the Regional Level Committee. Accordingly, the order of D.I.O.S. dated 18.08.2012 attesting the signatures of respondent No. 4 was quashed and the matter was referred to the Regional Level Committee to decide the dispute in accordance with law.
In pursuance of the above directions of this Court, the Regional Level Committee heard the parties and decided the dispute by order dated 17.01.2013. It disapproved both the sets of elections alleged to have been held by the rival claimants on 12.07.2012 and 14.07.2012, and directed the D.I.O.S. to get fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the institution conducted on the basis of the list of valid members in accordance with the scheme of administration. The Regional Level Committee in passing the aforesaid order held that the Committee of Management of the institution consists of 28 old members and 35 new members enrolled in the meeting held on 14.07.2009 i.e. total 63 members.
The aforesaid order of the Regional Level Committee dated 17.01.2013 is so far final and conclusive. The challenge made to it by respondent No. 4 by means of Writ Petition No. 12653 of 2013 is pending but without any interim or effective order. Thus, on the basis of the above order of the Regional Level Committee an office order was issued by the D.I.O.S. on 01.05.2013 appointing an election officer and an observer for the purposes of holding the elections of the Committee of Management of the institution. The returning officer declared the election programme on 03.05.2013. However, subsequently by the order dated 06.05.2013, the D.I.O.S. himself directed to keep the elections in abeyance. He passed another order dated 11.07.2013 observing that the order of Regional Level Committee dated 17.01.2013 is illegal.
The above two orders dated 11.07.2013 and 06.05.2013 passed by the D.I.O.S. were assailed by the petitioners by filing Writ Petition No. 46941 of 2013. The aforesaid writ petition was entertained and after hearing the parties an interim order was passed therein on 04.09.2013 staying the operation of both the above orders 11.07.2013 and 06.05.2013 with further directions to the D.I.O.S., to hold the elections of the Committee of Management of the institution on the basis of the directions of the Regional Level Committee contained in the order dated 17.01.2013.
On the basis of the above interim order, the D.I.O.S. on 13.09.2013 again appointed the election officer and an observer for conducting the elections of the Committee of Management of the institution. The returning officer so appointed issued the election programme on 15.09.2013 which was well published in the newspaper Amar Ujala. Accordingly, elections of the Committee of Management of the institution were held on 23.09.2013 in the presence of observer appointed by the D.I.O.S. In the said election one of the petitioners Khalil Ahmad was declared to be elected as Manager.
On the same date i.e. 23.09.2013, the respondent No. 4 also alleges to have been elected as Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution in a separate election.
Another elections of the Committee of Management of the institution have been set up by respondent No. 5.
In view of the rival elections set up by the parties, the matter was again referred to the Regional Level Committee. It is on such reference that the impugned order dated 10.02.2014 has been passed by the Regional Level Committee recognizing the elections set up by respondent No. 4 and disapproving those set up by the petitioners and respondent No. 5. Accordingly, the signatures of respondent No. 4 have been attested on 11.02.2014 as manager by the D.I.O.S.
In assailing the impugned orders, the submission of Sri Irshad Ali learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Regional Level Committee in its earlier order dated 17.01.2013 had finalized the list of 63 members of the Committee of Management and, therefore, the elections were to be held according to the said list. The Regional Level Committee has mischievously excluded the 35 members on the basis of the order of the prescribed authority which was in respect of the membership of the society ignoring the difference between the society and the Committee of Management of the institution. Secondly, the Regional Level Committee was not authorized to grant approval or recognition to the elections as set up by the respondent No. 4 without discussing its validity and too without assigning any reason in support thereof. The election as set up by the respondent No. 4 were not held by the returning officer appointed by the D.I.O.S. or in the presence of an observer. The direction was to the D.I.O.S. to get the elections conducted and the respondent No. 4 could not have conducted any elections of its own.
Sri N.A. Khan learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 4 in defence submits that the scheme of administration of the institution as filed by the petitioner is incorrect and that the correct scheme of administration is one which is enclosed with the counter affidavit. The said scheme provides that the general body of the Society would constitute the Committee of Management of the Institution and, therefore, if the prescribed authority has decided that the 35 members newly enrolled are not valid members of the Society, they can not be members of the Committee of Management of the institution. The elections in which respondent No. 4 has been elected were conducted from amongst the 28 members. He has also placed reliance upon a Government Order dated 21.11.08 to contend that the members of the society shall constitute the Committee of Management of the institution run by it.
The earlier dispute of election of the Committee of Management of the institution was adjudicated by the Regional Level Committee vide order dated 17.1.2013. It disapproved both the rival sets of elections set up by the parties and directed the DIOS to get the fresh elections of the Committee of Management of the institution held within a period of three months on the basis of the valid members according to the scheme of administration.
The aforesaid order of the Regional Level Committee is final and binding upon the parties. It entrusts the elections to the DIOS who appointed an election officer and an observer for the purpose. Therefore, no other person other than the election officer was authorized to hold the elections of the Committee of Management of the institution. The elections as set up by respondent No. 4 were not conducted by the DIOS or the election officer appointed by him.
It is not in dispute that pursuant to the order dated 17.1.2013 passed by the Regional Level Committee, one Gurudev Singh was appointed as the election officer and Smt. Madhu Bala, Principal G.I.C., as an observer. Therefore, any elections alleged to have been held other than by the aforesaid election officer and in the absence of the observer so appointed would not be construed to be valid in law.
Thus, the elections which have been set up both by respondents No. 4 and 5 which were admittedly not held by the Election Officer appointed in the presence of the observer could not have been recognized to be valid. The Regional Level committee in passing the impugned order failed to take into account the above aspect of the matter and simply for the reason that the elections as set up by respondent No. 4 were held on the basis of valid list of 28 members committed an error in according approval to the same.
Now coming to the consideration of the validity of the elections as set up by the petitioner, it is important to note that the said elections undoubtedly have been held by the election officer appointed by the DIOS in the presence of the observer on the basis of the list of members as was approved by the Regional Level committee vide its order dated 17.1.2013. However, a careful reading of the said order would reveal that the Regional Level Committee in approving the list of 63 members therein relied upon the order dated 25.7.2013 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 in connection with the dispute of membership of the society. Subsequently, the SDM exercising the powers of the prescribed authority vide order dated 17.10.2013 excluded 35 members enrolled in the meeting of the Committee of Management held on 14.7.2009 from the list of the members.
In view of this order, the very basis on which the Regional Level Committee had finalized the list of 63 members vide its order dated 17.1.2013 ceased to exist. Thus, no conclusiveness can be attached to the list of members so finalized by the Regional Level Committee.
Sri N.A. Khan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 has placed reliance upon a scheme of administration which prescribes that the members of the society would constitute the Committee of Management of the institution but learned counsel for the petitioner denies the said scheme and places reliance upon a different scheme of administration which makes a distinction between the general body of the society and the Committee of Management.
The Government Order dated 21.11.2008 provides that the members of the general body of the Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 would be the members of the Committee of Management of the institution and would form electoral college for the elections of the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the institution and the scheme of administration framed under Section 16-A of the Act would accordingly be amended.
The aforesaid Government Order is an indicator that the members of the general body of the society would constitute the members of the Committee of Management of the institution and the scheme of administration would be amended accordingly.
The scheme has been suitably amended as per the aforesaid G.O., or that it provides for electing the members of the Committee of Management of the institution from amongst the general body of the society is a matter which needs consideration on verification of the scheme on record of the DIOS.
The dispute as to which scheme as set up by the parties is correct is a matter depending upon the facts to be proved or which could be verified by the authorities below from the record of the DIOS.
The dispute of membership of the general body of the Society or that of the Committee of Management of the institution though may be open for decision by the authorities under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act or the Intermediate Education Act in a summary manner but the final adjudicating authority in this regard is the competent court of civil jurisdiction. Accordingly, the dispute of membership is left open to be decided again at either of the foras available in law.
In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find the Regional Level Committee committed a manifest error of law in passing the impugned order and that the matter needs re-examination by the Regional Level Committee in the light of the observations made herein above.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.20.2014 (annexure 18) to the writ petition passed by the Regional Level Committee and the consequential order dated 11.2.2014 passed by the DIOS attesting the signatures of respondent No. 4 as Manager are both quashed with the direction to the Regional Level Committee to reconsider the matter and pass a fresh order in accordance with law expeditiously, if possible, within three months.
The facts of the case reveals that after the last accepted elections of the Committee of management of the institution dated 15.7.2007 the dispute regarding lawful office bearers of the Committee of Management of the institution is persisting affecting the administration of the institution. Therefore, the Director is directed to take stock of the situation and if necessary to recommend/refer to the Board under Section 16-D(3)(iii) of the Act for the withdrawal of the recognition of the institution and to ensure action thereof is completed and brought to its logical end unless the rival groups settle the dispute and resolves for the smooth functioning of the institution in the best interest of the education to all.
The writ petition is allowed with the above directions. No orders as to costs.