AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R. H. Zaidi, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties, on the question of grant of interim relief and also carefully perused the record of the case.
The present petition arises out of the dispute between two rival Committees of Management of educational institution known as Shri Ratan Mani Jain Inter College, Loha Mandi, Agra. It appears that one Shri Moti Lal Jain claimed that the election of the bearers and members of the Committee of Management of the College was held on 2161991, in which he was elected as the manager. On the basis of the said election his signatures were attested by the District Inspector of Schools, one Shri Kamal Kumar Jain belonging to the petitioners'' group, took the matter before the Regional Deputy Director of Education claiming that election of the Committee of Management was held on 171991, in which he had claimed to have been elected as the manager of the college. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, however, vide his order dated 2741992 took the view that there existed no dispute between two Committees of Management inasmuch as the election dated 171991 set up by Shri Kamal Kumar Jain was the election of the society and not of the Committee of Management of the College. The validity of the order dated 2741992 was thereafter, challenged by Shri Kamal Kumar Jain before this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23703 of 1992. This Court by its judgment and order dated 2291992 confirmed the findings recorded by the Deputy Director of Education that the election held on 171991 was the election of the society and not of Committee of Management. The special appeal filed against the judgment and order dated 2291992 was also dismissed on 641994. Thereafter, Special Leave Petition No. 6321 of 1995 appears to have been filed in the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed on 2181995. Thus, the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education in favour of Shri Moti Lal Jain became final. The term of the Committee of Management under the scheme of administration is three years, was to expire, consequently, the election of the office bearers and members was again held on 16101994 in which Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain was elected as the manager of the college besides other office bearers and members. On the election papers relating to the aforesaid election being submitted before the District Inspector of Schools, the signatures of Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain were also attested on 22101994.
It would not be out of place to state that in the meanwhile, Shri Kamal Kumar Jain having failed to obtain favourable orders either from the Educational Authorities or from this Court filed Criminal Suit No. 230 of 1994 on 3131994. It may be noted that in the said suit neither Shri Moti Lai Jain nor petitioners were impleaded as the defendants. Shri Kamal Kumar Jain succeeded in obtaining ex parte adinterm injunction from the Civil Court restraining the defendants of the said suit from interfering in his functioning as the manager. Since, in spite of caveat being filed no notice was given to Shri Moti Lal Jain or the Committee of Management of the College. He made an application for impleadment as one of the defendants in the said suit. The said application was, however, rejected on 541994. Thereafter, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12511 of 1994 was filed in this Court praying for a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the proceedings of Original Suit No. 320 of 1994 and the orders dated 441994 and 541994, referred to above. The said writ petition was partly allowed by this Court on 2241994 and the orders dated 441994 and 541994 were quashed. The respondents, against the order dated 2241994 filed Special Leave Petition No. 7525 of 1995 in Hon''ble Supreme Court. It was on 741995, that the operation of the order dated 2241995 was stayed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court. On 3151995, name of Rajiv Ratan Jain was substituted in place of Kamal Kumar Jain in Original Suit No. 230 of 1994, by the Civil Court.
From the facts narrated above, it is apparent that from 2241994 till 741995 no interim order of any kind was in operation against the petitioner or against educational authorities. It may also be noted that the validity of the election dated 16101994 and the order dated 22101994 has not been challenged by any body, however, on 961995 the Deputy Director of Education apparently, on the basis of the order dated 741995 appears to have directed the District Inspector of Schools to attest the signatures of Shri Rajiv Ratan, respondent No. 7.
In compliance of the said order, the signatures of Shri Rajiv Ratan were attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 1261995. On 16/1991995 the Deputy Director of Education directed the District Inspector of Schools to restore ; the status quo as before 961995. The District Inspector of Schools vide order dated 1891995 again recognised Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain. However, subsequently, on the same date another order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools whereby the operation of the order dated 1891995 passed in favour of Shri Sanjay Kumar Jain was stayed. The present petition No. 31972 of 1995 has been filed challenging the validity of the said subsequent order dated 1891995.
Both the aforesaid petitions were directed to be connected and heard together. In the meanwhile, vide order dated 7101995 the order dated 1891995 recognising Shre Sanjay Kumar as Manager was set aside. Petitioners, by means of amendment application have also challenged the validity of the said order dated 7101995 which was allowed. The Special Leave Petition No. 6321 of 1995 challenging the validity of the order 2241994 passed by this Court is pending disposal before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. It has been contended by the petitioner that from 2241994 to 741995 neither the orders passed by the Civil Court nor any other court were in operation, therefore, the election of the office bearers and members of the Committee of Management was held in accordance with the SC''ITTIS of administration and signatures of the petitioners were rightly attested by the District. Inspector of Schools. It has also been contended that the orders passed by the Deputy Director of Education and that of this Court dated 2291992 dismissing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23703 of 1992 holding that the election set up by the contesting respondents alleged to have been held on 171991 was the ejection of the society and not of the Committee of Management have become final. The contesting respondents had, therefore, no right to interfere in the affairs of the college.
Learned counsel for the contesting respondents, on the other hand contended that entire controversy with respect to the institution of question is pending disposal before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. It is, therefore not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, at this stage.
I have given due consideration to the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties. In my opinion, the educational authorities after attesting the signatures of the petitioner on 22101994 on the basis of election dated 16101994, were not right in permitting Shri Rajiv Ratan Jain to act as the manager of the college by attesting his signatures inasmuch as they had no power of review. Further, the interim order passed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court on 741995 whereby the operation of the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 12511 of 1994 was stayed, applying any recognised principle of law could not wipe out, the election of the Committee of Management validity held on 16101994 particularly when on the said date on interim order of any kind, by any court was in operation and the contesting respondents having not challenged the validity of said election and the attestation of the signatures.
The Deputy Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools were, prima facie, not justified in passing the order dated 961995 1261995, 1891995 (annexure XXIX) and 7101995, permitting Rajiv Ratan Jain to act as manager and virtually ousting the petitioner from the said office, which he was holding on the basis of his election dated 16101994 and attestation of his signatures on 22101994 by the District Inspector of Schools.
The order dated 741995 or the order1 dated 3151995 could out, in any manner, nullify and set at naught the election dated 16101994 and consequential attestation of the petitioner by the District Inspector of Schools on 22101994. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, to the contrary, is not correct.
I, therefore, direct that until further orders, the operation of the said impugned orders dated 961995, 1261995, 1891995 (Annexure XXIX) and 7101995 shall remain stayed.