AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Yashwant Varma, J.—The petitioners assail the validity of an order dated 16 November 2015 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the Deen Dayal Upadhya University Gorakhpur in purported exercise of powers conferred by section 2(13) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 19731. By the order impugned, the Vice Chancellor has refused to accord approval to the elections held on 21 June 2015 and the consequent constitution of the committee of management of the degree college. The Vice Chancellor has also proceeded to negative the claim set up by the private respondents with regard to the management of the institution. The order further dwells upon the state of affairs of the institution and consequently recommends to the State Government the need for appointment of an Authorised Controller/Receiver by invocation of its power under Section 57 of the 1973 Act over the affairs of the institution.
At the admission stage, this Court has heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gautam Baghel for the petitioners, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Neeraj Tiwari for the respondent University and Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents. This Court was informed by Sri Misra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and other counsels appearing for the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 who were all led by Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel that aggrieved by the rejection of their claim by the Vice Chancellor, a representation has been made to the Chancellor referable to Section 68 of the 1973 Act. However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for all the contesting parties proceeded to address this Court on the merits of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor on 16 November 2015 impugned herein.
Bearing in mind the nature of the order which this Court is proceeding to pass, it would not be necessary to burden this judgement with a detailed history of the litigation inter-parties and the dispute itself which, like all other matters of its genre, has a history. Suffice it to note that the Vice Chancellor by the impugned order has proceeded to annul the claim of the petitioners on the following principal grounds:
(a) Referring to an order of the Assistant Registrar dated 28 November 2001, he holds that the petitioners do not figure in the list of the general body of the society as it stood finalised by this order.
(b) From the issues which stand raised and which spring forth for consideration from the order dated 28 November 2001, the various writ petitions preferred before this Court and the judgements rendered thereon it is apparent that inter parties Original Suit Nos. 380 of 2006, 1134/2011 and 19/2012 are pending. The issue of membership of the society is therefore, one which awaits adjudication and declaration by the Civil Court in the suits aforementioned.
(c) During the pendency of the proceedings before the Civil Court in which the dispute of membership stands directly raised, it would be inappropriate to accord recognition and/or accord approval to the committee of management constituted pursuant to the elections stated to have been held by the petitioners.
The dispute inter-parties with respect to the management and administration of the society and the educational institutions run by it arose as far back as in 1997 when in writ proceedings, the eligibility of one Bhartendu Misra to be elected as member/Manager of the committee of management came to be questioned. Taking into consideration the rival submissions made before a learned Single Judge of this Court, the writ petition came to be disposed of with a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to rule and decide upon the membership of Bhartendu Misra and Raghuraj Singh. The judgement rendered on this petition on 1 March 2000 was subjected to challenge in an appeal which too came to be dismissed on 25 May 2000 and the direction of the learned Single Judge stood affirmed. A Special Leave Petition taken against the above also came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court on 21 September 2000. Consequent to the direction of this Court, the Assistant Registrar by an order dated 22 May 2000 passed a detailed order ruling upon the membership of Raghuraj Singh and Bhartendu Misra. He however, found that the rival elections which have been set up by the contesting parties were not liable to be accorded any recognition and directed fresh elections to be held after finalisation of the general body of the society.
The constitution of the general body of the society came to be settled by an order of the Assistant Registrar dated 28 November 2001. This order passed by the Assistant Registrar was subjected to challenge in a writ petition, which along with connected matters ultimately came to be dismissed on 8 July 2003. While dismissing the writ petition preferred by the sixth respondent, the Court left it open to the parties to challenge the order dated 28 November 2001 by means of a fresh writ petition. This challenge came to be laid by the sixth respondent by preferring Writ Petition No. 35935 of 2003. The above writ petition along with connected matters came to be dismissed by an order dated 13 May 2011. The challenge made by the faction led by the sixth respondent to the order dated 28 November 2001 came to be negatived by the Court leaving the parties to institute a civil suit for declaration of their rights including the validity of the general body and membership of the society. It was pursuant to the liberty granted by this judgement of the Court that the sixth respondent proceeded to institute Original Suit No. 1134/2011. In the meantime, the Vice Chancellor by an order dated 16 September 2006 proceeded to accord recognition to a committee of management of the degree college which included the petitioners. The petitioner, is stated to have been inducted into the society on 7 December 2003. The order of the Vice Chancellor recognising the committee of management of the petitioner was subjected to challenge in a writ petition as well as by way of a representation to the Vice Chancellor under Section 68 of the 1973 Act but did not meet any success.
The elections of the petitioner''s faction was again accorded approval by the Vice Chancellor by his order dated 1 May 2010. The 2006 and 2009 elections again stood subjected to challenge in a batch of writ petitions including one instituted by the sixth respondent and the writ petitions again came to be dismissed on 13 May 2011 when the Court again refused to countenance the claim laid by the respondents with respect to the elections and membership of the society bearing in mind its earlier directions issued on 8 July 2003 leaving parties to pursue their claims before the Civil Court. It becomes pertinent to note here that the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 28 November 2001 which had been assailed by the sixth respondent by filing Writ Petition No. 35935 of 2003 stood tagged along with this batch of writ petitions, all of which came to be dismissed on 13 May 2011.
Upon dismissal of these batch of writ petitions, the respondents instituted original suit No. 1134 of 2011. Fresh elections were thereafter held in 2012 and the committee of management of the degree college was again accorded recognition by the Vice Chancellor by an order dated 7 August 2012. On an objection raised by the sixth and seventh respondents, the Vice Chancellor by an order dated 25 August 2012 put the order of recognition in abeyance. This order was challenged by the petitioners by way of Writ Petition No. 45285 of 2012 in which an interim order was granted on 12 September 2012 and the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 25 August 2012 was stayed. The elections of 2012 again came to be assailed in a batch of writ petitions and a learned Single Judge rejected the challenge to the order of the Vice Chancellor according recognition and again bearing in mind the directions issued earlier on 13 May 2011 left it to the parties to work out their rights in the pending civil suits. The Vice Chancellor thereafter is stated to have extended the term of recognition by an order of 30 September 2014. During the extended term, the elections are stated to have been held on 21 June 2015 and it was the validity of these elections which were taken in challenge before the Vice Chancellor and have led to the passing of the impugned order.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the committee of management of the degree college stood recognised by the Vice Chancellor in 2006, 2009 and 2012. He submits that all challenges which were laid by the respondents herein to these orders stood negatived. He has further submitted that insofar as the sixth, seventh and eighth respondents are concerned, this court in more than one round of litigation had refused to recognise their right to manage or administer the affairs of the institution till their rights are declared and recognised by the Civil Court. He has further submitted that the committee of management of the society and its list of office bearers stood duly registered with the Assistant Registrar right from 2010-11 without any challenge being laid thereto by the private respondents. Insofar as the order dated 28 November 2001 of the Assistant Registrar is concerned, the learned counsel submits that the Vice Chancellor has proceeded on a wholly incorrect premise inasmuch as the petitioner No. 2 was inducted as a life member of the society on 7 December 2003 and consequently for obvious reasons, his name could not have found mention in the list of members certified by the Assistant Registrar on 28 November 2001.
Learned Senior Counsels appearing for the respondents on the other hand contended that there was no material on record which could have established a valid induction of the petitioners as members of the society or for that matter as an office bearer of the committee of management. Referring to the order dated 28 November 2001, the learned Senior Counsel has submitted and has drawn the attention of the Court to the findings appearing in the said order to contend that the membership of Raghuraj Singh and others was doubted and in light of the above, the Vice Chancellor has committed no illegality in proceeding to pass the order impugned.
Having heard the learned counsels for the contesting parties, this Court finds that the Vice Chancellor while passing the order impugned has failed to advert to or take into consideration the following salient aspects of the matter:-
(1) The contention of the petitioners that they stood inducted in the general body of the Society on 7 February 2003 and therefore obviously their names could not have found mention in the list finalised by the Assistant Registrar on 28 November 2001;
(2) The edifice of the order of the Vice Chancellor is based upon this order of the Assistant Registrar. The impact of the challenge laid to this order by the respondents and the dismissal of the writ petitions by the Court on earlier occasions has also not been taken into consideration;
(3) If the order was to be based or rested upon the adjudication undertaken by authorities under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, then surely the registration of the lists under section 4 of the 1860 Act was also a relevant circumstance;
(4) The office of the Vice Chancellor had continually in the past proceeded to accord recognition to the committee of management in exercise of powers conferred under the 1973 Act. All these orders of recognition had come to be made at a time when the order dated 28 November 2001 existed;
The other salient aspect of the matter which cannot be lost sight of is the deferment of consideration of claims of contesting parties during the pendency of the civil litigation before the Civil Court. In the opinion of this Court the Vice Chancellor is statutorily bound to decide the issues which arise for determination in the course of conferring or refusing recognition to a committee of management. The jurisdiction, albeit summary, cannot be refused to be exercised on the mere pendency of disputes before a Civil Court. If the stand taken by the Vice Chancellor be accepted, then in all cases where civil litigation remains pending, no committee would be liable to be accorded recognition. The Vice Chancellor therefore cannot refuse to exercise jurisdiction or discharge the obligation which otherwise stands conferred by statute.
Upon these conclusions being arrived at the learned senior counsels appearing for the contesting parties submitted that the matter may be relegated to the Vice Chancellor for a decision afresh. Accordingly and in light of the stand taken by the counsels appearing for the contesting parties, this Court deems it appropriate and in the interest of justice to remit the matter back for fresh consideration by the Vice Chancellor.
Accordingly the writ petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order of the Vice Chancellor dated 16 November 2015 is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Vice Chancellor to reconsider the matter of grant of recognition leaving all rights and contentions of parties open for evaluation and determination by the Vice Chancellor.
11973 Act.