Rama Kant Sharma and Others vs State of U.P. and Others

Dilip Gupta, J.—The petitioners have sought quashing of the order dated 28.7.2010 passed by District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad by which he has, pursuant to the directions issued by Court on 27.5.2010 in two writ petitions, held that are 31 members in the General Body.

The order dated 27.5.2010 passed by the Court is quoted below:

These two petitions seek the quashing of the order dated 12th April, 2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools by which he has determined the list of 31 members of the General Body for the purposes of holding the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution and has excluded the names of 19 persons.

According to the District Inspector of Schools these 19 members had not been inducted by the Committee of Management of the Institution but by the General Body on 28th February, 1999 which is contrary to the provisions of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. He has also observed that the meeting that was held on 9th January, 2000 was of the Committee of Management and not of the General Body.

It is stated by learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Committee of Management of the Institution had on 24th January, 1998 inducted 19 persons as members of the General Body and the minutes of this meeting was subsequently confirmed in the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 29th March, 1998. The General Body of the Society in its meeting held on 28th February, 1999 had only referred to the earlier resolutions of the Committee of Management of the Institution that these 19 persons had been admitted as members of the General Body. He has, therefore, submitted that the District Inspector of Schools committed an infirmity in holding that the petitioners were actually inducted on 28th February, 1999 in the meeting of the General Body and in support of this contention, learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed before the Court the resolution dated 29th March, 1998 of the Committee of Management of the Institution.

Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 has submitted that the General Body of the Society had met on 9th January, 2000 but it did not confirm the minutes of the earlier meeting of the General Body of the Society held on 28th February, 1999 relating to the membership of these 19 persons and, therefore, it cannot be said that the General Body of the Society had inducted these members on 28th February, 1999. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner states that the meeting held on 19th January, 2000 was of the Committee of Management of the Institution and not of the General Body.

The District Inspector of Schools was required to examine whether these 19 members had been inducted on 24th January, 1998 by the Committee of Management of the Institution or whether they were inducted as members on 28th February, 1999 by the General Body. The District Inspector of Schools has not correctly appreciated the issue involved as there is no finding as to whether the 19 members had been inducted by the Committee of Management of the Institution on 24th January, 1998. The District Inspector of Schools was required to examine whether the resolution dated 28th February, 1999 was of the General Body and whether the meeting of 9th January, 2000 was of the General Body or the Committee of Management.

In such circumstances, it is not possible to sustain the order dated 12th April, 2010 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. It is, accordingly, set aside. It shall, however, be open to the District Inspector of Schools to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. Needless to say that the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution should be held expeditiously after the list is finalized by the District Inspector of Schools.

The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.

It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case, which shall be considered by the District Inspector of Schools in accordance with law.

The District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad has held that 19 members were inducted in the meeting of General Body held on 24.1.1998 and the General Body should not have approved the enrollment of 19 members in the meeting held on 28.2.1999.

It is the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that in fact 19 members were inducted in the meeting of Committee of Management of the Institution on 24.1.1998 and this resolution was approved by the Committee of Management in its subsequent meeting held on 29.3.1998 after which the subscription amount was deposited on 3.4.1998 and thereafter the General Body approved the enrollment on 28.2.1999. It is also the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad committed an illegality in holding that the petitioners were not enrolled in the meeting of the Committee of Management of the Institution on 24.1.1998 but by the General Body on 28.2.1999.

Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the private respondents, however, submitted that since elections have now been notified and the election process has started on 3.8.2010, no interference is required at this state. He has further submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order as the 19 members had been enrolled by the General Body and not by the Committee of Management of the Institution on 24.1.1998. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment in Basant Prasad Srivastava and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, .

Prima-facie, it appears that the General Body in its meeting held on 28.2.1999 did approve the decision of the Committee of Management of the Institution for enrolling these 19 members on 24.1.1998 and it may not be correct on the part of the respondents to assert that the General Body had enrolled these members on 28.2.1999.

The Court is conscious of the fact that the election process has started, but in the facts and circumstances of the case when the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad prima-facie does not appear to be correct and the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution have to be held from a valid list of members, it will be in the interest of justice to direct that the result of the election may not be declared.

Learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, respondent No. 4 is represented by Sri Indra Raj Singh. Issue notice to respondent No. 5 by registered post. Steps may be taken within a week.

Respondents may file counter affidavit within two weeks. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a week.

List this petition for admission/hearing in the week commencing 30.8.2010.

Till the next date of listing, the result of the election, if held, shall not be declared.