A.P.Sahi - (1.) THE petitioner Harinath Dubey claims to be the Manager of the petitioner No. 1-Committee of Management which is managed through a society registered as Shri Ram Dev Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Bareri, District Jaunpur.
(2.) THE petitioner contends that the Registrar has taken a decision in his favour and the renewal certificate had been issued under his orders pursuant to the directions of this Court dated 12.8.2009, therefore, it is the petitioner who is entitled to be treated to be the validly elected office bearer of the society. Sri P.S. Baghel submits that once the petitioner is the accepted office bearer and there being no distinction between the committee of management of the society and the degree college, the Vice-Chancellor was bound to recognize the petitioner accordingly. He submits that the status of the petitioner is therefore supported in law and reliance is placed on the decision in the case of Committee of Management A. K. College, Shikohabad, District Firozabad and another v. State of U.P. and others, 2000(2) ESC 870 (All). Sri Baghel further submits that a recognition was granted to the alleged elections of the committee of management on 23rd April, 2010 set up by the respondent No. 7 without putting the petitioner to notice inspite of the fact that he was continuing to manage the affairs of the institution and was in effective control. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No. 25966 of 2010 and this Court after hearing counsel for the parties disposed of the writ petition without adjudicating the claim on merits with a direction to the Vice-Chancellor of the University to decide the same in accordance with law. It was further clarified that the order dated 23.4.2010 shall abide by the final decision taken by the Vice-Chancellor.
(3.) SRI Baghel submits that in accordance with the said directions, the petitioner moved two representations dated 29.6.2010 and 17th August 2010, copies whereof have been filed as Annexure 16-Aand Annexure 19 to the writ petition. The specific objection taken by the petitioner before the Vice-Chancellor was that they were in effective control and in view of the provisions of statute 12.28 the Vice-Chancellor should record a finding keeping in view the lawful effective control of the petitioner. Further objections were also entailed which have been enlisted in Annexure 19 to the writ petition. Sri Baghel submits that the petitioner being an old and infirm person, was suffering from ailment, moved a request before the Vice-Chancellor to allow him to be represented through his Authorized Representative but the Vice-Chancellor insisted on the personal presence of the petitioner and he proceeded to pass the impugned order in violation of principles of natural justice. It is further contended that none of the objections as raised by the petitioner that were on record have been adverted to, and therefore the order is vitiated.;