M. L Bhat, J. - (1.) THE ptitioner challenges the order dated 20-12-1990, contained in Annexure VI to the writ petition, passed by the respondent No 1. THE said order directs revocation of the appointment of the authorised controller and handing over the management to the committee of the management of the college.
(2.) THE petition is filed through Sri Gopal Narain, who claims to be the Secretary of the college in question. THE said college is affiliated to the Kanpur University and is said to be governed by the U. P. State Universities Act of 1973. It is averred in the writ petition that one Kulap Singh was the Secretary of the management for a number of years but he was removed from the office of Secretariship on 1-10-1986 on the alleged ground of embezzlement. THE petitioner's committee is said to have been elected on 1-10-1986 which was approved by the Vice Chancellor on 3-12-1986. THE said Kulap Singh at that time set up a rival committee of management As a result of this there was a dispute between the two rival committees with regard to their right to manage the affairs of the college. THE State Government is said to have suspended the management of the college and appointed authorised controller on 24-10-1989 This order was challenged by the said Kulap Singh. respondent No. 4, through a writ petition which was dismissed on 2-11-1989. THE State Government is said to have heard both the parties and appointed authorised controller for a period of two years. THEre were grounds, as stated by the petitioner, for appointment of authorised controller. A writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 4 in the Lucknow Bench of this Court, which is still pending. A counter affidavit is said to have been filed in the said writ petition on behalf of the State. THE authorised controller is said to have directed the Head Clerk of the College to file the counter affidavit on behalf of the State (This fact is vehemently denied by the other side). It is submitted that the counter affidavit was not filed on behalf of the State or the authorised controller in that writ petition. THE clerk of the college had filed the counter affidavit on behalf of the managing committee. This counter affidavit is relied upon only to show that there is allegedly some admission about Sri Gopal Narain being the secretary of the managing committee. THE respondent No. 4, Kulap Singh, is said to have thereafter used political influence at Lucknow through the respondent No. 3, who was a Deputy Minister in the U P Government. It is stated that the impugned order dated 20-12-1990 was issued, copy whereof is contained in Annexure VI to the writ petition. It is stated that the conditions, which prevailed at the time of appointment of the authorised controller, have not changed and there is new event which would warrant the removal of the authorised controller. It is also contended that there is some police investigation going on about the misconduct of the respondent No. 4. The impugned order says that the management will be handed over to the committee of a management duly recognised by University. This fact is mentioned in the affidavit of the said Head Clerk filed by him before the Lucknow Bench. The impugned order is said to have been passed during the pendency of the writ petition in the Lucknow Bench. The said writ petition is said to have been filed by the respondent No. 4 for removal of the athorised controller but his contention is contested by the State Government. In this back -ground it is stated that the action of the State Government revoking the order of appointment of the authorised controller is bad and out-come of political influence of the respondent No. 4 by which he has manoeured to obtained the impugned order in his favour. The allegation of nepotism or favouritism are levelled against the respondent No. 4. On 17-10-1990) the petitioner is also said to have requested the State Government that the authorised controller may be removed and the charge of management be handed over to the newly elected committee of management for which there is no dispute, according to the petitioner but the State Government being under the influence of the respondent No. 4 has directed the management to be given to the managing committee which is represented by the respondent No. 4. It is stated that the committee of management of the petitioner was elected on 25-12-1989 but the respondent No. 2 did not give charge of management to the petitioner's committee on account of pressure brought by the respondent 3 on him. The impugned order of revocation is said to have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It does not disclose any reasons. Situation existing then and today is not changed. Therefore, the impugned order could not be passed. The impugned order is passed by the State Government in colourable exercise of its powers under the influence of the respondent No. 4. The order is said to be malafide and arbitrary.
(3.) A detailed counter affidavit is filed on behalf of respondent No. 4, Kulap Singh, and the respondents No. 1 and 2. However, the respondent No. 3 has not filed any counter affidavit. Sri Kulap Singh, respondent No. 4, in his counter affidavit has stated that the present petition is filed by the committee of management which is not recognised by the Vice Chancellor, as required by Statute 13.34 of the Kanpur University. In 1986 there was a dispute between the respondent No. 4 and Gopal Narain and after prolonged litigation the Vice Chancellor on 2-3-1987 recognised the committee of management of which the respondent No. 4 was the Secretary. This order came to be challenged under section 68 of the State Universities Act and was referred to the Vice Chancellor for his decision. On 17-10-1989 the Vice Chancellor has recognised the committee represented by Kulap Singh as the real committee of management. A copy of this order is contained in Annexure CA 1 to the counter affidavit. The Society of the college is also registered and the respondent No. 2 is its Secretary with one Raja Ram Verma as its President. It was registered on 17-5-1955 and renewed on 10-10-1990. In 1985-86 Sri Gopal Narain by misrepresentation claimed himself to be the Secretary of the Society which he got registered as R. P. Degree College Samiti. The respondent No. 4 filed a complaint on 7-3-1989 to the Registrar under the Societies Registration Act. The registration of the society was cancelled. A copy of the said order is contained in Annexure CA 3 to the counter affidavit. An appeal was filed against this order which was dismissed on 5-2-1990 by the Commissioner, Kanpur Division. A copy of this order is contained in Annexure CA 4 to the counter affidavit. The allegations are also levelled against one Subedar Singh who is said to be the Principal of the College. The said Principal has the active support of the authorised controller. He is also said to have embezzled the funds of the college and indulged in favouritism and nepotism. The allegations of corruption ane embezzlement levelled against the respondent No. 4 are denied by him. The respondent No. 4 has also alleged that the District Magistrate has reported to the Secretary of Education, U. P. Government through a letter that the continuance of the authorised controller is not in the interest of the college. However, a copy of this letter is not on the record. The respondent No. 4 denies having met any political leader or having any influence in the State Government through any political leader. It is submitted that the revocation is valid, no hearing is necessary and the committee of respondent No. 4 is duly constituted committee. It is also stated that there are several complaints against the authorised controller and serious doubt is cast on his integrity. A copy of the findings of the Vice Chancellor dated 7-10-1989 is placed on record with the counter affidavit. The concluding para of these findings revealed that the Vice Chancellor has recognised Sri Kulap Singh as Secretary of the management and held that he has been in actual possession of the property of the college and the committee is recognised to be in the management of the college till a decision of a court of competent jurisdiction is available.;