A.K.Yog, J. - (1.) Heard Sri Shamim Ahmad, advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri G.K. Pandey, learned standing counsel, on behalf of the respondents.
(2.) Petitioner before this Court is 'Saraswati Vidya Mandir Rewatlpur, district Ghazipur through its manager Smt. Ram Sakhi Devi' purporting to be an institution, called 'Saraswati Vidya Mandir Rewatipur', which is not a legal entity.
(3.) This Court in Writ Petition No. 10663 of 1976, Sardar Patel Higher Secondary School, Dev Nagar, Mathura v. Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra and Ors., 1976 AWC 18, vide judgment and order dated 1.3.1976 observed : "Sri N.C. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3, Babu Lal Sharma raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition at the instance of the manager Kedar Nath. He urged that the Committee of Management had authority to hold enquiry and to dismiss the petitioner from service, its proposal to dismiss respondent No. 3 was disapproved by the Deputy Director of Education in appeal, therefore, the aggrieved party was the Committee of Management and the petition could be filed only by it, the manager Sri Kedar Nath had no locus standi to maintain this petition. I find considerable force in this contention. In paragraph 43 of the second affidavit of respondent No. 3, it was clearly stated that the petition was not maintainable on behalf of the school as it was not the legal entity itself and it ought to have been filed by the Committee of Management. It was further stated that no proof has been shown that the Managing Committee had directed the manager to file the petition. Reply to this assertion is contained in paragraph 45 of the rejoinder-affidavit filed by the petitioner. It states that the contents of paragraph 43 are wholly misconceived and are not admitted, the same being argumentative will more adequately be replied at the time of arguments. There is thus no assertion in the rejoinder-affidavit that the Committee of Management had adopted any resolution to challenge the order of the Deputy Director of Education nor there is any assertion that Kedar Nath was authorised by the Committee of Management to file the present petition. There is further no assertion in the rejoinder-affidavit that the Committee of Management was aggrieved or that it had permitted the manager to file the petition. In fact the averments contained in paragraph 45 of the rejoinder-affidavit have been shown on legal advice, it does not contain any assertion of facts. The present petition has been filed by Sadar Patel Higher Secondary School through its Manager Sri Kedar Nath. The petition has not been filed on behalf of the Committee of Management or on behalf of the Society, if any, registered under the Societies Registration Act. Obviously, the school or the manager cannot be aggrieved on behalf of the Committee of Management. It is the Society and the Committee of Management which is legally entitled to challenge the orders of the Deputy Director of Education. The Manager cannot assume the functions of the Committee of Management unless he is authorised to do so. Sardar Patel Higher Secondary School is not a legal entity to maintain any legal action on behalf of the Society or the Committee of Management. In Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5808 of 1970, Mahtab Rai, Manager, Har Narain intermediate College v. Deputy Director of Education, decided on 7th January, 1974, a learned single Judge of this Court, almost in similar circumstances, held that the Manager or the school has no locus standi to maintain petition against the order of the District Inspector of Schools or the Deputy Director of Education refusing to grant approval. The learned single Judge observed that the appointment of Principal of college and termination of his services were within the powers of the Managing Committee or the Society and it was the Managing Committee alone which exercises control. That being so, the Manager is not the Managing Committee or the Society and he cannot maintain a writ petition in this Court unless he is authorised to do so. Relying on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Hart Raj Swarup v. Security to Government of U. P., AIR 1951 All 1, the learned Judge dismissed the petition on the ground that it was not filed on behalf of the Managing Committee or the Society. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by the learned single Judge in Mahtab Rai's case. In the instant case, neither the Society nor the Managing Committee has filed the writ petition nor there is any material before the Court to show that the Committee of Management or the Society authorised the Manager to file this petition. In the circumstances the petition is not maintainable. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner made a request for adjournment of the hearing to enable him to file documentary evidence to show that he had been authorised by the Committee of Management. I find no good ground to adjourn the hearing to enable the petitioner to produce evidence to show authorisation by the Committee of Management. As already noted, respondent No. 3 had clearly stated that the petitioner had no locus standi to ' maintain the petition and no proof was placed before the Court that the Committee of Management had authorised him. In the rejoinder-affidavit, the petitioner did not even whisper that he was been authorised. If the petitioner had made any statement in the rejoinder-affidavit that the Committee of Management had authorised him to file the petition, I would have granted adjournment but in the absence of any such averment in the rejoinder-affidavit I do not consider it desirable to adjourn the hearing to enable the petitioner to produce authorisation by the Committee of Management. In the result the writ petition is dismissed as not maintainable. There will be no order as to costs. The stay order is vacated. Dated : 1.3.1976 Sd. K. N. Singh. 'J'";