- (1.) R. K. Agrawal, J. By the impugned order dated 21-10-2002, the District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad, rejected the application dated 1-11-2002 filed in the office of the District Inspector of Schools on 13-11-2002, claiming enrolment of 25 new member on the ground that no such order approving or recognizing the enrolment of new members had been issued from the office.
(2.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the District Inspector of Schools had no power to review his order and further he had not been given any opportunity of hearing. Sri Irshad Ali, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent, however, submitted that full opportunity was given to the manager to explain the things and for the reasons best known he did not submit the documents in support of his claim. In fact, the District Inspector of Schools had not reviewed his order, but has held that the order recognizing the enrolment of 25 members has not been issued from his office and the new members have not been enrolled.
(3.) HAVING heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I find that it is an admitted case that on the last date when the District Inspector of Schools was under order of transfer, he has only endorsed the list as 'seen' and no specific orders was passed by him. The endorsement of word 'seen' does not amount to recognizing the new members. In this view of the matter the District Inspector of Schools was perfectly justified to hold that no such order has been issued from his office and the petitioner cannot derive any strength from the fact that the then District Inspector of Schools has put the remark as 'seen'. So far as the question of the affording the opportunity of hearing to the Society/general Body of the College is concerned, it is the case of the petitioner that he had deposited the membership fee of Rs. 2,000. In the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner he had enclosed a photocopy of the receipt by which he had deposited the membership fee of Rs. 2000. The said receipt is part of Page No. 30 in the supplementary affidavit and does not bear any date. In the writ petition the petitioner has filed as Annexure-2, another copy of the receipt by which it has been alleged that he has deposited the membership fee of Rs. 2,000. Both the receipts filed with the supplementary affidavit as also alongwith the writ petition bears the same serial number i. e. , 7. The receipt filed alongwith the writ petition bears the date as 11-8-1993 and the amount of Rs. 2,000 has also been mentioned in words whereas in the receipt filed alongwith the supplementary affidavit the amount of Rs. 2,000 does not find mention in words instead in figures alone. Further, it does not bear any date. From the aforesaid two documents it is absolutely clear that the things are being manipulated and in this view of the matter the District Inspector of Schools was justified in not recognizing the new members alleged to have been enrolled as member of the Committee of Management.;