E. N. Singh, J. - (1.) -
(2.) SUDHIR Kumar Pathak claiming himself to be Manager of Sri Pyare Lal Genda Lal Intermediate College, Eka, district Mainpuri, an aided and recognised institution, has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for the issue of a writ of certiorari quashing the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra, dated 7-2-1984. Sri Pyarelal Genda Lal Intermediate College (hereinafter referred to as the institution) being maintained by a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. Its management is being carried on by a Committee of Management constituted in accordance with the Scheme of Administration approved under section 16-A of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Admittedly Mahipal Singh Chauhan had been the President and Narendra Singh Pathak was manager of the institution. Narendra Singh Pathak died on 22-1-1983 and thereafter dispute arose. According to the petitioner, he had already been elected as Deputy/Assistant Manager of the institution at a meeting of the general body held on 26-2-1981. On the death of his father the Committee of Management at its meeting held on 30th January, 1983, elected him Manager of the institution. He asserts that Mahipal Singh Chauhan presided over the meeting. The requisite papers were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools for recognition of the petitioner's election as Manager and also for attesting his signatures. The District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 17th October, 1983, attested the petitioner's signature and ever- since then he has been carrying on the day to-day administration of the institution and exercising effective control over the funds and affairs of the institution. The petitioner has further asserted that Mahipal Singh was own over by another party led by Nathu Ram Gupta. They disputed the petitioner's election as Manager. When the petitioner approached the Registrar of societies for the change in the office bearers In the records of the Registrar, Mahipal Singh and Nathu Ram Gupta appeared and they contested the petitioner's claim. They pleaded that a meeting of the general body of the society had been held on 14th August, 1983, wherein Mahipal Singh was elected President and Nathu Ram Gupta was elected as Manager. They asserted that the petitioner had never been elected as Manager and he had no right to continue as such. The Registrar, Cooperative Societies, after hearing both the parties passed a detailed order holding that no annual meeting of the general body as alleged by Nathu Ram Gupta was held, instead he accepted the petitioner as the duly elected Manager of the institution. He accepted the petitioner's claim and made changes in the record. Since a dispute had arisen between the two rival factions each claiming to have right to manage the institution, the matter was referred to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. Meanwhile, another set of persons claiming to be office bearers of the Committee of Management led by Sri Krishna Vaidhya also pressed their claim. The District Inspector of Schools referred the matter to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Agra, for deciding the dispute. The Regional Deputy Director of Education issued notices to all the parties to present their case. Sri Krishna Vaidhya did not appear to contest the proceedings. The petitioner and Nathu Ram Gupta both appeared and made their submission before the Regional Deputy Director and they produced documents in support of their case. The Regional Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 7-2-1984 held that the committee of Management of which Nathu Ram Gupta was Manager is the validly elected committee and recognised the same. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court by means of this petition.
(3.) AFTER the writ petition was admitted, a learned Single Judge of this Court Issued an interim order on March 22, 1984, staying the order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, during the pendency of the writ petition. Nathu Ram Gupta approached the Supreme Court by Special Leave petition against the interim order of this Court. The Supreme Court by its order dated 24th August, 1964, accepted the special leave petition It set aside the interim order of this Court and directed this Court to decide the writ petition at an early date. The Supreme Court further directed that the District Inspector of Schools, Mainpuri, shall take over management of the institution. In pursuance of the Supreme Court's direction this petition has been heard by us today at length. Section 16-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is as under " 16-A (7) Whenever there is dispute with respect to the management of an institution, persons found by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, upon such enquiry as is deemed fit to be in actual control of its affairs may for purposes of this Act, be recognised to constitute the Committee of Management of such institution until a Court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise Provided that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall, before making an order under this sub-section, afford reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make representations in writing. Explanation ;-In determining the question as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the institution, the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the administration, the receipt of income from its properties, the scheme of Administration approved under sub-section (5) and other relevant circumstances. " The above provision of law requires the Regional Deputy Director of Education to hold enquiry and to determine as to which of the rival committee should be recognised for the purpose of running the management of the institution. That decision is not final, it is subject to the decision of a court of competent jurisdiction. The Regional Deputy Director is required to hold enquiry and to decide who is fit to be in actual control of the affairs of the institution and in doing that he is required to follow the guidelines contained in the Explanation. The explanation provides that in determining that question the Regional Deputy. Director shall have regard as to who had control over the funds of the institution and affairs of the institution and receipt of the income of the property and also the scheme of administration approved under section 16-A. Sub-section (7) of section 16-A does not confer power on the Regional Deputy Director to act like an Election Tribunal to investigate and decide the validity of the election of office bearers, instead it merely confers power on him to decide as to who should be deemed to be in actual control of the affairs of the institution. This limited jurisdiction has been conferred on him to ensure smooth running of the institution. The legislative intent is clear that a person who is in actual control of the affairs of the institution including the control over the funds of the institution, properties of the institution and the scheme of administration should be allowed to continue as such till a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise. There may be cases where the election of office bearers is seriously disputed, as is the case in the instant petition, but the Regional Deputy Director has no jurisdiction to enter into the validity of the elections. It is in the light of these observations that the validity of the impugned order is to be considered.;