- (1.) S. N. Saxena J. The petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13-1- 1993 passed by respondent No. 1, District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur as contained in Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition and also for writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to recognize the petitioner's Committee of Management forthwith and they have further prayed for such relief as may be found proper by this Court.
(2.) A perusal of the said Annexure No. 6 showed that this Court had directed the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur on certain matters by its order dated 1-12-1992 passed in writ petition No. 42657 of 1992 in compliance of which the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur had passed the order as contained in this annexure. It was a decision given by him regarding the controversy between the rival parties without giving notice to the petitioner. The grievance of the life members was that they had been deprived of the right of participation in the election of the committee by means of one sided order and the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur directed the authorised controller to get the election conducted again in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations. The District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur did not agree with the report of the election officer dated 2-12-1992 nor with there recommendation of the authorised Controller-cum-Associate District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur dated 4-12-1992 whereby he had recommended recogni tion of the aforesaid management commitree the President of which was Ram Samujh Yadav and the Manager Raj Bahadur Singh. The facts which gave rise to this writ petition were as follows : The institution known as Janta Higher Secondary School, Jeerakpur Baraipur, Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the Institution) was duly recogniz ed under the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and as governed by Payment of Salary Act, 1971, i. e. Act No. 24 of 1971. The election of the Committee of Management of the Institution had fallen due. There was some dispute between the parties and therefore, Sri Pratap Bahadur Pathak, Associate District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur was vide order dated 27-3-1992 appointed authorised Controller of the Institution. He was authorised to hold the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution within a period of four months. He invited objections from the members of the general body of the society. After hearing the objections and scrutinzing the relevant papers/records, he finalised the list of list of voters on 2-11-1992 vide Annexure No. 2 to the writ petition which is a copy of the said list. The respondent No. 3, Jagannath Yaday felt aggrieved by the said list and there fore, instituted a writ petition in this Court which, however, declined to inter fere with the list of voters and also directed petitioner, Jagannath Yadav to approach Civil Court to question the validity of the list of voters. This Court, however, had shifted the scheduled date of election from 15th November, 1992 to 30th November, 1992 and the writ petition was disposed of finally on 13-11-1992 (exparte) at the initial "stage of admission, vide Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition which is a copy of the order passed by this Court. Jagannath Yadav, however, filed second writ petition questioning the validity of the list of voters which actually had become final. By an interim order, this Court directed the authorised controller to held the election of the com mittee of management scheduled for 30-11-1992, but stayed the declaration of its result. By its subsequent order dated 1-11- 1992 this Court disposed of the writ petition with directions to declare the result of the election with the observation that if any parson was aggrieved against the result, he would make a representation within 10 days to the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur who may pass appropriate order after giving an opportunity of hear ing to the concerned parties and till then the decision of attestation of the signatures of the office bearers as to remain stayed vide Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition which is a copy of the said order. The case of the petitioners was that in pursuance of the said order dated 1-12-1992 of this Court, the Election Officer declared the result of the election on 3-12-1992 which was duly approved by the Officer concerned, who was the authorised controller of the Institution i. e. Associate District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, by his order, dated 4-12-1992 vide Annexure No. 5 to the writ petition. Jagannath Yadav, respondent No. 3 however, made a representation on 4-12-1992 to the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur regarding the declaration of the result of the election who without giving a copy of the said objections and also without giving any opportunity whatsoever to the petitioners, had passed the impugned order on 13-1-1993 in respect of the result of the election held on 30-11-1992. The said order of the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur dated 134-1993 had been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and, therefore, was illegal and invalid. A copy of the impugned order is Annexure No. 6 to the writ petition, The District Inspector of Schools, had got no right to cancel the election of the Committee of Management which had been held by the autho rised controller under the direction of the Deputy Director of Education and therefore, the impugned order was wholly without jurisdiction. This Court had neither empowered the District Inspector of Schools to decide the validity of the election nor he possessed any such statutory power to examine the validity of the voter's list of the general body of the society and the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur thus, had acted far beyond his jurisdiction. Respondent Nc. 3 Jagannath Yadav was neither a member of the general body nor a contesting party and, therefore, he had got no locus standi to challenge the result of the election before the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. There was no dispute of a parallel committee against the duty elected com mittee and therefore, the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur was bound to attest the signatures of the petitioners committee. The petitioners had been left with no other alternative, except to challenge the aforesaid illegal, arbitrary, and mala fide order passed in gross violation of natural justice, as well as contrary to the directions issued by this Court in the aforesaid writ and hence, the need for this writ petition. Respondent No. 3, Jagannath Yadav filed counter affidavit in which he disclosed his allegations. He contended that he was manager of the Com mittee of Management of the said institution prior to 1987. However, the authorised controller was appointed superseding the Committee of Management in the year 1987. Petitioner No. 4 Gaj Bahadur Singh, with the help of some persons in the year 1986, tried to capture the management of the institution in an illegal manner and he, therefore had instituted a writ peti tion about which reference has already been made while describing the case of the petitioners. A dispute under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act relating to his status as manager had been referred to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Machhlishahr. Earlier in the year 1982, a dispute under Section 16-A (7) of U. P. Intermediate Education, Vth Region, Varanasi in which a question about the number of member of the general body had cropped up and the Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi, on the basis of the material on record, had held that there were only 38 life members in the general body vide its order dated 28-8-1993. The District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur also held that there were only 38 life members and the remaining persons alleged to be members made by the petitioners No. 4, were found to be invalid members and they had got no right to participate in the election. The aforesaid two orders had become final as they had remained unchallenged by petitioner No. 4 or any other person. The authorised controller of the institution, however, manipulated the things and mentioned 78 members in the general body.
(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 Jagannath Yadav, after narrating the whole story, dealt with the allegation of the writ petition parawise from paragraphs Nos. 18 onward in his counter affidavit. In paragraph No. 23 of the counter affidavit, he contended that the contents of paragraphs Nos. 7, 8 and 9 of the writ petition were matter of record and therefore, required no comments. Ha how ever, further alleged that the authorised controller had conducted the election proceedings in an illegal manner and the same, therefore, were void ah initio. He described the election dated 3-12-1992 and verification dated 4-12- 1992 as forged, fictitious and collusive. The election from its inception was void as it had been conducted with the help of invalid members, who had already been declared to be invalid by the Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi and the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. The findings record ed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur were findings of fact which did not warrant interference from this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, it may be important to mention here that while dealing with paragraphs Nos. 7, 8 9 of the writ peti tion, the opposite party No. 3, Jagannath Yadav did not deny the allegations of the petitioners that the impugned order was passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur without giving an opportunity to them. He, thus, had acted not only against the principles of natural justice but had, at the same time, committed contempt of this Court by flouting its mandate dated 1-12-1992 whereby specific direction was given to him to decide the dispute between the parties after giving an opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties vide Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition. ' In the impugned order itself, the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur observed that it was not necessary to give an opportunity of hearing to petitioner No. 4, Gaj Bahadur Singh, and the other petitioners. He further contended that the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools was just and valid and therefore, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur, Kripa Shanker Sharraa also filed a counter affidavit in which he contended that petitioner No. 4 Gaj Bahadur Singh and petitioner No. 3 Jaganaath Yadav had produced a separate list of the members of the general body. The list of petitioner No. 4 Gaj Bahadur Singh contained 68 members while that of petitioner No. 3 Jagannatb Yadav contained 38 members only. The authorised controller had conducted the election of the committee of management of the basis of the list of 68 members submitted by Gaj Bahadur Singh out of whom 8 were life members. The remaining 60 members were the ordinary members and accord ing to the scheme of administration, their membership had come to an end after 3 years then the period of the committee of management had come to an end. The case of Jagannath Yadav was that there were 38 life members in the year 1986 out of whom 6 members had died and therefore, there was only 32 life members, who could participate in the election. The result of the election was declared on 3-12-1992 in compliance of this Court's order dated 1-12-1992. Regarding paragraph No. 9 of the writ petition, he contended that opposite party No. 3 Jagannath Yadav filed a representation before District Inspector of Schools against the result of the election, in accordance with the order dated 1-12-1992 passed in the writ petition. He further con tended that the District Inspector of Schools had decided the dispute regarding the membership on the basis of the documents which were produced by the parties concerned and as such it was not required to give any further notice to the parties concerned before passing the order. He, therefore, contended that this writ petition was liable to be dismissed.;