- (1.) R. H. Zaidi, J. Petitioners challenge the validity of the order dated 1-9-1995 passed by the Deputy Director of Education, Kanpur Region, Kanpur in exercise of his power under Section 60-D of U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) authorising respondent No. 4, Mohammad Aslam to operate the accounts of Halim Muslim Degree College, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the College.)
(2.) THE brief facts of the case giving rise to the present petition are that, dispute with respect to management of the college is going on for quite some time between two rival groups one led by petitioner No. 2 Dr. M. A. W. Rizvi and other by Shri Fahetim Ahmad, respondent No 3 vide his order dated 8-12-1994 the Vice Chancellor of Kanpur University recognised Shri Faheem Ahmad as a person authorised to operate the accounts of the college. The validity of the order dated 8-12-1994 was challenged by the petitioners before the Chancellor under Section 6s of the Act. Chancellor by his order dated 21-7-1995 set aside the order of the Vice-Chancellor. Thereafter, the signatures of petitioner No. 2 were attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 24-7-95. However, the validity of the order of attestation, referred to above, was challenged before the Deputy Director of Education and the Deputy Director of Education by his order dated 4-8-1995 stayed the operation of the said order. Feeling aggrieved petitioners have filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22847 of 1995. However, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court on 28-9-1995. It appears that on 31st July, 1995 original suit No. 928 of 1995 was filed by the petitioner No. 1 for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their agents and servants from interfering in the management of the plaintiff in any manner. An application for temporary injunction was also filed before the Civil Court. Learned Civil Judge (Senior Division, Kanpur Nagar) by his order dated 25-8-1995 allowed the application of the petitioner for temporary injunction. The defendants i. e. Muslim Association and others were restrained from interfering in the management of the petitioner over the college. In the operative portion, it was however, observed/directed as under : @hindi "3nf*np sffireikf % surfer 3 *ft ?*r anfcr R
(3.) FT Jnrre *$ $w \" a copy of the order of Civil Judge is contained as annexure XVII to the writ petition. It may be noted that neither the Vice Chancellor nor the University nor any other authority or officer of Education Department was impleaded in the said suit as a defendant.;