- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. This writ petition relates to a dispute regarding the Election of the Committee of Management. The petitioner No. 2, Vashistha Kumar Rai as well as the respondent No. 3, Shambhu Rai both claim to have been elected as Manager of the Committee of Management of Kisan Snatkottar Mahavidyalaya, Tamkuhi Road, Shevarahi, District Kushi Nagar. The matter was placed before the Vice-Chancellor for decision under Section 2 (13) of the U. P. State Universities Act. By an order dated 29-9- 2006, the Vice- Chancellor recognized the petitioner No. 2, Vashistha Kumar Rai as Manager of the Committee of Management. On the same date, the Vice-Chancellor subsequently stayed the operation of the first order dated 29-9-2006 and thereafter proceeded to pass a third order on the same date i. e. 29- 9-2006, whereby the first order by which the petitioner No. 2 was recognized as Manager was recalled and the election of respondent No. 3, Shambhu Rai as Manager of the Committee of Management was duly recognized. Aggrieved by the subsequent two orders passed on 29-9-2006 by the Vice-Chancellor, this writ petition has been filed.
(2.) I have heard Sri Shashi Nandan, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Namit Srivastava for the petitioners; learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1; Sri B. D. Pandey, learned Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-University; as well as Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Juned Alam on behalf of contesting respondent No. 3 and have perused the record. With consent of learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of without calling for a counter- affidavit. The submission of learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Vice-Chancellor had no power to review his first order dated 29-9-2006 whereby the petitioner No. 2 had been recognized as the Manager of the Committee of Management. It has thus been contended that the subsequent orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor were without jurisdiction and the same having also been passed without notice to the petitioners, would be liable to be set aside. It was lastly contended on behalf of the petitioners that by the impugned order, no valid reasons had been assigned by the Vice-Chancellor for recalling his earlier order, and as such also it is liable to be quashed. On the other hand Sri Khare has submitted that the first order was neither dispatched nor communicated to the parties and as such the same never came into existence. The further contention is that since the first order dated 29-9-2006 was based on misrepresentation of facts, the same has rightly been recalled by the Vice-Chancellor. It was lastly submitted by Sri Khare that while passing the initial order also, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the Respondent No. 3 and as such the same was rightly recalled after the correct facts were placed before the Vice-Chancellor.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, in my view both the orders dated 29-9-2006 (i. e. first order recognizing the petitioner No. 2 as the Manager of the Committee of Management and the third order recalling the first order and recognizing the election of Shambhu Rai as Manager of the Committee of Management) are liable to be set aside. The third order dated 29-9-2006 appears to be without jurisdiction as the law does not provide for the Vice-Chancellor to review or recall his earlier order. Even otherwise, no notice or opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner prior to the passing of the said order. It is well-settled principle of law that in case an order has been passed in favour of a party, the said party would be entitled to be given notice and opportunity of hearing before such order passed in his favour earlier is to be recalled. As such the same would be liable to be quashed and is hereby done so.;