D.K.Seth - (1.) THIS is an application for review of the order dated 23.9.1996 disposing of the Writ Petition No. 30171 of 1996 on the ground that the petitioner who was a proper and necessary party, was not impleaded in the said writ petition and that the writ petition suffers from suppression of material facts and the dispute sought to be referred under Section 16A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act being frivolous one, could not have been referred to.
(2.) SRI A. P. Sahai, learned counsel for the applicant in the application for review has contended that in absence of proper and necessary party the writ petition was not maintainable and, therefore, the order disposing of the same is liable to be recalled. Ha contends further that the Committee of Management of which the applicant is the Manager was elected on 11.3.1996, his signatures was attested on 14.3.1996 by the District Inspector of Schools, Bhadohi. The dispute under Section 16A (7) of the Act between four group of people claiming to be in effective control of the institution was decided by decision dated 11.11.1994 by the Deputy Director of Education. In the said decision the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was not even a member of the general body. The above facts having not been brought on record, the Court was misled to pass the aforesaid order by reason of deliberate concealment of material facts. He has also contended that one of the parties to the said decision dated 11.11.1994 had challenged the said order by means of a writ petition and having been unsuccessful had filed a suit. The application of the writ petitioner to get himself added as a party in the said suit stood dismissed. Thus, the writ petitioner had never challenged the order dated 11.11.1994. Therefore, this is a fit case where the applicant should be allowed to be added as a party to the writ petition and thereafter to review the said order disposing of the writ petition or in the alternative the order should be recalled. Dr. Padia, learned counsel for the writ petitioner on the other hand contends that the writ petitioner was never aware of any election, as alleged. He has assailed the election held on the ground that the life of the Committee of Management was to expire in May, 1996, whereas the alleged election had taken place on-11.3.1996, for which process ought to have been initiated in January, 1996 and attestation was done on 14.3.1996. Therefore, it was not necessary to implead the applicant, who has not disclosed or indicated in his application as to how and in what manner the election had taken place. According to him the election held by the writ petitioner was undertaken after it was published in the newspaper, which are Annexures 1 and 2 to the petition respectively in April and May, 1996. Despite such advertisement the applicant did not issue any counter advertisement claiming themselves to be the Committee of Management. Dr. Padia, learned counsel for the writ petitioner contends that the applicant not being a party to the writ petition cannot seek review of the order disposing of the same. The court becomes functus officio as soon as the writ petition is disposed of. Therefore, there cannot be any scope of reviewing the order on the basis of application made by the applicant. According to him, there cannot be any impleadment after the matter is disposed of inasmuch as the review application can be entertained only after the applicant is added as a party. The applicant cannot be added as a party in a disposed of matter.
(3.) IN reply to the above contention of Dr. Padia, Sri Sahai learned counsel has relied on various decisions to which I shall refer to at the appropriate stage. On the basis of the submission made by Mr. Sahai and Dr. Padia the fact as is obtained in the present case are that there was a dispute between four groups with regard to the claim of the Committee of Management which was ultimately decided by an order dated 11.11.1994 wherein it was held that the Committee of Management headed by the Manager Sri Ram Achal Dubey, was in effective control of the institution and duly elected management thereof and accordingly recognition was granted to the said Committee of Management. Admittedly, the election had taken place on 11.5.1993. Therefore, the life of the Committee of Management was due to expire in May 1996. At the same time the claim of Sri Prabhu Nath Misra and Sri Dridwat Misra as the second group and Sri Surendra Nath Burnwal as the third group, were held to have no claim because of the reasons that their member list was not approved and that they have not been able to prove that they were members of the general body and that none of them has any effective control over the Management of the institution. This order was challenged by means of writ petition by Sri Prabhu Nath Misra and Sri Dridwat Misra. But it was never challenged by Sri Surendra Nath Burnwal. The said writ petitions were rejected by this Court. Thereupon Sri Prabhu Nath Misra filed Original Suit No. 33/96 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhadohi. In the said case the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure filed by Sri Surendra Kumar Burnwal, claiming himself to be lawfully registered Committee of Management of the institution, was rejected by an order dated 17th July, 1996 on the finding that there was no basis of his claim. Aggrieved by the said order Sri S. N. Burnwal filed Civil Revision No. 33 of 1996 before the Additional District Judge, Bhadohi. The said revision was also dismissed by an order dated 16.8.1996. The present writ petition was moved after rejection of the said application on 17.9.1996. The fact remains that in the writ petition a reference has been made to the order dated 11.11.1994 but no particulars thereof were either disclosed or the fact that the said order having been challenged in the writ petition by one of the other claimant stood dismissed and that the petitioner did not challenge the same at all has not been disclosed. It was also not brought to the notice of this Court that the dispute has once been decided in the manner concerned in the order dated 11.11.1994. Nothing was disclosed about filing of the suit by Sri Prabhu Nath Misra and rejection of the application of the writ petitioner to get himself added in the said suit.;