High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:7638-DB NAFR BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.02.14 10:06:22 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 107 of 2025 Adarsh Gramya Bharti Sikshan Samiti Tamnar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh, A Registered Society Registered Under CG Society Registration Act, 1973 Through Its Secretary - Laxmi Narayan Choudhary, S/o Late Shri Rajaram Choudhary, Aged About 61 Years, R/o Village Godhi, Tahsil Tamnar, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through - Principal Secretary, School Education Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District- Raipur C.G. 2. State of Chhattisgarh Through- Principal Secretary, Commerce And Industries Department, Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur, District Raipur C.G. 3. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Registrar, Firms And Societies, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. Assistant Registrar, Firms And Societies, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 5. Joint Director, Education Division Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 6. 7. District Education OfÏcer, Raigarh, District Raigarh C.G. Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Siksha Mandal Through - Its Secretary, Raipur, District- Rapur C.G. 2 8. Adarsh Bharti Sikshan Samiti, Kirodimal Nagar Through Its President
Legal Reasoning
Shri Vijay Kumar Agrawal Raigarh, Dist.- Raigarh (C.G.) 9. Jindal Adarsh Gramya Bharti Higher Secondary School Kirodimal Nagar, Tehsil- Raigarh, District- Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents For Appellant Mr. Anand Dadariya, Advocate. : For Respondents No. 1 to 6/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. For Respondent No. 7 : Mr. R.S. Patel, Advocate. For Respondents No.8 and 9 : Mr. Somesh Bajaj, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 13.02.2025 1. Heard Mr. Anand Dadariya, learned counsel for appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for respondents No.1 to 6/State, Mr. R.S. Patel, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No.7 and Mr. Somesh Bajaj, learned counsel, appearing for respondents No.8 and 9. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal against the order dated 21.11.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No. 4460 of 2021
Decision
by which learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein. 3. Brief facts of the case are that appellant - Adarsh Gramya Bharti Sikshan Samiti, Tamnar, District Raigarh, a registered Society 3 (hereinafter referred to as "the petitioner-Samiti"), has questioned the legality and propriety of the order dated 11.10.2021 passed by the Respondent No.7-Chhattisgarh Madhyamik Siksha Mandal (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent No.7-Mandal"), whereby its Recognition Committee has constituted a Sub Committee for re-consideration of change of name of the Samiti, which will run and manage by the Respondent No.9-Jindal Adarsh Gramya Bharti Higher Secondary School, Kirodimal Nagar, Tahsil and District Raigarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Respondent No.9-School). 4. It is alleged by the appellant-Samiti that the Respondent No.9-School is being run and managed by its Samiti since 1991, however, the process for change of name of the Samiti and renewal of its recognition, has been initiated by the Respondent No.7-Mandal by virtue of the order impugned, dated 11.10.2021 by constituting a Sub-Committee for the said purpose, irrespective of the fact that on an earlier occasion, the application, as was made by the Respondent No.9-School on 06.06.2019 for change of name of Samiti for running and managing its School, has already been rejected by the Respondent No.7-Mandal, vide its order dated 29.08.2020, while upholding the objection made by the appellant-Samiti on 07.08.2019. The appellant has filed writ petition which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the fact that the action on the part of the respondent No. 7 in issuing the impugned order constituting the Sub-Committee to consider the request of the respondent No. 8 through the respondent 4 No. 9 for change of the name of the samiti is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, in a pre-determined manner, as such deserves to be quashed. Learned Single Judge failed to consider the action of the respondent No. 7 in initiating the process for reconsideration of change of name is without authority and jurisdiction, as on the earlier occasion, the same has been rejected vide order dated 29.08.2020 after considering the entire facts and there is no provision and power to review their own order, as such the action of the respondent No. 7 is without authority and powers vested with them and the said order had already attained finality, as such, the same cannot be reconsidered at this stage. 6. He further submits that learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that the action of the respondent No. 7 in issuing the impugned order is with an intention to give undue favour to the respondent No. 8 which is newly constituted Samiti constituted with the similar name to act detrimental to the interest of the appellant Samiti which is running and managing the school since 1991. Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that there is no sufÏcient reason muchless valid reason to initiate the process again for reconsideration of change of name of the Samiti which will run and manage by respondent No. 9 school. Learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that reconsideration of change of Samiti during the issue regarding registration being sub- judice in the court of law is illegal, and bad in law. The action of reconsideration of change of name of the Samiti is contrary to the law governing the same. As such, the writ appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents support the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge and submit that learned Single Judge considering all the aspects of the matter has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein which warrants no interference by this Court. 8. We have learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it transpires that learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner-Samiti as well as the Respondent No.8-Samiti, both, are claiming to have their control over the Respondent No.9-School and, it appears that after considering their rival claims over the management of the Respondent No.9-School, the order impugned dated 11.10.2021 (Annexure P-1) has been passed by the Respondent No.7-Mandal, constituting a Sub-Committee for submission of its report in order to ascertain the actual control over the Respondent No.9-School. No order till date has, thus, been passed, as the order in this regard could be passed by the Respondent No.7- Mandal only after consideration of the report of the said Sub- Committee consisting of three members, which is yet to be submitted. Learned Single Judge further held that a Sub-Committee consisting of three members has been constituted in order to ascertain the fact regarding the actual control over the Respondent No.9-School. The Committee, so constituted has to examine the rival claims of the petitioner-Samiti, as well as, the Respondent No.8-Samiti and, to submit its report thereafter. No order has been passed by the Respondent No.7-Mandal, therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that 6 any kind of cause of action has arisen. However, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-Samiti, mainly, on the ground that on an earlier occasion, an application (Annexure P-7) dated 06.06.2019 made by the Respondent No.9-School for change of name of the Samiti for its running and managing was rejected by the Respondent No.7- Mandal vide order dated 29.08.2020 (Annexure P-10), based upon the inspection report submitted by its two Members Committee, namely, Jayram Mishra and Suresh Prasad Gupta. 10. Considering the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perusing the pleadings made in writ appeal as also in writ petition and the finding recorded by learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/appellant herein, we are of the considered opinion that learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error which warrants interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu