High Court · 2025

2. The writ petition was filed by respondent no.7 to the appeal inter alia questioning the validity of orders dated 09.10.2024 and

13.11.2024 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, whereby the electoral college of the institution in question was finalized and after holding elections, the result was declared, respectively.

3. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, a contention was made on behalf of the respondent that election of the Committee of Management was per se illegal as the entire election process was concluded in one day, which is evident from the election programme (Annexure No. 20 of the writ petition) and, therefore, the said election could not be recognized by the District Inspector of Schools without application of mind. Further submissions were made that the respondent herein has no objection if the fresh elections are conducted by the Authorized Controller in accordance with law.

4. The appellant herein, who was represented by the Senior Counsel and learned counsel, made submissions that they have no objection if the fresh elections are conducted by the Authorized Controller. Apparently, based on the said contention, learned Single Judge has passed orders setting aside the order dated

09.10.2024 and 13.11.2024 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia and directed holding of fresh elections of the Committee of Management, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

5. An application was moved on behalf of the appellant seeking correction in the order inter alia claiming that the concession was confined to the order dated 13.11.2024 declaring the election result and not qua 09.10.2024, deciding the electoral college. However, the application came to be rejected by order dated 07.01.2025, holding same as misconceived.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that from the sequence of events, it is apparent that the concession was confined to order dated 13.11.2024. However, the same has wrongly been assumed qua order dated 09.10.2024 also regarding which neither there was any submission made nor any concession given and, therefore, the order impugned to the said extent deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though he insisted that the concession was regarded qua both the orders dated

09.10.2024 and 13.11.2024, however, a somersault is sought to be taken once the order was passed by the Court, which is only an after thought. Further submission is made that a specific challenge was made to order dated 09.10.2024 as well and merely by setting aside the order dated 13.11.2024, the cause raised by the respondents, would not be addressed and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference.

8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

9. Normally, the indications, made in the orders passed by the Court, are taken at face value and the parties are insisted in moving the same Court for getting modification in relation to what has been submitted before the said Court. However, in the present case, an attempt made by the appellant in this regard has been rejected by indicating the application as misconceived and nothing has been indicated by the learned Single Judge as to the contention raised pertaining to not giving of consent regarding setting aside of order dated 09.10.2024.

10. The whole sequence of events, as noticed hereinbefore, would reveal that though the respondent had challenged the orders dated

09.10.2024 and 13.11.2024 before the learned Single Judge, the contentions, which were noticed, only pertains to the order dated

13.11.2024 regarding the entire election process taking place in one day and the statement of counsel for the respondents herein was also noticed that he has no objection, if fresh election is conducted by the Authorized Controller in accordance with law. Based on which, the consent apparently was given by the appellant for 'if the fresh election is conducted by the Authorized Controller'. The said consent cannot be read as consent for setting aside of order dated 09.10.2024, which is totally independent from the conduct of the election which took place on 10.11.2024 and recognized by the District Inspector of Schools on 13.11.2024.

11. However, this is also true that the respondent had challenged the order dated 09.10.2024 earlier also, wherein on account of passing of the order dated 13.11.2024, the respondent was permitted to challenge the same along with the order dated

13.11.2024 and on account of passing of the order dated

12.12.2024 by the learned Single Judge of the present nature, the respondent cannot be deprived of the challenge to the order dated

09.10.2024.

12. In view of the above facts situation, special appeal is allowed. The order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Writ-C No. 41469 of 2024 is restored to its original number, which would be decided by the learned Single Judge on its own merit pertaining to challenge to orders dated 09.10.2024 and 13.11.2024.

13. As after passing of the order dated 12.12.2024, the Authorized Controller has taken charge of the institution, till the disposal of the writ petition/passing of any appropriate order by the learned Single Judge by way of an interim order/final order, the Authorized Controller would continue to remain in charge of the said institution. It is expected that the matter shall be heard and decided with expedition. All the contentions of the parties pertaining to the issues, as raised, shall remain open. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 RK/Pkb (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

2. The writ petition was filed by respondent no.7 to the appeal inter alia questioning the validity of orders dated 09.10.2024 and

13.11.2024 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia, whereby the electoral college of the institution in question was finalized and after holding elections, the result was declared, respectively.

3. When the matter came up before the learned Single Judge, a contention was made on behalf of the respondent that election of the Committee of Management was per se illegal as the entire election process was concluded in one day, which is evident from the election programme (Annexure No. 20 of the writ petition) and, therefore, the said election could not be recognized by the District Inspector of Schools without application of mind. Further submissions were made that the respondent herein has no objection if the fresh elections are conducted by the Authorized Controller in accordance with law.

4. The appellant herein, who was represented by the Senior Counsel and learned counsel, made submissions that they have no objection if the fresh elections are conducted by the Authorized Controller. Apparently, based on the said contention, learned Single Judge has passed orders setting aside the order dated

09.10.2024 and 13.11.2024 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia and directed holding of fresh elections of the Committee of Management, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of the order.

5. An application was moved on behalf of the appellant seeking correction in the order inter alia claiming that the concession was confined to the order dated 13.11.2024 declaring the election result and not qua 09.10.2024, deciding the electoral college. However, the application came to be rejected by order dated 07.01.2025, holding same as misconceived.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that from the sequence of events, it is apparent that the concession was confined to order dated 13.11.2024. However, the same has wrongly been assumed qua order dated 09.10.2024 also regarding which neither there was any submission made nor any concession given and, therefore, the order impugned to the said extent deserves to be quashed and set aside.

7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though he insisted that the concession was regarded qua both the orders dated

09.10.2024 and 13.11.2024, however, a somersault is sought to be taken once the order was passed by the Court, which is only an after thought. Further submission is made that a specific challenge was made to order dated 09.10.2024 as well and merely by setting aside the order dated 13.11.2024, the cause raised by the respondents, would not be addressed and, therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference.

8. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

9. Normally, the indications, made in the orders passed by the Court, are taken at face value and the parties are insisted in moving the same Court for getting modification in relation to what has been submitted before the said Court. However, in the present case, an attempt made by the appellant in this regard has been rejected by indicating the application as misconceived and nothing has been indicated by the learned Single Judge as to the contention raised pertaining to not giving of consent regarding setting aside of order dated 09.10.2024.

10. The whole sequence of events, as noticed hereinbefore, would reveal that though the respondent had challenged the orders dated

09.10.2024 and 13.11.2024 before the learned Single Judge, the contentions, which were noticed, only pertains to the order dated

13.11.2024 regarding the entire election process taking place in one day and the statement of counsel for the respondents herein was also noticed that he has no objection, if fresh election is conducted by the Authorized Controller in accordance with law. Based on which, the consent apparently was given by the appellant for 'if the fresh election is conducted by the Authorized Controller'. The said consent cannot be read as consent for setting aside of order dated 09.10.2024, which is totally independent from the conduct of the election which took place on 10.11.2024 and recognized by the District Inspector of Schools on 13.11.2024.

11. However, this is also true that the respondent had challenged the order dated 09.10.2024 earlier also, wherein on account of passing of the order dated 13.11.2024, the respondent was permitted to challenge the same along with the order dated

13.11.2024 and on account of passing of the order dated

12.12.2024 by the learned Single Judge of the present nature, the respondent cannot be deprived of the challenge to the order dated

09.10.2024.

12. In view of the above facts situation, special appeal is allowed. The order dated 12.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside. Writ-C No. 41469 of 2024 is restored to its original number, which would be decided by the learned Single Judge on its own merit pertaining to challenge to orders dated 09.10.2024 and 13.11.2024.

13. As after passing of the order dated 12.12.2024, the Authorized Controller has taken charge of the institution, till the disposal of the writ petition/passing of any appropriate order by the learned Single Judge by way of an interim order/final order, the Authorized Controller would continue to remain in charge of the said institution. It is expected that the matter shall be heard and decided with expedition. All the contentions of the parties pertaining to the issues, as raised, shall remain open. Order Date :- 27.2.2025 RK/Pkb (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) PRAMOD KUMAR BAJPAI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad