High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 35 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23842 of 2022
Legal Reasoning
Chancellor vide his order dated 15.12.2017 but the same has been recalled by the Vice Chancellor vide his order dated 16.9.2019. The elections of the Managing Committee of the degree college have been held by the petitioners on the order dated 14.8.2020 passed by the Vice Chancellor himself and under the supervision of the Observers appointed by the Registrar of the University vide his order dated 9.11.2020. The order dated 9.11.2020 was passed by the Registrar in pursuance to the order dated 14.8.2020 passed by the Vice Chancellor. Writ Petition No.21026 of 2020 filed by respondent no.6 against the order dated 14.8.2020 is still pending and no interim order staying the operation of the order dated 14.8.2020 has been passed by this Court in the aforesaid petition. In Committee of Management (Supra), this Court held that the power to be exercised by the University under Section 2(13) of the Act, 1973 is purely an administrative power, provided for day today working of the management of an affiliated degree college and is subject to any order passed by the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860. As noted above, the Prescribed Authority in his order dated 24.6.2013 passed in proceedings registered under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 held that the respondent no.6 was not a member of the Society and the said order is still operative as no interim order staying the operation of the order passed by the Prescribed Authority has been passed either by this Court or by any other competent forum. A Division Bench of this Court in Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi and another versus Arya Vidya Sabha Kashi, Varanasi and others (2004) 2 UPLBEC 1593 has held that while recognizing a Managing Committee of the degree college, the Vice Chancellor has to take into consideration any decision passed by a competent authority under the Act, 1860. It is also evident from the facts stated above that the list of elected office bearers of the Society and the different elections set-up by the petitioners have been recognized and registered by the office of the Registrar in proceedings under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1860. A reading of the order dated 22.7.2022 passed by the Vice Chancellor shows that the aforesaid facts which were relevant for a decision regarding the plea of the petitioners to be recognized as the Managing Committee of the College have not been considered by the Vice Chancellor. In his order dated 22.7.2022, the Vice Chancellor has failed to exercise the powers vesting in him under Section 2(13) of the Act, 1860. For the aforesaid reason, the order dated 22.7.2022 is liable to be quashed and the matter is to be remanded back to the Vice Chancellor for a fresh decision on merits.
Arguments
Petitioner :- C/M Brahmcharya Ashram Shri Sarvar Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Sankalp Narain Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar,Avneesh Tripathi Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai,J. Heard Shri G.K.Singh counsel for the petitioners, the Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1, 4 & 5, Shri Avneesh Tripathi for respondent nos. 2 & 3 and Shri Arun Kumar Mishra for respondent no.6. The facts of the case are that Brahmcharya Ashram Shri Sarvar Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Kishorganj, Salempur District Deoria is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1860) and runs a degree college by the same name. The records as annexed with the writ petition reveal that a certificate dated 2.7.1993 renewing the registration of the Society was issued by the office of the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits District Gorakhpur at the instance of one Bhartendu Mishra. The petitioner no.2 who claims himself to be the elected Manager of the Committee of Management of the society filed an application for recall of the renewal certificate dated 2.7.1993 and the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Lucknow vide his order dated 28.5.2008 recalled the certificate dated 2.7.1993 and all the successive certificates issued from time to time renewing the registration of the Society. The order dated 28.5.2008 was challenged by respondent no.6 before the Commissioner, Gorakhpur Division, District Gorakhpur who vide his order dated 7.2.2013 dismissed the appeal. The orders dated 28.5.2008 and 7.2.2013 were challenged by respondent no. 6 through Writ Petition No.15912 of 2013. The aforesaid Writ Petition was partly allowed by this Court vide its order dated 20.3.2013 and the order dated 28.5.2008 passed by the Registrar was quashed on the ground that the renewal certificate is in favour of a particular office bearer of the Society but is only regarding renewal of the registration of the Society. It was held that the order dated 28.5.2008 shall be read as an order renewing the registration of society done in favour of the Society and not in favour of any particular person. Through the aforesaid order dated 20.3.2013, this Court further permitted the parties to file their respective claims to be the elected office bearers of the Society before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860. Case No.5 of 2013 was registered before the Prescribed Authority/Deputy District Magistrate, District Deoria under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 at the instance of respondent no.6. The Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 24.6.2013 dismissed Case No.5/2013 and held that the reference was not maintainable because the respondent no.6 failed to prove that he was a member of the Society. The order dated 24.6.2013 passed by the Prescribed Authority was challenged by respondent no.6 through Writ C No.43875 of 2013 which is still pending. An interim order dated 11.9.2013 was passed in the aforesaid writ petition restraining the petitioners from transferring the property of the Society or the institution. No other interim order was passed by this Court in Writ C No.43875 of 2013. It is the claim of the petitioners that fresh election of the Society were held on 28.2.2016 wherein petitioner no. 2 was elected as the Manager. The list of elected office bearers of the Society were submitted before the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits District Gorakhpur for registration. It appears that respondent no.6 also filed an alternative list of the alleged elected office bearers of the Society. The Assistant Registrar vide his order dated 22.7.2016 rejected the list submitted by respondent no.6 and accepted, for registration, the list of elected office bearers of the Society submitted by petitioner no.2. The order dated 22.7.2016 has been challenged by the respondent no. 6 through Writ Petition No.40995 of 2016 which is pending before this Court. No interim order was passed in favour of respondent no.6 in the aforesaid writ petition. In the meantime, the respondent no.6 filed an application before the University for being recognized as the elected Manager of the Committee of Management of the degree college and for recognition of the alleged elected Committee of Management under Section 2(13) of the U.P. State University Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as Act, 1973). The Vice Chancellor of the University vide his order dated 6.12.2017 recognized the Committee of Management set-up by the respondent no.6 and the respondent no.6 as the elected Manager of the said Committee of Management. The aforesaid decision of the Vice Chancellor of the University was communicated to respondent no.6 by the Registrar of the University vide his letter dated 15.12.2017. The petitioner no. 2 filed a reference under Section 68 of the Act, 1973 against the order passed by the University recognizing the respondent no. 6 as the Manager of the Committee of Management of the Institution and the Chancellor of the University vide his order dated 16.9.2019 set aside the order dated 6.12.2017 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University and the order/letter dated 15.12.2017 issued by the Registrar of the University. Subsequently, by order dated 14.8.2020, the Vice Chancellor of the University recalled the letter dated 15.12.2017 and permitted the petitioner no. 2 to hold the elections of the Committee of Management of the degree college after getting Observers appointed by the Registrar of the University. The Registrar of the University by his order dated 9.11.2020 appointed Observers for the elections to be held in pursuance to the order dated 14.8.2020 passed by the Vice Chancellor. Civil Misc.Writ Petition No.21026 of 2020 was filed by respondent no. 6 challenging the order dated 14.8.2020 passed by the Vice Chancellor. The said Writ Petition is also pending before this Court. No interim order was passed by this Court in the aforesaid writ petition. In pursuance to the order dated 14.8.2020 passed by the Vice Chancellor and in presence of the Observers appointed by the Registrar, elections of the Committee of Management of the degree college were held on 2.12.2020 and the report regarding the aforesaid elections was submitted by the Observers. The list of elected office bearers of the Society showing the petitioner no. 2 as the elected Manager of the governing body of the Society was also registered by the Registrar under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1860 vide his order dated 1.2.2021. It is stated in the writ petition that fresh elections of the society were held on 25.2.2022 in which the petitioner no. 2 was elected as the Manager of the governing body of the Society and the said elections were recognized by the Registrar and the list of elected office bearers of the Society was registered by him under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1860. Meanwhile, the petitioners also filed an application before the University to be recognized as the elected Committee of Management of the degree college but the said claim of the petitioners has been rejected by the Vice Chancellor vide his order dated 22.7.2022 on the ground that the elections of the Committee of Management are in dispute therefore, the Committee of Management set-up by the petitioners can be recognized only after the matters are decided by the concerned Courts. The order dated 22.7.2022 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University has been challenged in the present petition. It was argued by the counsel for the petitioners that in his order dated 24.6.2013 passed in Case No.5 of 2013, the Prescribed Authority had held that respondent no. 6 was not a member of the Society and no interim order staying the operation of the order of the Prescribed Authority was passed by this Court in Writ C No.43875 of 2013. It was argued that subsequently, fresh elections have been held by the petitioners and on the basis of the aforesaid elections, the list of elected office bearers of the Society have been registered by the Assistant Registrar exercising his powers under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1860. It was argued that the list of elected office bearers of the Society were lastly registered by the Registrar under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1860 by his order dated 25.2.2022. It was argued that in the aforesaid circumstance, the disputes raised by respondent no. 6 regarding the elected Committee of Management are fictitious disputes and could not have been considered by the Vice Chancellor of the University while considering the application of the petitioners for being recognized as the managing body of the degree college. It was further argued that the elections set-up by the petitioners for recognition as the management of the degree college were held under the orders of the Vice Chancellor dated 14.8.2020 passed by the Vice Chancellor himself and after Observers were appointed by the Registrar vide his order dated 9.11.2020. It was argued that the power of the University to recognize the management of a degree college affiliated to it under Section 2(13) of the Act, 1973 is an administrative power, provided for day today working of the management of the degree college and while passing order under Section 2(13) of the Act, 1973, the Vice Chancellor of the University is bound by the orders of the Prescribed Authority passed under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860 and the orders passed by the Registrar recognizing the elected office bearers of the Society under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1860. It was argued that in the facts of the case narrated above, the Vice Chancellor was bound to recognize the petitioners as the Managing Committee of the degree college and for the said reason the order dated 22.7.2022 is liable to be set aside. In support of his contentions, the counsel for the petitioners has relied on the judgment of this Court reported in Committee of Management, the Chowdhury Chotu Ram Post Graduate Degree College and others versus Deputy Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits and others MANU/UP/0337/2006. Rebutting the argument of the counsel for the petitioners, the counsel for the respondent no. 6 has argued that in his order dated 24.6.2013 passed in Case No.5 of 2013, the Prescribed Authority had neither recognized the petitioner no. 2 as the elected Manager nor recognized the elections set-up by the petitioner no.2. It was argued that as there is a dispute regarding the Managing Committee of the degree college, there was no error in the order dated 22.7.2022 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the University calling for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The counsel for the respondents have also raised a preliminary objection that against the order dated 22.7.2022 passed by the Vice Chancellor, the petitioners have the remedy to file a reference under Section 68 of the Act, 1973 and therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed on ground of availability of alternative remedy to the petitioners. It was argued that for the aforesaid reasons, the petition lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties. The facts of the case narrated above show that after the order dated 24.6.2013 passed by the Prescribed Authority, the subsequent elections set up by the petitioners for the governing body of the Society have been recognized by the office of the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits and the list of elected office bearers of the Society submitted by the petitioners have been accepted by the office of the Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits under Section 4(1) of the Act, 1860. It is also evident from the facts stated above that till date, there is no order of any Court accepting the claim of respondent no.6 and in the order dated 24.6.2013 passed by the Prescribed Authority in Case No.5 of 2013 instituted under Section 25(1) of the Act, 1860, the respondent no.6 has been held not to be a member of the Society. It is also apparent from the facts stated above that the elections of the Managing Committee of the degree college set-up by the respondent no. 6 was initially recognized by the Vice
Decision
As the writ petition is being decided only on a question of law, therefore, the preliminary objection of the counsel for the respondents is not tenable and the said objections stand rejected. The writ petition is allowed. The order dated 22.7.2022 passed by the Vice Chancellor is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to the Vice Chancellor to pass fresh orders on the application of the petitioners to be recognized as the Managing Committee of the College within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is produced before him and in any case by 15.11.2022. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is allowed. Order Date :- 20.9.2022 IB Digitally signed by ITU BANERJEE Date: 2022.09.28 16:33:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad