Quashed

C/M Bhartiya Shiksha Sadan Inter College and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC28 May 2018WRIC/18687/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition quashing an order that fixed a hearing date before a Regional Level Committee. The court held that the Joint Director of Education failed to record a finding of a bona fide election dispute as previously mandated before referring the matter.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order fixing the hearing date was quashed; the matter was remitted to the Joint Director of Education to pass a fresh finding within six weeks.

C/M Bhartiya Shiksha Sadan Inter College and… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 19

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 18687 of 2018

¶3

Petitioner :- C/M Bhartiya Shiksha Sadan Inter College And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gyanendra Kumar Singh,Sheo Karan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶5

Heard counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel for respondents 1 to 5 and Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav holding brief of Sri Yogish Kumar Saxena for respondent no. 6. With their consent, the instant writ petition is being disposed of finally without inviting a formal counter affidavit.

¶6

The writ petition calls into question an order dated 2.5.2018 by which the Joint Director of Education, respondent no.2, has fixed a date for hearing of the dispute relating to the election before the Regional Level Committee in purported compliance of order of this Court dated 11.4.2018 in writ petition no.12397 of 2018. The operative part of order of this Court dated 11.4.2018 is as follows :-

¶7

"Accordingly and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, the instant petition is disposed of with direction to the third respondent to take decision in pursuance of notices dated 18.12.2017 & 8.1.2018, expeditiously, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. It is further provided that in case, respondent No. 5 makes an application along with certified copy of this order before the third respondent for being given copy of representation dated 6.12.2017, the same shall be made available to it, to enable it to file the response.

¶8

It is needless to observe that in case, respondent No. 3 comes to the conclusion that there is a bona fide dispute relating to election, it shall be open to him to refer the matter to the Regional Level Committee".

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this Court while directing the Joint Director of Education to take decision in the matter specifically clarified that he would refer the dispute to the Regional Level Committee, if he comes to the conclusion that there is a bonafide dispute relating to election. It is urged that without recording any such finding, respondent no.2, by impugned order, has fixed a date for hearing before the Regional Level Committee.

¶10

On 23.5.2018, the following order was passed :-

¶11

"Sri Y.K. Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 6 seeks time to ascertain whether there exists any separate order by the Joint Director of Education arriving at the conclusion that there is bona fide dispute of election between two rival claimants, and consequently, the matter requires adjudication by the Regional Level Committee or he has mechanically fixed a date for decision by the Regional Level Committee.

¶12

As prayed, put up as fresh on 25.5.2018."

¶13

Today, when the matter is taken up, Sri Sanjeev Kumar Yadav, holding brief of Sri Y.K. Saxena, learned counsel for respondent no.6 conceded that there is no separate order in existence holding that there is a bona fide election dispute between the parties. In such view of the matter, the impugned order could not be sustained and is accordingly quashed.

¶14

The matter is remitted back to the second respondent for passing a fresh order strictly in accordance with the observations made above.

¶15

The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out by respondent no.2 within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶16

The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶17

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)

¶18

Order Date :- 28.5.2018

¶19

skv

C/M Bhartiya Shiksha Sadan Inter College and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Bhartiya Shiksha Sadan Inter College and Another v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Komal Singh and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Geeta Vs Vice Chancellor, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University and 2 Ors.

C/M Sarvodaya sanskrit Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Kaushalya Vidya Pracharini Sabha and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mata Behfaiya Sogra Mahavidhyalaya Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Km. Roshni Kushwaha Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others