Single Judge held a life member of a general body lacks locus standi to challenge an appointment made by the Committee of Management via Article 226; petition dismissed as misconceived.
Petition dismissed as misconceived.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12206 of 2016
Petitioner :- Shakti Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vinod Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Yadav,Varun Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.
The petitioner who claims to be a life member of the general body assails the appointment of the fifth respondent. This Court fails to find any right inhering in the petitioner to either prefer this writ petition or to assail the appointment as made since fundamentally the right of the petitioner is to raise a dispute if any in the general body itself or with the Committee of Management. The reliance placed by learned counsel on the decision rendered by a Division Bench of the Court in C/M Janta Inter College and Another Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others, 2017 (6) AWC 5558 is misconceived since in paragraph -31 of that decision all that was observed by the Bench was that every member of the general body has a right to see that the institution is run and managed in accordance with the statutory rules. This observation as appearing in that decision cannot be stretched so as to recognize a right inhering in the petitioner by virtue of him being a member of the general body to assail an appointment made by the committee of management. The second decision which has been relied upon by the learned counsel has been rendered in Salauddin Vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others, Special Appeal No. 266 of 2015 decided on 1 May 2015. This decision also does not come to the aid of the petitioner since it does not recognize the right of a
member of the general body to petition against an appointment made by the Committee of Management. The Court is clearly of the view that the petitioner is not entitled to assail the appointment by invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The petition is misconceived and is dismissed .
Order Date :- 17.4.2019 Arun K. Singh
(Yashwant Varma, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a life member of a general body has the right to challenge an appointment made by the Committee of Management under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Whether reliance on C/M Janta and Salauddin establishes a right to assail appointments by general body members.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C/M Janta Inter College and Another Vs. State of U.P. And 2 OthersReferred¶6
C/M Janta Inter College and Another Vs. State of U.P. And 2 Others, 2017 (6) AWC 5558
Salauddin Vs. State of U.P. And 5 OthersReferred¶6
Salauddin Vs. State of U.P. And 5 Others, Special Appeal No. 266 of 2015
Shakti Singh
State Of U.P.
Yashwant Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
