Partly allowed

C/M Shri Panchayati Swami Brahmanand Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC20 Jul 2021WRIC/4905/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order of single operation of accounts for a Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, which ignored relevant documents and communications from the Joint Director of Education regarding recent committee elections. The court quashed the single operation order and remanded the matter for afresh consideration after hearing all parties.

What did the court decide?

The order of single operation dated 28.01.2021 was quashed as it ignored relevant documents. The matter was remanded to the respondent to pass an order afresh after hearing all parties within four wee

C/M Shri Panchayati Swami Brahmanand Adarsh… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4905 of 2021 Petitioner :- C/M Shri Panchayati Swami Brahmanand Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Uma Nath Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Durga Tiwari

¶2

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶3

Heard Sri Uma Nath Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 4 and Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the caveator.

¶4

This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 28.01.2021 passed by respondent no. 3, whereby an order has been passed for single operation of the accounts of the Institution in question.

¶5

Facts in brief are that an Institution in the name of Shri Panchayati Swami Brahmanand Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Naya Bazar, Distirct- Basti is imparting education in Sanskrit. The said institution is run and managed by elected Committee of Management. The last election for the Committee of Management for the Institution was held in the year 2017. According to petitioner, fresh elections were held on 22.11.2020 and the list of elected officer bearers was forwarded on 25.11.2020 and the signatures were attested. It appears that some dispute arose in regard to the election and respondent no. 3, District Inspector of Schools, Basti had sought opinion of respondent no. 2, Joint Director of Education, Basti Division, Basti. On 23.12.2020, respondent no. 2 had required the Manager of the Institution to submit the documents in regard to election held on 22.11.2020 and directed him to appear on 31.12.2020. Copy of the letter has been brought on record as Annexure-12 to the writ petition. According to Sri Pandey,

¶6

Manager of the Institution appeared before respondent no. 2 on 31.12.2020 along with records, copy of the letter addressed to respondent no. 2 has been brought on record as Annexure-13 to the writ petition. On 14.01.2021, respondent no. 2, Joint Director of Education, Basti Division, Basti wrote a letter to respondent no. 3 stating that documents regarding counter signature on the election so held are being forwarded to him who shall do the needful. It appears that respondent no. 3 on 28.01.2021 had passed an order for single operation of the accounts of the Institution without taking note of the letter of the Joint Director of Education dated 14.01.2021.

¶7

Sri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no. 3 himself had sought directions from respondent no. 2 who had not considered the same and all the original documents relating to election of the Committee of Management was submitted before respondent no. 2 on 31.12.2020. He further contended that the order impugned does not take note of the said fact and has been passed holding that the elections were void and has proceeded for single operation of the accounts.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel while opposing the prayer so made vehemently submitted that the order passed by respondent no. 3 takes note of the fact that no valid list of the Members was submitted before respondent no. 3, as such the order for single operation was rightly passed.

¶9

Ms. Durga Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the caveator contended that the matter regarding the membership of the Society in question is pending consideration before Assistant Registrar, Chits, Funds and Societies, Gorakhpur and no valid election has been held as claimed by petitioner and nor list has been sent by Assistant Registrar to District Inspector of Schools

¶10

for holding any election for the Committee of Management.

¶11

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

¶12

From the perusal of order impugned, it appears that the District Inspector of Schools, Basti was swayed away by the fact that the valid list of Members of the Society was not placed and thus no election was held for the Committee of Management. Once, respondent no. 3 himself had asked for clarification/ direction from respondent no. 2 and respondent no. 2 after obtaining all the documents from petitioner/ Committee of Management has forwarded the same to respondent no. 3 for passing appropriate order, which was the duty of the respondent no. 3 to have considered each and every document so placed before him by the petitioner as well as forwarded from the office of respondent no. 2 before passing the order impugned. There is not a recital of the fact that respondent no. 3 had received any document or communication dated 14.01.2021 from the office of respondent no. 2 while passing the order impugned dated 28.01.2021.

¶13

In view of above, I find that the order dated 28.01.2021 has been passed completely ignoring the records sent by office of respondent no. 2 and the same is hereby quashed.

¶14

The matter is remanded back to respondent no. 3 to pass order afresh after considering all documents so sent by office of respondent no. 2 as well as after hearing the petitioner as well as caveator. The aforesaid exercise shall be carried out within four weeks from the date of production of copy of this order downloaded from the official website of Allahabad High Court.

¶15

Writ petition stands partly allowed.

¶16

Order Date :- 20.7.2021/V.S.Singh

C/M Shri Panchayati Swami Brahmanand Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C/M Shri Panchayati Swami Brahmanand Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Kuldeep Singh Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Sachchidanand Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ravi Pandey Vs Dheeraj Yadav

Smt. Indrawati Devi and 19 Others Vs Commissioner Gorakhpur Division and 2 Others