Dismissed

Lucknow Christian College Lko. Thru. President /Manager/Secy. Dr. Prof. R.R. Lyall and Others v. Lalit Kumar Srivastava and 4 Others

Allahabad HC19 Apr 2024/178/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal against an order directing the respondent to file a representation before the Authorized Controller. The court examined the scope of the Authorized Controller's powers under the UP Act, 1971 and dismissed the appeal, finding no interference required with the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The Special Appeal and all pending applications were dismissed.

Lucknow Christian College Lko. Thru. President… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:30633-DB

¶3

Chief Justice's Court

¶4

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 178 of 2024

¶5

Appellants :- Lucknow Christian College Lko. Thru. President /Manager/Secy. Dr. Prof. R.R. Lyall And Others Respondent :- Lalit Kumar Srivastava And 4 Others Counsel for Appellants :- Mr. Zainuddin Mohammad Siddiqui and Sachin Shukla, Advocates

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- Ms. Isha Mittal, Standing Counsel for the State and Mr. Som Kartik Shukla, Advocate

¶7

¶8

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶9

Pursuant to the order dated 16.04.2024, learned Standing Counsel

¶10

has produced instructions, inter-alia , confirming passing of the order dated 21.11.2023, Annexure No.CA-2, existence of which was disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. The appellants have filed one amendment application and a supplementary affidavit in compliance of the directions given by this Court and a counter affidavit, on behalf of the appellants against the affidavit (preliminary objection of respondent No.1).

¶11

The appeal is directed against the order dated 02.02.2024 passed in WRIT-A No.768 of 2024 whereby the learned Single Judge on coming to the conclusion that the grievance is raised by the respondent herein would entail consideration of factual aspect. Liberty was granted to him to file a fresh representation before the Authorized Controller, Centennial Inter College, Golaganj, Lucknow/Associate District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow and he was directed to consider and decide it within six weeks from the date a copy of the order was produced before him.

¶12

The present appeal has been filed purportedly by the Lucknow Christian College, Committee of Management, Centennial Higher

¶13

¶14

Secondary School, Lucknow and Dr. (Professor R.R. Lyall) claiming himself to be President/Secretary/Manager of Centennial Higher Secondary School, Lucknow. Along with the appeal, an application seeking leave to appeal and another application seeking condonation of delay has been filed.

¶15

In the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent No.1, objection has been raised pertaining to the maintainability of the appeal at the instance of the appellants, inter-alia , with the submissions that the State has by its order dated 21.11.2023 extended the period of appointment of Authorized Controller, who was initially appointed by the order dated 14.07.2022 and as Authorized Controller has been appointed, the appellants have no locusstandi to question the validity of the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶16

In response to the preliminary objection raised in this regard, initially it was contended that no order like order dated 21.11.2023 exists. As noticed hereinbefore, directions were given to the learned Standing Counsel to complete her instructions on the said aspect and she has confirmed passing of the order dated 21.11.2023.

¶17

By way of amendment application, the validity of the order dated 21.11.2023 is sought to be questioned.

¶18

Further submissions have been made that in view of the provisions of Section 6(3) of the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 (for short, 'the Act of 1971'), the appointment of the Authorized Controller is only for the purpose of disbursement of salary and nothing more and for

¶19

¶20

rest all purposes, the Committee of Management continues to have jurisdiction and, therefore, the direction obtained by the respondent No.1 from the learned Single Judge seeking consideration of his representation by the Authorized Controller is absolutely illegal as the said Authorized Controller has no jurisdiction to deal with the said representation.

¶21

Submissions have also been made with the aid of judgment in Committee of Management, Janta Inter College and another v. State of U.P. & 2 Others, Special Appeal No.337 of 2017, decided on 05.07.2017 to claim that every member of the General Body and every office bearer of the Committee of Management which had been superseded has the right to seek that the institution is run and managed in accordance with the statutory provisions applicable and can always question the action taken in relation to the Society in question.

¶22

We have considered the submissions made and have perused the material available on record.

¶23

Insofar as the challenge laid to the jurisdiction of the Authorized Controller to decide the representation to be filed/filed by the respondent No.1 is concerned, the provisions of Section 6 of the Act of 1971, insofar as relevant, inter-alia , reads as under:-

¶24

" 6. Enforcement of provisions and directions. -(1) x x x.

¶25

(2) x x x.

¶26

(3) Where the management fails to comply as aforesaid or to show cause, or the Regional Deputy Director of Education considers the cause shown to be insufficient, he may by order supersede the management for such period not exceeding one year as may be specified in the order, and authorize any Person (hereinafter referred to as the Authorised Controller) to take over the management of the institution for the said period :

¶27

¶28

Provided that the Regional Deputy Director of Education, may where he considers it necessary or expedient so to do,-

¶29

(i) extend the said period from time to time, so however, that the period so extended does not exceed five years' in the aggregate; or

¶30

(ii) revoke the order at any time :

¶31

Provided further that nothing in clause (ii) of the preceding proviso shall bar the passing of a fresh order under this section.

¶32

(4) On an order being made under sub-section (3) of the Authorised Controller shall, to the exclusion of the management and subject only to the Directions, if any, of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, the Director or the State Government, exercise all the powers and perform all the functions of the management, including management of the property belonging to or vested in the institution, and in particular, operate singly the bank account referred to in Section 5 :

¶33

Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed to confer on the Authorised Controller the power to transfer any such property (except by way of letting from month to month in the ordinary course of management) or to create any charge thereon (except as a condition of receipt of any grant-in-aid of the institution from the State Government)."

¶34

A perusal of the above provisions would reveal that the Management

¶35

is 'superseded' and is 'taken over' by the Authorized Controller. Further, sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the Act of 1971 provides that the Authorized Controller shall to the exclusion of Management and subject only to the directions if any of the Regional Deputy Director of Education exercise of all powers and perform all the functions of the Management including the Management of the property belonging to or vested in the institution.

¶36

The statutory provisions being ex-facie clear, the claim made that the Authorized Officer is appointed only for the purpose of disbursement of salaries and rest of the Management continues with the superseded Committee of Management cannot be accepted.

¶37

In that view of the matter and the fact that by order dated 21.11.2023,

¶38

¶39

the term of the Authorized Officer has been extended for a period of six months, it cannot be said that the Authorized Officer has no jurisdiction to deal with the representation to be made by the respondent No.1 and/or the appellants would have the jurisdiction to decide the same.

¶40

So far as the plea raised pertaining to the locus of the appellants in view of the judgment in the case of Janta Inter College (supra) is concerned, even if the appellants would have any locus in this regard, the same at this stage is premature inasmuch as only a direction has been given by the learned Single Judge for consideration of the representation to be made/made by the respondent No.1. The appellants, are free to appear before the Authorized Controller and make their submissions on the aspect on the representation made by the respondent No.1 and in case any order is passed which is not of the liking of the appellants, they can always question its validity in accordance with law.

¶41

In view of the above facts situation, we do not find that any interference is required in the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. All the pending applications stand disposed of.

¶42

Order Date :- 19.04.2024 Rakesh/-

¶43

(Jaspreet Singh, J.) (Arun Bhansali, CJ.)

¶44

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Lucknow Christian College Lko. Thru. President /Manager/Secy. Dr. Prof. R.R. Lyall and Others v. Lalit Kumar Srivastava and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lucknow Christian College Lko. Thru. President /Manager/Secy. Dr. Prof. R.R. Lyall and Others v. Lalit Kumar Srivastava and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Indra Jeet Vs State of U.P. Thru.the Secy. Higher Education Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Shivam Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home. Lko and Others

U.P. State Road Transport Corp.Thru. Regional Manager and Ors. Vs Mahant Ram Yadav

U.P. Forest Corporation Lko. Thru. Managing Director and Others Vs Vinod Kumar and Another

C/M Rashtriya Inter College Ranapur Haidergarh Thru. Manager Sunil Kumar and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 5 Others

U.P. Forest Corporation Lucknow Thru. Managing Director and Others Vs Radhey Shyam Gupta and Another