Committee of Management, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Inter College and Another Vs Committee of Management, Dr Rajendra Prasad Madhyamik Vidyalaya and 4 Others

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35193-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 134 of 2025

¶4

Appellant :- Committee of Management, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Inter College and another

¶5

Respondent :- Committee of Management, Dr Rajendra Prasad Madhyamik Vidyalaya and 4 others Counsel for Appellant :- Grijesh Tiwari, Devansh Misra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Ashok Khare (Sr. Adv.), K.K. Rao, Mahendra Singh, Jagdish Pathak (S.C.)

¶6

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.

¶7

This appeal is directed against order dated 04.02.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-C No.2957 of 2025, wherein learned Single Judge, recording the concession on part of counsel for the appellants that finding with regard to validity of election has not been recorded by the Regional Level Committee, has accepted the concession and remanded back the matter to Regional Level Committee.

¶8

Submissions have been made that in the first instance, no such concession was given by the counsel and even if such a concession was given, the same was not authorized and, therefore, the order impugned deserves to be set aside, matter may be remanded back to the learned Single Judge for hearing and deciding the petition on merits.

¶9

Submissions have also been made that specific objections pertaining to maintainability of the writ petition were raised, however, the same have not been adverted to.

¶10

We have perused the order passed by learned Single Judge and the record of the case.

¶11

The contentions raised on behalf the petitioners in the writ

¶12

petition and the indications made in the order, read as under:-

¶13

" 4. A short submission has been raised by Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel, that the order of the Regional Level Committee is not sustainable in law for the reason that the Regional Level Committee has failed to record any finding that the election of respondent no.4 has been held in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 16-A(7) of the Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Act, 1921. It is submitted that the finding of the Regional Level Committee that the petitioner is not member of the College is also perverse and against the finding recorded in the Impleadment Application No.2 of 2021 in Writ-C No.10530 of 2021.

¶14

5. Counsel for respondent no.4 though made franctic efforts to demonstrate that the finding with regard to validity of election of respondent no.4 has been recorded by the Regional Level Committee, but despite his best efforts, he could not demonstrate the same. However, he agrees that since the finding with regard to validity of election of respondent no.4 has not been recorded by the Regional Level Committee, therefore, the Court may remand the matter to the Regional Level Committee to decide the same afresh.

¶15

6. In view of the aforesaid submissions of counsel for respondent no.4, the impugned order dated 5/6.12.2024 passed by the Regional Level Committee, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur (respondent no.2) is set aside.

¶16

7. The matter is remitted to the Regional Level Committee, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur (respondent no.2) to decide the dispute of the parties afresh as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment, after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties.

¶17

8. The writ petition is allowed in terms of the aforesaid orders. "

¶18

A perusal of the above reveals that the learned Single Judge has specifically indicated agreement on part of the counsel for the appellants regarding the order passed and also records that based on the submissions, the order impugned before the learned Single Judge was set aside and matter was remanded back.

¶19

So far as the plea raised pertaining to not making of any such statement by counsel is concerned, for making such a plea, filing of the appeal is not an appropriate remedy, the appellants are required to file a review petition, as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Ramdas Shrinivas Nayak :

¶20

AIR 1982 SC 1249 .

¶21

The plea raised that even if the concession has been made by the counsel, which is against the record of the case, the appellants are not bound by the said concession as laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Himalayan Coop. Group Housing Society Vs. Balwan Singh & Ors. : (2015) 7 SCC 373 is concerned, in case contention is that even if the statement has been made before the learned Single Judge, the appellants are not bound and want to contest the petition on merits, even for the said purpose, the appellants have to approach the learned Single Judge by way of a review petition raising the contentions pertaining to the wrong statement made by counsel/unauthorised statement made by the counsel.

¶22

In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to entertain the present appeal qua the order dated 04.02.2025, the same is, therefore, disposed of . The appellants would be free to approach the learned Single Judge by way of review petition in accordance with law.

¶23

Order Date :- 11.3.2025 AHA/AKShukla

¶24

(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶25

Digitally signed by :- AFZAL HUSAIN ABBASI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Committee of Management, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Inter College and Another v. Committee of Management, Dr Rajendra Prasad Madhyamik Vidyalaya and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Committee of Management, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Inter College and Another v. Committee of Management, Dr Rajendra Prasad Madhyamik Vidyalaya and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases