Smt. Kalpana Patel and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Court No. - 19

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1212 of 2025

Petitioner :- Smt. Kalpana Patel And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Lko And 5 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Shukla,Santosh Kumar Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anil Kumar,Dr.Surendra Singh Chauhan,Santosh Kr. Yadav Warsi,Savitra Vardhan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for petitioners, learned State Counsel for opposite party No.1, Mr. Savitra Vardhan Singh learned counsel for opposite parties 2 and 3 and Mr. Santosh Kumar Yadav Warsi learned counsel for opposite parties 4 to 6.

¶7

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 6th December, 2024 passed by Vice Chancellor of the university approving governing body of the college concerned for a period of five years.

¶8

In pursuance of order dated 7th February, 2025 passed earlier, learned counsel for university on the basis of instructions submits that there is neither any approved bye laws of the society or even an approved scheme of administration but the current scheme of administration would also be governed by the trust deed. The college concerned is in fact being administered in terms of registered trust deed.

¶9

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier by means of order dated 4th September, 2021, the committee of management of the college concerned was granted approval by the Vice Chancellor of the university under Section 2(13) of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973 indicating petitioner No.1 as Chairperson with petitioner No.2 being indicated as Treasurer. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner No.2 was a promoter trustee of the trust with opposite party No.5 being settler of the trust.

¶10

It is submitted that disqualification of trustees is indicated in paragraph No.8 of the trust deed while vacancy in the office of trustee is indicated in paragraph No. 19 with Clause (ii) indicating that the office of trustees shall stand vacated if the person fails without obtaining leave of absence to attend all the meetings of the trustees held in six consecutive months or three consecutive meetings, whichever occurs earlier.

¶11

It is submitted that subsequently a supplementary trust deed was executed on 7th October, 2024 and registered by the

¶12

opposite party No.6 unilaterally and by means of supplementary trust deed, the petitioner No.2 was removed as promoter trustee with her services also being terminated by settler of the trust.

¶13

It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, a fresh list of the committee of management was submitted to the Vice Chancellor who by means of impugned order dated 6th December, 2024 has registered the same indicating changes in place of petitioner.

¶14

It is submitted that in case of breach of conditions of the trust, a trustee can be removed only in terms of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not otherwise. It is therefore submitted that removal of petitioner No.2 as trustee is contrary to statutory provisions.

¶15

He has also adverted to the Statute 13.05 (f) of the First Statutes of the University of Lucknow 1976 to submit that the Vice Chancellor in terms of Section 2(13) of the State Universities Act 1973 exercises quasi judicial power pertaining to any question arising to entitlement of any person to be a member or office bearer of the management or whether the management is illegally constituted.

¶16

It is therefore submitted that once the earlier committee of management had already been granted approval vide order dated 4th September, 2021, the impugned order approving the said committee of management amounts to review of the earlier order, which is therefore without jurisdiction since no specific power of review has been conferred upon the Vice Chancellor. It is also submitted that in terms of First Statute 13.05 (f) of the First Statute of University, it was incumbent upon the Vice Chancellor to have granted an opportunity of hearing to petitioner prior to approving her removal as Treasurer to the petitioner prior to their removal from the post office bearer of the trust/college.

¶17

Mr. Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for university on the basis of instructions however submits that in terms of Section 2(13) of the State Universities Act, the Vice Chancellor exercises only administrative power and once the supplementary trust deed was registered with the appropriate authority and petitioner No.2 was removed as trustee in pursuance thereof, there was no option left with the Vice Chancellor but to accord approval in terms of the said statutory provision. It is also submitted that since no dispute has been raised before Vice Chancellor in terms of Statute 13.05 (f) of the First Statute of University, there was no occasion for the Vice Chancellor to have entered into the said controversy.

¶18

He further submits that subsequent to the impugned order, petitioner No.1 has filed a representation dated 10th January, 2025 and in pursuance thereof, the Vice Chancellor has constituted a committee to look into aforesaid dispute and a decision shall be taken shortly.

¶19

Learned counsel for opposite parties 4 to 6 submits that removal of petitioners has taken place in terms of original trust deed read with registered supplementary trust deed which even otherwise places reliance on paragraph 19(2) of the original trust deed. It is submitted that in such a situation where vacancy in the office of trustee is automatically deemed, the provision of Section 92 of the Code of Civil Procedure will not be applicable. It is also submitted that since a committee has already been constituted by the Vice Chancellor, final outcome of the same would govern the present dispute.

¶20

List this case on 24th February, 2025 as fresh.

¶21

Prima facie submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner have force and require consideration for which the opposite parties are granted 10 days time to file their counter affidavit.

¶22

In view thereof till next date of listing, operation of impugned order dated 6th December, 2024 shall remain stayed.

¶23

Order Date :- 12.2.2025 prabhat

¶24

Digitally signed by :- PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Smt. Kalpana Patel and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kalpana Patel and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Secy. Higher Edu. Lko and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Jayram and 19 Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Faizabad and Others

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Construction Division Lko. Thru. Executive Engineer Vs Adesh Kumar Agarwal and Others

M/S Solaris Realtech Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Authorized Representative Rajneesh Kumar Vs Sanjay Kumar

Mantasha @ Shafak Fatima vs Mohd. Yusuf Khan

Neerja Mathur and 3 Others vs Mr. Parth Sarthi Sen Sharma, Addl. Chief Secy. / Prin. Deptt. of Medical Health Family Welfare Lko.

Dinesh Chandra Verma vs Sri Vinod Singh Rawat, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Law and Justice, Lko. and Others