The Committee of Management Sakaldiha Post Graduate College and Another vs Professor Anand Kumar Tyagi and Another

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 7152 of 2025

The Committee Of Management Sakaldiha Post Graduate College And Another

Versus rauae oege n noer	..	...Applicant(s)
Professor Anand Kumar Tyagi And Another		.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Shivendu Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party(s) :	Ojha, Sneh	Pandey, Sr.

¶5

Court No. - 9

¶6

HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.

¶7

The writ Court on 21.08.2025 while disposing of Writ-C No. 19213 of 2025 passed the following order:-

¶8

" Civil Misc. Impleadment Application No.NIL of 2025

¶9

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant/petitioners.

¶10

2. The grounds shown in the affidavit filed in support of impleadment application, are found to be sufficient.

¶11

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents has no objection.

¶12

4. Application is allowed.

¶13

5. Learned counsel for applicant/petitioners is directed to amend the memo of parties, during the course of the day.

¶14

Order on Writ Petition

¶15

1. The instant writ petition has been filed seeking following main reliefs:-

¶16

"(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.5.2025 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by the Registrar, Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi, the Respondent No.2.

¶17

CAPL No. 7152 of 2025

¶18

2

¶19

(b) Issue a writ order of direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the Respondent-Authorities not to interfere in peaceful functioning of the Petitioners Committee of Management."

¶20

2. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners vehemently submitted that the impugned order has been passed by respondent no.2, without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, which is contrary to the principles of natural justice. It is also submitted that respondent no.2 while passing the impugned order, has not taken into consideration the certain facts and documents in proper perspective and passed the order arbitrarily, without application of mind to appoint the authorized controller. Sri Ojha, further submitted that the petitioners' tenure has not yet expired and there are no legal election has been held. Therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside.

¶21

3. Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners without entering into merits of the case, made an innocuous prayer that the petitioners may be permitted to approach the ViceChancellor of the Institution raising all the disputes. Thereafter, the ViceChancellor of the Institution may be directed to decide the entire disputes regarding election of Committee of Management of the Institution, which is pending before him, in time bound manner.

¶22

4. Per contra, Sri N.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.4, vehemently opposed the instant writ petition on merits and submitted that the election has already been held on 15.05.2025 and same has been pending before the Vice-Chancellor for approval. It is also fairly conceded that the impugned order has been passed without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and has no objection, on the Vice-Chancellor may be directed to decide the entire disputes regarding election of Committee of Management of the Institution, which is pending before the Vice-Chancellor, after giving opportunity of hearing to all the effected parties and taking into consideration of all the relevant documents pertains to the disputes in time bound manner.

¶23

5. Learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents has also not opposed the innocuous prayer as made by learned counsel

¶24

CAPL No. 7152 of 2025

¶25

3

¶26

appearing on behalf of the petitioners.

¶27

6. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Shivendu Ojha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, Sri J.N. Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appeared on advance notice on behalf of the State-respondent nos.1 & 3, Sri Lavlesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel appeared on advance notice on behalf of respondent no.2, Sri N.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel appeared on advance notice on behalf of respondent no.4 and perused the contents made in the writ petition.

¶28

7. Since, the matter has not been pressed on the merits at this stage and only made an innocuous prayer that the Vice-Chancellor may be directed to decide the entire disputes, I am inclined to allow the innocuous prayer made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners as no objection made on behalf of learned Standing counsel appearing on behalf of State-respondents.

¶29

8. In view of the above, the impugned order is set aside and the parties are directed to approach the Vice-Chancellor of the Institution raising all the disputes regarding election of Committee of Management of the Institution, within ten days from the date of production of certified copy of this order. Thereafter, the Vice-Chancellor is directed that after giving opportunity of hearing to all the effected parties and taking into consideration of all the relevant documents pertains to the disputes to pass appropriate and reasoned order, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period eight weeks.

¶30

9. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present writ petition is disposed of."

¶31

From the perusal of the order of the writ Court, it is clear that the applicant was not given opportunity of hearing by the opposite party and the matter was set aside remanding back the matter to the opposite party to decide afresh after giving opportunity of hearing.

¶32