Dismissed

Dr Prabhat Kumar Dwivedi v. Education

Jharkhand HC22 Jul 2019WPC/1129/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of his claim for membership in a college governing council after his donation receipts were allegedly found fabricated. Court dismissed petition, upholding authority's decision as not requiring interference due to lack of petitioner's supporting documents and existence of conclusive proof for another donor's claim.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition failed and was dismissed.

Dr Prabhat Kumar Dwivedi Vs Education — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P (C) No. 1129 of 2017

¶3

Dr. Prabhat Kumar Dwivedi, Son of Late Ram Prasad Dwivedi, resident of Mohalla-Nagwan, P.O. & P.S-Chatra, District-Chatra.

¶4

.…… Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1.The State of Jharkhand through its Secretary/Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy Department, Government of Jharkhand.

¶7

2.The Director, Primary Education, School Education and Literacy Department, Ranchi.

¶8

3.Jharkhand Academic Council through its Secretary.

¶9

4.The Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council.

¶10

5.The Governing Body, Satyanand Bhokta Inter College, Unta, Chatra, through its Principal.

¶11

6.Sub Divisional Officer, Chatra.

¶12

7.District Superintendent of Education, Chatra.

¶13

8.Block Education Extension Officer, Chatra.

¶14

9.Sri Kedar Prasad Dangi, son of Late Puran Mahto.

¶15

…… Respondents

¶16

---------

¶17

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

¶18

---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Anshuman Kumar, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ankit Kumar, A.C to G.P-IV.

¶19

-----------

¶20

6/Dated: 22^nd July, 2019

¶21

This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder the order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the Secretary, Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi is under challenge by which the claim of the petitioner of sole donor of getting the membership in the Governing Council of Satyanand Bhokta Inter College, Unta, Chatra, has been rejected.

¶22

It is the case of the petitioner that under the by-laws of the College a donor would be made party to the Governing Body/Council and keeping that fact into consideration he has donated Rs.34700/ and Rs.34200/ vide receipt nos.328 and 3756 dated 15.06.2006 but that has been taken as an amount not having been deposited by the petitioner by holding that the acceptance receipt of the said money seems to be fabricated while on the other hand, the claim of the respondent no.9 namely Mr. Kedar Prasad Dangi has been considered to be genuine.

¶23

According to the petitioner, the rejection on the basis of holding cash receipt as fabricated, is absolutely improper for the reason that the said finding ought to have been given by the authority concerned by calling upon

¶24

the petitioner by providing an opportunity substantiated with relevant document but the decision has been taken unilaterally and hence the same is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶25

Further submission has been made that the said aspect of the matter has not been taken into consideration while considering the case of the respondent no.9, therefore, the order impugned is without any application of mind hence is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶26

Mr. Ankit Kumar, A.C to G.P-IV for the State is present as also for the Jharkhand Academic Council.

¶27

It has been submitted by the learned State counsel by going across the reason in the impugned order that there is no infirmity in the order, since onus is upon the petitioner to substantiate that actually he has deposited the said sum of money by showing the relevant receipts but he has failed to do so, therefore the authority perusing the record has come to the conclusive finding that the said cash receipt is fabricated one while on the other hand the donation having been made by the respondent no.9 to the effect of Rs.35500/ has been found to be paid in the A/c of the College since the said amount has been taken in the A/c no.3391991672 dated 30.01.2016 in a branch of Central Bank of India and therefore, his case for being a member in the council of donor is having more weightage in comparison to that of petitioner and as such, when the authority has taken decision by taking consideration the aforesaid aspect, no infirmity has been committed by the said authority.

¶28

This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and after going across the impugned order, is of the view that when the petitioner claims to have deposited certain amount in the capacity of donor and the cash receipts said to have been fabricated one, the contention as has been raised that it cannot be unilateral decision of the college, the same cannot be disputed but the said argument would be appreciated by this Court if any relevant document would have been produced by the petitioner in the writ petition i.e. if the petitioner has deposited the aforesaid amount through cheque or demand draft, the document pertaining to said withdrawal by statement of account ought to have been produced by the petitioner making it part of the writ petition but no such efforts have been made and as such, this Court in absence thereof, cannot come to the conclusion that the finding given by the

¶29

authority, to that effect about the deposit of the said amount treating to be not genuine as improper.

¶30

If the aforesaid aspect of the matter would be compared with the contention with the fact of the case of respondent no.9, it would transpire that the respondent no.9 has deposited Rs.1,50,000/ but the said amount has not been treated to be donor since no such receipt has ever been issued by the college, however, Rs.35,500/ which has been deposited by the respondent no.9 and the same has been credited in the account of the College which is in Central Bank of India A/c no.3391991672 dated 30.01.2016 and therefore, there is conclusive proof in assessment of the amount from the account of respondent no.9 to the account of the college.

¶31

Further, it is evident that the amount which is said to have deposited by the petitioner, has found no reference in the stock receipt of the College.

¶32

In that view of the matter if the Secretary, Jharkhand academic Council has taken decision against the petitioner and in favour of the respondent no.9 the same cannot be said to be improper and without any basis and considering the aforesaid aspect of the matter, the impugned order needs no interference.

¶33

Accordingly the writ petition fails and is dismissed.

¶34

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

¶35

Saket/-

Dr Prabhat Kumar Dwivedi v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Prabhat Kumar Dwivedi v. Education

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhananjay Kumar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Arun Kumar Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.

Nimai Mahato Vs Jagarnath Mahato

Alok Kumar Srivastava Vs Jayanti Kumari

Ram Lakhan Lohar Alias Ram Lakhan Lohra Vs Mantu Turi

Smt Sushma Devi Vs The State Of Jharkhand And Ors.