VED PAL SINGH Vs. VICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chaudhary Chhotu Ram College Managing Committee, Muzaffarnagar, is a society, which is running a degree college, in the name of Chaudhary Chhotu Ram Degree College, Muzaffarnagar. This college is affiliated to the Meerut University. On 26-12-1976, election of the Executive Committee took place in which Indra Verma was elected as the President and Ved Pal Singh as the Secretary of the Executive Council. On 6-4-1979, Indra Verna tendered his registration. In his place, Veer Abhimanyu, respondent no. 2 was elected as the President. Soon thereafter, the petitioner alleges that, in a meeting of the Executive Council, Veer Abhimanyu was removed from the office on the ground of being in arrears of noun than six months. This according to the petitioner, was confirmed on 15-12-1979 by passing a resolution that Veer Abhimanyu had ceased to. be a member. There-after on 25-12-1979, notices were sent /or holding a meeting of the Committee of Management on 28-1-1980. The meeting took place on that dace and Hari Ratan Verma was elected as the President whereas Ved Pal Singh was elected as the Secretary.

(2.) To set up his claim, respondent no. 2. Veer Abhimanyu wrote to the Vice-Chancellor on 28-12-1979 that fresh elections of the Managing Committee of Chaudhary Chhotu Ram College had taken place od 27-12-1979 and he was elected as the President. This was disputed by Ved Pal Singh by filing a reply. The Vice-Chancellor made enquiries with regard to the dispute which had arisen between the two sets of the Committee of Management for the purposes of according recognition. On 2-5-1981, the Vice Chancellor held that the meeting, as pleaded by Veer Abhimanyu took place on 27-12-1979, in which Veer Abhimanyu was elected as the President and Narendra Pal Singh Balyan as the Secretary- The view further, was that the record shown by Ved Pal Singh appeared to be,fabricated.

(3.) Being aggrieved by this order, Hari Ratan Verma filed writ petition 7942 of 1981, while Ved Pal Singh preferred writ petition no. 5323 of 1981. In both of these cases, the order challenged is that of the Vice-Chancellor mentioned above, on common grounds.