COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SHRI KRISHNA JAJU KANYA INTER COLLEGE Vs. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION MEERUT REGION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this petition, Sri R. K. Pandey filed a caveat for respondent no. 4 and has filed a counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit has also been filed by the petitioners. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri R. K. Pandey for respondent no. 4. Learned counsel for the parties have agreed that this writ petition may be heard and disposed of finally.

(2.) BY this writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 15th October, 1990, passed by the Deputy Director of Education, 1 Region, Meerut, which is Annexure-10 to the writ petition. This order has been passed by respondent no. 1 in exercise of his powers under Section 16-A (7) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and by this order respondent no. 1 has recognised the committee of management of which Shri Satya Narain Mahesh- wari and Shri Narendra Kumar Maheshwari are president and Manager respectively. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners, has assailed impugned order passed by respondent no. 1 on the ground that no reasons have been recorded by respondent no. 1 for accepting the claim of respondent no. 4. According to the learned counsel, the respondent no. 1 under Section 16-A (7) of the Act, exercising quasi judicial power, was under legal obligation to pass a speaking order and to record reasons for accepting the claim of one party and rejecting the claim of other party. Sri Ashok Khare has further submitted that the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-A (7) of the Act cannot decide the dispute regarding election of rival management committee. The Deputy Director of Education has no jurisdiction to decide the validity of the election. BY the impugned order, the respondent no. 1 has only decided the dispute of election and has not adverted himself towards necessary- facts as to which party had been in actual control of the affairs of the institution. Sri R. K. Pandey learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 4 on the other hand, has submitted that the order passed by respondent no. 1 is perfectly legal and justified and does not suffer from any error of law. It has been contended that in the order the evidence and pleadings of both the parties have been noted in detail and after considering the same respondent no. 1 concluded that the committee of management headed by Narendra Kumar Maheshwari as Manager has been legally and validly elected and the same has rightly been recognised.

(3.) NOW the impugned order passed by respondent no. 1 has to be considered in the light of the aforesaid legal position as to how far the respondent no. 1 has been able to record reasons for his conclusion given by the impugned order. From the perusal of the impugned order it appears that the respondent no. 1 firstly narrated under separate heads the evidence and pleadings of the parties and he concluded in favour of respondent no. 4 by simply saying that he perused the letters, complaint, representation and after perusing the evidence on record and the Scheme of administration and the arguments of the rival parties, I have reached to the conclusion that the committee of management of which Sri Narendra Kumar Maheshwari as Manager has been legally and validly elected. In my opinion, this manner of appreciation of the contention of the rival parties is not in controvance with the legal requirement regarding function of administrative authorities acting quasi judicially as laid down by this Court an Hon'ble Supreme Court. Sri Ashok Khare has rightly argued that the respondent no. 1 has not recorded any reason for accepting the claim of respondent no. 4 and for rejecting the claim of petitioner. The petitioner has filed a copy of its representation as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. Along with this representation as many as 35 documents were also filed. No reasons have been recorded for rejecting the evidence and submissions made on behalf of petitioner. The respondent no. 1 has only mentioned in heading Khand-GA, the case of the petitioner. In fact the respondeat no. 1 was required under law to record reasons for not accepting various grounds taken by petitioner to show that the committee of management of which Smt. Anandi Devi Gupta was legally and validly elected on 22nd February, 1990. It is true that the respondent no. 1 cannot be expected to record elaborate finding like a civil court but he ought to have disclosed his mind for not accepting various documents and contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners. From perusal of the impugned order it also appears that the respondent no. 1 expressed his disliking that Smt. Anandi Devi Gupta instead of appearing herself deputed somebody to pursue her case. There was nothing objectionable so far as this aspect of the case was concerned. From perusal of the representation filed by the petitioner and her case noted in the impugned order, the observation of respondent no. 1 to the effect that the petitioner only had been making complaint against respondent no. 4 is not justified. The petitioners also claimed election of the committee of management on 22nd February 1990 and filed evidence to prove the alleged election. All these evidence ought to have been considered and reasons should have been assigned for not accepting the same. In my opinion the respondent no. 1 has failed to decide the case in accordance with law and committed manifest error of law in passing the impugned order.