COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS , claiming to be committee of management' and manager of D.A.V. Inter College, Tateri, Meerut (here -in -after referred to as the college), have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 18 -7 -1992 passed by the Deputy Director of Education. Meerut under Section 16 -A(7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act (here -in -after referred to as the Act) approving the election of the committee of management of which respondent No. 3 is the manager. Respondent No. 3 has filed a counter affidavit and petitioners have filed rejoinder affidavit in reply thereto. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners, has challenge the impugned order on three grounds, namely, (i) the impugned order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice; (ii) the Deputy Director of Education has not considered the case of the petitioners; and (iii) finding of the Deputy Director of Education holding the respondent No. 3 to be in effective control of the college is perverse and contrary to the material on record. Learned counsel for the respondents has disputed the aforesaid submissions.

(3.) FROM the procedure adopted by the Deputy Director of Education and from the perusal of the record, two things become clear, viz., firstly, copies of the representation and the documents filed in support thereof by respondent No. 3 before the Deputy Director of Education were not given to the petitioners and the petitioners have no knowledge about their contents; and secondly; the argument of the petitioners and respondents No. 3 were heard by the Deputy Director of Education on different date in the absence of each other. As mentioned above, the Deputy Director of Education asked both the parties to send their representations in sealed cover and both the parties sent their respective representations separately in sealed cover. As the above papers were sent in a sealed cover, questions of knowing their contents by the petitioners did not arise. In paragraphs 26 and 27 of the writ petition petitioners have specifically stated that the representations and the documents filed in support thereof by respondent No. 3 were never made available to them. Respondent No. 3. In paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit has pointed out that the petitioners did not raise this objection before the Deputy Director of Education and at the time of hearing all the documents were available before the Deputy Director of Education, which were also perused and inspected by the petitioners and thereafter arguments were raised by the petitioner. No. 2. In paragraph 22 of the rejoinder affidavit the averments made by the respondent No. 3 in paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit have been denied. Grievance raised by the petitioners appears to be justified. It is not disputed that the copies of the representation and the documents filed in support thereof by the respondent No. 3 were not given to the petitioners. What has been stated in paragraph 19 of the counter affidavit is that the petitioners did not raise this point before the Deputy Director of Education and in fact at the time of hearing, he inspected all the documents. It is not possible to accept the version of the respondent No. 3. As has been stated by the petitioners in the writ petition and as is also clear from the impugned order the respondent No. 3 was heard by the Deputy Director of Education on 13 -7 -1992 whereas the petitioners were heard on 15 -7 -1992. On 15 -7 -1992 when the petitioner No. 2 was heard, the respondent No. 3 was not present. As to what transpired before the Deputy Director of Education on 15 -7 -1992 when the petitioner No. 2 was being heard, cannot be verified by the respondent No. 3. It was the duty of the Deputy Director of education to give copies of the representations and the documents filed by the parties to each other so as to enable them to argue their cases effectively. This has not been done in the instant case. The procedure adopted by the Deputy Director of Education was in complete disregard of the principles of natural justice and the impugned order has been passed without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners.