COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF LAL BAHADUR SHASTRI UCHCHTAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA, BULANDSHAHR THROUGH ITS PRESIDENT SHRI GANGA SARAN SHARMA Vs. DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION 1ST REGION MEERUT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also Sri Ajit Kumar for respondent No 4.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management of Lal Bahadur Shastri Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kakral, district Buiandshahr, through its President Sri Ganga Saran Sharma. The petitioner has preyed that the order dated 17-11-1992 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr, a copy of whereof is Annexure-5 to the writ petition be quashed There Is another prayer for deciding the representation of the petitioner dated 1512 1992 to the District Inspector of Schools in respect of the order dated 17-11-1992.

(3.) The brief facts of this case, according to the petitioner, are that by an order of the Deputy Director of Education, 1st Region Meerut, Sri S.R. Varshney, was appointed as Authorised Controller of the institution Lal Bahadur Shashtn Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya for conducting the election of the Committee of Management in accordance with the scheme of administration. The Authorised Controller, thereafter held election on 18-10-1992. In respect of this election papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools By the impugned order dated 17-11-1992, the election of the Committee of Management of the aforesaid institution held on 18-10-1992, was recognised. Sri Kanti Prasad wa3 elected as President and Smt. Rajbala Sharma as Manager. The petitioner in his writ petition, in Paragraph 7, has said that, in factors 18-10-1992, the election was held but Sri Gangs. Saran Sharma was elected as President and Sri Babu Ram Sharma as Manager of the Institution. In fact, they are the petitioners, before me. It is averred that the Commit tee of Management in which Sri Gangs. Saran Sharma and Sri Babu Ram Sharma were allegedly elected. Papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools by the Authorised Controller in respect of the election held by him on 18-10-1992 and in pursuance thereof, the impugned order was passed. In Paragraph 11 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner filed representation before the respondent No. 1 of requesting therein to cancel the recognition of the alleged Committee of Management of respondent No. 4 Copy of this representation dated 15-12 1992 is Annexure-5 to this writ petition. It will be necessary to point out here that in Paragraph 13 of the writ petition it is stated that no election had ever taken place on 18-10-1992. Thus the petitioner itself states that no election was held on 18 10 1992 and, therefore, the case of the petitioners, that they were elected on 18-12-1992 stands falsified. During the argument the learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that the representation of the petitioners, mentioned above, has also been decided against the petitioners on 18-12-1992. The affidavit in this writ petition was sworn on 22-12-1992 but the decision on the representation made by the petitioners date 18-12-1992, has not been disclosed. This is definitely suppression of fact and the petitioner by suppression the fact, have made prayer in the writ petition that a direction be issued for deciding his representation. The petitioners have certainly not approached this Court with clean hands, and this itself is a good ground for dismissing this writ petition has deliberately suppressed.