RAM CHAND Vs. IV ADDL DISTRICT JUDGE ALIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. U. Khan, J. As ejectment of Basic Shiksha Parishad from a building in which it is running a primary school is involved in this writ petition, hence Court made extra efforts to ensure representation of Basic Shiksha Parishad and Basic Shiksha Adhikari at the time of arguments. On 19-2-2004 learned standing Counsel was requested to inform some responsible officer of Basic Shiksha Parishad regarding this case so that some one could appear on its behalf (order on the order-sheet ). On 15-3-2004 petitioner was directed to take (fresh) steps within three days to serve respondent No. 3 i. e. Basic Shiksha Parishad. Steps were taken and notices were issued in March, 2004 (earlier also notices were issued to respondent No. 3 as per office report dated 2-4-1985 ). On 12-4-2005 an order was passed on the order- sheet directing the case to be listed alongwith the name of Sri K. S. Shukla, learned standing Counsel for Basic Shiksha Parishad and learned Counsel for the petitioner was directed to supply copy of writ petition to him. Copy was supplied on 13-4-2005. The acknowledgment receipt of Sri K. S. Shukla has been filed by learned Counsel for the petitioner. On 20-4-2005 when arguments of learned Counsel for the petitioner were heard in this writ petition and judgment was reserved, it was observed as follows: "in this writ petition the Court made extra effort for the representation of respondent Nos. 3 and 4 i. e. U. P. Basic Shiksha Adhikari. On the last date the case was directed to be listed for today showing the name of Shri K. S. Shukla who is at present standing Counsel of Basic Shiksha Adhikari, learned Counsel fort he petitioner was directed to supply a copy of writ petition to him which has been done and receipt has also been filed. The case is listed per-emptorily and has been taken in the revised list. It is most unfortunate that no one has appeared for the Basic Shiksha Parishad. Learned standing Counsel present in Court states that he does not represent Basic Shiksha Adhikari/ Parishad. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner. Judgment reserved. "

(2.) IN case some one had appeared on behalf of Basic Shiksha Parishad then the Court would have made efforts to persuade the parties to compromise the matter in view of the fact a that Basic School is being run in the building in dispute and ejectment would adversely affect the education of the children. Under Order XXVII, Rule 5-B C. P. C. it is provided that suits against Government (which includes statutory authority by virtue of U. P. amendment in the marginal heading of Order XXVII), it shall be the duty of the Court to make every endeavour where it is possible to assist the parties in arriving at a settlement in respect of subject-matter of the suit. The Court became powerless in this regard due to non- representation of Basic Shiksha Parishad and Basic Shiksha Adhikari inspite of its best efforts. The learned standing Counsel for State of U. P. present in Court categorically stated that IN such matters where Basic Shiksha Parishad as well as Basic Shiksha Adhikari were parties he could not represent even Basic Shiksha Adhikari and only learned standing Counsel of Basic Shiksha Parishad could represent both of them.

(3.) IV Addl. District Judge, Aligarh allowed the revision and dismissed the suit on 7-1-1985 only and only on the ground that neither notice of termination of tenancy was served upon Basic Shiksha Parishad nor summons of the suit were served upon Basic Shiksha Parishad which was the tenant of the building in dispute by virtue of Section 18-A of U. P. Basic Education Act, 1972. The revisional Court held that notice of termination of tenancy and summons of the suit should have been served upon the Parishad through its Secretary and service of these two documents upon the Parishad through Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Aligarh was not good service in the eye of the law. The finding of the Trial Court regarding non- applicability of U. P. Act No. 13 of 1972 was approved by the revisional Court. This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order passed by the revisional Court.