COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, KARN KSHETTRA INTER COLLEGE AND ANOTHER Vs. REGIONAL DY. DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (SEC.), KANPUR REGION AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition has been filed canvassing the legality/propriety of the order dated 3.1.1998 passed by the Regional Dy. Director of Education (Secondary) Kanpur Mandal, Kanpur in exercise of powers under Section 16A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, by which the Committee of Management with Sri Shiv Shanker Verma as Adhyaksh and Sri Devi Prasad Patel as Prabandhak of K.K. Inter - -College Etawah, has been accorded approbation. Sri Ashok Khare, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, pressed into service two fold submissions, firstly that certain documents were filed by the contesting respondents before the Regional Dy. Director of Education but copies thereof were not supplied to the petitioner notwithstanding a written application demanding copies and failure to do so, urged the counsel, resulted in denial of principles of natural justice. The second submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned order is vitiated for the simple reason that the impugned order has not been passed in conformity with the requirements of Section 16A(7) of the Act in that the Regional Dy. Director of Education has failed to record any finding on the question as to which of the parties was in effective control on the relevant date. Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rakesh Bahadur, counsel appearing for the 4th respondent repudiated the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, urging that the documents in question were not filed by his client behind the back of the petitioners who had ample opportunity to inspect the documents and that there was no rule enjoining any duty either upon his client or the Regional Dy. Director of Education to furnish copies of the documents to the petitioners. It was also canvassed by Sri R.N. Singh that albeit the finding on the question of effective control has not been recorded by the Regional Dy. Director of Education but in the fact situation of the case, no interference is called for by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(2.) HAVING bestowed my anxious considerations to the submissions advanced across the bar, I converge to the view that the decision in Ramadhar Shastri and another v. Dy. Director of Education, 4th Region Alld and others, 1987 UPLBEC 14, reliance on which has been placed by Sri Ashok Khare to shore up his contention that the failure to furnish copies of the documents to the petitioner resulted in breach of principles of natural justice is not intended for application to the facts of the present case. In the case of Ramadhar Shastri (supra) the documents were filed after hearing the parties and it was therefore held by the Division Bench of this Court that the procedure adopted by the Regional Dy. Director of Education was contrary to law and amounted to denial of natural justice. In the instant case, the documents were filed in the notice of the petitioners and thereafter, parties were heard by the Regional Dy. Director of Education. The procedure adopted in the case was not in any manner contrary to the rules of natural justice. As such, I find no merit in the first contention advanced by Sri Ashok Khare.