COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT YAGYA MANDAL SANSKRIT PATHSHALA SHIV MANDIR SIRKONI DISTRICT JAUNPUR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COUNTER affidavit has been filed today on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5. It appears that by the Order dated 21.1.2008, the District Inspector of Schools issued direction for single operation of accounts in the institution in question. It further appears that by the Order dated 1.4.2003 (Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition), the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi Region, Varanasi referred the matter to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 for deciding the dispute between two rival claimants for the Management of the Society on the basis of the alleged elections held in the Year 1999. Pursuant to an Order dated 8.7.2008 passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 31902 of 2008, the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur passed an Order dated 1.10.2008 (Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition) holding that as the dispute regarding the Management was pending in reference before the Prescribed Authority, the Order of Single Operation dated 21.1.2008 would continue to remain operative. The said Order dated 1.10.2008 noticed the fact that cost pursuant to the High Court's Order had already been deposited. It appears that by the Impugned Order dated 16.3.2009 (Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition), the District Inspector of Schools has revoked the Order of Single Operation and has directed that the accounts of the institution in question would be operated under the joint signatures of Janardan Prasad Singh (respondent no. 5) and the Finance and Accounts Officer. The said Order dated 16.3.2009 has been passed on the ground that the reason on account of which the Order for Single Operation was passed on 21.1.2008, namely, non-deposit of cost pursuant to the High Court's Order, is no longer existing. The said Order dated 16.3.2009 has noticed the fact that the dispute regarding the Management is still pending before the Prescribed Authority. It is submitted by Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rajnish Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners that the Order dated 1.10.2008 contemplated continuance of the Single Operation Order till the reference regarding the managerial dispute was decided by the Prescribed Authority. The said Order dated 1.10.2008 also took note of the fact that the reason for the Order of Single Operation, namely, non-deposit of cost, was no longer existing. Despite the said fact, the Order dated 1.10.2008 directed for continuance of the Order for Single Operation on account of the pendency of the managerial dispute before the Prescribed Authority. It is submitted that the impugned Order dated 16.3.2009, has thus wrongly revoked the Order for Single Operation. The impugned Order dated 16.3.2009, it is submitted, amounts to review of the Order dated 1.10.2008, and the District Inspector of Schools has no such power of review. It is further submitted that the impugned Order dated 16.3.2009 has been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Reference in this regard is made to the averments contained in Paragraph-19 of the Writ Petition. Sri G.K. Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 and 5 submits that the respondent no. 5 has been continuing, as the manager of the institution in question for the last several years. He refers to the documents filed as Annexure CA-5 to the counter affidavit in this regard. Sri Singh, further submits that the petitioner no. 2 is not even a member of the General Body of the Society in question, and he has no locus-standi to file the present Writ Petition. It is submitted that the District Inspector of Schools has power to review the Order for Single Operation in view of the provisions contained in the first proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 5 of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salary of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. It is further submitted by Sri Singh that the reason for passing the Order of Single Operation of accounts in the institution in question, as mentioned in the Order dated 21.1.2008, having come to an end, the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur rightly passed the Order dated 16.3.2009. In the circumstances, the submission proceeds, the pendency of the reference regarding the managerial dispute before the Prescribed Authority was not relevant. It is further submitted by Sri Singh that no opportunity was required to be given to the petitioners before passing the impugned Order dated 16.3.2009, particularly when the petitioner no. 2 was not even a member of the General Body of the Society in question. In rejoinder, Sri P.N. Saxena learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners refers to the Communication dated 6.3.2009 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) issued by the Up-Nirikshak Pathshalayen, Pancham Mandal, Varanasi wherein the Up-Nirikshak has denied his signature on the Document dated 3.1.2006 filed as part of Annexure CA-5 to the counter affidavit. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the matter requires consideration. The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 prays for and is granted three weeks' time for filing counter affidavit. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed by the next date fixed in the matter. Further, rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter affidavit filed today on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 and 5 may also be filed by the next date fixed in the matter. Heard on the question of grant of interim relief. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is provided that the operation of the impugned Order dated 16.3.2009 will remain stayed till the next date of listing, and the Order for Single Operation, as contained in the Order dated 21.1.2008, will continue to remain operative till the next date of listing. List this case on 22nd July 2009. The case is released from assignment. It will not be treated as tied-up or part-heard with me, and will be listed before the appropriate Bench.