COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT JAN SAMAJ VIDYA PEETH INTER COLLEGE DIGAMBARPUR DISTRICT FAIZABAD Vs. JOINT DIRECTOR EDUCATION FAIZABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the resolution passed by the Regional Committee. According to petitioner's counsel the election of the committee of management dated 19.6.2005 is shame and farce and it was convened by the fictitious members. Against the decision of the respondents to hold fresh election the petitioner had submitted a representation dated 30.6.2005, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. In the representation, submitted by the petitioner, various allegations have been raised with regard to genuineness of members who elected the present committee of management and it includes pendency of regular suit between the parties as well as earlier representation submitted to the Deputy Registrar Societies and Chit fund. In para 4 of the writ petition specifically it has been pleaded that the petitioner had submitted a representation which was before the Regional Committee but while deciding the controversy in question the allegations contained in petitioner's representation has not been considered. In Para 7 of the counter affidavit filed by the private respondent and in para 6 of the counter affidavit filed by the State it is not disputed that the petitioner had submitted representation. However, it has been stated that representation submitted by the petitioner was very well considered by the Regional committee and thereafter the impugned order has been passed. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. From the reading of impugned order it appears that representation was submitted by the petitioner raising various allegations against the members as well as the election held on 19.6.2005. However while passing the impugned order the Regional committee has not recorded a finding relating to genuineness or falsity of the allegation raised by the petitioner in the representation a copy of which has been filed as Annexure- 2 to the writ petition. Now it is trite in law that every order should stand on its own leg vide AIR 1978 SC 851: Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs. The Chief Election Commissioner New Delhi and others. For convenience relevant portion from the judgement of Mohinder Singh Gill (supra) is reproduced as under:- "The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought,out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (1) "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in Ms mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older:" In view of settled proposition of law though in the impugned order it has been observed that petitioner's representation has been considered but neither there is discussion nor the finding of fact has been recorded with regard to allegation raised by the petitioner in the representation, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Allegation raised by the petitioner in his representation dated 3.6.2005 seems to be serious and it was incumbent upon the regional committee to permit the parties to lead evidence and thereafter record a finding of fact after discussing each and every allegation to the extent it relates to election held on 19.6.2005. Writ petition deserves to be allowed. Accordingly writ petition is allowed. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the impugned order 30.8.2005 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition, with all consequential benefits. The Regional committee is directed to reconsider the controversy and pass appropriate speaking and reasoned order after providing opportunity of hearing to the parties keeping in view the observation made hereinabove expeditiously and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. For the period of four months or till adjudication of controversy by the Regional committee whichever is earlier, parties shall maintain status quo as exist today. Writ petition is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.