COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SUNAHARI LAL BAL MUKUND INTER COLLEGE Vs. REGIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE MEERUT REGION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri Amit Saxena, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mohit Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant who seeks to be impleaded in the writ petition and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THE last election was held on 16th of September, 2004, which was duly recognised by the Regional Committee, by its order dated 31st December, 2004. As per the scheme of administration, the term of the Committee of Management is 3 years and one month, during which period, fresh elections are required to be held.

(3.) SHRI Jagdish Prasad Sharma has filed a recall application, a stay vacating application and an Application No. 36306 of 2008 for being impleaded as a contesting respondent. The applicant Jagdish Prasad Sharma alleges that he is a life member of the society and that the elections conducted by the petitioners was illegal and against the provisions of the Scheme of Administration, and that, no valid election was held, and consequently, he is a necessary party and should be impleaded and be heard. It was alleged that the applicant had filed a caveat, but the petitioners deliberately got the writ petition reported as arising from district Meerut, whereas, the cause of action was from district Gautam Budh Nagar. On account of wrong mentioning of the district, the applicant's caveat could not be reported, which resulted in the Court issuing an ex parte interim order. The applicant further submitted that false facts have been stated and that material facts have been concealed, which again resulted in the Court granting an interim order. The applicant further stated that he has also challenged the last two elections held by the Committee of Management, which petitions are pending consideration before the Court. Consequently, the learned counsel for the applicant prayed that he should be heard and the writ petition should be dismissed with exemplary cost. The learned counsel for the petitioners has denied the allegation and submitted that there was no concealment of material fact nor was the district wrongly mentioned. The learned counsel submitted that the cause of action had arisen from Meerut and consequently that district was mentioned in the petition.