RATAN KUMAR SOLANKI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Rules of the Court has arisen from the judgment dated 7.1.2009 of the Hon'ble Single Judge dismissing the writ petition No. 281 of 2009 of the petitioner-appellant on the ground of alternative remedy of filing a civil suit.

(2.) The counsel for the petitioner-appellant submitted that the last election was held on 17.7.2005 which was challenged in Writ Petition No. 53512 of 2006. This Court passed an interim order in the above writ petition on 17.10.2006 staying the operation of the order dated 5.9.2006 whereby the above elections were recognized as also the consequential order dated 8.9.2006 whereby the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahar (hereinafter referred to as "DIOS") recognised Sri Bahadur Singh as Manager and Sri Haridatta Sharma as president of the Committee of Management. Ultimately, the above writ petition was dismissed on 23.10.2008 for the reason that the term of three years has already elapsed, hence the writ petition has rendered infructuous. Thereafter, the District Inspector of Schools passed order on 5.12.2008 recognising the Office Bearers elected on 17.5.2009 treating dismissal of the writ petition as if this Court has granted recognition to the officer bearers elected on 17.5.2005. He submits that it is wholly erroneous. He further submits that there being no factual dispute at all, the order of DIOS was patently illegal as it ought to have allowed fresh elections through the Authorized Controller who was already appointed during the pendency of the writ petition, therefore, the Hon'ble Single Judge was not right in relegating the parties to avail the remedy of civil suit observing that there was disputed questions of fact requiring oral and documentary evidence and, therefore, the power under Article 226 ought not to be exercised. He submit that the Hon'ble Single Judge did not consider the matter in correct perspective and has not appreciated the real issue involved in the writ petition which did not require any investigation into the facts, hence, the judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge is liable to be set aside and the writ petition needs to be decided on merit.

(3.) On behalf of the respondents, the learned Standing Counsel, Sri G.K. Singh and Sri Manu Saxena, Advocates appeared. It is not disputed by the learned counsels for the respondents that no factual dispute was involved in the matter and, therefore, prima facie, this Court was satisfied that the writ petition ought not to have been dismissed by the Hon'ble Single Judge by observing that the matter involves disputed questions of fact relegating the petitioner-appellant to avail the remedy of civil suit and the matter ought to have been considered on merits. In these circumstances, we were inclined to remand the matter to the Hon'ble Single Judge to decide the matter on merits, but learned counsels for the parties submitted that already the dispute between the parties has prolonged and resulted in several litigations. Now the issues involved in this matter are purely legal and, therefore, instead of remitting it to the Hon'ble Single Judge, this Court itself may hear the parties on merits and decide the issue as this will lessen the agony of the parties due to protracted litigation and would be in the larger interest of the institution and public at large. In these circumstances, we have proceeded to hear the matter further and decide the issues raised before us based on the submissions advanced by the rival parties and the record of this appeal as well as the writ petition.