Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:173335

A.F.R.

Court No. - 10

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15412 of 2023

Petitioner :- Committee Of Management Intermediate College

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashish Kumar Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh,

Tejas Singh

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Sankalp Narain

connected with

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11662 of 2023

Petitioner :- Shiv Mohan Patel And 17 Others

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhishek Kumar Saroj,Prabhakar Awasthi

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,

Samarath Singh, Sankalp Narain

and

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 21573 of 2023

Petitioner :- C/M Of Intermediate College And Another

Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, Sankalp Narain

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C, Ajay Kumar Singh, Ashish

Kumar Singh, Tejas Singh

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

1. These three writ petitions were heard at length on 24.08.2023 and

since no time was left to dictate the judgment, the matters were

placed today for summing up of the arguments of both the sides and

also for dictation of the judgment. Today also the matters have been

heard for about two hours.

The Challenge

2. Writ C No. 15412 of 2023 has been filed by the Committee of

Management Intermediate College, Babusarai, District Bhadohi

challenging the order dated 16.12.2022 whereby the Assistant

Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi has declared 29

members of the General Body as valid under section 4-B of the

Societies Registration Act, 1860. The same order has been assailed

by certain members by filing Writ C No. 11662 of 2023. The third

writ petition No. 21573 of 2023 has been filed by the Committee of

Management, which has been elected pursuant to the elections held

on 01.06.2023 and the first order under challenge is dated

02.06.2023, whereby the Joint Director of Education, Bhadohi has

summoned the record of the District Inspector of Schools, Bhadohi

on the ground that two rival sets of elections have been asserted by

the parties and, therefore, as per section 16 A (7) of the U.P.

Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the District Inspector of Schools

should send the entire record of rival elections with specific report

so that the matter may be decided as per Government Order dated

19.12.2000. Another order under challenge is dated 02.06.2023,

whereby the District Inspector of Schools, Bhadohi has referred the

matter to Regional Level Committee, in furtherance of order dated

02.06.2023 passed by the Joint Director of Education.

Case and Contention of Petitioners of Writ C Nos. 15412 of 2023 & 11662 of 2023

3. The submissions of Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, learned

counsel appearing for the petitioners in Writ C No. 15412 of 2023

and Shri Prabhakar Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for

petitioners in Writ C No. 11662 of 2023 are almost common and it

has vehemently been argued by both of them that the Society was

established in 1967 and in the Institution, which is run by the

2

Society, one Daya Prasad Baranwal remained elected Manager

from 1973 till 1992 and, after his death, his son, namely, Anil

Kumar Baranwal became Manager in 1992 and he remained as

such till 2014.

4. The case of the petitioners is that one Shri Ram Rekha

Shastri, who happened to be Principal of the Institution, was going

to retire on 30.06.2014 and, just before his retirement, he

manipulated certain things and submitted a list of 29 members

before the Assistant Registrar for the purposes of its registration.

The said list, according to the petitioners, is fabricated and also the

letter dated 25.03.2014 along with which it was submitted. It has

been vehemently argued that on the letter dated 25.03.2014,

signatures of Anil Kumar Baranwal were fabricated and even his

forged affidavit dated 29.05.2014 was submitted before the

Assistant Registrar, which matter was complained of by the

petitioners before the Joint Director of Education with supporting

material and also before the Assistant Registrar and though the

Joint Director of Education called upon Ram Rekha Shastri to

answer the issues raised, the said matter is still pending and has not

been settled. It is further contended that the petitioners’ Committee

enrolled certain members in the month of June, 2014, exact number

being 74 at some placed and 79 at some other places.

5. From perusal of the record, I find that on numerous

occasions, the dispute regarding valid membership has engaged

attention of this Court. At one stage, the District Inspector of

Schools granted permission to Yogesh Chandra Mishra to hold

elections but later on, by order dated 18.06.2014, the said order was

recalled by the District Inspector of Schools. Consequently, Writ C

No. 33694 of 2014 (Yogesh Chandra Mishra and 9 others vs State

3

of U.P. and 3 others) was filed, which was disposed of by order

dated 04.07.2014 directing the Joint Director of Education to

determine the electoral college of the Institution, either himself or

through an officer appointed by him.

6. It is contended that the District Inspector of Schools, by

order dated 29.05.2015, determined the valid electoral college

finding 74 members as valid for the purposes of holding elections

and the list was finalized. Yogesh Chandra Mishra and 9 others

challenged the said decision by filing Writ C No. 36602 of 2015

(Yogesh Chandra Mishra and 8 others vs State of U.P. and 4

others), which was disposed of by order dated 06.07.2015, whereby

the parties were left at liberty to approach the Regional Level

Committee for redressal of their grievances. Special Appeal No.

477 of 2015 (Yogesh Chandra Mishra and 8 others vs State of U.P.

and 4 others) filed against the said order dated 06.07.2015 was also

disposed of by the Division Bench by order dated 27.07.2015,

whereby the Regional Level Committee was directed to conclude

the proceedings within one month.

7. It is further contended that in pursuance of the aforesaid

orders, the Regional Level Committee decided the dispute by an

order dated 09.10.2015 attaching finality to the list of 74 members.

Against the order dated 09.10.2015, Yogesh Chandra Mishra and 8

others filed Writ C No. 60481 of 2015, which was allowed, in part,

by order dated 18.11.2015 setting aside the order of Regional Level

Committee and the Committee was directed to pass a fresh order in

accordance with law.

8. The case of the petitioners is that the Regional Level

Committee again decided the matter in their favour on 20.05.2016,

which was again assailed by Yogesh Chandra Mishra and 8 others

4

by filing Writ C No. 24802 of 2016, in which an interim order was

passed by this Court on 22.11.2016 staying the effect and operation

of the decision of Regional Level Committee until further orders

and payment of salary to the teachers and employees of the

Institution was directed to be made by way of single hand operation

of accounts. The interim order dated 22.11.2016 was assailed

before the Special Appellate Bench by filing Special Appeal No.

790 of 2016 (C/M Intermediate College, Babu Sarai vs State of U.P.

and 12 others), which was disposed of by order dated 15.12.2016

with a direction to the District Magistrate or Additional District

Magistrate to conduct fresh elections of the Committee of

Management. A direction was also issued to the effect that these

officers shall decide the question as to whether the disputed 52 new

members are entitled to continue as members and could be allowed

to participate in the elections. The elections were not stayed by the

Division Bench and the appellant-Committee of Management, i.e.

petitioners of Writ C No.15412 of 2023, were allowed to function

till newly elected body takes charge. Writ C No. 24802 of 2016 was

also disposed of by the Division Bench.

9. It is further contended that pursuant to the order of Special

Appellate Bench, the District Magistrate passed a detailed order

dated 13.02.2017 again holding 74 members as valid on the basis of

proceedings relied upon by the petitioners in relation to different

dates of June, 2014, particularly, the proceedings of meeting dated

28.06.2014, in which the bank drafts of the members were allegedly

placed and were accepted by the concerned Committee. It is further

contended that pursuant to the order dated 13.02.2017, the

petitioners Committee of Management held elections on

19.03.2017, which were approved and the signatures of Anil Kumar

Baranwal were also attested on 20.03.2017. The said elections and

5

attestation of the signatures have been challenged by the contesting-

respondent by filing Writ C No. 29385 of 2017, which is pending

and there is no interim order therein.

10. It has also come on record that the petitioners-Committee

of Management held another elections on 17.04.2022, which were

disapproved by the District Inspector of Schools on 26.04.2022

and, thereafter, an order of single hand operation was passed on

11.05.2022. By that time, the term of the elections of 2017 was

admittedly over. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid electons

dated 17.04.2022 and orders dated 26.04.2022 and 11.05.2022 by

filing Writ C No. 16556 of 2022 (C/M of Intermediate College vs

State of U.P. and 6 others), which was disposed of by order dated

25.07.2022 with the following operative portion:-

“Now the Court is coming to the electoral college, which is

required to hold the election. Earlier Division Bench has

given right to aggrieved party to file objection against the

list so finalized by District Magistrate, but not to wait the

decision upon objection, if any filed. It is not in dispute that

last election was held upon the electoral college finalized by

District Magistrate vide order dated 13.02.2017, which is

under challenge in Writ-C No. 29385 of 2017 having no

interim order. Therefore, considering the mandate of

Division Bench, this Court further directs respondent no. 4

to hold fresh election within two months from the date of

production of certified copy of this order alongwith electoral

college either duly approved by respondent no. 7 or electoral

college earlier finalized by District Magistrate vide order

dated 13.02.2017. In all eventuality election shall take place

within two months from the date of production of certified

copy of this order.”

6

11. It is clear from the aforesaid order that taking into

consideration the mandate of the Division Bench, the co-ordinate

Bench directed the District Inspector of Schools to hold fresh

elections within two months along with determination of electoral

college, either duly approved by the respondent No. 7 of the writ

petition or the electoral college or earlier finalized by the District

Magistrate by order dated 13.02.2017.

12. In the order dated 25.07.2022, the co-ordinate Bench also

recorded that as per the Scheme of Administration, the term of

Committee of Management is five years and one month, which is

undisputedly over, therefore, outgoing Committee of Management

cannot be permitted to hold fresh elections and it is only the District

Inspector of Schools or Authorized Controller, appointed by him,

who is empowered to hold fresh elections as per law.

13. In the meantime, respondents filed Writ C No. 28466 of

2022 (Yogesh Chandra Mishra and 15 others vs State of U.P. and 5

others) seeking a direction from this Court that finality be attached

to list of 29 members of General Body, however this Court, while

disposing of the writ petition on 26.09.2022, observed that the

proceedings under section 4-B of the Societies Registration Act,

1860 for registration of list of members were pending before the

Assistant Registrar, therefore, a direction was issued to the

Assistant Registrar to decide the said proceedings.

14. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that

regarding forgery and fabrication committed by Shri Ram Rekha

Shastri in the year 2014 when list of 29 members was fraudulently

finalized, the proceedings were pending before the Assistant

Registrar and the petitioners had requested the Assistant Registrar

to nullify the said fabricated proceedings but till today, the same

7

have not been finalized and, in the meantime, by order dated

29.12.2022, finality has been attached to the very list of 29

members relied upon by the respondents.

15. It has also come on record that the petitioners held

elections on 18.09.2022 pursuant to some direction issued by the

District Inspector of Schools. Even approval was granted by the

District Inspector of Schools to such elections on 20.09.2022. The

said elections were assailed by Yogesh Chandra Mishra and 15

others by filing Writ C No. 3997 of 2023, which was allowed by

this Court by order dated 15.03.2023 taking note of the previous

order dated 25.07.2022 passed in Writ C No. 16556 of 2022 and the

approval granted by the District Inspector of Schools to the

elections held by the petitioners was set aside. The District

Inspector of Schools was directed to ensure faithful compliance of

the order dated 25.07.2022 passed in Writ C No. 16556 of 2022.

16. Even thereafter, two sets of elections were held, one by

the petitioners on 23.05.2023 and other by the contesting

respondents on 01.06.2023. Reference has also been made to the

proceedings of a civil suit being Original Suit No. 319 of 2022

(Nirbhay Kumar and others vs Assistant Registrar and others) filed

by certain members against the Assistant Registrar and few others,

in which District Inspector of Schools has taken a stand in his

written statement that 74 members were valid.

17. In sum and substance, the submission of learned counsel

for the petitioners in Writ C Nos. 15412 of 2023 and 11662 of 2023

is that at every stage of proceedings, list of 74 members has been

found to be valid and, therefore, any claim made by respondents on

the basis of 29 members has no legs to stand on. It has further been

argued that the only finding recorded by the Assistant Registrar is

8

that since the list of 29 members was submitted under the joint

signatures of Yogesh Chandra Mishra in the capacity of President

and Anil Kumar Baranwal in the capacity of Manager, the same is

entitled to be approved as per section 4-B of the Societies

Registration Act, 1860. It has further been argued that though

certain infirmities have been recorded in relation to the proceedings

relied upon by the petitioners in connection with the submission of

bank drafts etc. and non-production of original records, identical

findings have been recorded against the respondents also that there

was no record produced in relation to enrollment of 29 members

and that a register was prepared afresh and was placed before the

Deputy Registrar, showing enrollment of 29 members. The entire

thrust is on the aspect that the proceedings placed on the basis of

fabrication and forgery, in which Ram Rekha Shastri was

instrumental, have been given a seal of approval, which could not

be done, particularly when the proceedings in relation to the said

fabrication have not yet been finally decided.

18. It has further been argued that even the respondents do

not stick to their stand and some times they press list of 29

members, but before the Deputy Registrar when the said enrollment

was opposed, the respondents came up with the stand that out of 29

members only 22 members are valid and list of such 22 valid

members be registered. The submission ,therefore, is that the

operative portion of the order impugned is contrary to the

observations recorded in the body of the order and, hence, the same

is liable to be set aside. It has been additionally argued by Shri

Prabhakar Awasthi that his clients were not provided any

opportunity in the matter before passing the order impugned dated

16.12.2022 and that the determination is in teeth of section 4-B of

the Societies Registration Act, 1860.

9

19. On the point that any Administrative Officer exercising

quasi judicial powers or administrative power must record a cogent

and valid reasoning while passing an order, and on the point of

power of this Court to judicially review any such order, learned

counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon the following

authorities:

(i) Central Industrial Security Force and others vs Abrar Ali,

reported in 2017 (4) SCC 507;

(ii) Krishna Rice and Dal Mill and another vs Food

Commissioner/Food Secretary and others, reported in 2002

(3) AWC 2466;

(iii) The Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vs

Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others, reported in

AIR 2010 SC 1285;

(iv) Union of India and others vs P. Gunasekaran, reported in

2015 (2) SCC 610;

(v) S. Sreesanth vs Board of Control for Cricket in India and

others, reported in 2019 (4) SCC 660.

Case and Contention of Contesting Respondents

20. On the other hand, Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior

Advocate assisted by Shri Sankalp Narain, learned counsel for the

contesting respondents, in opposition to both the writ petitions, has

argued that any stand taken by the petitioners in support of

enrollment of additional members over and above 29 members is

contrary to the registered bye-laws of the Society. He has referred

to clauses 3 and 6 of the bye-laws, which provide that for the

purpose of membership, Bank Drafts of Rs. 11,000/- and 5100/-

depending upon the categories of members, would be obtained in

the name of the Manager and as per clause 6-E, such drafts shall be

10

placed in the meeting of the Committee of Management and, once

the same are accepted and approved and substantiated by the

General Body, it is only thereafter that the concerned applicants can

be enrolled as members. He has also referred to clause 9 of the bye-

laws, which says that the term of the Committee of Management

elected is five years, but the term of every office bearer elected

shall remain valid until his successor takes charge. By placing

reliance upon the aforesaid bye-laws, the order of District

Magistrate dated 13.02.2017 has been referred to, which is based

upon the stand taken by the petitioners in relation to the enrollment

of some members in the meeting dated 28.06.2014.

21. A copy of counter affidavit filed in the aforesaid pending

Writ C No. 29385 of 2017 ( Yogesh Chandra Mishra and 9 others

vs State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Secondary Education,

Govt. of U.P. Lucknow) has also been placed before the Court

which is taken on record. The said counter affidavit was filed on

behalf of the petitioners of Writ C No. 15412 of 2023, in paragraph

No. 56 whereof, reliance was placed by the petitioners on the

minutes of meeting dated 28.06.2014 and the rest stand taken by the

other side was denied. The minutes of the said meeting dated

28.06.2014 have been annexed as Annexure No. SCA-6 to the

supplementary counter affidavit filed in Writ C No. 15412 of 2023,

which contain proceedings for granting approval to addition of new

47 members so as to carry the membership to the number 79.

22. It has further been argued by Shri G.K. Singh that the

present writ petition has been filed by placing reliance upon the

minutes of meeting dated 29.06.2014, which has been shown to

have been jointly conducted by the members of the General Body,

Committee of the Society and Committee of the College, in which

11

previous proceedings dated 20.05.2014 have been approved and by

making reference of enrollement of certain new members, the

meeting is shown to have been concluded. In this regard, reliance

has been placed upon a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in

the case of Ajab Singh vs District Inspector of Schools, Meerut and

others reported in 1980 UPLBEC 308, in which this Court has held

that if outsiders take part in the meeting, the meeting stands

vitiated.

23. Shri G.K. Singh has, with reference to the stand of

forgery pressed by the petitioners, also referred to an affidavit of

Anil Kumar Baranwal forming part of Annexure No. SA-4 to the

supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioners in Writ C No. 15412

of 2023, in paragraph No. 2 whereof, it has been deposed by Anil

Kumar Baranwal that he had submitted a list of valid 79 members

on 27.06.2014. Shri Singh, therefore, submits that on the date when

Anil Kumar Baranwal claims to have submitted the list i.e. on

27.06.2014, neither meeting of 28.06.2014 nor of 29.06.2014 had

taken place and, therefore, the entire stand of the petitioners is

fallacious. He has also referred to various Bank Drafts as well as

receipts of making deposit of membership fees and argued that that

by an advertisement published in two newspapers, period in

between 21.06.2014 and 27.06.2014 was specified for making

deposit of membership fees and, during the said intervening period,

the said Bank Drafts were issued and the same were deposited by

the petitioners in an account, which was newly opened on

20.06.2014.

24. Certain discrepancies in the receipt numbers have also

been pointed out in co-relation with the dates of issuance of receipts

and Bank Drafts. The submission is that once, as per the petitioners

12

themselves, the meeting was held on 28.06.2014 and then on

29.06.2014, the submission of list by the petitioners on 27.06.2014,

i.e. prior to holding of such meetings, was contrary to the bye-laws

as the drafts were never placed before the Committee of

Management and they were encashed by making deposit in a new

bank account, which was opened on 20.06.2016. He has referred to

dates of deposit of such Bank Drafts, i.e. 25.06.2014 and

27.06.2014 with few other interesting details of various Bills of

02.07.2014 describing credit of Rs. 5100/-, the same amount which

is fixed as membership fees. He, therefore, submits that even if, any

of the meetings held on 28.06.2014 or 29.06.2014 is taken to be a

valid meeting, admittedly there were no Bank Drafts before the

Committee in the said two meetings and, hence, any enrollment

made contrary to the bye-laws, as already referred to herein-above,

invalidates addition of members. Shri Singh further submits that

paragraph 19 of the supplementary affidavit contains an admission

of the petitioners of Writ C No. 15412 of 2023 to the effect that list

of 74 members includes 26 names out of 29 given by the

respondent Yogesh Chandra Mishra and there is a dispute regarding

only three persons, namely, Ram Rekha Shastri and his two sons,

namely, Suyash Pathak and Utkarsh Pathak. The submission,

therefore, is that once before this Court, after various rounds of

litigations, challenging the determination of valid membership,

factum of 26 members has been admitted, no objection can be

raised regarding validity of the list of at least 26 members and the

dispute with regard to addition of members has to be decided on the

basis of the material placed, particularly various meetings held by

the petitioners.

13

Case and Contention of Petitioners of Writ C No. 21573 of 2023

25. By Writ C No. 21573 of 2023, Committee of

Management of the College elected pursuant to the elections dated

01.06.2023 has assailed the validity of orders dated 02.06.2023 and

it has been argued that no body approached the Joint Director of

Education and though, there were two sets of elections, in which on

the one hand, one Ganeshji Baranwal claims to have been elected

and on the other hand, Yogesh Chandra Mishra claims to have been

elected, the elections relied upon by Ganeshji Baranwal were held

contrary to the directions issued by the Writ Court in the order

dated 15.03.2023 passed in Writ C No. 3997 of 2023 and also the

order dated 25.07.2022 passed in Writ C No. 16556 of 2022,

inasmuch as the ultimate direction of this Court was that elections

have to be held by the District Inspector of Schools and not by

outgoing Committee. Shri G.K. Singh has referred to the election

proceedings, in which Yogesh Chandra Mishra is said to have been

elected and the letter dated 01.06.2023 sent by the Observer

appointed by the District Inspector of Schools has been shown to

the Court, as Annexure No. 18 to the writ petition and it has been

argued that the only valid elections, as per the directions of the

Court, are dated 01.06.2023. Regarding validity of the orders

impugned dated 02.06.2023, it has been submitted that the

respondents appear to have moved some application before the

District Inspector of Schools, a copy whereof was addressed to the

Joint Director of Education as per paragraph No. 2 of the order

passed by him and, by referring to the said endorsement, Joint

Director of Education has himself summoned the record of the

District Inspector of Schools for deciding the dispute as per the

Government Order dated 19.12.2000, although the said

Government Order does not contemplate any such reverse

14

procedure, rather the correct procedure is that once two sets of

elections are produced or placed before the District Inspector of

Schools, and he finds it genuinely necessary to refer the matter to

the Joint Director of Education, it is the District Inspector of

Schools, who shall make a reference.

26. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in all the

writ petitions, I find that the stand of the petitioners in Writ C Nos.

15412 of 2023 and 11662 of 2023 is based upon the alleged

fabrication committed by Ram Rekha Shastri. There is no pleading

in Writ C No. 11662 of 2023 regarding any such fabrication made

by Ram Rekha Shastri. Neither Ram Rekha Shastri nor his two

sons Suyash Pathak and Utkarsh Pathak are parties to any of the

writ petitions. Moreover, the thrust is upon fabrication made and

reported in the year 2014 and the submission is that the said

proceedings have not yet been finalized.

27. The Court, in the present proceedings, is concerned with

the validity of the order dated 16.12.2022 challenged in Writ C

Nos. 15412 of 2023 and 11662 of 2023 and the orders dated

02.06.2023 challenged in Writ C No. 21573 of 2023. Considering

the fact that the enrollment of new members pursuant to the

submission of Bank Drafts in between 21.06.2023 and 27.06.2023

and submission of list before the Deputy Registrar on 27.06.2023 as

per the affidavit filed by Anil Kumar Baranwal, by which time,

admittedly, none of the meetings dated 28.06.2014 and 29.06.2014

had taken place, I find that the Bank Drafts were never placed

before the Committee of Management and were deposited in Bank

on 25.06.2014 and 27.06.2014. Even otherwise, the term of

Committee of Management was already over on 11.06.2014 and

continuance of the term of any office bearer as per the bye-laws

15

would not ipso facto mean that the Committee was functional. The

contradictory stand taken by the petitioners in relation to the

meetings dated 28.06.2014 and 29.06.2014 by making reference to

various pleadings and record of the proceedings, persuades this

Court to form an opinion that the petitioners have never stuck to

their stand in relation to the fresh enrollment of members. Before

the Court, there is no such proceedings to which any clear sanctity

be attached insofar as fresh enrollement is concerned, and there

may be some reservations with regard to enrollement of Ram

Rekha Shastri and his two sons Suyash Pathak and Utkarsh Pathak

and there may be some force in the stand taken by the petitioners

that during the continuance of his principal-ship, Ram Rekha

Shastri was not competent to become a member in the General

Body of the Committee.

28. As regards various submissions with regard to fabrication

etc., I find that neither Deputy Registrar nor District Inspector of

Schools nor District Magistrate nor Joint Director of Education nor

Regional Level Committee has any competence to determine the

factum of forgery as it is the sole prerogative of the civil court to

examine it and record findings on the forgery aspects. This Court,

in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

cannot record any finding as to whether signatures of anyone were

genuinely made on any document or that the same were fabricated.

There is already a civil suit being Original Suit No. 319 of 2022

said to be pending in relation to the dispute. Therefore, in view of

the admission made by the petitioners in relation to 26 members as

noted above, irrespective of the fact that findings recorded in the

order impugned dated 16.12.2022 are contradictory in some

respect, there appears to be no dispute at least regarding 26

members and enrollment of three members, i.e. Ram Rekha Shastri,

16

Suyash Pathak and Utkarsh Pathak may be invalid but in absence of

three persons as parties to the proceedings no specific finding can

be recorded in this regard.

29. Once, I find that meetings of 28.06.2014 and 29.06.2014

cannot attach sanctity and validity to the enrollment of members as

per the bye-laws and as per the stand taken by the petitioners

themselves, and that elections of 01.06.2023 were held by the

District Inspector of Schools by appointing Observer in view of the

two orders passed by this Court, one dated 15.03.2023 passed in

Writ C No. 3997 of 2023 and other dated 25.07.2022 passed in Writ

C No. 16556 of 2022, the order of Joint Director of Education dated

02.06.2023 is clearly unsustainable.

30. Regarding making of reference by the District Inspector

of Schools by the order impugned dated 02.06.2023, it has been

argued that once the District Inspector of Schools himself had held

elections of the petitioners by appointing Observer as per directions

issued by this Court, making a reference mechanically to Joint

Director of Education or the Regional Level Committee is not

according to law. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a

judgment of Division Bench of this Court dated 06.07.2023 in

Special Appeal Defective No. 335 of 2023 (C/M Dayanand Inter

College and another vs State of U.P. and 5 others) on the point that

reference cannot be made mechanically but can be made only when

there is some genuine dispute.

31. Once, I find that the petitioners’ elections dated

01.06.2023 have been held pursuant to the directions issued by this

Court on two occasions while the order of Joint Director of

Education dated 02.06.2023 is found to be without jurisdiction, the

17

reference made by the District Inspector of Schools also appears to

be unjustified.

32. As regards determination of Electoral College by order

impugned dated 16.12.2022, the petitioners may approach civil

court as per section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read

with sections 31 and 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for

determination of their rights, if any, as the entire case is based upon

alleged fabrication and forgery in various documents and neither

any administrative officer nor this Court can adjudicate such issue

as it requires dealing with oral and documentary evidence and even

expert opinion as per section 45 of the Evidence Act, if need arises.

33. Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 may be

invoked before the Civil Court when any instrument, void or

voidable, if left outstanding, may cause serious injury to any person

and, under such circumstances, the said instrument may be

adjudged as void through a decree of the Civil Court. As per section

34 of the Specific Relief Act, any person claiming any declaration

as to his character may obtain a decree from the Civil Court in that

regard. In any such proceedings, external aid in the form of expert

opinion under section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 can

always be taken by the Court. For a ready reference, Sections 31

and 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 are being quoted herein-

below:

“31. When cancellation may be ordered.- (1) Any person

against whom a written instrument is, void or voidable, and

who has reasonable apprehension that such instrument, if

left outstanding, may cause him serious injury, may sue to

have it adjudged void or voidable, and the court may, in its

discretion, so adjudge it and order it to be delivered up and

cancelled.

18

(2) If the instrument has been registered under the Indian

Registration Act, 1908, the court shall also send a copy of its

decree to the officer in whose office the instrument has been

so registered; and such officer shall note on the copy of the

instrument contained in his books of the fact of its

cancellation.”

“34. Discretion of court as to declaration of status or

right. -Any person entitled to any legal character, or to any

right as to any property, may institute a suit against any

person denying or interested to deny, his title to such

character or right, and the court may in its discretion make

therein a declaration that he is so entitled, and the plaintiff

need not in such suit ask for any further relief:

Provided that no court shall make any such declaration where

the plaintiff, being able to seek further relief than a mere

declaration of title, omits to do so.”

Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is quoted herein-

below:

“45. Opinions of experts.- When the Court has to form

an opinion upon a point of foreign law or of science or art, or

as to identity of handwriting [or finger impressions], the

opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such

foreign law, science or art, [or in questions as to identity of

handwriting] [or finger impressions] are relevant facts.

Such persons are called experts.”

34. Writ C Nos. 15412 of 2023 and 11662 of 2023 are,

accordingly, dismissed with the aforesaid liberty and Writ C No.

21573 of 2023 is allowed.

35. The orders dated 02.06.2023 passed by the Joint Director

of Education, Bhadohi and the District Inspector of Schools,

Bhadohi are hereby quashed.

Order Date :- 28.8.2023

Sazia

19