S.P. Srivastava, J.@mdashShiv Charan Inter College, Bulandshahr is an educational institution which stands recognised under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the regulations framed there under Exercising the jurisdiction envisaged u/s 16-D(5-A) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 as it stood in the year 1977, the State Government passed an order on 6 6 77 where under an authorised controller was appointed superseding the management of the aforesaid College.
2. The present writ petition was filed on 9-5-91 paying for the issue of a direction that the Petitioner Committee of Management be handed over the charge of the Management of the Institution and in the alternative in case there is some dispute regarding the constitution of the Committee of Management, for the issue of a direction to the Deputy Director of Education to decide the same and then handover the charge of the Institution to the Committee of Management held to be duly and validly elected.
3. On 13-5-91 this Court had issued an inter in mandamus to the respondents to dispose of the representation of the Petitioner dated 25-4-91 within a period of six weeks or to show cause. It was further directed that in the meantime the authorised controller may continue to manage the affairs of the institution.
4. Instead of disposing off the representation filed by the Petitioner, a counter-affidavit was filed by the Respondent No. 3 wherein it has been asserted that so long as the irregularities which had necessitated the appointment of the authorised controller are not rectified and the State Government issues a direction for the holding of the election of the Committee of Management neither the authorised controller could be removed nor any election could be held.
5. During the pendency of this writ petition an application was filed by Sri Lalman Sharma seeking the impleadment of the Committee of Management of Shiv Charan Inter College, Bulandshahr alleging him to be its Manager as Respondent No. 5. This application was disposed off vide the order dated 19-5-92 where under the prayer for seeking impleadment as Respondent No. 5 in the writ petition was rejected but opportunity of hearing was afforded to the party seeking impleadment in accordance with the provisions contained under Chapter XXII Rule 5-A of the Rules of the Court
and the counter-affidavit filed by Sri Lalman Sharma was directed to be placed on record. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the Petitioners in reply to the counter-affidavits referred to above.
6. I have heard the counsel for the Petitioners the learned Standing Counsel as well as Sri R.L. Sharma learned Counsel representing the party who had been afforded opportunity of hearing in these proceedings.
7. Section 16-D(5-A) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 provided that if on the receipt of a recommendation referred to in Sub-section (4), the State Government was satisfied that the circumstances mentioned in para (a) or para (b) of that sub-section existed and was further satisfied that for special and exceptional reasons, which shall be recorded, action under that sub-section will not be adequately effective and that in the interest of the institution it was necessary that the Management of that Institution be immediately handed over to an authorised controller, the State Government could by an order, for such period as may be specified therein, appoint an Authorised Controller and that Authorised Controller would take over the management of the Institution including the management of the land, buildings, funds and other assets belonging to or vested in the institution to the exclusion of the Management. The aforesaid provision authorised the State Government to vest in the Authorised Controller all such powers and authority as the management could have if no orders had been made u/s 16-D(5-A) or Sub-section (4) of Section 16-D. Section 16-D(4)(a) contemplates the satisfaction of the State Government in regard to the management of the affairs of the recognised institution and Section 16-D(4)(b) contemplates satisfaction of the State Government in regard to the management''s wilful or persistent failure in the performance of its duties. A perusal of 16-D (5-A) of the Act as it stood in the year 1977 makes it clear that apart from the satisfaction in regard to the circumstances mentioned in para 16-D (4)(a) and (b) of the Act, a further satisfaction had to be recorded by the State Government before passing the order appointing an authorised controller in regard to the existence of special and exceptional reasons justifying that the action u/s 16-D(4)(a) and (b) will not be adequately effective. It appears that it is in this view of the matter that in the order dated 6-6-77 apart from mentioning that two rival Committees of Management had come into existence disturbing the administration of the institution five other special and exceptional reasons have been mentioned which according to the State Government had necessitated the appointment of the authorised controller.
8. The first proviso to Section 16-D(5-B) as it stood at the relevant time provided that the total period of the operation of the order appointing an authorised controller including the period, specified in the initial order under Sub-section (5) or Sub-section (5-A) could not exceed five years. However, the second proviso stipulated that if at the expiration of the said period of five years there is no lawfully constituted management of the institution the authorised controller shall continue to keep the management in his hands until the State Government is satisfied that a management has been lawfully constituted.
9. It appears that it was in view of the second proviso that the authorised controller is continuing to keep the management of the institution in question in the absence of a decision of the State Government in regard to its satisfaction about the lawful constitution of the management which has not been taken so far.
10. In its decision in the case of Committee of Management Dugdeshmar Nath Inter College, Rudrapnr Deorla v. Deputy Director of Education (R) VII region, Gorakhpur decided by a Full Bench of this Court reported in 1988 UP LB EC 183, it was clarified that Section 16-D of the Act only dealt with a situation where a duly elected Committee of Management did exist or is in any case recognised as such and yet it was mismanaging the affairs of the Institution. It was further clarified that Sub-section (2) of Section 16-D as a condition precedent for passing of orders under the subsequent Sub-sections required the Director to direct the Management to remove any defect of deficiency found on inspection or otherwise. It was further observed, by the Full Bench it was only when the management failed to comply with the direction made in Sub-section (2) that steps contemplated by the subsequent sub-sections could be taken The Full Bench clearly observed that the provisions contemplated u/s 16-D held no relevance where the existence of a valid Committee of Management itself was in doubt or there was a dispute between the rival bodies contending to be the duly elected Committee of Management
11. Since the order appointing the authorised controller had been passed by the State Government in exercise of the jurisdiction envisaged u/s 16-D of the Act as it stood in the year 1977 it is not necessary to refer to the provisions contained in Section 16-D and its Sub-sections as they stand now as the amendments incorporated there in had not been given any retrospective effect.
12. In the circumstances of the present case it is apparent that the authorised controller is being continued under the second proviso to Section 16-D(5)(B) of the Act as it stood in the year 1977. The question relating to the existence of the managerial dispute which was one of the grounds for appointing the authorised controller in the present case, could not furnish a valid ground for doing so in view of the decision of the Full Bench to which a reference has been made above. So far as the other reasons mentioned in the order dated 6-6-77 are concerned it may be noticed that the entire purpose for appointing the authorised controller was to get the irregularities etc. which necessitated the appointment of the authorised controller, removed at the earliest and for ensuring the smooth functioning of the Institution. This is obvious from the fact that the provisions contained in Section 16-D(5-A) of the Act envisaged the vesting of the entire management of the land, building, funds and other assets belonging to the institution in the authorised controller which stands further vested with such powers and authority as the management could have if no orders had been made under either 16-D (4) or (5-A) of the Act. With such wide authority vesting in him, it is the bounden duty of the authorised controller to remove any such defect or irregularity which had necessitated his appointment.
13. The action of the State Government in exercise of the jurisdiction vested in it u/s 16-D(5--A) of the Act in respect of an educational institution run by a Society is a matter of considerable importance, as it divests the society of the right to manage the institution established by it and to that extent interferes with institutional rights. It also involves temporary or partial deprivation of the right to hold property and the society concerned stands deprived of the possession of the property belonging to it. Thus, the supersession of the management effected under the aforesaid provisions is of a far reaching consequence. It necessarily involves a conflict between institutional interest on the one hand and the public interest on the other which is sought to be served by the supersession of the Committee of Management.
14. It is, therefore, obvious that there always exists the imperative need to balance the two requirements. It is, however, necessary to emphasise that the affairs of an educational institution must be conducted in accordance with law and it is of utmost importance that an atmosphere conducive to the development of education is ensured and maintained which in fact, is always, the object that an institution receiving grants-in-aid from the State is supposed to serve. Efforts should, therefore, be made to restore the normalcy in the institution at the earliest and the supersession of the Committee of Management by appointing an authorised controller should be continued only for a period which is absolutely necessary.
15. A perusal of the order dated 6-6-77 shows that the State Government had come to the conclusion that on account of the coming into existence of two rival Committees of Management the administration of the institution had become disturbed and the formation of different groups of teachers was putting a bad effect on the atmosphere prevailing in the College. The State Government was further of the opinion that the funds of the College were being misutilised and illegal fee was being realised from the students. It further appears that the State Government was of the view that teaching as well as non-teaching staff employed in the College were being suspended on account of what was described a ''Gut Bandi''. From the above, the State Government had recorded its satisfaction to the effect that a managerial dispute had come into existence and various irregularities were being committed resulting in ''Gut Bandi'' amongst the teachers giving rise to indiscipline and the entire arrangement for imparting education had not disturbed. It is in such circumstances that the State Government had come to the conclusion that it was not in the public interest to continue the running of the Institution under the supervision of any Committee of Management The State Government appears to have been further satisfied that any action u/s 16-D-4 of the Act would not have been sufficient and effective.
16. It may be noticed that by U.P. Act No. I of 1981 Section 16-A(7) had been brought into force w.e.f. 11-2-1981 which authorised the Regional Deputy Director of Education to recognise persons found by him, in the manner prescribed, to be in actual control of the affairs of the institution, to constitute the Committee of Management of such institution where there was a managerial dispute, until a court of competent jurisdiction directed otherwise. Since, however, in the present case, the authorised controller was continuing from the year 1977, recourse to the forum provided u/s 16-A(7) of the Act was not possible as in the presence of the authorised controller there could be no occasion to find any other person to be in actual control of the affairs of the institution. Moreover, the provisions contained in Section 16-A(7) of the Act had not been given any retrospective effect.
17. In the above situation it was incumbent upon the Respondent No. 1 to ensure the smooth and orderly administration of the institution at the earliest and to see that the Authorised Controller took every possible step in this regard. The irregularities, if any could be easily rectified by Authorised Controller with all the powers vesting in him as contemplated u/s 16-D(5-A) of the Act as it stood at the relevant time and it appears that it is for this reason that the legislature had prescribed an outer limit of five years for the continuance of the Authorised Controller as envisaged under first proviso to Section 16-D(5-B) of the Act which lays considerable emphasis on the securing of proper management of the institution.
18. Taking into consideration the facts as brought on record, it transpires that the only thing now to be seen by the State Government is as to whether a lawfully constituted Committee of Management has come into existence which can be handed over the charge of the affairs of the institution and its properties etc. The order of revocation contemplated under the third proviso to Section 16-D(5-B) of the Act as it stood at the relevant time has to follow as soon as such a satisfaction is recorded.
19. It is most regrettable that inspite of a period of about 14 years having elapsed the State Government has not been able to record its satisfaction in regard to the constitution of a law fully elected Committee of Management in respect of the institution in question The provisions contained under the scheme of U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed there under clearly recognise the authority of a duly elected/constituted Committee of Management in regard to the control and management of the affairs of an educational institution which stands recognised under the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the regulations framed there under. The powers and authority of the Committee of Management and its rights in respect of the management of the land, buildings, funds and other assets belonging to or vested in the institution cannot be lightly interfered with. It is in this view of the matter that Section 16-D(5-A) of the Act clearly provided for a satisfaction in regard to the special and exceptional reasons to be recorded in writing for taking an action of appointing an authorised controller which had the effect of superseding the Committee of Management and deprived it of its powers. It was the duty of the State Government to see that the authorised controller appointed by it ensured the rectification of the irregularities which had necessitated his appointment and further ensured the creation of an atmosphere wherein the institution in question could run smoothly without any disturbance.
20. From the evidence and the material on record it is evident that the State Government itself had taken up the matter and had fixed 26-9-91 for the hearing of the case for recording a satisfaction about the legal constitution of a Committee of Management as envisaged in the second proviso to Section 16-D(5-B) of the Act. Annexure 5 of the counter-affidavit filed by Lalman Sharma indicates that the State Government had issued a letter dated 14-6-91 fixing 26-6-91 as the date for hearing in the matter. Some how or the other this enquiry was postponed and has not been completed as yet. The State Government has already delayed the enquiry too much without there being any justifiable reason for the same and is failing to discharge the duty cast upon it under the provision of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act.
21. Sufficient ground has been, thus, made out for interference by this Court.
22. In the result, the writ petition succeeds in part. A writ of mandamus is issued requiring the Respondent No. 1 to complete the enquiry in the matter regarding revocation of the order dated 6-6-77, in question indicated above, within six weeks of the presentation of the certified copy of this order and pass appropriate order in this regard in the light of the observations made hereinbefore after affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties.
23. There shall be no order as to costs.
