Rajesh Kumar vs State Of Uttarkhand & Ors

Rajesh Kumar ...Appellant

VERSUS

State of Uttarakhand & Ors. ... Respondents

ORDER

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed at the instance of Rajesh Kumar,

the appellant herein, challenging the impugned

order passed by a learned Judge of the High Court

of Uttarakhand at Nainital by which an application

for recall of an order dated 16th of October, 2008,

directing the respondent No.3-Additional Director

Education to decide the representation filed by the

appellant dated 9th of September, 2008 in

1 accordance with law, was allowed and consequent

thereupon the writ petition of the appellant was

dismissed summarily.

3. The election for Committee of Management of Janta

Inter College, Majari Gummawala, District

Haridwar, of which the appellant is one of the Life

Member, was held on 23rd of October, 2005 after

due process and procedure followed for the same in

which the appellant was declared as Deputy

Manager. As some dispute arose with regard to the

induction of some forged members in the voters list,

the election dated 23rd of October, 2005 was not

approved by the respondent No.4-District Education

Officer. Thereafter the Additional District Education

Officer (Basic) inducted 35 members in the voters

list. Another Life Member, Shri Vijendra Singh, filed

a complaint before the respondent No.3 with regard

to the induction of the said 35 forged members in

the list of members. On the aforesaid complaint of

Vijendra Singh, the respondent No.4 had

2 investigated the matter and found that there was

serious mismanagement which had taken control of

the Management of the said College by furnishing

false information and there was also monetary

irregularities on the part of the present Committee

of Management of the College. The appellant made a

representation before respondent No.3 for redressal

of his grievances. While finding that such

representation was not considered by the concerned

authorities, the appellant approached the High

Court by filing a writ petition seeking the following

relief:

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding/directing the respondent No.3 to decide the representation dated 9th of September, 2008".

4. By a final order dated 16th of October, 2008, the

aforesaid writ petition was disposed of by a learned

Judge of the High Court by the following order :-

"Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the representation, this writ petition is summarily disposed of with the direction that respondent No.3 may decide the representation dated 9.9.2008, made by the

3 petitioner challenging the validity of the elections held on 17.4.2007, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of six weeks after the certified copy of this order is produced before such authority."

5. After the said writ petition was disposed of in the

manner indicated above, an application for recall was

filed by one Smt. Rajbala, wife of Ashwani Kumar before

the High Court and the said application by an order

dated 3rd of November, 2008 was allowed and consequent

thereupon the writ petition filed by the appellant was

dismissed without even impleading her a party and giving

an opportunity to the appellant to file his reply to the

application for recall. It is this order which is now under

challenge, on grant of leave, before us.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and after considering the nature of the order passed by

the High Court disposing of the writ petition and the

application for recall and in order to render justice

between the parties, we are of the view that this appeal

may be disposed of in the following manner :-

4

7. The order dated 16th of October, 2008 recalling the

order passed by the High Court disposing of the writ

petition and directing the authorities to consider the

representation of the appellant is set aside. The

concerned authority - respondent No.3 is directed to

consider the representation of the appellant after hearing

the appellant and other interested parties including Smt.

Rajbala, wife of Ashwani Kumar and thereafter dispose of

the same within three months from the date of supply of

a copy of this order to respondent No.3 in accordance

with law.

8. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of with the

above directions. There will be no order as to costs.

...........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; ...........................J. August 28, 2009. [R.M.Lodha]

5