BASANT PRASAD SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
LAWS(ALL)-1993-5-6
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
May 07,1993
BASANT PRASAD SRIVASTAVA
Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
DESI CHETTIAR V. CHINNASAMI CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]N P PONNUSWAMI THE UNION OF INDIA AND STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT VS. RETURNING OFFICER NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY NAMAKKAL SALEM DIST :RETURNING OFFICER NAMAKKAL CONSTITUENCY NAMAKKAL SALEM DIST [REFERRED TO]
NANHOO MAL VS. HIRA MAL [REFERRED TO]
S T MUTHLJSAMI VS. K NATARAJAN [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
MOHD ABBAS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-62] [REFERRED TO]MOHD ABBAS VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2010-7-62] [REFERRED TO]
ADHOC C/M SRI KASHI ANNAPURNA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-158] [REFERRED TO]
ADHOC C/M SRI KASHI ANNAPURNA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-158] [REFERRED TO]
ADHOC C/M SRI KASHI ANNAPURNA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-158] [REFERRED TO]
ADHOC C/M SRI KASHI ANNAPURNA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-158] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING COMMITTEE ALJAMIYA TUL ISLAMIA LIL BANAAT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY DHAURA TANDA DISTRICT BAREILLY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-7-148] [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING COMMITTEE ALJAMIYA TUL ISLAMIA LIL BANAAT EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY DHAURA TANDA DISTRICT BAREILLY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-7-148] [REFERRED TO]
GULAB DHAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
GULAB DHAR PANDEY VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-3-21] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SRI SWAMI KRISHNANAND INTERMEDIATE COLLEGE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-220] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SRI SWAMI KRISHNANAND INTERMEDIATE COLLEGE VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-220] [REFERRED TO]
ACHIN JAIN ASHOK JAIN AJAY KUMAR VS. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FIRMS SOCIETY AND CHITS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-248] [REFERRED TO]
ACHIN JAIN ASHOK JAIN AJAY KUMAR VS. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FIRMS SOCIETY AND CHITS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-248] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR VS. COMMISSIONER AND REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE U.P.LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-425] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KUMAR VS. COMMISSIONER AND REGISTRAR CO-OPERATIVE U.P.LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-425] [REFERRED TO]
FAHIM AHMAD VS. STATE OF U P AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-308] [REFERRED]
FAHIM AHMAD VS. STATE OF U P AND ORS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-308] [REFERRED]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, LOK MANYA TILAK INTER COLLEGE, PRATAPGARH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-279] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, LOK MANYA TILAK INTER COLLEGE, PRATAPGARH AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF U P AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-279] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT JANTA INTER COLLEGE VS. JT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION I REGION MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-1998-11-75] [REFFERED TO 20]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT JANTA INTER COLLEGE VS. JT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION I REGION MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-1998-11-75] [REFFERED TO 20]
SMT. KANTABAI DHANGAR VS. STATE OF M.P., AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-1994-5-65] [REFERRED TO]
SMT. KANTABAI DHANGAR VS. STATE OF M.P., AND ANOTHER [LAWS(MPH)-1994-5-65] [REFERRED TO]
INTER COLLEGE HARDOI GUZAR (JALOUN) AND ORS. VS. JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION JHANSI REGION AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-3-323] [REFERRED TO]
INTER COLLEGE HARDOI GUZAR (JALOUN) AND ORS. VS. JOINT DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION JHANSI REGION AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-3-323] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA KANT SHARMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-8-434] [REFERRED TO]
RAMA KANT SHARMA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-8-434] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, KISHAN LAL RAM KUMAR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ANR. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-4-368] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, KISHAN LAL RAM KUMAR HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL AND ANR. VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-4-368] [REFERRED TO]
DAMODAR PRASAD PANDEY VS. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SEWASHRAM UCCHATAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-10-338] [REFERRED TO]
DAMODAR PRASAD PANDEY VS. COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SEWASHRAM UCCHATAR MADHYAMIK VIDYALAYA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2010-10-338] [REFERRED TO]
TRIBHUWAN PRASAD VS. DY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION 1ST VII REGION GORAKHPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1996-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
TRIBHUWAN PRASAD VS. DY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION 1ST VII REGION GORAKHPUR [LAWS(ALL)-1996-1-76] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT JANTA INTER COLLEGE VS. DY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION [LAWS(ALL)-1996-8-133] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT JANTA INTER COLLEGE VS. DY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION [LAWS(ALL)-1996-8-133] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMARI KAPOOR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1994-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH KUMARI KAPOOR VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-1994-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SHANKER RAI SRI VIJAI BAHADUR RAI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-262] [REFERRED TO]
HARI SHANKER RAI SRI VIJAI BAHADUR RAI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-262] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-285] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-285] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT JANTA INTER COLLEGE VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-131] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT JANTA INTER COLLEGE VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-1-131] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KALP YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-8-239] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KALP YADAV VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-8-239] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM NISAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-215] [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM NISAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-215] [REFERRED TO]
BANWARI LAL KANCHAL VS. BHARTENDU AGARWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-210] [REFERRED TO]
BANWARI LAL KANCHAL VS. BHARTENDU AGARWAL [LAWS(ALL)-2019-11-210] [REFERRED TO]
ADHOC C/M SRI KASHI ANNAPURNA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-77] [REFERRED TO]
ADHOC C/M SRI KASHI ANNAPURNA VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2021-12-77] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN SHARMA RAM PRASAD SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-5-306] [REFERRED TO]
RAM NARAIN SHARMA RAM PRASAD SHARMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-5-306] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ARYAN EDUCATION TRUST VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT SMT [LAWS(ALL)-1998-9-161] [REFERRED TO]
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE ARYAN EDUCATION TRUST VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 25 OF THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT SMT [LAWS(ALL)-1998-9-161] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT JANTA INTER COLLEGE VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-235] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT JANTA INTER COLLEGE VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-4-235] [REFERRED TO]
NISHAT FATIMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-480] [REFERRED TO]
NISHAT FATIMA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2014-5-480] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT BAPU INTER COLLEGE DEORIA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT BAPU INTER COLLEGE DEORIA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2012-7-38] [REFERRED TO]
A.R. STEPHEN VS. D.J., GORAKHPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-304] [REFERRED TO]
A.R. STEPHEN VS. D.J., GORAKHPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-304] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF JANTA INTER COLLEGE MUZAFFARNAGAR VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION 1 MEERUT REGION MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-1996-10-96] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF JANTA INTER COLLEGE MUZAFFARNAGAR VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION 1 MEERUT REGION MEERUT [LAWS(ALL)-1996-10-96] [REFERRED TO]
ABUL KALAM VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY [LAWS(ALL)-2000-7-141] [REFERRED TO]
ABUL KALAM VS. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY [LAWS(ALL)-2000-7-141] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAIN TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-252] [REFERRED TO]
SATYA NARAIN TRIPATHI VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-2-252] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI SAGWAR UNNAO VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-3-210] [REFERRED TO]
COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT SHIKSHA PRASAR SAMITI SAGWAR UNNAO VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2008-3-210] [REFERRED TO]
FAHIM AHMAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
FAHIM AHMAD VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2009-3-15] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-186] [REFFERED TO UTTAM NISAD V. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 20719 OF 2006;]
PRASHANT SHUKLA VS. STATE OF U P [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-186] [REFFERED TO UTTAM NISAD V. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. CIVIL MISC. WRIT PETITION NO. 20719 OF 2006;]
KHUMANO BAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1994-7-58] [REFERRED TO]
KHUMANO BAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [LAWS(MPH)-1994-7-58] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDAMBIKA PRASAD PANDEY VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-160] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDAMBIKA PRASAD PANDEY VS. STATE OF U. P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-7-160] [REFERRED TO]
C/M PARA VIDYA PRASARINI SAMITI PRESIDENT & 2 ORS VS. STATE OF U P & 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-498] [REFERRED]
C/M PARA VIDYA PRASARINI SAMITI PRESIDENT & 2 ORS VS. STATE OF U P & 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2014-4-498] [REFERRED]
JUDGEMENT
S.C.MATHUR, A.C.J. -
(1.)This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11/03/1993 passed by the learned single Judge whereby he dismissed three writ petitions relating to election dispute.
(2.)The dispute relates to constitution of Committee of Management of Sri Gandhi Smarak Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kauriya, district Azamgarh. Election for constituting the Committee was held on 10/06/1986. The Committee elected on this date was to continue for a period of three years. According to one claim Shiv Prasad Singh was elected President and Basant Prasad Srivastava, appellant No. 1 was elected Manager. The District Inspector of Schools, for short D.I.O.S., instead of attesting the signatures of Basant Prasad Srivastava attested the signatures of Rajesh Singh as Manager. This led to the filing of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23221 of 1987 by Basant Prasad Srivastava. He asserted that he was the duly elected Manager and, therefore, his signature should have been attested by the D.I.O.S. and not of Rajesh Singh. This writ petition remained pending for more than three years. It came up for hearing on 31/07/1991 when it was dismissed as infructuous by D. P. S. Chauhan, J. on the ground that the period for which the Committee had been elected had already expired. He, however, directed the D.I.O.S. to get the elections held within three months. In view of the direction contained in this Court's order dated 31/07/1991 the D.I.O.S. took steps for holding elections. He issued election schedule on 10/01/1992 enclosing there, with a list of 70 members of the Society who were entitled to vote at the election. This list appears to have been prepared taking 31/07/1991 as the cut-off date for enrolment of members. 31/07/1991 is the date on which Writ Petition No. 23221 of 1987 was decided. Jang Bahadur Singh, Rajesh Singh respondent No. 3 and others were dissatisfied with the voters' list enclosed with the election schedule dated 10/01/1992. They accordingly filed a writ petition which was dismissed summarily by R. B. Mehrotra, J. by his judgment and order dated 23/01/1992. The learned Judge observed that the election shall not be postponed but if any one raised grievance that his name had been wrongly excluded from the voters' list the same shall be decided by the D.I.O.S. The D.I.O.S. postponed the election and thereafter by order dated 24/01/1992 he added the names of 45 persons to the voters' list and fixed 27/01/1992 as the date for election. Against the inclusion of 45 names in the voters' list objections were filed by some members. The Associate District Inspector of Schools who was also the Election Officer by his order dated 27/01/1992 excludeduded the names of the said 45 persons from the voters' list. On the date of election viz., 27/01/1992 was disturbance at the site of elections and accordingly the polling was postponed till the list of eligible voters was finalised by the D.I.O.S. or by the Court. This led to the filing of Writ Petition No. 4093 of 1992 by the Committee of Management and Basant Prasad Srivastava and Writ Petition No. 3949 of 1992 by Rajesh Singh and others. The claim in Writ Petition No. 4093 of 1992 was that the elections should be held on the basis of the voters' list dated 10/01/1992 while the claim in Writ Petition No. 3949 of 1992 was that elections should be held on the basis of list dated 10/01/1992 as amended by order dated 24/01/1992. In these two petitions the question raised was as to what was the cut-off date for enrolment of members - (1) 31/07/1991 when Writ Petition No. 23221 of 1987 was decided, or (2) 10/01/1992 when election schedule was notified. Both the writ petitions were decided by a common judgment dated 25/02/1992 by P. P. Gupta, J. It appears from the judgment of P.P. Gupta, J. that the D.I.O.S. was not entertaining objections to the voters' list preferred by those who were not petitioners in the writ petitions filed before this Court. P. P. Gupta, J. was of the opinion that those who were not petitioners before this Court were also entitled to prefer their objections before the D.I.O.S. He accordingly directed the D.I.O.S. to comply with this Court's order dated 23/01/1992 and decide the claims preferred not only by the petitioners of the writ petition in which the order dated 23/01/1992 was passed but also by others. The claims were directed to be decided by a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. The voters' list was directed to be finalised within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment before the D.I.O.S. and the election was directed to be held within one week thereafter. In pursuance of this judgment claims were decided and fresh election schedule was announced on 25/02/1992. This led to the filing of three writ petitions which have given rise to the present appeal. These three writ petitions are-1969, 1977 and 21832 of 1992. In these three petitions again the validity of the voters' list has been challenged.
(3.)In the three writ petitions which have given rise to the present appeal an application was made for interim relief. By order dated 2/06/1992 the holding of election was not stayed and it was provided that the result of the election shall not be given effect to and the election shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. The three writ petitions have been dismissed by a common judgment dated 11/03/1993. This is the judgment which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
(2.)The dispute relates to constitution of Committee of Management of Sri Gandhi Smarak Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kauriya, district Azamgarh. Election for constituting the Committee was held on 10/06/1986. The Committee elected on this date was to continue for a period of three years. According to one claim Shiv Prasad Singh was elected President and Basant Prasad Srivastava, appellant No. 1 was elected Manager. The District Inspector of Schools, for short D.I.O.S., instead of attesting the signatures of Basant Prasad Srivastava attested the signatures of Rajesh Singh as Manager. This led to the filing of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23221 of 1987 by Basant Prasad Srivastava. He asserted that he was the duly elected Manager and, therefore, his signature should have been attested by the D.I.O.S. and not of Rajesh Singh. This writ petition remained pending for more than three years. It came up for hearing on 31/07/1991 when it was dismissed as infructuous by D. P. S. Chauhan, J. on the ground that the period for which the Committee had been elected had already expired. He, however, directed the D.I.O.S. to get the elections held within three months. In view of the direction contained in this Court's order dated 31/07/1991 the D.I.O.S. took steps for holding elections. He issued election schedule on 10/01/1992 enclosing there, with a list of 70 members of the Society who were entitled to vote at the election. This list appears to have been prepared taking 31/07/1991 as the cut-off date for enrolment of members. 31/07/1991 is the date on which Writ Petition No. 23221 of 1987 was decided. Jang Bahadur Singh, Rajesh Singh respondent No. 3 and others were dissatisfied with the voters' list enclosed with the election schedule dated 10/01/1992. They accordingly filed a writ petition which was dismissed summarily by R. B. Mehrotra, J. by his judgment and order dated 23/01/1992. The learned Judge observed that the election shall not be postponed but if any one raised grievance that his name had been wrongly excluded from the voters' list the same shall be decided by the D.I.O.S. The D.I.O.S. postponed the election and thereafter by order dated 24/01/1992 he added the names of 45 persons to the voters' list and fixed 27/01/1992 as the date for election. Against the inclusion of 45 names in the voters' list objections were filed by some members. The Associate District Inspector of Schools who was also the Election Officer by his order dated 27/01/1992 excludeduded the names of the said 45 persons from the voters' list. On the date of election viz., 27/01/1992 was disturbance at the site of elections and accordingly the polling was postponed till the list of eligible voters was finalised by the D.I.O.S. or by the Court. This led to the filing of Writ Petition No. 4093 of 1992 by the Committee of Management and Basant Prasad Srivastava and Writ Petition No. 3949 of 1992 by Rajesh Singh and others. The claim in Writ Petition No. 4093 of 1992 was that the elections should be held on the basis of the voters' list dated 10/01/1992 while the claim in Writ Petition No. 3949 of 1992 was that elections should be held on the basis of list dated 10/01/1992 as amended by order dated 24/01/1992. In these two petitions the question raised was as to what was the cut-off date for enrolment of members - (1) 31/07/1991 when Writ Petition No. 23221 of 1987 was decided, or (2) 10/01/1992 when election schedule was notified. Both the writ petitions were decided by a common judgment dated 25/02/1992 by P. P. Gupta, J. It appears from the judgment of P.P. Gupta, J. that the D.I.O.S. was not entertaining objections to the voters' list preferred by those who were not petitioners in the writ petitions filed before this Court. P. P. Gupta, J. was of the opinion that those who were not petitioners before this Court were also entitled to prefer their objections before the D.I.O.S. He accordingly directed the D.I.O.S. to comply with this Court's order dated 23/01/1992 and decide the claims preferred not only by the petitioners of the writ petition in which the order dated 23/01/1992 was passed but also by others. The claims were directed to be decided by a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing to the concerned parties. The voters' list was directed to be finalised within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of the judgment before the D.I.O.S. and the election was directed to be held within one week thereafter. In pursuance of this judgment claims were decided and fresh election schedule was announced on 25/02/1992. This led to the filing of three writ petitions which have given rise to the present appeal. These three writ petitions are-1969, 1977 and 21832 of 1992. In these three petitions again the validity of the voters' list has been challenged.
(3.)In the three writ petitions which have given rise to the present appeal an application was made for interim relief. By order dated 2/06/1992 the holding of election was not stayed and it was provided that the result of the election shall not be given effect to and the election shall be subject to the result of the writ petition. The three writ petitions have been dismissed by a common judgment dated 11/03/1993. This is the judgment which is the subject matter of the present appeal.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.