Rajesh
Kumar Vs. State of Uttarkhand & Ors. [2009] INSC 1508 (28 August 2009)
Judgment
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.
5856 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30857 of 2008) 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]
...........................J.
New Delhi;
Back
