Court No.39
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.40770 of 2010
Committee of Management, Janta Inter College, Lisadh, Muzaffar
Nagar & Another
Vs.
State of U.P. & Others
~~~~~~~
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta, J.
The petitioners have sought the quashing of the order dated 25th June,
2010 issued by the Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh under
Section 16-D(4) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter
referred to as the ‘Act’) by which an Authorised Controller has been
appointed to take over the Management of the petitioner-Institution.
The records of the writ petition indicate that even earlier an order
dated 11th December, 2009 was passed by the State Government under
Section 16-D(4) of the Act for appointment of an Authorised Controller and
this order was assailed by the present petitioner no.2-Rajiv Kumar in Writ
Petition No.3434 of 2010 which was allowed by the judgment and order
dated 27th January, 2010. The order is quoted below:-
“The petitioners have sought the quashing of the
order dated 11th December, 2009 issued by the State
Government under Section 16-D(4) of the U.P.
Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to
as the ‘Act’) by which an Authorised Controller has been
appointed to take over the Management of the petitioner-
Institution.
It is the submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners that the said order deserves to be set aside as
not only does it not record any reason as are required to
be recorded under Section 16-D(4) of the Act but it also
does not take into consideration the reply filed by the
petitioner to the notice issued under Section 16-D(3) of
the Act.
Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the
respondents and Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Senior Counsel
appearing for the Caveator state that it may not be
necessary to file the counter affidavit and the petition
may be disposed of at this stage.
A perusal of the impugned order does indicate that
no reason has been recorded by the State Government for
appointing the Authorised Controller. Under Section 16-
2
D(4) of the Act the State Government was required to
give reasons. The order dated 11th December, 2009
which has been impugned in the present petition,
therefore, cannot be sustained.
The impugned order dated 11th December, 2009
also mentions that the petitioners have not filed any reply
to the show cause notice issued under Section 16-D(3) of
the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of
the averments made in paragraph 15 of the writ petition
states that in fact the reply was submitted by the
petitioners which was received in the office on 16th
September, 2009 but it has wrongly been recorded in the
order that no reply was submitted by the petitioners.
The order dated 11th December, 2009 is,
accordingly, set aside.
The State Government may pass a fresh order
under Section 16-D(4) of the Act after giving reasons.
While passing the order, the State Government shall also
consider whether the petitioner had submitted a reply to
the show cause notice issued under Section 16-D(3) of
the Act.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the
extent indicated above.”
A perusal of the order dated 25th June, 2010 shows that a reply was
filed by the petitioner pursuant to the notice issued under Section 16-D(3) of
the Act but all that has been stated in the impugned order is that the matter
was re-considered and it was found that the Management was guilty of
financial irregularities.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the order deserves to be set aside as no reason has been given
as to how the Management was guilty of financial irregularities and only a
bald statement has been made without consideration of the reply filed by the
petitioner.
Learned Standing Counsel appears for all the respondents. Sri
Manmohan Singh, Advocate has filed a Caveat Application on behalf of
Angraz Singh who had filed a complaint and Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior
Counsel has made submissions on his behalf. Learned counsel for the
respondents state that it is not necessary to file a counter affidavit and the
petition may be disposed of at this stage.
The Special Secretary, Government of U.P. was directed to pass a
reasoned order. The impugned order, however, does not give any reason and
nor does it deal with the reply that had been filed by the petitioner even
3
though there is a mention that a reply was filed by the petitioner. The Special
Secretary should have complied with the directions issued by the Court in
the judgment and order dated 27th January, 2010.
The order dated 25th June, 2010 passed by the Special Secretary,
Government of U.P., therefore, cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set
aside. It shall, however, be open to the respondents to pass a reasoned order.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above.
Date: 15.07.2010
GS