1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.2161 of 2008. Razura Education Society. Vs. Additional Commissioner of Tribal Development and others. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram,appearances,Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. A. M. Gordey Advocate with Shri P. N. Shende Advocate for the petitioner Mrs. T. D. Khade AGP for Respondents no.1 to 3. Shri N. R. Saboo, Advocate for the Intervener. Coram: B. H. Marlapalle and A. H. JOSHI, JJ. Dated: 10th OCTOBER 2008. 1. Heard Mr. Gordey learned Counsel for the petitioner. Mrs. TD Khade learned AGP appears for the Respondents State authorities and learned Advocate Shri N. R. Saboo appears for intervener. 2. The petitioner Society is aggrieved by the order dated 5-5-2008 thereby appointing Shri D. M. Hedaoo Asstt. Project Officer and Administrator for Ashram School (Residential) run by the petitioner society at Ganeshput, Tah. Morshi, 2 District Amravati. The said order states that the dispute regarding the Office bearers of the petitioner Society has been pending before the Asstt. Charity Commissioner at Amravati since 22-3-2007, and it has adversely affected the administration of the Ashram School and more particularly, the students. With an intention to ensure that the students are not made to starve or suffer, the Administrator has been appointed so that the assistance given by the State Government in running the said School is properly utilized. The order does not state under which provision it has been passed by the Additional Commissioner Tribal Development, Amravati. 3. As per learned Counsel Mr. Gordey, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner Society before the impugned order was passed, and before such an adverse order is passed taking away the management of the Ashram School by the Additional Commissioner, 3 it was necessary that the principles of natural justice would follow and the petitioner Society was heard. He placed reliance on the Scheme of Section 3 of the Maharashtra Education Institutions (Management) Act 1976. 4. Shri Deepak Kumar Hedaoo, Asstt. Project Officer and who has been appointed as the Administrator has filed affidavit-in-reply on behalf of Respondents no.1, 2 & 3. He himself being an appointee and his appointment being under challenge, it was necessary for the Additional Commissioner of Tribal Development to file an affidavit-in-reply. This has not been done, and therefore, the order passed by Respondent No.1 cannot be justified by the appointee himself. Resultantly, we will have to ignore the affidavit- in-reply filed by the Administrator though it is claimed to have been filed on behalf of Respondents no.1 to 3. 5. Learned AGP Mrs. Khade during the course of her argument in support of the impugned order submitted before 4 us that the same has been passed under clause 2.48 (c) of the Ashram School Code. Said provisions reads as under: _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ 5 _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ 6. It is the case of the State Government that because of the fraction between the Office bearers of the petitioner Society, the children were suffering, and therefore, to distribute final installment of custody grant for the year 2007-2008 and in order to avoid starvation of students, the administrator was appointed. It is further claimed that due to the dispute in the management, the Society was not providing Education material, diet and necessary facilities to the students of the Ashram School, and vide letters dated 13-9-2006, 22-8-2006, 29-8-2006, 12-9-2008 and 18-9-2006, the Trustees of the Society were called to remain present and submit explanation regarding mismanagement of the Society. 6 Mr. Gordey Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that these details do not reflect in the impugned order, and he denies to have received any show cause notice or any notice to submit any explanation. 7. Be that as it may, it would be proper that the petitioner society's Office bearers are issued a show cause notice and they are heard before an order either under clause 2.48 (c) of the Ashram School Code or Section 3 of the Maharashtra Education Institution (Management) Act, 1976 is passed afresh, and the Administrator is allowed to continue interregnum. 8. We, therefore, direct Respondent No.1 to issue a fresh show cause notice to the Trustees of the Petitioner Society so as to hear them on the proposed action, as noted herein above, and pass an appropriate order after they are heard either in person or by filing a written reply. We make it clear that the petitioner will not ask for hearing through an Advocate. 7 Respondent no.1 to pass the final order on or before 31st December 2008 and until such an order is passed, present Administrator to continue. 9. Petition is disposed off in terms of the above direction. JUDGE JUDGE Sbm