1 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3103/2002 Shri Umed Kanya Pathsala & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3103/2002 Shri Umed Kanya Pathsala and another. vs. State of Rajasthan and another. Date : 17.7.2009 HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr.DK Parihar, for the petitioners. Mr.OP Mehta ) for the respondents. Mr.GR Calla ) - - - - - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner no.1 - Shri Umed Kanya Pathsala, a registered society, through its Secretary and Petitioner No.2 – Shri Umed Kanya Secondary School through its Manager/Secretary. In the writ petition, following reliefs have been prayed :- “(a) The respondent no.2 be directed to send the departmental representative to managing 2 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3103/2002 Shri Umed Kanya Pathsala & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. committee i.e. petitioner no.2 and referred to in order dated 2.8.2002. (b) The respondent no.2 be directed not exercise the jurisdiction which is not vested in him under the Act'89. (c) Any other relief for which the petitioners are entitle, be granted.” It has been alleged in the writ petition that an order was issued on 2.8.2002 (Annex.1) wherein it has been said that suspension of Shri Amar Singh Gehlot by petitioner no.1 is restored being valid. It is also stated that from the order dated 2.8.2002, it has been revealed that the society elected the managing committee for the educational institution. The secretary of the petitioner no.1 met the respondent no.2 on 14.8.2002 for implementation of the order dated 2.8.2002 and also requested that a departmental representative in terms of Rule 23(1)(e) of the Rajasthan Non- Government Educational Institutions (Recognition, grant-in-aid and service conditions) Rules, 1993 (for short 'the Rules of 1993') be sent for 3 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3103/2002 Shri Umed Kanya Pathsala & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. representation in the managing committee. It is alleged that the respondent no.2 stated that he was under pressure of the then Chief Minister through one clerk Badri. The respondent no.2 also told the Secretary of the petitioner that the order dated 17.7.2001 was also issued under pressure which was cancelled by the respondent no.1 vide order dated 2.8.2002. The respondent no.2 also told that the managing committee supported, sponsored and recognised by Badri is acceptable to the education department and the managing committee comprising of Dr. Padam Sankhla as president and his son is married to the daughter of Shri Agarsen, who is brother of the then Chief Minister. The petitioner also submitted that the petitioner elected the managing committee on 30.12.2001 because the members of the last managing committee resigned and one member expired and Shri Amar Singh Gehlot was expelled from the membership of the society on 10.7.2001 and similarly, Suresh Tak, Rakesh Gehlot, Anil Kachhawaha and Ganpat Gehlot and others were expelled from the society on 13.9.2001. The 4 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3103/2002 Shri Umed Kanya Pathsala & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. petitioner placed on record copy of result of elected member from the society to constitute the managing committee which is Ex.4. The petitioner thereafter gave references of Section 3 of the Rajasthan Non-Government Educational Institutions Act, 1989 (for short 'the Act of 1989') and referred the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1958 and the Byelaws of the society. It has been alleged that there is no provision in the Act of 1989 and the Rules of 1993 for continuation of the managing committee beyond the 3 years period. It is stated that the managing committee is a subordinate body of the petitioner no.1 registered society and by the communication dated 4.1.2002, the petitioner no.1 informed the respondent no.2 that 15 members have been elected and another letter was written by the elected members of the committee to send departmental representative. It appears that there is dispute about constitution of the managing committee of the year 2002. However, in the present situation, the only prayer of the petitioners is that the respondent no.2 be directed to send departmental representative to 5 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3103/2002 Shri Umed Kanya Pathsala & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. the managing committee. The petitioners' own case and as per learned counsel for the petitioners himself, is that in view of sub-clause (h) of Rule 23(1) of the Rules of 1993, the managing committee's period cannot be beyond 3 years. The term of any managing committee which might have been constituted in the year 2002 had come to end in 2005 and learned counsel for the respondent State as well as learned counsel who submitted an application for being impleaded as party on behalf of managing committee of that time stated that in fact, the departmental representative was sent by the Government and that fact has been recorded in Annex.R/1 which is the minutes of the constituting the managing committee. Since the term of the managing committee which was constituted in the year 2002 had come to an end in the year 2005, therefore, nothing survives in this writ petition for seeking direction for sending departmental representative of the year 2002. 6 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3103/2002 Shri Umed Kanya Pathsala & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. It is made clear that the issue whether the committee constituted vide Annex.R/1 was valid or not, is not the issue before this Court in any manner directly or indirectly nor the action of the petitioner society is under consideration because of the plain and simple reason that the only relief has been sought is that the respondents be directed to send departmental representative as required by Rule 23(1)(e) of the Rules of 1993 and learned counsel Mr.GR Calla appearing for the respondent State submits that the State is not disowning its this responsibility and the competent authority will send its representative to the managing committee constituted by the society under the byelaws and the Rules. The petitioner's another prayer seeking relief against the respondent no.2 not to exercise the jurisdiction which is not vested in him under the Act of 1989 is concerned, there is no need to issue such direction because of the plain and simple reason that each and every authority having 7 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3103/2002 Shri Umed Kanya Pathsala & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. statutory power and obligation to act under the State, is bound to act in accordance with law and inaction of that authority as well as wrong action of that authority can be decided at the relevant time only when action was required and was not taken by the authority and when action was taken but not in accordance with law, then those issues can be looked into. Here in this case, the issue which has been raised by the petitioner for sending the departmental representative to the managing committee is concerned, for that the respondents do not dispute this position that whenever that is required, the respondent Government shall send its departmental representative. In view of the above, this writ petition has become infructuous by subsequent events and the same is hereby dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent State submitted that there is a litigation pending between the private parties with respect to 8 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3103/2002 Shri Umed Kanya Pathsala & Anr. vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr. various issues. Be it as it may be, none of the issue is involved in this writ petition which can have bearing on the merits of the case pending in the civil court nor this Court is deciding any issue and, therefore, the civil court will proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by this order of this Court. (PRAKASH TATIA), J. S.Phophaliya