HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 33 of 2010 (M/S) Prashant Uniyal. ……..Petitioner Versus State of Uttarakhand and others. …….Respondents Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3. Mr. M.S. Bisht, Advocate for respondent no.4. Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for respondent no.5. Dated: July 14, 2010 Hon’ble V.K. Bist, J. Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents authorities to grant approval to the petitioner as Manager of the Janta Inter College, Yamkeshwar being the elected office bearer through proper channel. Further direction is sought commanding the respondent nos. 4 & 5 to handover the charge/transfer of the affairs of Committee of Management of said College to the petitioner. 2. Briefly stated that the institution, namely, Janta Inter College, Yamkeshwar, is run and managed by its Committee of Management under the norms and conditions prescribed by the Education Department of the Govt. of Uttarakhand. Mr. Anil Kestwal was the earlier elected Manager of the Committee of Management. Election for Committee of Management of the College was commenced on the directions of the District Education Officer, Pauri and information was published in the newspaper. It is asserted in the petition that election for the post of Manager has been held and the petitioner is 2 elected for the said post. After the election, information has also been sent to the District Education Officer for approval of newly elected Committee of Management. On 12.11.2009 the Principal of the College sent an official letter to the District Education Officer alongwith the list of elected Office Bearers. Therefore, approval is required for. It is further stated that the earlier Committee of Management of the College has been dissolved prior to election, therefore the work of the College is suffering. 3. I have heard Mr. Kurban Ali, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State/respondent nos. 1 to 3, Mr. M.S. Bisht, Advocate for respondent no.4, Mr. B.P. Nautiyal, Advocate for respondent no.5 and perused the record. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that election of the Committee of Management was held on 10.11.2009 and the petitioner was elected for the post of Manager in the Committee of Management. After the election, the petitioner sent representation to the authority but the District Education Officer did not grant approval to the duly elected body in time and now has appointed an Administrator/ Authorised Controller in the College. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the duly elected member of the Committee of Management of the College, therefore he is entitled for approval as Manager of the said Committee from the District Education Officer. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondent no.3 stating therein that after rescheduling the dates for election of the members of the Committee of Management 3 of the College, election was conducted under the supervision of Election Officer and Observer. A proposal for constitution of new Management Committee of the Institution was sent to respondent no.3 for its approval on 12.11.2009. But in the meantime, the respondent no.5 made a complaint before the Secretary, School Education, Govt. of Uttarakhand, Dehradun as well as Director of School Education, Uttarakhand in which the Director of School Education vide letter dated 19.11.2009 sought report from the District Education Officer on the whole matter pertaining to election of the Committee of Management and directed that approval of the new elected members shall be kept in abeyance. Thereafter, vide letter dated 06.03.2010 and 03.05.2010 instructions were sought in respect of grant of approval to the newly elected members of Committee of Management, which is still awaited. It is further stated that since the matter of election of new members of Committee of Management is under consideration of the Directorate and the Government, therefore, as and when instructions/ directions are received, further action will be taken up. It has also been mentioned in the counter affidavit that in the meantime Authorised Controller has been appointed on 12.01.2010 to look into the affairs of the Institution. 6. The respondent no.4 also filed a counter affidavit in which it is mentioned that election of Committee of Management of the College was conducted by the Election Officer appointed by District Education Officer as per rule and the petitioner is elected alongwith other members. The respondent no.5 also filed his counter affidavit in which it has been stated that the petitioner was fully conversant that vide order dated 12.01.2010 the 4 respondent no.3 has appointed an Administrator in the College, but the petitioner has filed instant petition concealing this material fact. It is further stated that the petitioner is seeking mandamus on the ground that he is elected Manager of the Committee of Management of Janta Inter College, Yamkeshwar whereas there is no such society of this name, rather there exists a society known as Inter College Valla Udaypur, District Pauri Garhwal and is having its own scheme of Administration, which is duly registered and approved. 7. Mr. Nautiyal, the learned counsel for respondent no.5 raised various objections but he emphasized on the argument that the alleged election was conducted in the name of Janta Inter College, whereas there is no such College of the Committee of Management, rather there exists a society known as Inter College Valla Udaypur, District Pauri Garhwal and is having its own scheme of Administration, which is duly registered and approved. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the record, it appears that since the matter is still pending under consideration before the State Authorities/District Education Officer, Pauri therefore, this Court thinks is just and proper to direct the District Education Officer to take decision in the matter under dispute within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 9. The District Education Officer, Pauri is further directed that while taking decision in the matter, a reasoned order be passed after providing adequate 5 opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as respondent no.5. 10. With these directions the writ petition is finally disposed of. No order as to costs. 11. Interim relief application (CLMA No. 122 of 2010) also stands disposed of. (V.K. Bist, J.) 14.07.2010 NCM: