Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125983-DB Chief Justice's Court Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 373 of 2025 Appellant :- The Committee of Management Amarveer Inter College and 2 others Respondent :- The State of U.P. and 5 others Counsel for Appellant :- R.K. Ojha, Sr. Advocate, Shiv Veer Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Prabhakar Awasthi Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J. 1. This appeal is directed against order dated 10.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ - C No. 9083 of 2025 whereby on finding that matter requires consideration, restrained the appellant from functioning as Manager pursuant to the order passed by the Regional Level Committee dated 24.02.2025 and further in the interest of justice, provided that the Joint Director of Education, Varanasi Region, Varanasi shall appoint an Authorized Controller who shall manage the affairs of the Committee of Management. 2. It is the case of the appellants that due to demise of the President, when majority members requested the Manager to call meeting and no meeting was called, a meeting of the general body was called on 08.03.2024, wherein respondent no. 6 was debarred from functioning as Manager of the Committee of Management and Mr. Vishwanath Singh was appointed as Manager. 3. On account of passing of the said resolution, on rival claims being made, the dispute was referred to the Regional Level Committee, which passed the order dated 24.02.2025 according permission to Mr. Vishwanath Singh to perform the duties of the Manager for the rest of the tenure of the Committee of Management. 4. Challenge was laid to the said order dated 24.02.2025 by filing writ petition primarily on the ground that there was no provision in the bye-laws for removal of the Manager and that the issue could not have been referred to the Regional Level Committee. 5. The plea was contested based on the stipulation indicated in the Government Order dated 19.12.2000 pertaining to the jurisdiction of the Regional Level Committee and that in view of Clause 6(c) of the Scheme of Administration, the removal can take place. 6. As noticed hereinbefore, learned Single Judge found the matter requiring consideration and passed the order impugned. 7. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for appellants confined his submissions on the aspect that learned Single Judge was not justified in ordering for appointment of an Authorized Controller even if the matter required consideration. 8. Submissions have been made that the order impugned dated 24.02.2025 only pertained to removal and appointment of Manager and had nothing to do with the Committee of Management and the appointment of Authorized Controller has divested the Committee of Management of its responsibility to manage the institution, which has the tenure till June, 2026, which is not justified. 9. Further submissions have been made that even if the learned Single Judge found the matter requiring interference by way of interim order, only an order for single hand operation of the accounts could have been passed. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the appeal. Submissions have been made that learned Single Judge has granted the interim order after recording reasons, which does not call for any interference. 11. Submissions have been made that a totally high handed action was taken for removal of duly elected Manager de hors the provisions of the scheme of administration and reference to the Regional Level Committee was without jurisdiction and therefore, the order impugned does not call for any interference. 12. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 13. The subject matter of the order dated 24.02.2025 was confined to the removal/appointment of the Manager, the same had nothing to do with the Committee of Management, which has a tenure till June, 2026. When the order dated 24.02.2025 was put to challenge, learned Single Judge found merit in the submissions made on behalf of the respondents herein, who by order impugned besides restraining the appellant from functioning as Manager, ordered for appointment of Authorized Controller apparently for managing the affairs of the Committee of Management. 14. Once the subject matter of the order impugned was limited to the removal/appointment of the Manager, there was apparently no reason to supersede the entire Committee of Management and order for appointment of Authorized Controller by way of an interim order by learned Single Judge, which direction goes much beyond the scope of the main petition itself, wherein at best the order passed by the Regional Level Committee could be quashed even if the petition succeeded, and would not result in supersession of the Committee of Management and therefore, the said order to the said extent cannot be sustained. 15. However, as the directions were given restraining the Appellant Manager from functioning as Manager pursuant to the order dated 24.02.2025, for ensuring that payment of salary to the teachers and employees of the institution is regularly made, an order by way of single hand operation of the accounts, would have sufficed in the facts and circumstances of the case. 16. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. The order impugned dated 10.04.2025 passed by learned Single Judge to the extent of appointment of Authorized Controller is set aside and while maintaining the restraint against the Appellant Manager from functioning pursuant to the order passed by the Regional Level Committee dated 24.02.2025, it is directed that till pendency of the writ petition, the payment of salary to the teachers and employees of the institution be made by way of single hand operation of accounts of the Committee of Management. 17. No order as to costs. Order Date :- 29.7.2025 nd (Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ) Digitally signed by :- NISITH DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad