Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 8660 (UTT)

Navin Kaushik v. State of Uttarakhand

2026-04-07

Manoj Kumar Gupta, Subhash Upadhyay

body2026
JUDGMENT : MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA, CJ. Delay Condonation Application (CLMA/20100/2018) 1. The office has reported a delay of 1 day in filing the restoration application. The delay condonation application is not opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed and the delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. Restoration Application (MCC/1670/2018) 2. It is submitted that the appeal has been dismissed as infructuous although it has not become infructuous. The claim of the appellant being in respect of life membership of the society is a continuing cause of action. 3. Having regard to the submission made, the order dated 30.10.2018 dismissing the appeal as infructuous is recalled. The appeal is restored to its original number. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties on the appeal. 5. The instant intra-court appeal is directed against the order of learned Single Judge dated 23.04.2015 in WPMS No.1574 of 2009 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the order of respondent no.3 i.e. Additional Director of Education, Garhwal Region, Pauri dated 07.09.2009 regarding membership dispute of persons inducted as members in the general body of Nehru Rashtriya Inter College, Manglore, Haridwar after 10.10.2002 till the year 2005 has been rejected. 6. The learned Single Judge has endorsed the findings recorded by respondent no.3 that induction of 500 persons after 10.10.2002 till the year 2005 during the period when Mr. Satya Prakash Sharma was the President of the Committee of Management was not valid. 7. The learned Single Judge has also dealt with the argument that the third respondent has himself dealt with the matter in his capacity as the District Education Officer vide order dated 28.05.2004 and, therefore, he was not supposed to decide the controversy sitting in appeal. 8. The learned Single Judge has examined the so- called order of respondent no.3 dated 28.05.2004 and has observed that the same was not at all an order passed in true sense but only a communication addressed to the Manager to give effect to the directions issued by the Additional Regional Joint Director of Education in relation to the membership dispute and amendments in the scheme of administration. The independent application of mind by respondent no.3 has taken place when he passed the impugned order and not when he issued the communication dated 28.05.2004 for implementing the directions issued by the Regional Director of Education. 9. The independent application of mind by respondent no.3 has taken place when he passed the impugned order and not when he issued the communication dated 28.05.2004 for implementing the directions issued by the Regional Director of Education. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that Mr. N.S. Rana (respondent no.4), who has passed the order sitting in appeal, was not empowered to deal with the appeal as he had himself issued order dated 28.05.2004. 10. In order to deal with the submission, it would be useful to re-produce the so-called order by Mr. N.S. Rana (respondent no.4) in his capacity as District Education Officer, Haridwar. It is as follows: 11. Thus, the communication by District Education Officer dated 28.05.2004 was only for ensuring compliance of the directions issued by the Joint Director of Education and not any independent decision taken by him after application of mind, as rightly observed by learned Single Judge. 12. We, therefore, fully agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that respondent no.3 while passing the impugned order cannot be said to have sat over his own judgment or order. 13. Moreover, the dispute relating to membership of the General Body of the institution involves disputed questions of fact and appreciation of evidence. The decision of the educational authorities on the aspect relating to membership is summary in nature and in case the petitioner /appellant still feels aggrieved thereby it is always open to him to avail the civil remedies. 14. In such view of the matter, we find no good ground to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge. 15. The appeal fails and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. 16. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.