Kharya Charitable Society Vs. Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1042455
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJul-26-2012
AppellantKharya Charitable Society
RespondentMadhyamik Shiksha Mandal
Excerpt:
high court of madhya pradesh: jabalpur writ petition no.4158 / 2010 kharya charitable society, narsinghpur, m.p. versus madhyamik shiksha mandal, bhopal and another ______________________________________________ shri mohd. ali, counsel for the petitioner. shri t.s.ruprah, senior counsel with shri harmeet singh ruprah, for the respondent no.1. shri sanjay verma, counsel for the respondent no.2. ______________________________________________ present : hon’ble shri r.s. jha, j.: order (26-07-2012) the petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent no.1/board, dated 4-11-2009 whereby the father's name mentioned in the mark sheet issued by the respondent no.1 has been changed to badri prasad kharya by scoring out the name of shri ashok kumar sohane.2. the brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner is a charitable society and has been entrusted to manage some part of the property of deceased badri prasad kharya. in the year 1982 the respondent no.2, smt. aarti khard alias aarti kharya contd. … 2 w.p.no.4158 / 2010 passed her matriculation examination and was issued a mark sheet in which her father's name was mentioned as badri prasad kharya. in 2009, it is alleged that an application was moved in the name of aarti khard for changing her father's name from badri prasad kharya to ashok kumar sohane which was allowed by the respondent no.1 and accordingly the mark sheet mentioning the change in the name of her father was issued to the respondent no.2 sometime in august, 2009. thereafter, the respondent no.2 filed complains before several authorities including the respondent no.1 and the minister of education, who forwarded her complaint to the respondent no.1 on 16-9-2009 wherein the respondent no.2 had alleged that somebody impersonating her had filed an application for change of her father's name and her father's name was in fact badri prasad kharya. on receiving the said complaint the respondent no.1 issued notice to the respondent no.2 on 1-10-2009, examined her personally, obtained her affidavit and examined some individual persons also, namely, shri hari shanker tripathi and vijay kumar khard and thereafter withdrew the correction made by them and again stated the name of respondent no.2's father to be badri prasad kharya by the impugned order dated 4-11-2009 being aggrieved by which the petitioner/ 3 w.p.no.4158 / 2010 society has filed the present petition.3. it is alleged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent no.2 is in fact the daughter of shri ashok kumar sohane which fact is evident from initial school certificate issued by the school authorities, documents annexure p-2 to annexure p-10. however, the respondent no.2, with a view to usurp the property of badri prasad kharya surreptitiously, got her father's name changed and obtained a mark sheet from the respondent no.1 in the year 1982 mentioning her father's name to be badri prasad kharya. it is submitted that the petitioner/society is managing some part of b.p.kharya's property, therefore, it apprehends that the respondent no.2 may use the mark sheet for usurping badri prasad kharya's property and, therefore, the impugned order be quashed.4. the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 submits that on the basis of the record submitted by the school authorities the mark sheet that was initially issued to the respondent no.2 in the year 1982 mentioned the name of her father as badri prasad kharya. however, on receiving an application alleged to have been singed by respondent no.2 in the yea”4. w.p.no.4158 / 2010 they changed the name of her father to ashok kumar sohane (wrongly mentioned as sunhae). however, when the respondent no.2 filed a complaint and the same was also received by them from the minister concerned, they got the matter inquired into, examined the respondent no.2 as well as two other independent witnesses, obtained affidavits and the voter-list and thereafter on completion of the inquiry again reiterated the original mention of the father's name i.e. badri prasad kharya by the impugned order dated 4-11-2009. they have filed the original mark sheet along with the corrections made by them from time to time as annexure r-3. on the basis of the aforesaid averments made in the return it is stated that no fault can be found in the action taken by them and the petition deserves to be dismissed.5. the respondent no.2, while supporting the stand taken by the respondent no.1, had submitted that the petition as filed by the petitioner/society is not maintainable as it has no locus standi to get the name of her father changed in the mark sheet. in the return, the respondent no.2 while denying documents, annexure-2 to annexure p-10 and reiterating that her father was badri prasad kharya, has not given any explanation as to how the name as ashok kumar has been mentioned in the 5 w.p.no.4158 / 2010 documents annexure p-2 to annexure p-10. it is, however, stated that the petitioner/society and one shri rajesh raj behre who wants to usurp the property of badri prasad kharya, had filed an application impersonating her for change of the name of her father which was subsequently found to be false and incorrect and on these grounds it is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.6. i have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.7. in the instant petition this court is not required to adjudicate upon the rights of either the petitioner or the respondent no.2 in the property of badri prasad kharya. this court in the instant petition is only concerned with adjudicating upon the correctness of the order and the stand taken by the respondent no.2 in making the impugned change in the mark sheet.8. from a perusal of the record it is clear that the respondent no.1 issued the initial mark sheet to respondent no.2 wherein her father's name was stated to be badri prasad kharya on the basis of the school record. this mark sheet was not challenged or assailed by any person at any point of time. it is further clear that an application was moved before the respondent no.1 for 6 w.p.no.4158 / 2010 changing father's name of the respondent no.2 several years later in 2009 which was allowed, however, on an application being filed by the respondent no.2 and on an inquiry being made by the respondent no.1 it was found that the earlier mention of her father's name in the mark sheet was correct and in such circumstances the order changing the name of respondent no.2's father from badri prasad kharya to ashok kumar was recalled and the original mention of the father's name in the mark sheet of the respondent no.2, i.e. badri prasad kharya has been re-affirmed.9. in view of the aforesaid, i do not find any illegality or infirmity in the action of respondent no.1 wherein the original name of the father of respondent no.2, as stated in the mark sheet in 1982 has been reaffirmed. i am fortified in the view taken by me in view of the fact that the mark sheet which was originally issued in 1982, wherein father's name was mentioned as badri prasad kharya, was not objected to by anyone including the petitioner till 2009. even today it is not clear as to who filed the alleged application impersonating the respondent no.2 in 2009, as the respondent no.2 has specifically denied the same and the said denial has been affirmed by the respondent no.1 in inquiry. 7 w.p.no.4158 ”10. in view of the aforesaid, i do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.11. in the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. (r.s.jha) judge mct
Judgment:

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR Writ Petition No.4158 / 2010 Kharya Charitable Society, Narsinghpur, M.P. Versus Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Bhopal and another ______________________________________________ Shri Mohd. Ali, counsel for the petitioner. Shri T.S.Ruprah, senior counsel with Shri Harmeet Singh Ruprah, for the respondent No.1. Shri Sanjay Verma, counsel for the respondent No.2. ______________________________________________ PRESENT : Hon’ble Shri R.S. Jha, J.: ORDER

(26-07-2012) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the decision of the respondent No.1/Board, dated 4-11-2009 whereby the father's name mentioned in the mark sheet issued by the respondent No.1 has been changed to Badri Prasad Kharya by scoring out the name of Shri Ashok Kumar Sohane.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner is a charitable society and has been entrusted to manage some part of the property of deceased Badri Prasad Kharya. In the year 1982 the respondent No.2, Smt. Aarti Khard alias Aarti Kharya contd. … 2 W.P.No.4158 / 2010 passed her matriculation examination and was issued a mark sheet in which her father's name was mentioned as Badri Prasad Kharya. In 2009, it is alleged that an application was moved in the name of Aarti Khard for changing her father's name from Badri Prasad Kharya to Ashok Kumar Sohane which was allowed by the respondent No.1 and accordingly the mark sheet mentioning the change in the name of her father was issued to the respondent No.2 sometime in August, 2009. Thereafter, the respondent No.2 filed complains before several authorities including the respondent No.1 and the Minister of Education, who forwarded her complaint to the respondent No.1 on 16-9-2009 wherein the respondent No.2 had alleged that somebody impersonating her had filed an application for change of her father's name and her father's name was in fact Badri Prasad Kharya. On receiving the said complaint the respondent No.1 issued notice to the respondent No.2 on 1-10-2009, examined her personally, obtained her affidavit and examined some individual persons also, namely, Shri Hari Shanker Tripathi and Vijay Kumar Khard and thereafter withdrew the correction made by them and again stated the name of respondent No.2's father to be Badri Prasad Kharya by the impugned order dated 4-11-2009 being aggrieved by which the petitioner/ 3 W.P.No.4158 / 2010 Society has filed the present petition.

3. It is alleged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondent No.2 is in fact the daughter of Shri Ashok Kumar Sohane which fact is evident from initial school certificate issued by the school authorities, documents Annexure P-2 to Annexure P-10. However, the respondent No.2, with a view to usurp the property of Badri Prasad Kharya surreptitiously, got her father's name changed and obtained a mark sheet from the respondent No.1 in the year 1982 mentioning her father's name to be Badri Prasad Kharya. It is submitted that the petitioner/Society is managing some part of B.P.Kharya's property, therefore, it apprehends that the respondent No.2 may use the mark sheet for usurping Badri Prasad Kharya's property and, therefore, the impugned order be quashed.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that on the basis of the record submitted by the school authorities the mark sheet that was initially issued to the respondent No.2 in the year 1982 mentioned the name of her father as Badri Prasad Kharya. However, on receiving an application alleged to have been singed by respondent No.2 in the yea”

4. W.P.No.4158 / 2010 they changed the name of her father to Ashok Kumar Sohane (wrongly mentioned as Sunhae). However, when the respondent No.2 filed a complaint and the same was also received by them from the minister concerned, they got the matter inquired into, examined the respondent No.2 as well as two other independent witnesses, obtained affidavits and the voter-list and thereafter on completion of the inquiry again reiterated the original mention of the father's name i.e. Badri Prasad Kharya by the impugned order dated 4-11-2009. They have filed the original mark sheet along with the corrections made by them from time to time as Annexure R-3. On the basis of the aforesaid averments made in the return it is stated that no fault can be found in the action taken by them and the petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. The respondent No.2, while supporting the stand taken by the respondent No.1, had submitted that the petition as filed by the petitioner/Society is not maintainable as it has no locus standi to get the name of her father changed in the mark sheet. In the return, the respondent No.2 while denying documents, Annexure-2 to Annexure P-10 and reiterating that her father was Badri Prasad Kharya, has not given any explanation as to how the name as Ashok Kumar has been mentioned in the 5 W.P.No.4158 / 2010 documents Annexure P-2 to Annexure P-10. It is, however, stated that the petitioner/Society and one Shri Rajesh Raj Behre who wants to usurp the property of Badri Prasad Kharya, had filed an application impersonating her for change of the name of her father which was subsequently found to be false and incorrect and on these grounds it is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record.

7. In the instant petition this Court is not required to adjudicate upon the rights of either the petitioner or the respondent No.2 in the property of Badri Prasad Kharya. This Court in the instant petition is only concerned with adjudicating upon the correctness of the order and the stand taken by the respondent No.2 in making the impugned change in the mark sheet.

8. From a perusal of the record it is clear that the respondent No.1 issued the initial mark sheet to respondent No.2 wherein her father's name was stated to be Badri Prasad Kharya on the basis of the school record. This mark sheet was not challenged or assailed by any person at any point of time. It is further clear that an application was moved before the respondent No.1 for 6 W.P.No.4158 / 2010 changing father's name of the respondent No.2 several years later in 2009 which was allowed, however, on an application being filed by the respondent No.2 and on an inquiry being made by the respondent No.1 it was found that the earlier mention of her father's name in the mark sheet was correct and in such circumstances the order changing the name of respondent No.2's father from Badri Prasad Kharya to Ashok Kumar was recalled and the original mention of the father's name in the mark sheet of the respondent No.2, i.e. Badri Prasad Kharya has been re-affirmed.

9. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the action of respondent No.1 wherein the original name of the father of respondent No.2, as stated in the mark sheet in 1982 has been reaffirmed. I am fortified in the view taken by me in view of the fact that the mark sheet which was originally issued in 1982, wherein father's name was mentioned as Badri Prasad Kharya, was not objected to by anyone including the petitioner till 2009. Even today it is not clear as to who filed the alleged application impersonating the respondent no.2 in 2009, as the respondent No.2 has specifically denied the same and the said denial has been affirmed by the respondent No.1 in inquiry. 7 W.P.No.4158 ”

10. In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.

11. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. (R.S.Jha) Judge mct