| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/1115509 |
| Court | Allahabad High Court |
| Decided On | Oct-19-2012 |
| Case Number | Writ - C No. 33822 of 2012 |
| Judge | B. AMIT STHALEKAR |
| Appellant | Harjinder Nagar Inter College |
| Respondent | State of U.P. Thru Secy |
1. BY this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 6.7.2012, passed by the D.I.O.S. whereby the no confidence motion passed in the resolution on 30.5.2012 against the petitioners has been accepted, and also the election of Sri Man Mohan Singh respondent no.4 as the new Manager of the Harjinder Nagar Inter College, Harjinder Nagar, District Kanpur Nagar. The facts briefly stated are that there is the college known as Harjinder Nagar Inter College, Harjinder Nagar, District-Kanpur (the College). The college is managed by a Committee of Management under the Scheme of Administration and the petitioner no.2 is the manager of the said Committee of Management. Certain allegations of financial irregularities were made against the petitioner no.2 and a notice was given by the President of the Committee, Sri Balram Singh Obeyrai respondent no. 5, requesting the petitioner no.2 to call a meeting of the office bearers of the Committee of Management. The meeting of the Committee of Management was stated to have been held on 30.05.2012, and therein a resolution of no confidence motion was passed against the petitioner no.2. In the same resolution, the respondent no. 4 Sri Man Mohan Singh was also elected as Manager of the Committee of Management of the college. In this meeting which is held on 30.5.2012, nine members were present. Thereafter, out of these nine members, eight members also appeared before the Principal of the Government Inter College, Kanpur Nagar, who had been appointed as the Observer. These eight members are stated to have submitted their affidavits to the Principal affirming that they had participated in the resolution held on 30.5.2012, and voted for the motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2. The Principal of Government Inter College, is also stated to have submitted his report on 5.7.2012, confirming that eight members had appeared before him and had submitted their affidavits dated 13.6.2012, affirming that they had voted for the motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2. A video recording was prepared of the proceedings and C.D. was also made.
2. I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Bhavesh Pratap Singh for the petitioners, Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Alok Dwivedi for the respondent no.4, Sri Pankaj Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no.5 and learned standing counsel for the respondents 1 and 2. Sri Ashok Khare raised the following objections:-
â1. That as per para 5 of the Scheme of Administration, the Committee has 15 members but in the resolution passed on 30.5.2012, only nine members are stated to have participated.
2. That as per para 5 of the Scheme of Administration the vote of no confidence has to be passed by a 2/3rd majority of the members present in a particular meeting in which a motion of no confidence against a particular office bearer is passed after giving notice. According to him a 2/3rd majority out of 15 members would require 10 members but the admitted position on record is that only 9 members participated in the resolution on 30.5.2012, wherein the motion of no confidence was passed against the petitioners.
3. That as per para 9 (ii), which deals with an Emergent Meeting, Emergent Meeting of the Committee can be called by the Manager with the approval of the President when necessary and shall require the written requisition of at least four members containing the resolution or the specific subject for consideration. The submission was that no letter was communicated to the petitioner no.2 for calling any Emergent Meeting for purposes of consideration and passing a motion of no confidence.
4. That the District Inspector of Schools did not consider the objections of the petitioner dated 25.6.2012.
5. That the petitioner no.2 had requested the District Inspector of Schools to provide certain documents relating to no confidence motion but the same were not provided to him.â
Taking the first submission of Sri Khare, para 5 (a) of the Scheme of Administration of the College provides that the Committee shall have 15 members out of which 3 shall be ex-officio members, namely, the principal and 2 teachers. The submission of Sri Ashok Khare was that in the resolution of 30.5.2012, only 9 members participated and the 3 ex-officio members neither participated nor any notice was sent to them, and therefore, the resolution of 30.5.2012 cannot be said to have been validly held in the absence of notice to the ex-officio members.
Considering the second objection Sri Khare submitted that as per para 7 of the Scheme of Administration the motion of no confidence was required to be passed by a 2/3rd majority, whereas admittedly only 9 members were present. As per para 5 of the Scheme of Administration the Committee has 15 members and 2/3rd majority would require at least 10 members to vote in favour of the motion of no confidence. Admittedly, only 9 members were present and therefore, the motion of no confidence cannot be said to be valid and could not have been acted upon.
Sri Khare next submitted that even otherwise, the Committee has 15 members and the 3 ex-officio members are also part of the Committee but no notice was issued to them regarding the resolution to be held on 30.5.2012, therefore the resolution cannot be said to be valid in the absence of the 3 ex-officio members. Sri Khare further submitted that as per para 9(i) of the Scheme of Administration an ordinary meeting of the Committee is required to be called by the Manager at least once every quarter with the approval of the President. However under para 9(ii), an Emergent Meeting may be called by the Manager with the approval of the President when necessary on the written requisition of at least 4 members containing the resolution or the specific subject for consideration.
3. THE next submission of Sri Khare is that a signature of the President Sri Balram Singh Obeyrai on 14.5.2012 (annexure 14 of the writ petition) which only mentions certain enquiries in respect of one Sri Sanjeev Kumar Singh Gaur but there is no request for calling an Emergent Meeting and it only mentions that in the upcoming meeting primacy shall be given to this subject for consideration. It was further submitted that another notice was sent by the President, Sri Balram Singh Obeyrai dated 18.5.2012 (page 133 of the writ petition), wherein a request was made for calling an Emergent Meeting but there was no mention in the said meeting that any motion of no confidence against the Manager, petitioner no.2 would be considered. Thereafter, another notice was sent on 26.5.2012 (page 134 of the writ petition), wherein also a request was made for holding an Emergent Meeting on 30.5.2012 which had three items on the agenda, namely;
â1. Consideration of the minutes of the last meeting.
2. Discuss the financial and administrative arrangements in the College and the functioning of the Manager i.e. the petitioner.
3. Any other item with the permission of the president.â
Sri Khare submits that in this notice dated 26.5.2012 also there was no mention that any motion of no confidence was to be considered against the petitioner. Thereafter, an Emergent Meeting was held on 30.5.2012 in which the motion of no confidence was passed against the petitioner. After the resolution was passed on 30.5.2012, a notice was received by the petitioner from the office of the D.I.O.S. calling for the petitioner's explanation through a show cause notice dated 14.6.2012. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice on 26.6.2012 (annexure 15 to the writ petition), but the same has not been considered while passing the impugned order dated 6.7.2012.
4. THE further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that a notice of the resolution dated 30.5.2012 being held which was communicated to the petitioner through the notice of the D.I.O.S. dated 14.6.2012. The Principal of the institution is also stated to have submitted a reply on 22.6.2012 in which he has stated that no meeting of the Committee of Management was held in the premises of the institution on 30.5.2012 and no notice was issued to the principal or to the other two teachers as ex-officio members. Sri Khare also submits that neither the petitioner was informed about the appointment of the Principal, Government Inter College, Kanpur Nagar as Observer nor he was given a copy of the report dated 5.7.2012 submitted by the Principal Government Inter College, Kanpur Nagar. He was also not informed to appear before the Principal on 13.6.2012 and therefore the entire proceedings from the passing of the resolution dated 30.5.2012 till the appearing of the 8 members before the Principal, Government Inter College Kanpur Nagar and making of a video recording etc. has all being held behind the back of the petitioner. Per Contra, Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior counsel drew the attention of the Court to some of the provisions of the Scheme of Administration which have also been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Saxena has particularly referred to paras 5, 7, 9(i), 9 (ii). Para 5 of the Scheme reads as follows:
"5. Constitution of the Committee:-
a. The committee shall have 15 members.
b. The following shall be the member of the committee. (a) Office Bearers:- (1) President (2) Vice President (3) Manager (4) Assistant Manager (5) Treasurer (b) Ex. Officio members.
3. According to the Act Section 164. Chap.-I and the Regulations. (i) Principal (ii) Two teachers representatives.
Note:- The three ex. Officio members eg. Principal and the two teachers shall not take part in that item of the agenda of the committee of the management by which it appoints an ad-hoc committee for the selection teachers. They shall also not take part in the selection of the office bearers."
Sri Saxena submitted that although the Committee consist of 15 members, 3 members namely, Principal and 2 teachers are ex-officio members as would be clear from the note to para 5 of the Scheme of Administration. He further submits that the Note specifically enjoins that the ex-officio members will not take part in the selection of the office bearers. He therefore, submits that if the 3 ex-officio members are specifically debarred from taking any part in the selection of office bearers they cannot also take part in any proceedings for removal of office bearers. He submits that it would be highly illogical and contrary to common sense and reason that while the ex-officio members are prohibited from taking part in the selection of office bearers they can take part in any proceedings for the removal of office bearers. It is for this reason, he submits that no notice was given to the 3 ex-officio members while holding the meeting held on 30.5.2012. Sri Saxena next referred to para 7 of the Scheme of Administration. Para 7 reads as follows:
"7. Terms of Members:- (a) The terms of office bearers and members other than ex-officio members shall be three year from the date they are elected provided that term of every office bearer shall be deemed to have continued till his successor is selected provided further that if a vote of non-confidence has been passed by a 2/3rd majority of the member present, in a particular meeting in which a notice of non-confidence against a particular office bearer has been given then the office which he should will be deemed to have falled vacant and his successor shall be elected in the manner given in para 6 below."
The submission of Sri Saxena is that as per para 7 the vote of no confidence is required to be passed against a particular office bearer by 2/3rd majority (of the members present). He submitted that notice was sent to all the office- bearers of the Committee (except the ex-officio members) and 9 members appeared and participated in the meeting held on 30.5.2012, in which the motion of no confidence was passed against the petitioner no.4 and at the same time Sri Man Mohan Singh was elected as manager of the Committee of Management. Sri Saxena submits that if since the 3 ex-officio members stand excluded from any meeting of no confidence motion, the 2/3rd majority of the remaining 12 members would be 8. In the meeting held on 30.5.2012, 9 members were present and all the 9 members voted for the motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2. Thus even otherwise, the resolution of 30.5.2012 containing the motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2 was passed by a 2/3rd Majority, not only all the members of the Committee but also all the members present and voting and therefore, the said resolution cannot be said to be illegal or contrary to the Scheme of Administration.
5. SRI Saxena next referred to para 9 of the Scheme of Administration. Para 9 (I) and (II) reads as follows:
"9. Meeting of the Committee: I. Ordinary Meetings:- An ordinary meeting of the committee shall be called by the manager at least once every quarter with the approval of the president.
ii) Emergent Meetings:- The manager with the approval the President may when necessary and shall on the written requisition of at least four members containing the resolution or specific subject for consideration, call on emergent meeting of the committee."
6. SRI Saxena submits that since the College in question is a linguistic minority for purposes of Article 30 (i) of the Constitution of India, all correspondences amongst the members and office bearers is conducted in the Gurmukhi language and for official requirement a Hindi translation is then made out and sent to the respective officers for example D.I.O.S. and others. Sri Saxena, therefore, submits that the letters referred to by the petitioner as letters dated 14.5.2012, 18.5.2012 and 26.5.2012 including the resolution dated 30.5.2012 are all Hindi translations of the original which were written in Gurmukhi language. He has referred to his counter affidavit (annexure 3) which is the version of the letter dated 26.5.2012 and has also annexure 6 A (4) which is the version of the resolution passed on 30.5.2012, in support of his submissions.
Sri Saxena has referred to the notice dated 18.5.2012 filed as annexure CA (2) to the counter affidavit copy of which has also been filed by the petitioner and submits that it was clearly mentioned that the meeting to be held was an Emergent meeting (Atiavahsyak Baithak). He has also referred to the documents filed at page 25 of the counter affidavit to show that the notice dated 18.5.2012 was duly served and delivered by post to the petitioner no.2 the then Manager of the College. Similarly, Sri Saxena has referred to a Gurmukhi version of the letter dated 26.5.2012 collectively filed as annexure CA (3) as well as the postal receipts showing that the same has been sent to all the office bearers of the Committee of Management. Sri Saxena submits that in the Gurmukhi version of the letter dated 26.5.2012, it was specifically mentioned at item no. 2 that the Emergent Meeting was being called on 30.5.2012 for considering a motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2. He has referred to the document filed as Annexure SA (2) page 27 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, wherein, the Hindi translation of the letter dated 26.5.2012 has been annexed in which at item no.2, it is clearly mentioned that the meeting to be held on 30.5.2012 was for considering the motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2. Thus, Sri Saxena submits that from the averments in para 5 of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, the entire case set up by the petitioner is falsified that the letter of 26.5.2012 did not contain any item in the agenda mentioning that the meeting held on 30.5.2012 was a meeting for considering a motion of no confidence against the petitioner. Sri Saxena also submits that from the averments made in para 5, it is clear that the submission of Sri Khare that since the Hindi version did not mention any item for passing a motion of no confidence in the letter dated 26.5.2012, therefore, the said notices were also not sent to the D.I.O.S., is not correct.
Sri Saxena submits that the petitioner in the version which was circulated to all the office bearers, it was clearly mentioned that one of the items of the agenda would be a motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2. He submits that the same records along with its Hindi translation was communicated to the D.I.O.S. which is confirmed from the records obtained by the petitioner from the office of the D.I.O.S. as also averred in para 5 of the rejoinder affidavit and also the Hindi translation of the Gurmukhi version of the letter dated 26.5.2012 (at page 27 of the rejoinder affidavit).
7. COUNTERING the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri Saxena further submitted that as per para 9 (ii) the Emergent Meeting can be called by the Manager with the approval of the President but in this case the meeting was called by the President. Sri Saxena submits that letters were sent to the petitioner on 18.5.2012 and 26.5.2012 for calling an Emergent Meeting but the Manager, respondent no.2 did not pay any heed to the requests and therefore, the President, Sri Balram Singh Obeyrai had no option but to call the meeting and therefore, the meeting held on 30.5.2012 cannot be faulted. As regards the affidavit submitted by the Principal and two teachers, Sri Saxena submitted that as they were ex-officio members, it was necessary to issue any notices to them of a meeting for holding a no confidence motion against the petitioner and therefore, the affidavits of three persons is of no consequence. So far as the affidavit given by Sri Mohinder Singh denying that he had voted in favour of the motion of no confidence, Sri Saxena submitted that Sri Mohinder Singh had denied having given any such affidavit and also stated that his affidavit itself is a forged document.
Lastly Sri Saxena submitted that to ensure transparency in the entire proceedings a video recording was also made and a C.D prepared from which it will be clear that the majority of the members of the Committee had voted in favour of the motion of no confidence against the petitioner and therefore, the order of the D.I.O.S. dated 6.7.2012 does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. From a perusal of the Scheme of Administration, it will be seen that as per para 5 of the Scheme, the Committee shall consist of 15 members out of which the Principal and two teachers shall be the ex-officio members. The Note to para 5 clearly mentions that the ex-officio members shall not take part in the selection of office bearers. That being the position if the ex-officio members are specifically prohibited from participating in any meeting for selection of office bearers, they also cannot participate in any meeting, ordinary or Emergent for passing a motion of no confidence against an office bearer. If there is no right to select, there is no right to remove either and therefore, I am in agreement with the submission of Sri P.N. Saxena, learned senior counsel for the respondents that since the ex-officio members were prohibited from participating in any selections they also stood prohibited by logical interpretation from participating in any meeting held for consideration of a motion of no confidence against an office bearer.
8. AS regards para 7 of the Scheme of Administration, the Scheme provides that a motion of no confidence can be passed by a 2/3rd majority of the members present. Out of the 15 members, three members are ex-officio, namely, the Principal and two teachers and as ex-officio members stand debarred from participating in any meeting considering a motion of no confidence against an office bearer, therefore, only 12 members can participate in any such meeting. According to Sri Saxena, notices were sent to 11 members, as would be clear from the averments made in para six of the counter affidavit. Nine members were present and participated in the meeting held on 30.5.2012 and all nine members voted in favour of the motion of no confidence against the petitioner. A 2/3rd majority of 12 members eligible for voting at a meeting for considering a motion of no confidence would require eight members. In the present case, nine members were present on 30.5.2012 all of whom voted in favour of the motion of no confidence, therefore, the motion of no confidence was undisputedly carried through by a 2/3rd majority. Considering para 9 of the Scheme of Administration, letters were sent by the President, Sri Balram Singh Obeyrai on 14.5.2012, 18.5.2012 and 26.5.2012. By the letters dated 18.5.2012 and 26.5.2012, Sri Obeyrai specifically requested the petitioner for calling an Emergent Meeting but the petitioner did not pay any heed and therefore, Sri Obeyrai as President had no option but to go ahead and hold the meeting on 30.5.2012. From the version of the letters dated 26.5.2012, a translated copy of which has been filed as annexure SA-2 to the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner, it will be seen that there was a request for holding an Emergent Meeting and item no.2 of the agenda clearly mentioned that the meeting was to be held to consider the motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2 Yet no heed was paid to the request letter by the Manager, petitioner no.2, and therefore, the President had no option but to go ahead and hold the meeting on 30.5.2012. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or infirmity on this count, so far as the calling of the meeting dated 30.5.2012 is concerned.
From the documents on record, it is also seen that the notice/letter dated 26.5.2012 of the meeting to be held on 30.5.2012 was communicated to 11 office bearers of the Committee. A copy dated 26.5.2012 was sent to the petitioner no.2 also and as per the postal receipt filed at page 28 of the counter affidavit it has been duly served upon the petitioner on 28.5.2012. Annexure SA-3 are Gurumukhi copies of the notice dated 25.3.2012 which have been served on all the office bearers of the Committee. From the resolution dated 30.5.2012, it will be seen that nine members participated in the Emergent Meeting held on 30.5.2012 and all the nine members voted in favour of the motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2 and also elected Sri Man Mohan Singh respondent no.4 as a new Manager of the Committee of Management. The resolution clearly mentions that the meeting was held in the staff room of the College at 5.30 P.M. on 30.5.2012 under the president ship of Sri Balram Singh Obeyrai, therefore, also the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the meeting was held somewhere outside and not within the premises of the College loses force.
As regards the next submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sri Mohinder Singh had given an affidavit that he had not participated in the vote of no confidence and not voted in favour of it, Sri Mohinder Singh has given his own letter dated 5.7.2012 filed at page 69 of the counter affidavit of respondent no.4 stating that he had participated in the meeting on 30.5.2012 and further stated that the affidavit given by him to the Principal Government Inter College, Kanpur Nagar (observer) that he had voted in favour of the motion of no confidence was absolutely correct. The alleged affidavit stated to have been given by Sri Mohinder Singh that he had not voted for the motion of no confidence, therefore, appears to be highly doubtful. From a perusal of the impugned order of the D.I.O.S. dated 6.7.2012, it will be seen that the D.I.O.S., exercising abundant caution appointed the Principal of the Government Inter College, Kanpur Nagar as Observer by order dated 30.6.2012. The Principal Government Inter College thereupon issued notices to the nine members who had participated in the meeting held on 30.5.2012. In pursuance of the said notice these nine office bearers also appeared before the Principal and also submitted their affidavits stating clearly that they had appeared in the Emergent Meeting held on 305.2012 and had voted in favour of the motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2. The D.I.O.S. has specifically noted that Sri Mohinder Singh has also given an affidavit stating that any affidavit alleged to have been given by him and referred to by the petitioner no.2 is a fraudulent document and has reiterated the affidavit given by him to the Principal, wherein, he had stated categorically that he has appeared in the Meeting held on 30.5.2012 and had voted in favour of the motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2. The D.I.O.S. has also examined all the documents on record including the receipts of the Postal Department regarding service of the letters dated 18.5.2012 and 26.5.2012 which have also been filed along with the counter affidavit of the respondent no.4 and then, concluded that the notices for holding the Emergent Meeting were clearly served upon the petitioner no.2 and also the other office bearers of the Committee. He also noted that a video recording of all the proceedings was made and a C.D. was also prepared.
9. THE submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he had filed an objection on 25.6.2012 which was not considered by the D.I.O.S. In my considered view, the mere fact that the petitioner's objections were not considered by the D.I.O.S., does not vitiate either the resolution held on 30.5.2012 or the proceedings conducted before the Principal Government Inter College, Kanpur Nagar as Observer or the order of the D.I.O.S. dated 6.7.2012. In the present case what is of prime importance is the motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2. Once the 2/3rd majority of the members of the Committee have participated in the Meeting held on 30.5.2012 and unanimously voted in favour of the motion of no confidence against the petitioner and thereafter also appeared before the Principal Government Inter College, Kanpur Nagar and reiterated on affidavit that they had participated in the Meeting held on 30.5.2012 and had voted unanimously in favour of the motion of no confidence against the petitioner no.2, of which a video recording was also made and a C.D. prepared, the objection filed by the petitioner becomes a mere empty formality.
10. THE Supreme Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and others reported in (1980) 4 SCC 379 has held in paragraph 17 as under:
"17. Linked with this question is the question whether the failure to observe natural justice does at all matter if the observance of natural justice would have made no difference, the admitted or indisputable facts speaking for themselves. Where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it approves the non observance of natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs. But it will be a pernicious principle to apply in other situations where conclusions are controversial,however, slightly, and penalties are discretionary." The Supreme Court in the case of Aligarh Muslim University and others Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan reported in (2000) 7 SCC 529 has held in paragraph 33 as under:
"33. Another important aspect of the matter is that no new reason has been projected in the Writ petition of Mr. Khan for his seeking further extension earlier while in Libya. The only reason stated is that he had obtained further extension in job. It is not a case where there is a plea in the Court that there were different grounds or reasons which he could have put in his explanation, if called for, such as ill health etc. Indeed, if the reasons could have been somewhat different, - as may perhaps be disclosed or proved in subsequent writ petition- such as his own failing health, one can understand. But so far as leave for purposes of job continuance in Libya, is concerned, he has been fully put on advance notice that no further extension will be given. It must be held that no prejudice has been caused even though no notice is given under Rule 5(8)(i). "
The Supreme Court in the case of Escorts Farms LTD Versus Commissioner, Kumaon Division, Nainital, U.P. and Others reported in (2004) 4 SCC 281 has held in paragraph 64 as under:
"64. Right of hearing to a necessary party is a valuable right of Denial such right is serious breach of statutory procedure prescribed and violation of rules of natural justice. In these appeals preferred by the holder of lands and some other transferees, we have found that the terms of Govt. Grant did not permit transfers of land without permission of the State as grantor. Remand of cases of a group of transferees who were not heard, would, therefore, be of no legal consequence, more so, when on this legal question all affected parties have got full opportunity of hearing before High Court and in this appeal before this Court. Rules of natural justice are to be followed for doing substantial justice and not for completing a mere ritual of hearing without possibility of any change in the decision of the case on merits. In view of the legal position explained by us above, we, therefore, refrain from remanding these cases in exercise of our discretionary powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. "
The Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Manjeet Singh reported in (2006) 8 SCC 647 has held in paragraph 17 as under:
"17.In an industrial dispute referred to by the Central Government which has an all-India implication, individual workman cannot be made parties to a reference. All of them are not expected to be heard. The Unions representing them were impleaded as parties. They were heard. Not only the said Unions were heard before the High Court, as noticed hereinbefore from a part of the judgment of the High Court, they had preferred appeals before this Court, Their contentions had been noticed by this Court. As the award was made in presence of the Unions, in our opinion, the contention of Respondents that the award was not binding on them cannot be accepted. The principles of natural justice were also not required to be complied with as the same would have been an empty formality. The court will not insist on compliance of the principles of natural justice in view of the binding nature of the award. Their application would be limited to a situation where the factual position or legal implication arising thereunder is disputed and not where it is not in dispute or cannot be disputed. If only one conclusion is possible, a writ would not issue only because there was a violation of the principles of natural justice."
11. THE Supreme Court in the case of Rasiklal Versus kishore s/o Khanchand Wadhwani reported in (2009) 4 SCC 446 has held in paragraph 20 as under:
"20. Principles of natural justice is not a "mantra" to be applied in vacuum in all cases. The question as to what extent, the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, will depend upon the facts of the case. They are not required to be complied with when it will lead to an empty formality (see State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma and Karnataka SRTC v. S.G. Kotturappa at SCC p.420, para 24). The impugned order is, therefore, liable to be set aside."
Thus in the face of the overwhelming evidence, the petitioner no.2 has clearly lost the confidence of 2/3rd majority of the members of the Committee of Management to function as Manager of the Committee and therefore, in my opinion if his objections have not been considered or if any points in his objection have not been considered, the same would not be fatal to the impugned order dated 6.7.2012. In the same light if the report of the Principal Government Inter College, Kanpur Nagar dated 5.7.2012 has not been communicated to the petitioner, the same would not be fatal. So far as the Impugned order passed by the D.I.O.S. dated 6.7.2012 is concerned it is a well resoned order based on the fact that the petitioner has lost the confidence of the 2/3rd majority of the members/office bearers of the Committee of Management of the College in question. In fact, the D.I.O.S. has rightly bowed before the will of the majority and accepted the same. For the reasons aforesaid and the supporting case law, I do not find any merit in the petition, the writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order granted on 27.8.2012 stands vacated.