NON  REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5856 OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 30857 of 2008)

Rajesh Kumar              …Appellant

VERSUS

State of Uttarakhand & Ors.                          … Respondents

O R D E R

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed at the instance of Rajesh Kumar,  

the  appellant  herein,  challenging  the  impugned  

order passed by a learned Judge of the High Court  

of Uttarakhand at Nainital by which an application  

for recall of an order dated 16th of October, 2008,  

directing  the  respondent  No.3-Additional  Director  

Education to decide the representation filed by the  

appellant  dated  9th of  September,  2008  in  

1

accordance with law, was allowed and consequent  

thereupon  the  writ  petition  of  the  appellant  was  

dismissed summarily.

3. The election for Committee of Management of Janta  

Inter  College,  Majari  Gummawala,  District  

Haridwar, of which the appellant is one of the Life  

Member,  was held  on 23rd of  October,  2005 after  

due process and procedure followed for the same in  

which  the  appellant  was  declared  as  Deputy  

Manager. As some dispute arose with regard to the  

induction of some forged members in the voters list,  

the  election  dated  23rd of  October,  2005  was  not  

approved by the respondent No.4-District Education  

Officer. Thereafter the Additional District Education  

Officer (Basic)  inducted 35 members in the voters  

list. Another Life Member, Shri Vijendra Singh, filed  

a complaint before the respondent No.3 with regard  

to the induction of the said 35 forged members in  

the list of members. On the aforesaid complaint of  

Vijendra  Singh,  the  respondent  No.4  had  

2

investigated  the matter  and found that  there  was  

serious mismanagement which had taken control of  

the Management of the said College by furnishing  

false  information  and  there  was  also  monetary  

irregularities on the part of the present Committee  

of Management of the College. The appellant made a  

representation before respondent No.3 for redressal  

of  his  grievances.  While  finding  that  such  

representation was not considered by the concerned  

authorities,  the  appellant  approached  the  High  

Court by filing a writ petition seeking the following  

relief:

“Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of   mandamus,  commanding/directing  the  respondent  No.3  to  decide  the  representation   dated 9th of September, 2008”.  

4. By a  final  order  dated 16th of  October,  2008,  the  

aforesaid  writ  petition  was  disposed  of  by  a  learned  

Judge of the High Court by the following order :-

“Having heard learned counsel for the parties   and after going through the representation, this   writ petition is summarily disposed of with the  direction that respondent No.3 may decide the  representation  dated  9.9.2008,  made  by  the  

3

petitioner  challenging  the  validity  of  the   elections held on 17.4.2007, in accordance with   law,  preferably  within  a  period  of  six  weeks  after the certified copy of this order is produced  before such authority.”

5. After the said writ petition was disposed of in the  

manner  indicated  above,  an  application  for  recall  was  

filed by one Smt. Rajbala, wife of Ashwani Kumar before  

the  High  Court  and  the  said  application  by  an  order  

dated 3rd of November, 2008 was allowed and consequent  

thereupon  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  appellant  was  

dismissed without even impleading her a party and giving  

an opportunity to the appellant to file  his reply to the  

application for recall. It is this order which is now under  

challenge, on grant of leave, before us.

6. Having  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  

and after considering the nature of the order passed by  

the  High  Court  disposing  of  the  writ  petition  and  the  

application  for  recall  and  in  order  to  render  justice  

between the parties, we are of the view that this appeal  

may be disposed of in the following manner :-

4

7. The order dated 16th of October, 2008 recalling the  

order  passed  by  the  High  Court  disposing  of  the  writ  

petition  and  directing  the  authorities  to  consider  the  

representation  of  the  appellant  is  set  aside.  The  

concerned  authority  –  respondent  No.3  is  directed  to  

consider the representation of the appellant after hearing  

the appellant and other interested parties including Smt.  

Rajbala, wife of Ashwani Kumar and thereafter dispose of  

the same within three months from the date of supply of  

a  copy of  this  order to respondent No.3 in accordance  

with law.  

8. Accordingly,  the  appeal  is  disposed  of  with  the  

above directions. There will be no order as to costs.          

………………………J. [Tarun Chatterjee]

New Delhi; ………………………J. August 28, 2009.     [R.M.Lodha]

5