words per minute
19
PallaviShukla
00:00
Speed
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
RESERVED
Special Appeal (D) No. 589 of 2016
The Committee of Management, Dadar Ashram Trust Society & Ors.
Vs.
Mahatma Gandhi Kashi Vidyapeeth, Varanasi & Ors.
WITH
Special Appeal (D) No. 628 of 2016
Committee of Management, The Dadar Ashram Trust & Anr.
Vs.
Dr. Chandrashekar Pandey & Ors.
Appearance:
For the appellants:
Mr. Radha Kant Ojha, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Shivendu Ojha, Advocate
Mr. Indra Raj Singh, Advocate
Mr. Adarsh Singh, Advocate
Mr. Prateek Bansal, Advocate
For the respondents:
Mr. C.L. Pandey, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Rajesh Chandra Dwivedi, Advocate
Mr. C.B. Yadav, Addl. Advocate General
Mr. Shashank Shekhar Singh, Addl. CSC
Mr. Vivek Verma, Advocate
Hon'ble Dilip B Bhosale, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma, J
JUDGMENT
(Per Dilip B Bhosale, CJ, for himself and Yashwant Varma, J)
the District Magistrate would be free to relegate the parties to take the remedy of a civil suit for getting their rights adjudicated and thereafter fresh election shall be held after the suit is decided. Though, such observation was made, from the facts of the case, it is clear and it is also not in dispute that no suit was instituted in terms of the order dated 03.10.2007 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48538 of 2007.
6. However, it has come on record that one suit was instituted in 2001 by Shri Thakur Triloki Jai Maharaj through Rahul Rai, bearing Original Suit No. 35 of 2001 (Shri Thakur Triloki Jai Maharaj through Rahul Rai Vs. Dr. Chandra Shekhar Pandey & Ors.). In the said suit, the plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction against the defendants claiming ownership rights over the properties mentioned in the plaint. The said suit came to be dismissed on 17.12.2014. Thereafter, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Ballia, being Appeal No. 3 of 2014, which was also dismissed vide order dated 13.08.2015. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the appellate court, the plaintiff preferred Second Appeal No. 16 of 2015 before this Court, which, we are informed, is still pending consideration for the purposes of interim order as well as admission.
7. In this backdrop, the petitioner made an application before the District Magistrate/Authorized Controller to get the fresh elections held in view of the dismissal of the said suit. The District Magistrate in turn issued directions to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to do the needful. The Sub Divisional Magistrate accordingly published the election programme on 18.06.2015. The aggrieved party approached the Vice Chancellor of the University with a prayer to stop the election process, that was set in motion by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, pending hearing and final disposal of the suit. The Vice Chancellor passed an order on 01.07.2015 asking the Sub Divisional Magistrate to keep the election programme in abeyance.
8. The petitioner - Dr. Chandrashekar Pandey, against the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 01.07.2015, preferred Writ - C No. 31246 of 2016, in which the order dated 13.07.2016 was passed by the learned Single Judge, which is the subject matter in both the appeals.