< Back

Case Analysis Committee of Management Sri Gandhi Inter College Harpur vs State of UP & Ors 2026 AHC 34506

Synopsis

This judgment, delivered by a Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court, addresses a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of a writ petition filed by a Committee of Management through its Manager. The petitioner challenged an order of the District Inspector of Schools that refused to approve the suspension of a private respondent. The court upheld the preliminary objection, holding that the writ petition was not maintainable as it was not accompanied by a resolution of the Committee of Management authorizing the filing of the petition and authorizing the Manager to act on its behalf. The court distinguished between the Manager's power to represent the Committee (which is permissible) and the power to take a policy decision to initiate litigation (which requires a collective decision of the Committee). The petition was dismissed with liberty to file a fresh petition along with the requisite resolution.

1. Heading for the Judgment

Iin the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Writ - A No. - 118 of 2026

Committee of Management Sri Gandhi Inter College Harpur ....Petitioner(s)
versus
State of U.P. and 2 others ....Respondent(s)

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

2. Legal Framework

This judgment operates within the following legal framework:

The Constitution of India:
Article 226: The jurisdiction invoked by the petitioner. The court examined the locus standi of the person filing the petition on behalf of a collective body like a Committee of Management.
The Uttar Pradesh Intermediate Education Act, 1921:
Section 16-A: Deals with the Scheme of Administration for recognized institutions. Sub-section (6) mandates that every recognized institution shall be managed in accordance with its approved Scheme of Administration.
Section 16-CC: Provides that a Scheme of Administration shall not be inconsistent with the principles laid down in the Third Schedule.
Third Schedule: Lays down the principles for approval of a Scheme of Administration, emphasizing the proper and effective functioning of the Committee of Management.
The Societies Registration Act, 1860:
Section 6: Governs the power of a society to sue and be sued in the name of the President, Chairman, or Principal Secretary, or any other office-bearer as determined by the rules of the society. The court interpreted this to mean that the rules must specifically authorize the office-bearer to represent the society in legal proceedings; mere conferment of administrative powers is insufficient.
Principles of Representative Capacity and Locus Standi:
The judgment clarifies the distinction between:
"Decision to sue" (Policy Decision): A collective function of the Committee of Management/General Body, to be taken by way of a resolution.
"Authority to represent" (Executive Function): The implementation of that decision, which can be delegated to an office-bearer like the Manager, provided the Scheme of Administration permits.

Related Precedents Cited and Relied Upon:

Saraswati Vidya Mandir v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2003 (3) AWC 1917: (Allahabad High Court) - Held that a writ petition filed by a Manager without proof of authorization by the Committee of Management is not maintainable. The Manager cannot assume the functions of the Committee.
C/M Junior High School Sayar v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors., 2019: AHC: 19863: (Allahabad High Court) - Followed the principle that in the absence of a resolution, a writ petition by a Manager is not maintainable. The office-bearer has no independent right to challenge an order.
Umesh Chandra and Anr. v. Mahila Vidyalaya Society, Aminabad, Lucknow and Ors., 2006(24) LCD 1373: (Allahabad High Court, Division Bench) - A comprehensive judgment holding that:
The rules of a society must specifically provide who is authorized to sue on its behalf.
In the absence of such specific provision, the Committee of Management must pass a resolution authorizing a person to represent the society.
Mere conferment of administrative or executive power on an office-bearer is not sufficient to meet the requirement of Section 6 of the Societies Registration Act.
Indian Sugar Mills Association v. Secretary to Government, U.P., AIR 1951 All 1 (FB): (Allahabad High Court, Full Bench) - Cited for the proposition that a writ petitioner must show that its interests are directly affected. An association or its office-bearer cannot claim to represent others unless properly authorized.

3. Basic Relevant Facts of the Case

The Petitioner: The petition was filed by the "Committee of Management" of Sri Gandhi Inter College through its "Manager."
Impugned Order: The petition challenged an order dated 24.12.2025 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur, which turned down a proposal dated 26.10.2025 to suspend Respondent No. 3.
Preliminary Objection: The private respondent raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable as it was not accompanied by a resolution of the Committee of Management authorizing the filing of the petition and authorizing the Manager to act on its behalf.
Petitioner's Defence: The petitioner relied on the Scheme of Administration, specifically clauses detailing the powers of the Manager. They argued that the Manager had wide powers, including the power to "represent the institution in all legal proceedings" and "sign pleadings," and therefore could file the petition on his own.
Subsequent Resolution: A supplementary affidavit was filed placing a subsequent resolution of the Committee of Management. However, the court noted that even this resolution did not contain a specific decision by the Committee to file the writ petition.

4. Issues in the Judgment

The court framed and addressed the following primary issues:

Maintainability (Locus Standi): Whether a writ petition filed by a Committee of Management through its Manager is maintainable in the absence of a specific resolution of the Committee authorizing the filing of the petition and authorizing the Manager to do so.
Interpretation of Manager's Powers: Whether the powers conferred on the Manager under the Scheme of Administration, including the power to represent the institution in legal proceedings, are sufficient to empower him to independently decide to initiate litigation on behalf of the Committee, without a prior collective decision of the Committee.

5. Ratio Decidendi (The Reasoning of the Court)

The court's reasoning was meticulous and drew a clear distinction between administrative execution and policy decision-making.

The "Decision to Sue" vs. "Authority to Represent": The court held that these are two distinct concepts. The decision to initiate legal proceedings is a policy decision that affects the interests of the entire institution. This must be a collective decision of the Committee of Management, taken in a meeting and recorded in a resolution. The authority to represent the Committee in court and to sign pleadings is an executive function that can be delegated to an office-bearer (like the Manager) once the decision to sue has been taken.
Manager's Powers are Derivative, Not Original: The powers of the Manager under the Scheme of Administration, including Clause 20(3)(9) which allows him to "represent the institution in all legal proceedings... and sign pleadings," are powers to act on behalf of the Committee. They presuppose that the Committee has already decided on a course of action. They do not grant the Manager the independent authority to decide whether to sue in the first place. He can carry out a decision, but cannot make it.
The "What If" Test: The court provided a powerful hypothetical to illustrate its point: If the Committee of Management takes a decision not to challenge an action of the State, can the Manager, under the grab of his representative powers, still challenge it by taking a contrary view? The court answered with an emphatic "No." This demonstrates that the Manager's powers are subservient to and cannot override the collective will of the Committee.
Analysis of the Scheme of Administration: The court examined the relevant clauses (Clauses 17 and 20) extracted in the judgment. It concluded that these clauses define the duties and responsibilities of the Manager in managing the institution and representing it, but they do not specifically authorize the Manager to take the policy decision to institute a suit or writ petition on his own.
Binding Precedent: The court relied on the consistent line of authority from Saraswati Vidya Mandir, C/M Junior High School Sayar, and the Division Bench judgment in Umesh Chandra. These cases firmly establish that in the absence of a specific rule or a resolution, an office-bearer cannot maintain a writ petition on behalf of a society or committee.
Even Subsequent Resolution Was Insufficient: The court noted that the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, while placing a subsequent resolution, still did not contain a specific decision by the Committee to file the present writ petition. Therefore, it failed to cure the initial defect.

6. New Legal Framework Established

This judgment does not establish a new legal principle but serves as a comprehensive restatement and clarification of the law regarding the maintainability of writ petitions filed by collective bodies. Its key contributions are:

Clear Dichotomy Between "Policy" and "Execution": The judgment provides a clear and practical framework for analyzing the powers of office-bearers in societies and committees. It creates a bright-line rule: the decision to litigate is a policy matter for the collective body; the act of litigating is an executive matter for the authorized office-bearer.
Interpretive Guide for Scheme of Administration: The judgment offers a template for courts to interpret similar clauses in Schemes of Administration or bye-laws. Powers of representation will be construed as derivative powers, not original powers to make policy decisions, unless the clause is explicitly worded to grant such unilateral authority.
Procedural Directive to the Registry: In a significant procedural direction, the court ordered the Registry to ensure that henceforth, all writ petitions filed by Committees of Management shall be accompanied by a copy of the resolution of the Committee authorizing the filing of the petition and authorizing the Manager to act accordingly. This is a practical step to prevent similar maintainability issues in the future.

7. Examination and Analysis by the Court

The court's analysis was thorough and logically structured.

Factual Examination: The court first noted the nature of the petitioner (Committee of Management) and the person through whom it was filed (Manager).
Identification of Preliminary Issue: It correctly identified and prioritized the preliminary objection regarding maintainability.
Examination of Governing Documents: The court examined the relevant clauses of the Scheme of Administration (reproduced extensively in the judgment) to understand the scope of the Manager's powers.
Application of Legal Principles: It then applied the established legal principles from a long line of precedents (Saraswati Vidya Mandir, C/M Junior High School Sayar, Umesh Chandra) to the facts. These precedents consistently held that an office-bearer cannot file a petition without authorization.
Distinction-Making: The court's most significant analytical contribution was its clear distinction between the "decision to sue" (policy) and the "authority to represent" (execution). This distinction resolved the apparent conflict between the Manager's broad representative powers and the need for a collective decision.
Scrutiny of Subsequent Resolution: The court examined the supplementary affidavit and found that even the subsequent resolution did not specifically authorize the filing of the writ petition, confirming that the defect was fundamental and not cured.

8. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome

Critical Analysis:

This judgment is a masterclass in procedural correctness and a strong defense of collective decision-making in bodies governed by statutes and bye-laws.

Strengths: The judgment's primary strength is its conceptual clarity. By drawing the distinction between policy and execution, it provides a simple yet powerful tool to resolve similar disputes. It prevents a single office-bearer from unilaterally committing a collective body to litigation, which could be against the wishes of the majority or detrimental to the institution's interests. The reliance on a consistent line of High Court precedents gives the decision strong legal foundation. The directive to the Registry is a practical, forward-looking measure.
Correctness: The decision is legally impeccable. It flows directly from the statutory framework of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the Societies Registration Act, and is consistent with settled principles of law regarding the capacity of unincorporated bodies to sue.
Potential Impact: This judgment will have a significant impact on litigation by educational institutions and societies in Uttar Pradesh. It will force Committees of Management to follow due process and pass formal resolutions before initiating legal challenges. This will prevent frivolous or unauthorized litigation by individual office-bearers and bring more discipline to the process. The directive to the Registry will streamline the filing process and prevent similar objections from arising in the first place.

Final Outcome:

The writ petition was dismissed as not maintainable in its present form. However, the court granted the petitioner liberty to file a fresh writ petition along with a proper resolution of the Committee of Management authorizing the filing of the petition and authorizing the Manager to act on its behalf.