The Allahabad High Court has ruled that a writ petition filed by a Committee of Management through its Manager is not maintainable unless it is accompanied by a specific resolution of the Committee authorizing the institution of the case. The Court emphasized that a Manager, in their individual capacity or solely based on general powers in the Scheme of Administration, cannot take a policy decision to challenge orders of the State authorities.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery dismissed the petition filed by the Committee of Management of Sri Gandhi Inter College, holding that the “Manager alone not being competent to take a decision on it’s own or on behalf of Committee of Management.”
Case Background
The writ petition was filed by the Committee of Management, Sri Gandhi Inter College, Harpur Budhat, Gorakhpur, through its Manager. The petitioners challenged an order dated December 24, 2025, passed by the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS), Gorakhpur. The DIOS had turned down a proposal dated October 26, 2025, regarding the suspension of Respondent No. 3.
A preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the writ petition was raised by the counsel for the contesting private respondent. It was argued that the petition was not accompanied by a resolution of the Committee of Management deciding to challenge the impugned order and authorizing the Manager to act on their behalf.
Submissions of the Parties
Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners, contended that the Scheme of Administration of the College grants wide powers to the Manager. He relied on Clause 20 (3) (9) of the Scheme, arguing that the Manager is authorized to sign pleadings and represent the institution in legal proceedings. He submitted that this clause empowers the Manager to take a decision to challenge an order before a competent court without a mandatory requirement for a fresh resolution for every proceeding.
Furthermore, the petitioners placed a resolution dated January 13, 2026 (adopted subsequent to the filing of the petition) on record as an “abundant caution.”
Sri R.C. Dwivedi, counsel for the private respondent, relied on judgments in Saraswati Vidya Mandir Vs. State of U.P. (2003), C/M Junior High School Sayar Vs. State of U.P. (2019), and Umesh Chandra Vs. Mahila Vidyalaya Society (2006). He argued that it is the Committee of Management that is the aggrieved party, not the Manager independently. He submitted that the Scheme of Administration only authorizes the Manager to plead and represent, not to take a policy decision to institute proceedings, as the Committee might resolve otherwise.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Justice Shamshery examined the Scheme of Administration and the legal position regarding the authority of a Manager. The Court acknowledged that while the Scheme provides duties and responsibilities, “A Manager in individual capacity can not file any suit or writ petition. It is the Committee of Management who can file a suit or writ petition.”
The Court drew a distinction between the authority to sign pleadings and the authority to decide to institute a case. The Bench observed:
“In the present case, as per the scheme of administration, the Manager is authorised to represent on behalf Committee of Management i.e to plead, to affirm or to file any case or swear an affidavit, but it does not specifically authorise Manager to take a decision to institute any suit or a writ petition.”
The Court further held that any adverse order by the State affects the Committee of Management collectively. Therefore, the decision to seek legal recourse must be a collective one.
“There is an evident difference between a decision to take legal recourse and to authorise Manager to act accordingly. Under no circumstance, a Manager can question a decision of the Committee of Management or General Body of a Society, as the case may be, or to proceed on it’s own will, since it would be against the bye laws of a society or a decision of the Committee of Management under Scheme of Administration.”
The Court relied extensively on the coordinate Bench judgments cited by the respondent, affirming that a Manager cannot assume the functions of the Committee of Management unless specifically authorized to do so for the specific legal action.
Regarding the subsequent resolution dated January 13, 2026, the Court noted that while it was placed on record, it “still not contains a decision of Committee of Management to file present writ petition.”
Decision
The High Court sustained the preliminary objection and dismissed the writ petition as not maintainable. The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to file a fresh petition accompanied by a proper resolution.
Justice Shamshery also issued a directive to the Registry of the High Court to ensure procedural compliance in future cases. The order stated:
“Registry is directed to check that writ petitions filed by Committee of Management shall accompany a copy of resolution of Committee of Management to file a writ petition and further authorize the Manager to act accordingly.”
The Registrar (Compliance) has been directed to take necessary steps regarding this direction.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Committee of Management Sri Gandhi Inter College Harpur Versus State of U.P. and 2 others
- Case Number: WRIT – A No. 118 of 2026
- Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- Counsel for Petitioner: Astha Misra, Avneesh Tripathi
- Counsel for Respondent: C.S.C., Ramesh Chandra
