COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, S.M. COLLEGE CHANDAUSI AND ANOTHER vs STATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS — WRIC/5820/2026

Disposed: -- on 18th March 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 12-Feb-2026

CNR: UPHC010755832026

Filing Number

WRIC/

Filing Date

04-Feb-2026

Registration No

WRIC/5820/2026

Registration Date

09-Feb-2026

Judge

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Coram

Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

DEGREE COLLEGES ( 91500 )

Sub-Category

Miscellaneous ( 90 )

Judicial Branch

Civil WRITS

Decision Date

18-Mar-2026

Nature of Disposal

--

Last updated 29-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT, S.M. COLLEGE CHANDAUSI AND ANOTHER

    Adv. SAURABH TRIPATHI,RITUVENDRA SINGH NAGVANSHI,RITUVENDRA SINGH NAGVANSHI, ,Sr. Advocate,VINAYAK MITHAL,RITUVENDRA SINGH NAGVANSHI

  2. 2.SHANTANU KUMAR

    Adv. RITUVENDRA SINGH NAGVANSHI VINAYAK MITHAL Sr. Advocate

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS

    Adv. ,C.S.C.,PRASHANT MATHUR,GIRISH KUMAR YADAV 1123

  2. 2.SPECIAL SECRETARY, HIGHER EDUCATION, ANUBHAG-2

    Adv. GIRISH KUMAR YADAV PRASHANT MATHUR C.S.C.

  3. 3.UTTAR PRADESH BACKWARD CLASS COMMISSION

    Adv. GIRISH KUMAR YADAV PRASHANT MATHUR C.S.C.

  4. 4.DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION (HIGHER)

    Adv. GIRISH KUMAR YADAV PRASHANT MATHUR C.S.C.

  5. 5.GURU JAMBHESHWAR UNIVERSITY

    Adv. GIRISH KUMAR YADAV PRASHANT MATHUR C.S.C.

  6. 6.VICE CHANCELLOR, GURU JAMBHESHWAR UNIVERSITY

    Adv. GIRISH KUMAR YADAV PRASHANT MATHUR C.S.C.

  7. 7.REGIONAL HIGHER EDUCATION OFFICER

    Adv. GIRISH KUMAR YADAV PRASHANT MATHUR C.S.C.

  8. 8.DISTRICT MAGISTRATE/ AUTHORIZED CONTROLLER, S.M. COLLEGE CHANDAUSI

    Adv. GIRISH KUMAR YADAV PRASHANT MATHUR C.S.C.

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Mar-2026

    Saurabh Shyam ShamsheryView PDF

    CASE SUMMARY: WRIC No. 5820/2026 Court's Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition but allowed it partially with specific directions. The court upheld the State's appointment of an Authorized Controller for S.M. College Chandausi under Sections 57-58 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, finding the procedure was legally sound. However, the court directed that within two months, a comprehensive audit inspection be conducted and the college management be given opportunity to explain the land sales to private persons. The impugned order shall be reviewed within four months to determine whether to withdraw or extend it. Key Reasoning: The court found that the college management diverted college property by transferring land to a society and subsequently selling it to private parties (approximately 4.482 hectares), and the management refused to cooperate with audit inspections, thereby justifying the controller's appointment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 10-Mar-2026

    —

    Saurabh Shyam Shamshery

  4. 09-Mar-2026

    Saurabh Shyam ShamsheryView PDF

  5. 09-Mar-2026

    —

    Vivek Saran

  6. 18-Feb-2026

    Vivek SaranView PDF

  7. 18-Feb-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  8. 12-Feb-2026

    Vivek SaranView PDF

  9. 04-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. WRIC/5820/2026

casestatus.in Summary

CASE SUMMARY: WRIC No. 5820/2026 Court's Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition but allowed it partially with specific directions. The court upheld the State's appointment of an Authorized Controller for S.M. College Chandausi under Sections 57-58 of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, finding the procedure was legally sound. However, the court directed that within two months, a comprehensive audit inspection be conducted and the college management be given opportunity to explain the land sales to private persons. The impugned order shall be reviewed within four months to determine whether to withdraw or extend it. Key Reasoning: The court found that the college management diverted college property by transferring land to a society and subsequently selling it to private parties (approximately 4.482 hectares), and the management refused to cooperate with audit inspections, thereby justifying the controller's appointment. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case