Tarun Agarwala, J.@mdashHeard the learned Counsel for the parties.
2. The petitioner No. 1 in Writ Petition No. 18745 of 2009 is the Committee of Management and the petitioner No. 2, namely, Sri Ram Dulare
Chaudhary is the Manager and alleges to be the valid Committee of Management. The respondent No. 4 is Lalman Chaudhary who is the Ex-
Manager of the Committee of Management and Sri Ram Ujagir, respondent No. 5 is a life member of the society. The petitioners have challenged
the order dated 22.12.2008/1.1.2009, by which, the Regional Committee has held that the election of 2006 was a void election and, accordingly
appointed an authorised controller in the institution. An interim order dated 10.4.2009 was passed in this writ petition staying the operation of the
impugned order, as a result of which, the Committee of Management continues to function in the institution. Before deciding this petition, it is
necessary to dwell into the previous litigation and also decide the previous litigation which are still pending since it will have a bearing on the
ultimate result of this petition.
3. It transpires that the election was held on 13.8.2000, in which, the petitioner No. 2 was elected as the Manager. The respondent Nos. 4 and 5
filed Writ Petition No. 36958 of 2000 alleging that the election of 13.8.2000, in which, the petitioner was alleged to have been elected as the
Manager, was a fake election and that the said respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were validly elected, and therefore, the said writ petition was filed for a
writ of mandamus commanding the District Inspector of Schools to refer the dispute to the Joint Director of Education and further prayed that the
signature of the elected Manager should not be recognised. It was alleged that an election had taken place on 15.6.1997, which was conducted by
an Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, in which, the petitioner''s Committee of Management was elected. Subsequently, the
Joint Director of Education appointed an authorised controller, by an order dated 1.10.1999, for a period of six months on the ground that the
election of 1997 was contrary to the Scheme of Administration. A Writ Petition No. 46470 of 1999 was filed. An interim order dated 4.11.1999
was granted staying the order appointing the authorised controller. This writ petition was subsequently dismissed in default and has not been
restored till date. It is submitted that since the appointment of the authorised controller was for the period of six months, the writ petition had, in
any case, become infructuous. However, the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in their Writ Petition No. 36958 of 2000 contended that an agenda was
circulated by the Committee of Management for holding the election on 18.6.2000, on which date, neither the. Manager nor the President
appeared, and therefore, the members of the General Body decided to hold the election after appointing respondent No. 5, as the Chairman of the
meeting, and it is alleged, that fresh election took place and the minutes were forwarded to the District Inspector of Schools on 29.6.2000.
Consequently, it was prayed that the dispute be referred to the Joint Director. An interim order dated 22.8.2000 was passed directing that any
attestation made by the District Inspector of Schools pursuant to the election held would be subject to further orders passed by the Court. This
interim order continued till 31.1.2006, on which date, the writ petition was dismissed for the want of prosecution and eventually, the writ petition
was restored on 16.5.2006. Prior to the restoration of the writ petition, the Committee of Management resolved to hold the election since the term
of three years was coming to an end pursuant to which, the District Inspector of Schools, by its order dated 23.6.2006, appointed an election
officer to conduct the election. Subsequently, the elections were held on 20.8.2006, in which, the petitioner was elected as the Manager.
4. The respondent No. 4 filed Writ Petition No. 31709 of 2007 praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the Regional Committee to decide
his objection dated 11.12.2006 filed against the fake election which is alleged to have been held on 20.8.2006. No interim order was passed in
this writ petition. Subsequently, another Writ Petition No. 25309 of 2008 was filed by the respondent No. 5 seeking the same relief which had
been made in Writ Petition No. 31709 of 2007. This petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 18.2.2009.
5. Notwithstanding the pendency of the writ petition filed by respondent No. 4 for the quashing of the election of 20.8.2006, it transpires that the
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 filed an application before the District Inspector of Schools as well as before the Joint Director of Education alleging that
the election of 20.8.2006 was a void election, in view of the interim order dated 20.10.2003, passed in Writ Petition No. 47539 of 2003 which
order was still operating. It was alleged that the attestation of signature of the Manager was stayed, and therefore, fresh election could not have
been conducted by the said Manager. On this application, the Regional Committee passed an order dated 22.12.2008/1.1.2009 holding that the
election of 2006 was a void election and, consequently appointed an authorised controller, which order has been challenged in Writ Petition No.
18745 of 2009.
6. The petitioners have also filed Writ Petition No. 3874 of 2008 praying for the quashing of the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated
.26.9.2007, by which, he had passed an order for single operation of the account. No interim order has been passed in this writ petition.
7. In the light of the aforesaid factual position, Sri N.L. Pandey, the learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submits that his Writ Petition
No. 36958 of 2000 still survives and should be decided.
8. Upon considering the matter, the Court, finds that the alleged election conducted by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 lacked necessary details and
material. Such an election conducted by the members of the general body cannot be recognised and it appears that a sham dispute was created by
the respondent No. 4, since at an earlier point of time in the year 1994, he was the Manager of the Institution.
9. Consequently, the Court is of the opinion, that a mandamus could not be issued to the authority to refer the alleged election of the respondent
No. 4 to the Regional Committee. In any case, the period had expired and there is no allegation being brought on record that the respondent No. 4
was elected again in a fresh election held in the year 2003. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the Writ Petition No. 36958 of 2000
filed by the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.
10. With regard to Writ Petition No. 47539 of 2003, the said writ petition has been filed by the Committee of Management through its Ex-
Manager Lalman challenging the resolution of the Regional Committee dated 26.8.2003 approving the election of the petitioners as well as the
order dated 30.8.2003 passed by the District Inspector of Schools attesting the signatures of the Manager. In my opinion, this petition is not
maintainable since there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner No. 1 was a valid Committee of Management which was elected in an
election conducted in the year 2003 or that the petitioner No. 2 was elected as the Manager.
11. This Court also finds that the petitioners had no locus standi to file the present writ petition. In Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha
Sadan, Banksahi, district Basti Anr. v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and Anr. 1995 UPLBEC 1242
and in Dr. P.P. Rastogi and Others Vs. Meerut University and Another, and in Committee of Management, Sri Kachcha Baba inter College,
Varanasi and Ors. v. Regional Committee, Pancham Mandal, Varanasi and Ors. 2007 (7) ADJ 414 : 2008 (5) AWC 4334 and in Writ Petition
No. 3328 of 2008, Committee of Management and Anr. v. Regional Education Committee, Meerut Region, Meerut and Ors. decided on
4.8.2008, and in Writ Petition No. 40861 of 2007, Vagish Chandra Sharma and Anr. v. State of U.P. and Ors. decided on 12.8.2009, it has
been held that a writ petition at the instance of a member of the Committee of Management or at the instance of a life member was not
maintainable.
12. In the present case, the Court does not find any iota of evidence that in the election held in the year 2003, respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were
elected. Respondent No. 4, who is the petitioner No. 2 in Writ Petition No. 47539 of 2003 could at best, be held to be a member of the society
and the writ petition is not maintainable, at his instance, challenging the election which has been recognised by the Regional Level Committee on
26.8.2008 nor can he challenge the attestation of the District Inspector of Schools by an order dated 30.8.2003. Consequently, the said Writ
Petition No. 47539 of 2003 is dismissed as not maintainable.
13. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that the impugned order dated 27.12.2008/ 1.1.2009, passed by the Regional Committee
holding that the election of 2006 was a void election since an interim order dated 22.10.2003 was operating no longer survives. In any case, the
interim order dated 22.10.2003 did not restrain the Committee of Management to hold a fresh election upon its term coming to an end. There was
no embargo upon the Committee of Management to hold a fresh election. Consequently, the Committee of Management was competent to hold a
fresh election which is alleged to have been held on 20.8.2006 and the said election 2006 cannot be held to be void only on the strength that an
interim order was passed. The order of the Regional Committee dated 26.3.2003 had not been stayed, and therefore, the said Committee of
Management was allowed to continue and function and was competent to hold fresh election as per the Scheme of Administration upon its term
coming to an end.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the order dated 22.12.2008/1.1.2009, passed by the Regional Committee in Writ Petition No. 18745 of 2009
cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed.
15. This Court finds that the election held on 20.8.2006 has not been affirmed as yet by an authority under the Intermediate Education Act. An
objection has been filed by the respondent No. 4 dated 11.12.2006 which is still pending. This Court, further finds that the term of the Committee
of Management is three years which is extendable for another three months under the Scheme of Administration. Consequently, Writ Petition No.
31709 of 2007 filed by the respondent No. 4 through its alleged Committee of Management, even though, this writ petition is not maintainable,
however, is being disposed of with a direction to the authority concerned to decide the objection of the respondent No. 4 while approving or
disapproving the election of the petitioners held on 20.8.2006 within two weeks from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order. In
the event, the election of 20.8.2006 is approved by the authority, the petitioners will issue the electoral agenda immediately within a week and hold
the election under an Observer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, Basti.
16. In view of the aforesaid, Writ Petition No. 3874 of 2008 does not survive and is dismissed.
