The authorized controller appointed in the institution under section 16(A)(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Act 1921 is proceeding to hold the elections for constituting the Committee of Management of the Institution and for the purpose he has published a notice, qua the election programme, and has asked the members to participate therein.
The order is being challenged on the ground that the electoral college has not been determined in accordance with law.
From the record of the writ petition, this Court finds that the order appointing the authorized controller was challenged by means of writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed with liberty to file civil suit. Original Suit No. 283 of 2010 was filed by Vinod Kumar Singh, wherein an injunction application was also filed. Temporary injunction was refused by the Court on 08.10.2007. The plaintiff, therefore, filed two civil misc. appeals, which have also been dismissed by the District Judge on 31.05.2008 giving rise to two writ petitions being writ petition no. 45530 of 2008 and writ petition no. 45536 of 2008 before the Hon'ble High Court, wherein no interim order has been granted. Another civil suit was filed by 46 members of the general body being civil suit no. 477 of 2007. In the said suit, a temporary injunction application was made, which was also rejected on 19.9.2009. A First Appeal From Order against the rejection of temporary injunction application has been filed before this Court being FAFO No. 655 of 2010, wherein also, no interim order has been granted.
In these circumstances, this Court finds that there is little and no justification to interfere with the election process, which had already commenced.
The writ petition is dismissed. However, after election are over and results are declared, the petitioners are at liberty to seek their remedy in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 25.6.2010 yachna