JUDGMENT S.K. Singh, J.
1. As usual, the dispute to share the power to manage the affairs of the Committee of Management, has again come up to this Court, by means of this petition. The order challenged in this petition is dated 30.11.2000 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) passed by respondent No. 2 by which the respondent No. 4 has been held to be the valid manager of the Committee of Management.
2. There appears to be no dispute in respect to the validity of the election, which took place on 27.11.1995. It is thereafter, in respect to the fresh election/term, the dispute arose. The petitioners claim to have an election in their favour on 21.8.1998 and the respondent No. 4 to have been elected on 2.1.1999. The papers have been sent to the District Inspector of Schools for attesting the signature in respect to fresh term, was decided by the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 28.8.1998, by which the signature of Vibhuti Rai, the present petitioner was attested, pursuant to the election dated 21.8.1998. It appears that thereafter, the matter was again re considered by the District Inspector of Schools on the basis of rival claim of the parties and by order dated 12.6.2000, the attestation of signature by then District Inspector of Schools dated 28.8.1998 in favour of the present petitioner was re-affirmed. The order dated 12.6.2000 was challenged by the respondent No. 4 Ram Briksh Rai by tiling Writ Petition No. 29473 of 2000. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed by this Court by its judgment dated 11.7.2000 by which the order dated 12.6.2000 was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the Joint Director of Education to consider the validity of the election held on 21.8.1998 as set up by Vibhuti Rai and consequent attestation dated 28.8.1998 and in the event finding goes against the respondent, the Joint Director will consider the validity of election dated 2.1.1999 set up by Ram Briksh Rai and his claim of attestation of signature, shall be considered. In the meantime, the writ petitioner, i.e.. Ram Briksh Rai was permitted to continue as Manager of the Institution. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the matter was considered by respondent No. 2. On consideration of the facts and material as was placed before the respondent No. 2, he came to the conclusion that the election held on 21.8.1998, is not valid and the election as claimed by the present respondent No. 4 dated 2.1.1999 is valid and thus it was held that Ram Briksh Rai is in the effective control and he is being approved as valid manager. It is this decision of Joint Director of Education respondent No. 2, which is the subject-matter of challenge before this Court.
3. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned standing counsel and learned counsel who appeared on behalf of respondent No. 4. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No. 2 while deciding the matter has not given cogent reason and there is no analysis for arriving at impugned conclusion. It has been submitted that after referring the facts and even after noting down the petitioners' contention, no finding has been given on the controversy in issue. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that after expiry of the term of old committee, under law, no election could take place by the old Committee in which the respondent No. 4 can be said to have been elected. Learned counsel submits that in view of the admitted facts that the last election took place on 27.11.1995, fresh electton should have taken place by 22.11.1998. It has been submitted that the election would only have been conducted only by the authorised controller after expiry of period of three years and one month and thus the alleged election said to have taken place on 2.1.1999 cannot be said to be valid. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision in Committee of Management v. Alleged Committee of Management, 1997 AWC (Suppl.) 592. In view of the aforesaid submission, it has been concluded that the order of Joint Director of Education is liable to be quashed and the matter is liable to be re-considered and a direction is liable to be given for holding fresh election, by a person appointed by the District Inspector of Schools.
4. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. besides meeting the submissions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner on merits, at the very outset submits that on account of subsequent development, this petition has become infructuous and no useful purpose will be served by adjudicating the issue. It has been pointed out that the fresh election has again taken place on 6.1.2002 in which the respondent No. 4 has again been elected and thus there is no use of taking any decision either way in respect to the validity of the election dated 21.8.1998 or 2.1.1999. It was then submitted that the decision as has been taken by the Joint Director of Education os strictly in accordance with the mandate given by this Court in the judgment dated 11.7.2000 in Writ Petition No. 29473 of 2000. The Joint Director of Education after giving reference to various pleadings of the parties has first attended the validity of the election dated 21.8.1998 for which, he has given specific reasoning that this election was got conducted with the help of 71 members who were not valid members. It was further held that although Kalpa Nath Rai was the President of the Committee but by nominating one Hari Narain Rai, as President, election was conducted which is against the Scheme. It is after this finding, Joint Director of Education considered the validity of election dated 2.1.1999, it was held that the last election in the year 1995 took place with 24 ordinary members and thereafter, 9 members were added by the Manager after taking the requisite fee and thus the election dated 2.1.1999 was held with 33 ordinary members, which is valid. Learned counsel submits that in view of the aforesaid finding, no interference is required by this Court. Then, it has been submitted that the election process was duly started well within time, i.e., before expiry of the term of the old committee and as in the last week of December, colleges are closed and therefore, it is just after reopening, election took place on 2.1.1999 and, therefore, there is delay of hardly 4-5 days, which on the facts of the present case cannot be said to be fatal. Learned counsel submits that the relevant question which is to be considered is that whether there was bonafide intention on the part of the old committee to hold election and whether, the process was started within time and in that situation, if few days delay occurs, that can be condoned or not. In support of this submission that if the election process has started well within time, even if the election takes place after some delay, that cannot be held to be invalid solely on that ground, reliance has been placed on the decision in Committee of Management v. Secretary, Arya Kanya Inter College and Ors., 1999 (2) UPLBEC (Summary of cases) 77 and B. N. B. Inter College v. Regional Dy. Director of Education, 1996 (3) UPLBEC 1542.
5. Learned standing counsel has also justified the order of Joint Director of Education on the facts and reasoning as has been given in the said order.
6. In view of the rival submissions as has come from both sides, there appears to be no dispute about the fact that the last election took place on 27.11.1995. As directed by this Court in its judgment dated 11.7.2000 in Writ Petition No. 29473 of 2000, the Joint Director of Education has considered the validity of the election dated 21.8.1998 which was claimed by the petitioners in their favour. A finding has been given that the said election was not conducted, with valid members and in accordance with the provisions of Scheme of Administration. After rejecting the election dated 21.8.1998, the election as was held on 2.1.1999 was accepted to be valid election. From a perusal of the order of the Joint Director of Education, it is clear that he has applied his mind to each and every aspect and after referring the pleadings of the parties, he has taken the decision. It cannot be said that the Joint Director of Education was not conscious of all the facts and the decision of the authority lacks of proper consideration. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the election dated 2.1.1999, was held after expiry of the period of three years and one month cannot be held valid is to be rejected in view of the fact as detailed in the counter-affidavit, that the election process was started well before expiry of tenure and on account of closure of the college for winter vacation, election took place immediately after re-opening. On the facts of the present case, it cannot be said that there was any lack of bona fide in getting the election conducted in time. In view of this, on account of few days delay in holding election, it cannot be said that the outcome of election is to be rejected on this ground alone. The decision as has been referred by learned counsel for the respondent, clearly supports this view. This Court, while allowing writ petition filed by the present respondent No. 4 by its judgment dated 11.7.2000, has permitted him to continue as Manager of the college. The Joint Director of Education in its decision, pursuant to the direction of this Court has held the present respondent No. 4 to be valid manager and to be in effective control. On the facts as has come before this Court, it cannot be disputed that now the period from the date of fresh election, i.e., either from 21.8.1998 or 2.1.1999 has also run away and thus on own showing of the petitioner, there will have to be a fresh election to constitute the new Committee. The only submission as appears on behalf of the petitioner is that fresh election may be directed, to take place now, under the supervision of some authorised controller to be appointed for this purpose.
7. On the facts and circumstances and in the light of the analysis as has been made in this judgment, keeping in view the decision as has been given by the Joint Director of Education, it appears that the respondent No. 4 was held to be in effective control and his election dated 2.1.l999, was held to be valid. In view of the aforesaid, validity of fresh election which is claimed on behalf of respondent No. 4 to have taken place on 6.1.2002, is to be examined by the District Inspector of Schools. It is to be seen that whether after following due procedure, in accordance with the scheme of administration, and after due notice to the members, any valid election as argued on behalf of respondent No. 4 has taken place or not. In the event, it is found that no valid election has taken place, then it will be for the District Inspector of Schools to appoint any person to manage the affairs of the college and it is under his supervision, the fresh election is to take place. In the event, it is found that before expiry of tenure of the committee, valid election has taken place, then no exercise will be required.
8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, without interfering in the order of the Joint Director of Education, this writ petition is disposed of subject to the directions as contained in this judgment. There will be no order as to costs.