Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
Sri R.K. Singh Kaosik, learned counsel appears on behalf of appellant.
Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appears on behalf of respondents.
Challenge is to an order dated 4/2/2021 passed in Writ-C No.23867/2020.
The writ petition took exception to Communication dated 11/9/2020 and 14/9/2020.
The controversy relates to election of Committee of Management Sri Swami Krishnanand Inter College Bilwar, Jaunpur. As is normal there are two factions, one led by present Appellant and the other by Respondent No.5 (Petitioner in writ petition no.23867/2020). The election of said Committee were scheduled to be held on 5/9/2020. The District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur vide order dated 1-9-2020 appointed one Shri Ramesh Chand Yadav, Officiating Principal, Rajkiya Ucchatar Madhyamik Vidalaya, Paseva, Jaunpur as the Election Supervisor. However, the election could not be held on 5/9/2020 as will be evident from the report by the Supervisor which was brought on record of the writ petition by the Incharge District Inspectors of Schools, Jaunpur as Annexure-6. As a result whereof the elections were stayed. The document on record further reveals that by another order dated 5/9/2020 the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur directed for fresh election on 12/9/2020, which was postponed for 13/9/2020 by order dated 11/9/2020. The elections were held on 13/9/2020 and a report to that extent was furnished on 14/9/2020. Consequent thereon an order was passed on 14/9/2020 by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur granting recognition to the body which was elected in the election held on 13/9/2020.
It is this order which the petitioner had challenged on the ground that the election was duly held on 5/9/2020. The respondent petitioner relied on the Communication by one Ashish Pandey, an Election Officer, which apparently was contrary to the report by the Supervisor appointed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur. On these facts the claim of the petitioner faction for recognition was turned down by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur by his Communication dated 11/9/2020.
Evident it is from the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge that all these vital facts were glossed over by learned Single Judge while directing re-election.
In our considered opinion and as rightly submitted by the appellant that the petitioner if was aggrieved of non recognition and recognition of the appellant had the remedy before Civil Court as held in Committee of Management, Maharana Pratap Vidyalaya Prabandh Samiti,Bhadwara, Kanpur and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2013 (10) ADJ 532; wherein, Division Bench of this Court, relying on the decision in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64; Haricharan Singh v.. Mohinder Singh and Others, AIR 1968 SC 1500; Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. the Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851; Jyoti Basu and Others v. Debi Ghosal and Others, AIR 1982 SC 983; Hari Krishna Lal v. Babu Lal Marandi, (2003) 8 SCC 613 and Shyamdeo Pd. Singh v. Naval Kishor Yadav, (2000) 8 SCC 46 held;
"7. In the matter of elections the Supreme Court and this Court have consistently taken a view that the Courts should not interfere in the process of elections once the elections have been notified, as the adjudicating authority cannot conclusively decide any dispute in the middle of the process of election nor the fundamental rights of any of the parties are affected as elections have always been held to be statutory right. The parties can always be relegated to the forums of adjudication and election tribunals after the results of the elections are declared.
8. In the case of elections to the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, the Representation of People's Act, 1951 provides that election petitions be filed in the High Court. In the matter of elections to societies and cooperative societies, the statutes regulating the registration and elections of the societies provide for constitution of election tribunals for challenging the elections. In the case of societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, the elections of the office bearers can be challenged before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act and in order to determine as to who is in effective control, Section 16A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act provide for the authorities, which in the present case is the Regional Level Committee. A five judge Bench of this Court in Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education & Ors., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36267 of 1992 decided on 15.10.2004 held as follows:-
"Accordingly, we answer the questions as follows:-
1. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A (7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, exercises quasi-judicial powers, and not purely administrative powers.
2. The Regional Deputy Director of Education while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921, must decide the question of validity of the elections prima facie, in deciding the question of actual control over the affairs of the institution.
3. Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education finds that the election of both the rival committees are invalid, he is not required to decide the question of actual control to recognise one or the other Committee of Management, and instead he shall, where the Scheme of Administration provides for appointment of an Administrator (Prabandh Sanchalak), appoint an Administrator with the direction to hold elections in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, and where there is no such provision in the Scheme of Administration he shall appoint an Authorised Controller who shall expeditiously hold elections to the Committee of Management and shall manage the affairs of the institution until a lawfully elected committee of management is available for taking over the management."
9. In order to avoid a large number of writ petitions filed for quashing the orders passed by the educational authorities during the process of elections and in seeking directions to them, we hereby declare that the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64; Harcharan Singh v. Mohinder Singh & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 1500; Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851; Jyoti Basu & Ors. v. Debi Ghosal & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 983; Harikrishna Lal v. Babu Lal Marandi, (2003) 8 SCC 613 and Shyamdeo Pd. Singh v. Naval Kishore Yadav, (2000) 8 SCC 46 restraining the courts from interfering in the process of election after the elections are notified is equally applicable to the elections of the office bearers of the committee of management of the societies as well as the Committee of Management to be elected in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of administration of the educational institutions. The principles of law that the Courts should keep their hand off in electoral matters and that all election disputes must be tried by the Election Tribunal, is also incorporated in the Constitution of India under Art.329 (b) for the elections of the Parliament or to the house or either house of the legislature, under Art.243 O for the elections of Panchayats and Art.243 ZG in the matter of elections of the municipalities.
10. There is no reason as to why these time tested and settled principles should not be made applicable to the elections of the office bearers of the societies and for the Committee of Management under the scheme of administration of the educational institutions.
11.We have every reason to believe that in future the Court will refuse to interfere in the process of elections until the elections are concluded and will refuse to entertain election disputes and relegate the parties to approach the Election Tribunals or to file civil suit to challenge the results of the elections."
When the impugned order is tested on the anvil of above analysis the same cannot be given the stamp of approval. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. Writ -C No.23867/2020 is dismissed.
The appeal is allowed to the extent above. No costs.