JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. It is alleged that the elections of the Committee of Management have been held on 12.6.2002 by the respondent No. 3 and the list of membership of the committee of Management of the petitioner was accepted by the Assistant Registrar on 18.8.2004.
3. Aggrieved by the order of Assistant Registrar, writ petition No. 41133 of 2005 has been filed by Shri Ran Vijay Singh, which was allowed directing the Assistant Registrar to refer the dispute to the Prescribed Authority. Consequently the Assistant Registrar referred the dispute to the Prescribed Authority vide his order dated 7.6.2005. Thereafter, the petitioners moved an application before the Prescribed Authority to initiate a criminal proceeding under Section 195/340 Cr.P.C. against Shri Ran Vijay Singh for committing forgery in respect of the publication of the election schedule in newspapers.
4. It appears that when the writ petition was filed by Shri Ran Vijay Singh, he claimed that the election schedule was published in Dainik Jagran, but when the petitioner raised an objection before the Prescribed Authority that no election schedule has been published in Dainik Jagran then Shri Ran Vijay Singh came up in this case that infact the publication was made in Dainik "Manyavar" in which due to typographical error, Dainik Jagran was printed.
5. The application of the petitioner for initiating criminal proceedings was rejected by the Prescribed Authority against which the petitioner filed Criminal Appeal No. 2 of 2006 before the Sessions Judge, Jaunpur, who also summoned the records from the office of the Prescribed Authority, fixing 17.2.2006 in the case.
6. It is urged that the Prescribed Authority in disobedience of the order passed by the Sessions Judge has proceeded to decide the proceedings in a hurried manner, which culminated in passing of the impugned order dated 23.1.2006 by which the list of office bearer of the respondent committee of management of Shri Ran Vijay Singh was accepted and the election of the petitioners was held to be not a valid election.
7. It is urged by the counsel for the petitioners that the impugned order has been passed by the Prescribed Authority in violation of canon of principles of natural justice in an arbitrary manner without affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is stated that his arguments against the membership fee regarding the 49 members, which was to be produced by the petitioners have not been heard.
8. Counsel for the respondents Shri P.N. Tripathi states that the receipts of the membership relied upon are forged, they are said to have been issued under the signatures of the respondent Shri Ran Vijay Singh, who denies having issued the said receipts and his signatures on them.
9. In view of the facts that whether the receipts have been issued by Shri Ran Vijay Singh, who denies the same and whether 49 members inducted are valid members and on the basis of the list showing these persons of the members of the Committee of Management is valid or not are highly disputed questions of facts, which require adjudication on basis of oral and documentary evidence can only be decided by a Civil Court in suit after oral and documentary evidence is adduced in suit, which is not feasible under Article 226 of the Constitution. As admitted facts or pure question of law is not to be consider. This Court is not inclined to interfere in this matter until and unless this question regarding forgery and validity of the election proceedings finally settled through Civil Court.
10. For the reasons stated above, petition is dismissed.