JUDGMENT Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 14.2.2006 passed by respondent No. 1 besides the prayer for commanding the respondents not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner-Committee of Management.
3. From a perusal of the record, it appears that there is a dispute regarding validity of the Committee of Management of Rastriya Gram Vikas Shiksha Samiti, Shakwaniya, District Kushinagar between the petitioner and respondent No. 2.
4. According to the petitioner, the term of the Committee of Management of the aforesaid Samiti is 5 years as enumerated in the bye-laws of the Samiti. The petitioner alleges that respondent No. 5 who is not even member of the Samiti, got renewed the registration of the Samiti from respondent No. 1 on 24.11.2003 on the basis of forged and fictitious election to get the election of the Samiti held on 3.4.1997 as well as on 5.4.2002. The petitioner made an application to cancel the renewal of registration of the Samiti and the amendment made in the bye-laws of the Samiti and also filed an affidavit to the effect that no election had ever been held either on 3.4.1997 or 5.4.2002 and that the signatures on the minutes of the proceedings are forged.
5. On the application of the petitioner respondent No. 1 issued notices to respondent No. 2. The petitioner filed written submission/objection before respondent No. 1. However, respondent No. 1 has rejected the objection complaint of the petitioner vide order dated 14,2.2006 and all the documents and papers relating to the institution have been sought to be made available vide new item published in a newspaper dated 26.8.2004, hence this writ petition.
6. Admittedly in this case neither reference has been made by the Deputy Registrar to the Prescribed Authority nor 1/4th members have passed any resolution for referring the mailer to the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. The matter is highly disputed and finding of fact based on oral and documentary evidence is required to arrive at the appropriate decision. This is not a case where pure question of law is involved or where facts are admitted to the parties.
7. Since there are disputed questions of facts in this writ petition which cannot be decided without appraisal of oral and documentary evidence of the parties and as such the only remedy available to the petitioner is to get the matter adjudicated before the civil court by adducing oral and documentary evidence which is not feasible under Article 226 of the Constitution.
8. The law is well entrenched that alternative remedy cannot be bye-passed and it has to be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in cases where Labour Court or Tribunal having exclusive jurisdiction is highly contested. The matter requires adjudication by recording findings of facts on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, which can be adduced only before the Civil Court. The alternate and efficacious remedy available to the parties in such matters is absolute bar in case where question of facts are to be decided by adjudication. The petitioners have thus an alternative and efficacious remedy before the civil court.
9. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of its extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution.
10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to cost.