Committee Of Management, ... vs Deputy Director Of Education, Vth ...

JUDGMENT Ashok Bhushan, J.

1. All these appeals have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. First four appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 22.10.1997 passed by a learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 88 of 1994 and writ petition No. 28384 of 1993. Last two appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 25.7.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 11857 of 1998 and writ petition No. 34814 of 1999. They can be conveniently referred to as' first set of appeals' and ' second set of appeals'.

2. We have heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekher, learned Counsel for the appellants in first set of appeals and for respondents in second set of appeals. Sri Sada Nand Shukla and Sri B.D. Mandhyan have appeared for the respondents in first set of appeals and Sri Sada Nant Shukla has appeared for the appellants in second set of appeals.

3. Brief facts of the case giving rise to both sets of appeals are:

Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter College, Ramgarh Barwan, District Jaunpur hereinafter referred as the college, is a recognised institution under the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921 hereinafter referred to as Act. An scheme of administration had been framed for the college under the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921 which has been duly approved and subsequently amended by the Deputy Director of Education. The Committee of Management of the college is constituted in accordance with the approved and amended Scheme of Administration of the college. The dispute in these appeals relate to constitution of Committee of Management of the college. One Arjun Mishra was elected as Manager of the college in the year 1977 and continued to be elected in periodical elections till the election dated 1.4.1990 when dispute arose. Arjun Mishra claimed that he was elected as Manager of Committee of Management on 1.4.1990 and other rival election of the same date was set up by Virendra Kumar Pandey who claimed himself to be elected as Manager of the college in the election. It was claimed that the number of members of the General Body in the year 1990 election was 321. The District Inspector of Schools finding a dispute referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Education under Section 16-A(7) of the Act for decision. The Deputy Director of Education vide his order dated 20.12.1991 refused to recognise either of the claimants and appointed a Prabandh Sanchalak (Authorised Controller) under the Scheme of Administration to conduct the fresh election by valid members of the society according to the Scheme of Administration. The Deputy Director of Education further observed that the membership of the General Body is not verified. Both the claimants i.e. Arjun Mishra and Virendra Kumar Pandey filed writ petitions challenging the order dated 20.12.1991, the writ petitions filed by both the claimants were dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide its judgment dated 2.2.1993. The order of the Deputy Director of Education appointing Prabandh Sanchalak was affirmed. this Court directed the Deputy Director of Education to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak to manage the affairs of the Institution and to hold fresh election of the Committee of Management. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 2.2.1993 the Deputy Director of Education appointed the District Basic Education officer as Prabandh Sanchalak to conduct the election. Prabandh Sanchalak assumed the office on 5.3.1993. Prabandh Sanchalak claimed to have received a list of 87 members of the general body from Virendra Kumar Pandey, one of the claimants' in election dated 1.4.1990, accepting the said list as valid list. Prabandh Sanchalak proceeded to hold fresh election by publishing an election programme on 15.6.1993. An unopposed election was declared on 21.6.1993 declaring Jai Narain Tripathi as Manager and Rameshwar Prasad Sharma as President. The proceedings were forwarded by the Prabandh Sanchalak to District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 22.6.1993 which was approved by the Inspector on 22.6.1993 recognising Jai Narain Tripathi as Manager of the institution. Signatures of Jai Narain Tripathi were also attested on 23.6.1993 and Prabandh Sanchalak was withdrawn by the Joint Director of Education on the same date i.e. 23.6.1993 which was given effect to by the Inspector on the same day. Two writ petitions were filed challenging the election proceedings dated 21.6.1993 and the recognition of the said election one by Arjun Mishra being writ petition No. 28384 of 1993 and another writ petition No. 88 of 1994 by Virendra Kumar Pandey. In both the writ petitions learned Single Judge issued notice and summoned original election proceedings from the Prabandh Sanchalak which were produced before the Court on 24.11.1994. On 24.11.1994 learned Single Judge after perusing the original records produced by the Prabandh Sanchalak recorded his observations in the order sheet dated 24.11.1994. Both the writ petitions were thereafter heard and allowed vide judgment and order dated 22.10.1997. Learned Single Judge quashed the election proceedings dated 21.6.1993 and the order recognising the election and issued a writ of mandamus to the District Inspector of Schools directing him to pass an order of single operation of account and to the Deputy Director of Education to appoint an officer of proven honesty of the rank of District Inspector of Schools as Authorised Controller to hold election within four months. Against the judgment dated 22.10.1997 first two appeals being Appeal No. 963 of 1997 and 964 of 1997 have been filed by the Committee of Management through Jai Narain Tripathi as Manager of Committee of Management challenging the said judgment and the other two appeals No. 956 of 1997 and 538 of 1997 have been filed by D.S.M. Tripathi Advocate praying for expunction of observations made against him in the judgment dated 22.10.1997.

4. It is claimed that during the period when the judgment was reserved in the above two writ petitions (Writ Petition No. 28384 of 1993 and writ petition No. 88 of 1994) and an unopposed election was held on 4.6.1996 by the committee of management headed by Jai Narain Triapthi in which he was again elected as Manager of the Committee of Management which was also approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education vide his letter dated 26.6.1996. By the same order another election dated 7.6.1996 in which Bhanu Prasad Tiwari was shown as elected President and Kedar Nath Yadav as Manager was not approved. After the judgment of this Court dated 22.10.1997 it was submitted to the Deputy Director of Education for compliance. The Deputy Director of Education by order dated 4.11.1997 took the view that election dated 4.6.1996 having not been held from the list of 87 members but having been held on the basis of list of 204 members, there is no occasion to de-recognise the election approved on 6.7.1996. It was also held that there is no necessity of appointing Prabandh Sanchalak. The District Inspector of Schools on 11.11.1997 passed an order directing for single operation of the account as per judgment dated 22.10.1997. The Deputy Director of Education by her subsequent order dated 29.11.1997 made the earlier order dated 4.11.997 ineffective and appointed District Inspector of Schools as Prabandh Sanchalak to hold election of the Committee of Management. Against the order dated 29.11.1997 a representation was submitted by Jai Narain Tripathi on 18.12.1997 which was allowed by the Deputy Director of Education on 23.12.1997 by which order dated 29.11.1997 was recalled and the Committee of Management elected on 4.6.1996 was recognised to continue. The Prabandh Sanchalak appointed by the Deputy Director of Education was removed. The Deputy Director of Education, however, in his order dated 23.12.1997 stated that his order (dated 23.12.1997) shall be continued till the decision of Special Appeals No. 963 of 1997 and 1964 of 1997 or any order passed therein The writ petition No. 11857 of 1998 was filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey challenging the order dated 23.12.1997 and also praying for a writ of mandamus commanding the Deputy Director of Education to comply the judgment of this Court dated 22.10.1997, Jai Narain Tripathi, the Manager of the Committee of Management elected on 21.6.1993, and 4.6.1996 again claimed to have held an unopposed election on 18.4.1999 in which D.S.M. Tripathi (the son of Jai Narain Tripathi) was elected as Manager which election was also approved by the District Inspector of Schools on 5.5.1999. the writ petition No. 34814 of 1999 was filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey claiming himself to be the Manager praying for quashing the orders of the District Inspector of Schools dated 14.7.1998; 5.5.1999; 11.5.1999 and 29th June, 1999; a writ of prohibition was also asked for commanding the respondents No. 1 to 3 not to continue to recognise Jai Narain Tripathi and D.S.M. Tripathi as Manager of the Committee of Management. Writ of mandamus was also sought commanding the respondents No. 1 to 3 to constitute the Committee of Management of Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter College, Ramgarh Barwan, District Jaunpur as per direction contained in the judgment dated 22.10.1997. By the judgment dated 25.7.2000 the writ petition No. 11857 of 1998 and the writ petition No. 34814 of 1999 have been dismissed against which orders last two appeals have been filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey.

5. Before proceeding to consider various submissions raised by counsel for the parties it is necessary to note the grounds of challenge made in two writ petitions of Virendra Kumar Pandey and Arjun Mishra and the reasons given by the learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 22.10.1997 for allowing the writ petitions filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey and Arjun Mishra, As noted above rival elections were set up by Arjun Mishra and Virendra Kumar Pandey on 1.4.1990 which elections were disapproved by the Deputy Director of Education on 20.12.1991, against which order the writ petitions filed by both the parties were dismissed by this Court on 2.2.1993. this Court affirmed the order of the Deputy Director of Education appointing Prabandh Sanchalak to hold fresh election. The Deputy Director of Education vide his order dated 20.12.1991 directed for appointment of Authorised Controller and further directed him to hold election from valid members of the society, Before the Deputy Director of Education a list of general body of 321 members was claimed which was held by the Deputy Director of Education as not verified before by appropriate materials, Thus according to the order of the Deputy Director of Education the Prabandh Sanchalak was required to hold election from the valid members of the general body which direction presupposed determination as to who are the valid members of the Society. The Prabandh Sanchalak appointed in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 2.2.1993 assumed office and claims to have received a list of 87 members of the general body from one of the contestants i.e. Virendra Kumar Pandey and treating the list to be valid list published the election programme on 15.6.1993 directing filing of nomination on 21.6.1993, scrutiny of nomination on the same day and withdrawal on the same day and election, if any, on 23.6.1993. It is the case of the Prabandh Sanchalak that only one set of the nomination was filed and there being unopposed election. In the election Jai Narain Tripathi was declared elected on 21.6.1993. The learned Single Judge had issued notice to the Prabandh Sanchalak who was called to appear before the Court along with the original records. Learned Single Judge perused the original records of the election and made following observations which is recorded in the order sheet:

... It is also borne out from a perusal of the file that the Authorised Controller did not publish any notice before finalizing the list of electors. According to the order passed by him for finalizing the electoral list, he has relied upon a list received from Sri Virendra Kumar Pandey, the former Manager. An application said to have been given by Sri Virendra Kumar Pandey to the Authorised Controller has also been perused. The mode and manner in which signature of Sri Virendra Kumar Pandey appears on this application raise suspicion. At page 3 above some typed material had been scored out. The scored material had been typed after the name the name of Virendra Kumar Pandey, Prabandhak. Perhaps it was some address of Allahabad.

6. Both the writ petitioners i.e. Arjun Mishra and Vrendra Kumar Pandey have pleaded in the writ petition that no notice was given by the Prabandh before Sanchalak of any election proceeding and they were not aware of any election proceeding conducted by the Prabandh Sanchalak, Virendra Kumar Pandey categorically stated in the writ petition that he never gave the list of 87 persons as claimed by the Prabandh Sanchalak to be given by Virendra Kumar Pandey. The case of Virendra Kumar Pandey further is that Sri D.S.M. Tripathi Advocate has been his counsel in his earlier three writ petitions. Virendra Kumar Pandey further stated that Sri D.S.M. Tripathi Advocate for the purpose of filing Special Appeal against judgment dated 2.2.1993 obtained his signatures on one hundred blank papers which papers were utilized by Sri Tripathi for preparing alleged list of 87 members of the general body on the basis of which he got the election claimed on 21.6.1993 declaring his father Jai Narain Tripathi as Manager. Sri Arjun Mishra has also stated that he was rival claimant and was not issued any notice by the Prabandh Sanchalak. Sri Arjun Mishra claimed that there were 321 members of the general body and list of 87 members is a fictitious list. It was claimed that in 87 members list there are only twenty old members and rest of the members are all relations and associates of Jai Narain Tripathi and D.S.M. Tripathi. Learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 22.10.1997 recorded following finding:

(1) The first step in election process is the finalization of voters list. The file of the Authorised Controller of election established that no notice was given to Arjun Mishra. The list of 87 members bearing the signatures of Virendra Kumar Pandey is a suspicious document.

(2) The Authorised Controller did not take any steps to check the correctness of the list. He did not check as to when the 87 members were enrolled. He did not make any effort to see whether they had paid upto date membership fee and constituted valid electoral list. Until this exercise was completed by the Authorised Controller he should not have passed order of finalization of the list. But like a willing and keen tool in the hands of forces who were interested in the election being held from this list, he accepted it as final and passed order. This act and action of Authorised Controller puts his bonafides in the dock of suspicion, his action in finalizing the list cannot be termed honest and above reproach.

(3) The judicial intent of this Court in judgment dated 2.2.1993 has not been followed by the Authorised Controller.

7. Thus learned Single Judge found that the intent of this Court's order dated 2.2.1993 was not followed by the Prabandh Sanchalak in conducting the election dated 21.6.1993. It was found by the learned Single Judge that no steps were taken for finalizing the voter list which is the basic step for holding the election. The list of 87 persons is alleged to be given by Virendra Kumar Pandey one of the contenders whereas Virendra Kumar Pandey has denied giving of any such list and to the contrary his claim in his writ petition is that there are 250 members of the general body. No notice was given by the Prabandh Sanchalak for finalizing the voter list nor any step has been taken for finalizing the voter list. On the aforesaid finding the learned Single Judge has quashed the election proceedings dated 21.6.1993 and the recognition of the Committee of Management of Jai Narain Tripathi who claimed to have been elected on 21.6.1993. Learned Single Judge has also in the judgment made observation against the conduct of Sri D.S.M. Tripathi Advocate who has appeared for Virendra Kumar Pandey in earlier three writ petitions as his counsel.

8. Sri M.D. Singh Shekher, learned Counsel for Jai Narain Tripathi and D.S.M. Tripathi has made various submissions challenging the order dated 22.10.1997 of the learned Single Judge. By the impugned judgment dated 22.10.1997 infructuous writ petitions have been decided. It is submitted that during the period when the judgment was reserved fresh elections were held on 4.6.1996 which elections were not challenged. Fresh elections having been held by the Committee of Management elected on 21.6.1993, the writ petitions had become infructuous and no order could have been passed. There was unreasonable delay in delivering the judgment, though arguments were concluded on 2nd April, 1996, the judgment could be delivered on 22nd October, 1997. The impugned judgment dated 22nd October, 1997 is based on conjectures, surmises, suspicion and on irrelevant consideration ignoring the points raised by the appellants. Even if the judgment dated 22.10.1997 is accepted for the sake of argument even then the subsequent election of the year 1996 conducted by the Committee of Management will not be said to be illegal because the actions of the Committee of Management functioning in the year 1993 which was duly recognised shall be saved by de facto doctrine. Both the writ petitions raised highly disputed questions of facts which could not have been decided m proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The findings and observations made in both the writ petitions were based on surmises and conjectures which are based on irrelevant materials hence are liable to be set aside in this appeal. Many false facts have been alleged- in the writ petitions. The observations made against Sri D.S.M. Tripathi Advocate in the judgment dated 22nd October, 1997 are without any basis and proof rather based on surmises and conjectures. The petitioners failed to prove how the result of the election dated 21.6.1993 was materially affected due to holding of election from 87 members list. In both the writ petitions although main prayer was to quash the election proceedings dated 21.6.1993 and the recognition order but the copy of proceedings and the recognition order were not filed with the writ petitions. The question of validity of election involves many disputed questions of facts which require evidence oral and documentary which could not have been done in writ proceedings but by filing a civil suit. learned Counsel for the appellants relied on various judgments of this Court and the apex Court which shall be referred to while considering the submissions.

9. Sri Sadanand Shukla, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents - writ petitioners refuting the submissions of counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge rightly quashed the election dated 21.6.1993 and the recognition of the election. Sri Shukla submitted that this Court vide its order dated 2.2.1993 directed the Authorised Controller to hold election. The Deputy Director of Education vide order dated 20th December, 1991 had directed for holding an election from the valid list which required determination of voter list but the Authorised Controller did not take any step for determination of the voter list and on the basis of forged and fabricated list of 87 members allegedly submitted by Virendra Kumar Pandey, conducted the election. He contended that Virendra Kumar Pandey never gave the list of 87 persons. The fact of the matter is that the said list of 87 members was fabricated utilizing the blank signed papers of Virendra Kumar Pandey which was given to Sri D.S.M. Tripathi Advocate for filing the Special Appeal against the judgment dated 2.2.1993. The case of Virendra Kumar Pandey is that there are 250 members of the general body who were entitled to participate in the election. In 1990 election there were 321 members which was claimed by Arjun Mishra. Prabandh Sanchalak has manipulated the election dated 21.6.1993 in collusion with Jai Narain Tripathi and D.S.M. Tripathi. The fact that the election was declared unopposed on 21.6.1993 which was approved on 22.6.1993 by the District Inspector of Schools and on the same day the Deputy Director of Education also withdrew the Prabandh Sanchalak also proves that the Educational authorities were unduly favouring Jai Narain Tripathi and D.S.M. Tripathi and every thing was manipulated ex parte. The election dated 21.6.1993 having been declared to be non est, the Committee headed by Jai Narain Tripathi had no jurisdiction to conduct any election and the fresh election, if any, held on 4.6.1996 is void and non est. Under the orders of this Court dated 2.2.1993 the election was to be held by the Prabandh Sanchalak and the elections dated 21.6.1993 having declared to be illegal, it is Prabandh Sanchalak who alone is entitled to hold election and the Committee of Management whose election had been declared void could not have held election dated 4.6.1996. After the order of this Court dated 22.10.1997 the educational authorities were duty bound to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak for holding fresh election but they did not comply the judgment and illegally continued the Committee of Management which is alleged to be elected on 4.6.1996. The order of the Joint Director of Education dated 23.12.1997 reiterating the view that the Prabandh Sanchalak need not be appointed in view of the order dated 22.10.1997, is illegal. The fresh election alleged to be held on 10th April, 1999 by the same illegal committee of Jai Narain Tripathi is also non est which was wrongly recognised by the educational authorities which was also challenged by Virendra Kumar Pandey before this Court. The learned Single Judge in its judgment dated 25.7.2000 has misinterpreted the order of this Court dated 22.10.1997 and has erred in dismissing the two writ petitions filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey. No election proceedings of 1996, 1999 and again allegedly held in 2003 have been brought on record or have been shown light of the day.

10. learned Counsel for both the parties have relied on various decisions which shall be referred to while considering the submissions.

11. The first submission raised by the counsel for the appellants in first set of appeal is that by the impugned judgment dated 22.10.1997 infructuous writ petitions have been decided. The submission is that after reserving the judgment and before delivering the judgment on 22.10.1997 fresh elections were held on 4th June, 1996 hence the writ petitions had become infructuous. It is contended that the election held on 4.6.1996 was not challenged by any one. Reliance has been placed by Sri M.D. Singh Shekher on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court 1982 UPLBEC 43 Committee of Management of Sri Ram Pura Madhyamic Vidyaiava, Taliva Kalan, District Deoria and Anr. v. The Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur and Ors.; (1999) 4 Supreme Court cases 727 Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors.; 1999 (4) A.W.C. 3279 Qamar Rashid Khan v. Committee of Management, Azamgarh Muslim Education Society, Azamgarh and Ors.; 1996 (2) E.S.C. 588 (Alld.) Committee of Management Shri Ratan Muni Jain Inter College, Agra and Anr. v. Director of Eduction (Secondary) U.P. Directorate of Education, Allahabad and Ors.; 1992 A.W.C. (2) 1225 Committee of Management, Audyogik Vikas Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti, Bihara Bazar, Maharajganj, District Basti and Anr. v. Prescribed Authority, Basti (Under U.P. Societies Registration Act No. XI of 1984) Sub Divisional Magistrate, Harriya, Basti and Ors. and the judgment in Special Appeal No. 152 of 1996 (Vijay Narain Shukla and Ors. v. Shri Radhey Lal and Ors.) decided on 22nd March, 2001.

12. In writ petitions filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey and Arjun Mishra prayer was made to set aside the election dated 21.6.1993 and the recognition order. It was also prayed in the writ petition that direction be issued to the Deputy Director of Education to appoint Authorised Controller and the Authorised Controller be directed to hold fresh election.

13. The Deputy Director of Education vide his order dated 21.12.1991 declared the election dated 1.4.1990 of both the claimants i.e. Arjun Mishra and Virendra Kumar Pandey as not recognizable and directed that the Prabandh Sanchalak be appointed for conducting fresh election from the valid list of members. The list of members which was claimed to be 321 was held not verified before him. Learned Single Judge in its judgment dated 22nd October, 1997 has recorded categorical finding as noted above that the Prabandh Sanchalak did not take any step for finalizing the voters list before proceeding to hold election. Prabandh Sanchalak did not give notice to Arjun Mishra who was one of the claimants before the Deputy Director of Education. Learned Single Judge held that there is no material on the record of the Prabandh Sanchalak pertaining to election in question of giving any notice before finalizing the voters list. Learned Single Judge has rightly held that the finalization of voters list is a basic step for holding any election. Finalization of the voters list for the purpose of present case was necessary in view of the specific finding of the Deputy Director of Education that the list of 321 members, as claimed before him, is not verified. The Deputy Director of Education directed the Prabandh Sanchalak to hold election from valid members of the general body. It is implicit in the order of the Deputy Director of Education that the Prabandh Sanchalak had to undertake the proceedings of finalization of the voters list before proceeding to hold election. Prabandh Sanchalak is appointed as an independent public authority to conduct the election so that the dispute between the warring factions may come to end and all concern may have faith in conduct of election by independent person. Learned Single Judge did not commit any error in setting aside the election dated 21.6.1993 which was held by the Prabandh Sanchalak without finalizing the voters list and without giving any notice to the rival factions. Much emphasis has been laid down by Sri M.D. Singh Shekher Advocate that the learned Single Judge could not have proceeded to act as hand writing expert in holding that the list of 87 members is suspicious list prepared on signed blank papers of Virendra Kumar Pandey. The case of Prabandh Sanchalak as well as Jai Narain Tripathi in the writ court was that the election was held on the basis of list of 87 members which was supplied by Virendra Kumar Pandey former Manager. It is relevant to note that Virendra Kumar Pandey was not recognised as Manager and the attestation of his signatures in pursuance of interim order of this Court passed in writ petition filed by him of the year 1992 on the basis of 1.4.1990 election, came to an end when the writ petitions were dismissed on 2.2.1993. Without entering into the factual controversy as to whether actually Virendra Kumar Pandey gave list of 87 members to the Prabandh Sanchalak, it is sufficient for the present case to proceed on the basis that even if such list was given by Virendra Kumar Pandey that could not have formed the basis of election. Virendra Kumar Pandey was one of the claimants before the Deputy Director of Education on the basis of election dated 1.4.1990 which election was ultimately not recognised by the Deputy Director of Education and the writ petition against the said order was also dismissed. Arjun Mishra who was also a claimant before the Deputy Director of Education was not given any notice by the Prabandh Sanchalak which fact was clear from the original record of the election proceedings produced by the Prabandh Sanchalak before the learned Single Judge on 24.11.1994. The election dated 21.6.1993 having not been held after finalization of voters list, learned Single Judge did not commit any error in setting aside the election and directing for appointing the Prabandh Sanchalak for holding fresh election. The order of this Court dated 2.2.1993 directed for holding the election by the Prabandh Sanchalak, the election dated 21.6.1993 claimed to have been held by the Prabandh Sanchalak, having been set aside, the fresh elections are required to be held by the Prabandh Sanchalak. The election dated 4.6.1996 of the Committee of Management claimed to be held by the Committee of Management elected on 21.6.1993, cannot be said to have been held by the authority competent to conduct the election.

14. The submission made is that since the election was held on 4.6.1996 the writ petition had become infructuous and the learned Single Judge committed error in allowing the writ petition. The judgment dated 22.10.1997 passed by the learned Single Judge after recording finding that the order of this Court dated 2.2.1993 directing Prabandh Sanchalak to hold election, has not been complied with, the fresh election was required to be held by the Prabandh Sanchalak, and the elections conducted by the Committee of Management which has been declared void, cannot come in the way of the learned Single Judge in directing flesh election by the Prabandh Sanchalak. The writ petition cannot be said to have become infructuous merely because before delivery of judgment the same office bearers elected on 21.6.1993 had set up election by themselves. The election dated 18.6.1996 has not been held by the Prabandh Sanchalak who alone was competent to conduct the election in view of the judgment of this Court dated 2.2.1993. The submission of the counsel for the appellants that the writ petition has become infructuous, thus cannot be accepted. There is one more reason for not accepting the submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants. The Committee of Management which came into existence on 21.6.1993 has been held to be invalidly constituted and the said election has been quashed by this Court. If the subsequent election held by the Committee of Management is allowed to continue that will be perpetuating the illegality and this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 has every jurisdiction to direct for fresh election by the Prabandh Sanchalak who was competent to hold election by earlier order of this Court dated 2.2.1993.

15. The Division Bench judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the appellants in Committee of Management of Sri Ram Pura Madhyamic Vidyalaya, Taliya Kalan, District Deoria and Anr. v. The Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur and Ors.; (supra) was a case where the Authorised Controller appointed by the Deputy Director of Education has held election during the pendency of the writ petition whereas in the writ petition the provision of Clause 21 of the Scheme of Administration which contemplated the appointment by the Deputy Director of Education, was challenged. The interim orders passed in the writ petitions were vacated and thereafter fresh elections were held. this Court in paragraph 5 of the judgment also noticed that the petitioner Suresh Singh who had filed the writ petition had also been subsequently disqualified on the ground that he was teacher employed in another institution which order had become final. this Court held that the petitioner thus cannot be continued as Manager due to disqualification incurred. The Division Bench held in the said case that no relief was claimed by moving an application for amendment in the writ petition for challenging the fresh election held by the Authorised Controller. The newly elected Manager was also not party to the writ petition. The present case is distinguishable from the above case due to several reasons. Firstly, in the present case under orders of the High Court dated 2.2.1993 which had become final the fresh elections were required to be held by Prabandh Sanchalak. The learned Single Judge has held that in the election dated 21.6.1993 the High Court order dated 2.2.1993 is not complied with, hence the holding of fresh election on 4.6.1996 by the same committee cannot be said to be fulfilling the order of the High Court dated 2.2.1993. Thus even though fresh election was claimed by Committee of Management on 4.6.1996 this Court have every jurisdiction in ordering for fresh election to be conducted by Prabandh Sanchalak. Secondly, in the present case the same Manager Jai Narain Tripathi was elected in 1996 election who was elected on 21.6.1993 and was before the Court whereas in the above Division Bench case new office bearers were not before the Court. The judgment of the apex Court in Punjab Communications Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors. (supra) was a case where the apex Court held that subsequent events before the apex Court would show that the issues which were live when the writ petition was pending in the High Court have lost all their relevance. In above view of the matter the Court observed that it was not necessary to go into the issues raised in the writ petition. In the present case issues which were raised before the learned Single Judge are still alive. The case before the apex Court was that ADB loan on which tender was passed stood withdrawn. The tender was given for installing 38 thousands telephones for Eastern U.P. was withdrawn and invitations for new tenders spread over several rural areas in various States have now been made. New tenders were also submitted. It was stated before the apex Court that the appellant had also participated in the new tenders. In view of the aforesaid facts the apex Court did not go into the issues which were raised in the writ petition. The said judgment is clearly distinguishable. In the case of Committee of Management Shri Ratan Muni Jain Inter College, Agra and Anr. v. Director of Eduction (Secondary) U.P. Directorate of Education, Allahabad and Ors. (supra) the effect of the temporary injunction granted by the Civil Judge in suit filed in the civil court on the basis of an election was being considered. The Court took the view that the injunction order issued by the trial court was passed on particular cause of action and the said injunction in no manner operate in respect of subsequent cause of action. The said judgment has no application in the facts of the present case. Another judgment relied by the counsel for the appellants is Committee of Management, Audyogik Vikas Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Samiti, Bihara Bazar, Maharajganj, District Basti and Anr. v. Prescribed Authority, Basti (Under U.P. Societies Registration Act No. XI of 1984) Sub Divisional Magistrate, Harriya, Basti and Ors.: (supra). In the aforesaid case the learned Single Judge set aside the order of the Prescribed Authority deciding the dispute pertaining to election of Society on the ground that the term of Committee of Management had expired. The learned Single Judge also noticed that an order was passed by the Deputy Director of Education to get the fresh election of the Committee of Management held of the College. The Division Bench noticed that it was admitted case of the parties that the Society in question runs only the College and that both the Committees of Management constituted under the Societies Registration Act and under the Scheme of Administration were the same. The Division Bench held that with the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management of the College the Committee of Management constituted for the Society also outlived its purpose. The Division Bench, however, had accepted the contention that two Committees were different with different tenure but held that said question is only academic in that case. The present case even if the term of Committee dated 21.6.1993 came to an end but the relief in the writ petition for getting the election held by Prabandh Sanchalak had not become infructuous. This case also does not help the appellant.

16. Reliance has also been placed on the Division Bench judgment in the case of Qanar Rashid Khan v. Committee of Management, Azamgarh Muslim Education Society, Azamgarh and Ors. reported in 1999 (4) A.W.C. 3279 in which two writ petitions which were decided by the learned Single Judge were held to have become infructuous by efflux of time during pendency of the writ petitions. An election schedule was notified by the District Inspector of Schools on 29.10.1997 fixing 23.11.1997 as a date for poll, A suit No. 227 of 1997 was filed in which Civil Judge rejected the application for temporary injunction on 15.11.1997 but on the same day the District Inspector of Schools has cancelled the election schedule. The writ petition No. 39006 of 1997 was filed by Qamar Rashid Khan challenging the order dated 15.11.1997 passed by the District Inspector of Schools in which an interim order was granted on 21.11.1997 staying the operation of of the order dated 15.11.1997. As consequence of the interim order the District Inspector of Schools issued fresh election schedule on 29.11.1997. In view of the subsequent election schedule published on 29.11.1997 the writ petition No. 39006 of 1997 was held to be infructuous. In above facts the Court held the writ petition No. 39006 of 1997 had become infructuous, when the election schedule which was earlier published on 29.10.1997 could not culminate into election and before the date of poll the schedule was cancelled and followed by another election schedule. The writ petition challenging the order dated 15.11.1997 has actually become infructuous and there cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case. The facts of the above case are based on entire different set of circumstances and the proposition laid down in the said case has no application in the present case.

17. The next submission raised by the counsel for the appellants is that the judgment of the learned Single Judge deserves to beset aside only on the ground that there was long delay in delivering the judgment after close of hearing. Reliance has been placed on R.C. Sharma v. Union of India and Ors. and another judgment relied on is 200 (3) A.W.C. 2098 (SC) Kanhaiyalal and Ors. v. Anup Kumar and Ors.. In R.C. Sharma v. Union of India and Ors., (supra) the apex Court had laid down that unreasonable delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of a judgment unless explained by exceptional or extraordinary circumstances is highly unreasonable even when written arguments were submitted. In the present case the learned Single Judge has elaborately dealt with all the pleadings of the parties and the submissions. We are satisfied that any submission worth substance was not noticed by the learned Single Judge in his judgment. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down by the apex Court that there should not be any unreasonable delay in delivery of judgment after hearing but in the facts of the present case we are satisfied that the judgment of the learned Single Judge does not deserve to be set aside on this ground. The appellants before us have raised elaborate submissions on all aspects of the matter running to hearing given for more than a week. Learned Single Judge also recorded his observations which are part of the order sheet when the original record of the elections were summoned and perused by the Court on earlier occasion during the course of hearing. In the second judgment relied by the appellants namely Kanhaiyalal and Ors. v. Anup Kumar and Ors. (supra) the apex Court considered the submissions on merits and was satisfied that the judgment was unsustainable on merits. In the facts of the present case as noticed above we are satisfied that the appellants are not entitled for any benefit on the ground of delay in delivery of judgment,

18. The learned Counsel for the appellants next submitted that the judgment dated 22.10.1997 is based on conjectures and surmises and on irrelevant considerations. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the appellants on the judgment of the apex Court in Dhirajlal Girdharilal v. Commissisoner of Income Tax, Bombay . The apex Court in the said judgment held that it is well established that when a court of fact acts on material, partly relevant and partly irrelevant, it is impossible to say to what extent the mind of the court was affected by the irrelevant material used by it in arriving at its finding. In the present case we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has not based his finding on any irrelevant material or conjectures or surmises. The issues before the learned Single Judge was conduct of election by the Prabandh Sanchalak on 21.6.1993. The learned Single Judge has issued notice to the Prabandh Sanchalak and has summoned him along with the original record of the election dated 21.6.1993. The Prabandh Sanchalak appeared before the Court along with the original records which were perused by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge on the basis of the original records recorded its observations in the order sheet of the case on 24.11.1994 which observations were relied by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition. The submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the observations of the learned Single Judge that the list of 87 members on the basis of which Prabandh Sanchalak held election appears to be suspicious, is based on surmises and conjectures. For coming to the conclusion that the list of eighty seven members on the basis of which the election has been held by the Prabandh Sanchalak is not genuine list, the learned Single Judge has relied on various relevant facts including eighty seven members' list itself which was perused by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge on perusal of the list observed that the list has been prepared on blank papers which bore prior signatures of Virendra Kumar Pandey. This conclusion was drawn by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the mode and manner in which the signatures of Virendra Kumar Pandey appeared on the list. Learned Single Judge observed at page 3 that some typed material has been scored out, The scored material has been typed after the name of Virendra Kumar Pandey Prabandhak. Thus the findings cannot be said to be based on irrelevant consideration, surmises and conjectures.

19. The next submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants is that even if the judgment of this Court dated 22.10.1997 is accepted to be correct with regard to election dated 21.6.1993 the election held on 4.6.1996 is saved under de facto doctrine. It is contended that the Committee of Management which held the election on 4.6.1996 was recognised Committee of Management and all its actions are saved by colour of office although its election dated 21.6.1993 was subsequently quashed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the apex Court A.I.R. 1981 Supreme Court 1473 Gokaralu Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh; Beopar Sahayak (P) Ltd. and Ors. v. Vishwa Nath and Ors.; (1998) 1 UPLBEC 576 Committee of Management, Dayanand Arya Kanya Degree College, Moradabad and Ors. v. Director of Higher Education, Allahabad and Ors. and 2005 (2) ESC 1522 Committee of Management, Sri Kashiraj Mahavidyalaya Inter Collector, Aurai and Anr. v. Joint Director of Education, Mirzapur and Ors..

20. There cannot be any dispute with the proposition as laid down by the apex Court in Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra). The de facto doctrine - is based on public policy to save third persons in the event of declaration of appointment or election as invalid. Thus when the Committee of Management functions under colour of office its actions cannot be challenged in collateral proceedings on the ground that its election is subsequently set aside. For example the Committee of Management under its functioning may have made appointment, taken disciplinary actions, passed salary bills, granted promotions, taken various decisions regarding institution. The said decision will still hold and shall not be affected and shall be saved by de facto doctrine. However, this de facto doctrine cannot be applied when the election of Committee of Management is directly challenged and the person in the office contest the matter. The election dated 21.6.1993 of the Committee of Management which claimed to have held subsequent election dated 4.6.1996 was directly under challenge in both the writ petitions and the Committee of Management elected on 21.6.1993 was party to the writ petition and has contested the challenge. The first reason for not accepting this submission is that in view of the judgment of this Court dated 2.2.1993 after quashing the election dated 21.6.1993 fresh election was required to be conducted by the Prabandh Sanchalak and not by the Committee of Management whose election was set aside. The election dated 4.6.1996 was conducted by the Committee of Management elected on 21.6.1993 and not by Prabandh Sanchalak. Thus the benefit of this argument cannot be taken by the petitioners. Secondly the apex Court in the same judgment of Gokaraju Rangaraju v. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra) has laid down another rule providing that defective appointment may be questioned directly in a proceeding to which he may be a party and in the said proceedings de facto doctrine cannot be pressed into service. Following observation was made in paragraph 15:

There is another rule also based on public policy. The defective appointment of a de factor Judge may be questioned directly in a proceeding to which he may be a party but it cannot be permitted to be questioned in a litigation between two private litigants, a litigation which is of no concern or consequence to the Judge except as a Judge. Two litigants litigating their private titles cannot be permitted to bring in issue and litigate upon the title of a Judge to his office. Otherwise so soon as a Judge pronounces a judgment a litigation may be commenced for a declaration that the judgment is void because the Judge is no Judge. A Judge's title to his office cannot be brought into jeopardy in that fashion. Hence the rule against collateral attack on validity of judicial appointments. To question a Judge's appointment in an appeal against his judgment is, of course, such a collateral attack.

21. In paragraph 11 also following was laid down:

No one is under obligation to recognise or respect the acts of an intruder, and for all legal purposes they are absolutely void. But for the sake of order and regularity, and to prevent confusion in the conduct of public business and in security of private rights, the acts of officers de facto are not suffered to be questioned because of the want of legal authority except by some direct proceeding instituted for the purpose by the State or by some one claiming the office de jure, or except when the person himself attempts to build up some right, or claim some privilege or emolument, by reason of being the officer which he claims to be. In all other cases the acts of an officer de facto are as valid and effectual, while he is suffered to retain the office as though he were an officer by right, and the same legal consequences will flow from them for the protection of the public and of third parties. There is an important principle, which finds concise expression in the legal maxim that the acts of officers de facto cannot be questioned collaterally.

22. learned Counsel for the appellant has further placed reliance on Division Bench judgment of this Court reported in (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1558 Mohd. Iqbal v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.. In the aforesaid case two members were nominated by the State Government in the Board exercising power under proviso to Section 9 of the U.P. Municipality Act, 1916 by notification dated 2.8.1991. These two nominated members participated in the proceedings of no-confidence held on 12.8.1991 which was brought against the President of the Municipal Board Mohd. Iqbal. The President filed writ petition challenging the proceedings dated 12.8.1991 and participation of aforesaid two nominated members. Two nominated members who were earlier nominated vide notification dated 19.4.1990 also challenged the notification dated 12.8.1991. The Division Bench relying on an earlier judgment of the Division Bench held that the power of nomination given to the State Government was without providing any definite guide lines, thus the nomination dated 12.8.1991 was of no legal consequence. Thus the notification nominating the two members was held to be illegal. It was contended before the Division Bench that their participation in the proceedings dated 12.8.1991 is saved by de facto doctrine because on the date when they participated in the proceedings the nomination was subsisting. The writ petition was filed even before the proceedings dated 12.8.1991 could take place seeking the interim relief restraining the nominated members to participate in the election. The Court did not grant any interim order staying the participation but only directed that their participation shall be subject to result of the writ petition. The Division Bench in the aforesaid case repelled the argument of saving the said proceedings dated 12.8.1991 on de facto doctrine. Following was observed in paragraphs 7 and 8:

7... If the result of no- confidence motion proceeding is subjected to the decision of a writ petition and if the right to hold office is directly questioned as it has been done in the cases on hand, then de facto doctrine could not protect the illegal participation of respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and voting right exercised by them in the ab-initio void no- confidence motion proceeding.

8... The Supreme Court lint he case of Gokaraju Rangaraju (supra) clearly enunciated that a judgment delivered by a Judge cannot be questioned in a collateral proceeding like appeal or revision but his right to hold office of a Judge can be questioned directly. The right to hold office of a member by respondents No. 4 and 5 under the notification dated 2.8.1991 has not been challenged by the petitioner in the instant cases in a collateral proceeding but directly. Therefore, reliance placed by Sri Ravi Kiran Jain on the case of Gokaraju Rangaraju (supra) is misplaced.

23. In the above case the Division Bench did not accept the submission based on de facto doctrine for saving of actions of illegally nominated members principally on the ground that the nomination of two members was directly under challenge in the writ petition. The Division Bench applied the judgment of the apex Court in Gokaraju Rangaraju (supra). The above case does not help the appellant in any manner rather support the view which we have taken in the present case. No benefit can be taken by the appellant of de facto doctrine.

24. In view of above the appellants are not entitled to any benefit of de facto doctrine in saving the election held on 4.6.1996.

25. learned Counsel for the appellants next submitted that in both the writ petitions highly disputed questions of facts were involved which could not have been gone in proceedings under Article 226 and appropriate remedy was to file a civil suit. Several authorities of the apex Court and this Court have been relied for the above submission. It is not necessary to refer to the various judgment relied by the counsel for the appellants for the above submission since it is well settled that normally this Court does not adjudicate highly disputed questions of fact in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the two writ petitions this Court had not proceeded to adjudicate highly disputed questions of facts. Learned Single Judge did not embark upon the inquiry as to who are the valid members of the society nor it proceeded to adjudicate the validity of the voters list and to decide the same. The only question considered by the Court was as to whether in the election held on 21.6.1993 Prabandh Sanchalak took any step for finalizing the voters list or any opportunity or notice was given before finalizing the voters list. The Court came to the conclusion that no steps were taken by the Prabandh Sanchalak towards finalizing the voters list which was primary step for holding the election. The Court considered this basic fact which was foundation for proceeding to hold any election. It cannot be said that the Court entered into the disputed questions of fact or adjudicated the disputed question. The said submission of counsel for the appellants has also no substance. The election dated 21.6.1993 was quashed on the basis of findings which were arrived at by the learned Single Judge after perusal of the original record of the Prabandh Sanchalak. The findings were based on material on record and pleadings of the parties and cannot be said to be based on presumptions, surmises and conjectures. Further submission of the counsel for the appellants that several false facts have been alleged by the petitioners in the writ petition, also has no substance. The allegation in the writ petition that to the knowledge of the petitioner Prabandh Sanchalak never came to the college to take charge are only assertion of the petitioner in making such assertions by the writ petitioner it cannot be said that the petitioners have stated any false fact. Further the submission of the petitioner that there was no material in support of the pleadings also cannot be accepted. All the proceedings and steps taken by the Prabandh Sanchalak for conducting the election were brought on record, the original records of the election proceedings were summoned by the Court and were looked into. The submission of the petitioners that the petitioners have not proved that the result of the election has been materially affected, also needs consideration. In the present case the elections have been set aside on the ground that the Prabandh Sanchalak did not proceed to finalize the voters list. The voters list have never been finalized and it was never known as to who are the members who are entitled to participate in the election. Without first finalizing the members entitled to vote the argument that the petitioners failed to prove that the elections were materially affected have no legs to stand. Another submission which has been pressed by the petitioners is that in both the writ petitions main prayers were to quash the election proceedings dated 21.6.1993 and the recognition order dated 22/23.6.1993 but the copies of the said proceedings and recognition order were not filed along with the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on Surinder Singh v. Central Government and Ors. and 1999 (4) A.W.C. 3481 Pramod Kumar and Ors. v. Sub-Divisional Officer, Khaga, Fatehpur and Ors.. There cannot be any dispute to the proposition laid down in the aforesaid cases but in the present writ petitions although the proceedings and orders were not filed by the writ petitioners but they have specifically prayed in the writ petition for quashing the said orders. In the writ petition averment was also made that in spite of several requests the respondents have not made available the copies of the orders to the petitioners. However, in the counter affidavit filed by Jai Narain Tripathi himself the copy of letter of the Prabandh Sanchalak forwarding the entire election proceedings to the District Inspector of Schools for approval and the copy of the order of recognition by the District Inspector of Schools dated 22.6.1993 have been brought on record. The proceedings and the orders were on the record of the writ petition although brought along with the counter affidavit. The proceedings being on the record, the learned Single Judge did not commit any error in quashing the said proceedings and orders.

26. The last submission made by the counsel for the appellants is that serious observations have been against D.S.M. Tripathi Advocate in the judgment dated 22.10.1997. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the apex Court in A.M. Mathur v. Prfamod Kumar Gupta The apex Court in the said judgment in paragraph 14 laid down as follows:

14. The Judges Bench is a seat of power. Not only do judges have power to make binding decisions, their decisions legitimate the use of power by other officials. The Judges have the absolute and unchallengeable control of the Court domain. But they cannot misuse their authority by intemperate comments, undignified banter or scathing criticism of counsel parties or witnesses. We concede that the Court has the inherent power to act freely upon its own conviction on any matter coming before it for adjudication, but it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that derogatory remarks ought not to be made against persons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration unless it is absolutely necessary for the decision of the case to animadvert on their conduct. (See (i) R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan ; (ii) Niranjan Patnaik v. Sashibhushan Kar .

27. To the same effect is another judgment of the apex Court K. Subramaniam v. Ponnusami and Anr.. We have carefully gone through the judgment dated 22.10.1997. Although the allegations were made by Virendra Kumar Pandey against D.S.M. Tripathi that the list of eighty seven members alleged to have been submitted by Virendra Kumar Pandey was manufactured on the blank papers signed by Virendra Kumar Pandey which were given to D.S.M. Tripathi for filing Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 2.2.1997 Virendra Kumar Pandey has categorically stated that he never gave the list of eighty seven members to Prabandh Sanchalak as alleged by the Prabandh Sanchalak and D.S.M. Tripathi who had hundred blank signed papers of Virendra Kumar Pandey had utilized the same for preparing the list. As observed above, even if it is accepted that Virendra Kumar Pandey gave the list of eighty seven persons the said list given by one of the contenders will not absolve the Prabandh Sanchalak from finalizing the voters list. Sri M.D. Singh Shekher, learned Counsel for the appellants has also taken us to various proceedings of the Committee of Management including the list of 321 members in which Jai Narain Tripathi and D.S.M. Tripathi are shown as members of the general body. He further submitted that D.S.M. Tripathi was elected as member of the Committee of Management since the year 1990. As observed by the apex Court the adverse observation against a counsel or a party need not to be made unless it is necessary for deciding the case. In the facts of the present case we are satisfied that it was not necessary to make observations regarding the conduct of D.S.M. Tripathi as Advocate for deciding the controversy raised in the writ petition. Without above comments on the conduct of D.S.M. Tripathi same result is achieved with regard to election dated 21.6.1993. We are thus of the view that the observations made against D.S.M. Tripathi as Advocate of this Court were not necessary to be made for deciding the issues raised in the writ petition and the writ petition could have been decided without making such observations. In view of above, we expunge the observations commenting on the conduct of D.S.M. Tripathi as Advocate of this Court from the judgment dated 22.10.1997.

28. In view of aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the judgment dated 22.10.1997. The findings of the learned Single Judge that Prabandh Sanchalak proceeded to declare unopposed election on 21.6.1993 without taking any steps for finalizing the voters list are confirmed. The learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the election and directed for fresh election by Prabandh Sanchalak. Fresh elections had to be conducted by the Prabandh Sanchalak in view of the earlier judgment of this Court dated 2.2.1993. Thus we affirm the judgment dated 22.10.1997 of the learned Single Judge.

29. The second set of appeals have been filed against the judgment dated 25.7.2000 of the learned Single Judge dismissing the two writ petitions filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey as noted above. The judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 25th July, 2000 is based on interpretation of judgment dated 22.10.1997. Sri Sadanand Shukla, learned Counsel for the appellants appearing for the second set of appeals, has contended that the Deputy Director of Education took erroneous view in passing the order dated 23.12.1997. He further contended that the Committee of Management which was elected on 21.6.1993 conducted the election dated 4.6.1996 which election was liable to be ignored having been conducted by the Committee of Management which was not authorized. The subsequent election of April, 1999 was also liable to be ignored on the same reasons. It is contended that the Deputy Director of Education was obliged to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak for holding fresh election in pursuance of the order dated 22.10.1997 and in not doing so he acted contrary to the order dated 22.10.1997 in continuing illegal Committee alleged to be elected on 4.6.1996 giving occasion to the said Committee to again perpetuate the illegality by conducting another election in 1999 and 2003. Sri M.D. Singh Shekher refuting the submission has supported the order dated 25.7.2000 and the order of the Deputy Director of Education. He submitted that in the judgment of this Court dated 22.10.1997 this Court directed that in case any further election of the Committee from the list of eighty seven members has been held then the District Inspector of Schools and the Deputy Director of Education has to de-recognise the same. He contended that fresh election held in the year 1996 was on the basis of the list of 204 members which list was finalized after enrolling new members by giving notice in the news paper, hence in view of the judgment of this Court dated 22.10.1997 neither the Prabandh Sanchalak was required to be appointed nor the elected Committee on 4.6.1996 was required to be de-recognised.

30. Before considering the submissions of the parties it is relevant to again note the relevant findings and conclusions recorded by this Court in its judgment dated 22.10.1997. The learned Single Judge on 22.10.1997 has held that the election dated 21.6.1993 was conducted by the Prabandh Sanchalak without finalizing the voters list. The learned Single Judge has observed in the judgment that Prabandh Sanchalak was appointed to conduct the fair election which may inspire confidence of all including the contesting parties. The learned Single Judge held in his order as follows:

I, for what has been stated above, hold that the election held by the Authorised Controller was contrary to the scheme of administration, dishonest, collusive and without notice. The judicial intent of the Court in judgment dated 2 February, 1993 has not been followed by the Authorised Controller. The election, its result in favour of Jai Narain Tripathi, the order of Authorised Controller declaring the result and consequential order dated 22.6.1993 of the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur approving the election in favour of Jai Narain Tripathi cannot be sustained in law.

31. The learned Single Judge has observed that in the circumstances of the case it cannot be held that the object and purpose of the judgment dated 2.2.1993 of the Court has been achieved. Thus according to the learned Single Judge the object and purpose of the judgment dated 2.2.1993 was still to be achieved meaning thereby the election was still required to be held by the Prabandh Sanchalak after finalizing the voters list in fair manner in accordance with law. It is necessary to quote the operative portion of the judgment for noticing the intent and purpose of the learned Single Judge.

I, therefore, find considerable merit in the two writ petitions for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petitions are thus allowed. The proceedings of election dated 21.6.1993 of the Committee of Management of the Gangadin Ram Kumar Inter College conducted by the Authorised Controller, Basic Education officer, Jaunpur together with order dated 22/23/6.1993 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur recognising the disputed election and on the strength of the recognition order the approval of Sri Jai Narain Tripathi as Manager of the Institution is/are thereby quashed. In case any further election of the Committee from the list of 87 members has been held then the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and the Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi shall within three days from the receipt of a copy of this judgment derecognize the same. A writ of mandamus is issued to the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur to forthwith pass single operation order under the U.P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salary to Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971 to ensure continued payment of salary tot he teachers and other employees till such time as fresh valid election of the Committee of Management is not held and recognised. The Deputy Director of Education is commanded to appoint an officer of proven honesty of the rank of District Inspector of Schools as Authorised Controller to hold election within four months from the date his nomination as Authorised Controller. He shall first finalize the list of members from those lists that are supplied to him by Sri Arjun Mishra and Virendra Kumar Pandey with reference to the provisions of the Scheme of Administration and also the Register of Members. Then the election shall be held after notice to members both by registered post and publication in one Hindi language daily news-paper having good circulation in Jaunpur. The election shall be held in the presence of the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur in addition to the presence of Authorised Controller.

32. Much emphasis has been laid by Sri M.D. Singh Shekher on the following observations made in the judgment by the learned Single Judge:

In case any further election of the Committee from the list of 87 members has been held then the District Inspector of Schools, Jaunpur and the Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi shall within three days from the receipt of a copy of this judgment derecognize the same.

33. The election held on 4.6.1996 by the Committee elected on 21.6.1993 could not be a reason for not giving effect to the mandamus issued by learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 22.10.1997 due to following reasons.

34. Firstly, the Deputy Director of Education vide order dated 20.12.1991 had appointed a Prabandh Sanchalak to conduct the election, which order was affirmed by this Court vide judgment dated 2.2.1993. Thus in view of judgment of this Court fresh election was to be held by Prabandh Sanchalak. The election dated 21.6.1993 held by Prabandh Sanchalak having been set aside by learned Single Judge vide its judgment dated 22.10.1997, the fresh election was required to be held by Prabandh Sanchalak. The election dated 4.6.1996 being not an election held by Prabandh Sanchalak could not stand in way of mandamus of the Court vide judgment dated 22.10.1997 to the Deputy Director of Education to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak to hold fresh election. In judgment dated 22.10.1997 following was held:

The Court's role in the above background of the case cannot thus be of a moot spectator. The collusion and fraudulent machinations cannot be allowed to go unchecked. The judicial intent of the Court in its judgment dated 2nd February, 1993 has to be upheld by this judgment.

35. The above observations of the Court have to be given due weight while looking to the election 4.6.1996. As per earlier judgment dated 2.2.1993 of this Court which had attained finality the fresh election was required to be conducted by Prabandh Sanchalak. Admittedly the election dated 4.6.1996 was not conducted by Prabandh Sanchalak but by the office bearers of the Committee elected on 21.6.1993 which election has been held as illegal, thus for giving effect to earlier judgment dated 2.2.1993 of this Court the election dated 4.6.1996 had to be ignored giving way for conduct of fresh election by Prabandh Sanchalak.

36. Secondly, the election dated 21.6.1993 has been set aside on the main ground that no steps were taken by Prabandh Sanchalak for finalizing the voter list before holding the election, it was further held that no notice was given to Arjun Mishra one of the contenders. The judgment dated 22.10.1997 intended fresh election after determination of voter list after notice to rival claimants Arjun Mishra and Virendra Kumar Pandey. According to case of appellants the list of voters which was 87 on 21.6.1993 increased into 204 for 4.6.1996 election after a drive for enrolment of new members was started vide notice dated 29.10.1995 published by office bearers of 21.6.1993 election. Thus before 1996 election there is no determination of voter list. If we accept the submission of appellant that since 1996 election has been held not by 87 members, no further action is to be taken as per mandamus issued by judgment dated 22.10.1997, the purpose and intent of judgment be defeated. Thus for compliance of the earlier judgment of this Court dated 2.2.1993 the election was required to be held by Prabandh Sanchalak who had to first determine the voter list (sic)after notice to both rival claimants i.e. Virendra Kumar Pandey and Arjun Mishra. To say that 1996 election having been held not by 87 members but by 204 members who were enrolled by Committee elected on 21.6.1993 the compliance of mandamus dated 22.10.1997 was not contemplated is misconstruing the judgment dated 22.10.1997.

37. Thirdly, in the election dated 4.6.1996 whether the list of 87 members on which list the election dated 21.6.1993 was held was utilized affecting the election dated 4.6.1996 or not is also one of the issues. In the judgment dated 22.10.1997 learned Single Judge had directed that in case any further election of the Committee from the list of 87 members has been held then the District Inspector of Schools and the Deputy Director of Education shall de-recognise the same. The submission raised by the counsel for the appellant is that the election dated 4.6.1996 was held on the basis of membership 204 hence the election not having been held from 87 members the election dated 4.6.1996 does not require de-recognization. Learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 25.7.2000 has observed that no pleadings have been made in the writ petition that election dated 4.6.1996 was held from the list of 87 members. In the counter affidavit filed by Jai Narain Tripathi, the Manager, who is respondent in second set of appeals, a categorical case was taken that after the election dated 21.6.1993 notice was published in the news paper by the office bearers of Committee dated 21.6.1993 inviting applications for fresh enrolment of the members. The said notice is said to have been published on 29.10.1995. This fact has also been clearly noted in the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 26.6.1996 which is on record. Thus it is after the fresh enrolment derive initiated vide notice date 29.10.1995 that membership increased from 87 to 204. Thus the membership of 204 was result of fresh enrolment by the officer bearers of the Committee elected on 21.6.1993. Can it be said that in the election held on 4.6.1996 the members who were included in 87 list did not participate? Further the membership of 204 was increased by the office bearers who were in the same list of 87 members. List of 87 members was foundation of subsequent election held on 4.6.1996. The mere fact that membership increased from 87 to 204 by fresh enrolment, will not remove illegality which had crept in 87 members list. It was held by the learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 22.10.1997 that 87 list was prepared without determination of membership. Thus it is apparent from the material brought on record and the case taken by the respondent Committee of Management that members who were included in the list of 87 members were foundation of subsequent increase in the membership and increase of 204 members was on the basis of original list of 87 members Thus vitiating factor which was present in 87 members list was very much present in 204 members list. The list of 204 members was not prepared after determination of membership by the Prabandh Sanchalak as was required to be done under orders of this Court dated 2.2.1993.

38. In view of above the Committee elected on 4.6.1996 was not entitled to be continued and recognized after judgment of this Court dated 27.10.1997. The Deputy Director of Education has committed error in continuing to recognise the committee elected on 4.6.1996 overlooking all the important aspects.

39. Further, the 1996 election was not brought before the Court although judgment was delivered on 22.10.1997. The Court was not aware of aspects of election 1996, nor the said election was under consideration in that judgment. The observation of the court above quoted was a positive indication that in event subsequent election Is held by 87 list same be de-recognised, thus de-recognition was mandatory if subsequent election was held by 87 list. But the judgment dated 22.10.1997 cannot be utilized as shield for protecting 1996 election. The learned Single Judge has read the judgment as if subsequent election has been held not from 87 list the said election is not invalid and has to be continued to be recognised and mandamus in that situation need not be complied with. The reading of judgment dated 22.10.1997 in above manner is nothing but misreading of the judgment. The judgment dated 22.10.1997 cannot be read as protecting the 1996 election. The authorities were obliged to act in a manner to give effect the mandamus in its true spirit. The Deputy Director of Education committed error in taking the view that 1996 election has to be continued since it is not affected by judgment dated 22.10.1997 not having been held on 87 members. Taking into consideration over all facts and circumstances of the election 1996, steps were required to be taken for getting fresh election held by Prabandh Sanchalak.

40. If the view of the learned Single Judge in judgment dated 25.7.2000 is accepted, it will mean that the Committee dated 21.6.1993 whose election has been set aside be allowed to perpetuate the illegality and the Court is powerless in setting right the infirmity found by judgment dated 22.10.1997 and to do complete justice. It is to be noted that in 1996 election also the same Manager was elected who was elected in election dated 21,6.1993 who is one of the respondents in these appeals. When the fresh election is to be held by Prabandh Sanchalak in view of judgment dated 2.2.1993 of this Court, and the election held by Prabandh Sanchalak on 21.6.1993 has been set aside the fresh election is required to be held by Prabandh Sanchalak, can the elections held by Committee of Management dated 21.6.1993 which election has been set aside, be allowed to continue and the illegality found by this Court be allowed to perpetuate. The answer is obviously 'No'.

41. Learned Single Judge in its judgment dated 25.7.2000 while considering the writ petition No. 34814 of 1999 filed by Virendra Kumar Pandey has taken the view that in the above writ petition election held in the year 1999 was not under challenge. The prayers made in the writ petition No. 34814 of 1999 has also been noted by the learned Single Judge in his judgment. Prayer was for quashing the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 11.5.1999 recognising the election held in the year 1999. When the order recognising the election has been challenged the election of 1999 was also put in issue. The view of the learned Single Judge that election of 1999 was not under challenge is erroneous. Further, the election held on 18.4.1999 was also conducted by the Committee of Management which was elected on 4.6.1996 and in view of the observations as made above the said election dated 4.6.1996 of the Committee of Management was not entitled to be continued or recognised, the fresh elections were required to be conducted by the Prabandh Sanchalak after determining the voters list. Obviously the election dated 18.4.1999 was by the Committee of Management of respondents which suffer from same infirmities as noted above with regard to election dated 4.6.1996. Thus the view of the learned Single Judge with regard to election dated 18.4.1999 cannot be upheld.

42. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in 1998 (1) UPLBEC 379 Committee of Management, Sukhpura Inter College, Sukhpura, District Ballia and Anr. v. Alleged Committee of Management, Sukhpura Inter College, Sukhpura, District Ballia and Ors. do support the submission made by Sri Sadanand Shukla.

43. In the above case the Division Bench was hearing an Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge disposing of three writ petitions. Facts of the above case needs to be noted. The Committee of Management elected on 22.8.1981 challenged the order of the Joint Director of Education declining to recognise the said Committee by writ petition No. 2375 of 1983 in which interim order was granted by this Court and the Committee continued to function. The writ petition was subsequently dismissed on 15.1.1991 having become infructuous by efflux of time and the Court directed that the fresh elections be held in accordance to law. In the mean time the Scheme of Administration was amended in 1985 providing that after expiry of three years one month the Committee of Management shall cease and if no fresh elections have been held during this period, the Deputy Director of Education shall appoint Prabandh Sanchalak for holding election of the Committee of Management. After dismissal of the writ petition the office bearer namely Jang Bahadur Singh, the Manager and President of the earlier Committee of Management sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools for holding election and on permission being granted fresh election was held on 8.2.1992 electing one Jang Bahadur Singh as Manager which election was also recognised by the District Inspector of Schools. The matter was taken up before the Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director of Education vide order dated 29.1.995 upheld the election of Jang Bahadur Singh as Manager. The Deputy Director of Education had also permitted the office bearers to hold election and consequently the fresh elections were held on 5.2.1995 in which Ram Bilash Singh and Jang Bahadur Singh were elected as Manager and President respectively. There being another set of election. The District Inspector of Schools has referred the matter to the Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director of Education vide his order dated 8.10.1995 recognised the election of Ram Bilash Singh as Manager and Jang Bahadur Singh as President. The writ petitions were filed challenging the order dated 8.10.1995 of the Deputy Director of Education and the order dated 29.1.1995 of the Deputy Director of Education. The learned Single Judge has held both the elections dated 8.2.1992 and 5.2.1995 as invalid on the ground that after dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous on 15.11.1991 the Committee had no authority to hold election. Following was observed by the Division Bench in paragraph 5:

5. From the discussions made in the impugned judgment, it is clear that the reason, which weighed with the learned Single Judge to hold that both the elections held on 8.2.1992 and 5.2.1995 were invalid, was that on the dismissal of writ petition No. 2375 of 1983 as infructuous on 15.11.1991, the order of the Joint Director of Education holding the election held on 22.8.1981 as invalid revived and in the absence of any subsequent order of the competent authority or Court to the contrary, the Committee of Management elected on 22.8.1981 was invalid and, therefore, the said Committee had no authority to to hold a fresh election. It follows as a consequence that the election said to have been held on 8.2.1992 by the Committee of Management, which was held to be invalid, was also invalid and applying the same principle the further election held on 5.2.1995 by the Committee of Management said to have been elected on 8.2.1992 was also invalid. The correctness of the judgment is under challenge in this appeal.

44. Learned Single Judge after declaring both the elections dated 8.2.1992 and 5.2.1995 as invalid on the ground that election could be held only under the supervision of Prabandh Sanchalak. The Division Bench approved the judgment of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench further observed in paragraph 11:

11. Testing the case in hand on the touch-stone of the well accepted principles laid down in the aforementioned decided cases, the position that emerges is that after the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 2375 of 1983 on 15.11.1991 as infructuous the fresh election was to be held only by a Prabandh Sanchalak appointed by the Deputy Director of Education of the concerned region. The Committee of Management, whose election had been declared to be illegal and invalid by the Joint Director of Education and whose term of office had come to an end, has no authority to hold such election. Indisputably, the election said to have been held on 8.2.1992 was not held by the Prabandh Sanchalak but was allegedly held by the Committee of Management with Kuldeep Singh as President and Sri Jang Bahadur Singh as Manager. Therefore, the election was illegal and the Committee of Management said to have been elected in that election was invalid. Such invalid Committee had also no authority to hold the fresh election said to have been held on 5.2.1995. The position is not disputed that election, was also not held by a Prabandh Sanchalak appointed by the Deputy Director of Education....

45. In the above case Division Bench took the view that when the authority to hold fresh election was the Prabandh Sanchalak the election held by the Committee of Management on 8.2.1992 and 5.2.1995 were both invalid and were rightly held to be illegal by the learned Single Judge. In the present case also the election dated 21.6.1993 having been set aside by the learned Single Judge the fresh election were required to be held only by the Prabandh Sanchalak as per earlier order of the High Court dated 2.2.1993. Subsequent election dated 4.6.1996 held by the Committee of Management elected on 21.6.1993 was without authority and was liable to be de-recognised.

46. There remains one more fact to be noticed. It is claimed by the appellants of the first set of appeals that after 1999 election another elections were held by the Committee of Management on 18.5.2003 which was also an unopposed election. The election dated 18.5.2003 was also not an election held by the Prabandh Sanchalak and was an election held by the Committee of Management which had no authority to conduct the election. The same infirmity vitiates the election held on 18.5.2003 which vitiates the election dated 18.4.1999 and 4.6.1996. The election of the Committee of Management dated 21.6.1993 having been quashed and declared to be void, the subsequent elections one after the other claimed by the office bearers who are either Jai Narain Tripathi or D.S.M. Tripathi as Manager cannot be allowed to continue since that will be perpetuating the illegality which was found in the election dated 21.6.1993. As observed earlier by the order of this Court dated 2.2.1993 the election was to be held by the Prabandh Sanchalak. We have already upheld the judgment dated 22.10.1997, the said judgment has to be given effect to upto its logical end. The Deputy Director of Education is under obligation to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak who is to hold fresh election after finalizing the list of the members.

47. In view of above both the appeals No. 556 of 2000 and 557 of 2000 deserves to be allowed.

48. In the result, Special Appeals No. 963 of 1997 and 964 of 1997 are dismissed. Special Appeal No. 956 of 1997 and 538 of 1997 filed by D.S.M. Tripathi Advocate, praying for expunction of remarks made against him are allowed. The Special Appeals Nos. 556 of 2000 and 557 of 2000 are also allowed. The Writ petition No. 11857 of 1998 and the writ petition No. 34814 of 1999 are allowed. The Deputy Director of Education is directed to appoint Prabandh Sanchalak to manage the affairs of the college and to conduct the elections as per direction of the learned Single Judge dated 22.10.1997 in writ petition No. 28384 of 1993 and writ petition No. 88 of 1994. The said appointment be made within one month from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the Deputy Director of Education. The District Inspector of Schools is directed to forthwith pay salary to teachers and other employees by ordering single operation of account and to look after day to day affairs of the college till Prabandh Sanchalak is appointed by the Deputy Director of Education. The Deputy Director of Education shall ensure that entire process of electing the new Committee of Management is completed by Prabandh Sanchalak within a period of four months from the date of appointment of the Prabandh Sanchalak. Parties shall bear their own costs.