JUDGMENT R. H. Zaidi, J.
1. Since counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit in this case were filed by the parties and the case was ready for hearing, as desired by the learned counsel for the parties. I have heard this petition finally and the same is being disposed of at this stage.
2. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners pray for issuance of a writ, order or direction quashing the order dated 24/29.9.1997 passed by the Vice-Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut (for short 'the University') recognising the Committee of Management of which respondent No, 2 as the Secretary/Manager as duly constituted Committee of the College and also for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner No. 1 to be validly elected Committee of Management of Rashtriya Kissan College, Shamli, district Muzaffarnagar (for the short 'the College') and not to interfere in its working in any manner whatsoever.
3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to the present petition in brief are that it was on 22.8.1993 that the last but one election of the office bearers and members of the College, which was affiliated to the University, was held, in the said election. Sri Shyam Singh was elected as the President and Sri Jai Pal Singh, petitioner No. 2. as the Secretary-cum-Manager of the Committee of Management. Papers relating to the said election were submitted before the Vice-Chancellor of the University for approval. Sri Surendra Verma and Sri Ved Singh raised the dispute before the Vice-Chancellor regarding the election dated 22.8.1993 and claimed themselves to have been elected in the election held on 12.9.1993 as President and Secretary respectively. The Vice-Chancellor, by his order dated 4.5.1995 upheld the validity of the election of the petitioners dated 22.8.1993. Thereafter Sri Surendra Verma and Sri Ved Singh challenged the validity of the order dated 4.5.1995 before this Court. However, the writ petition filed by them was got dismissed and representation under Section 88 of the U. P. State Universities Act was filed before the Chancellor. In the meanwhile, one Sri Giri Raj Singh filed Original Suit No. 106 of 1993 challenging the validity of the aforesaid election dated 22.8.1993. The said suit was decreed ex parte on 20.9.1995 ; and the petitioners, thereafter, filed an application under Order IX. Rule 13, C.P.C. The representation filed against the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor was allowed, the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor was set aside and the case was remanded back to the Vice-Chancellor for decision afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties. In the meanwhile, on 18.8.1996 fresh elections were held in which both parties claimed to have been elected. Challenging the validity of the order passed by the Chancellor Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 28796 of 1996 was filed. The said writ petition was disposed of finally by judgment and order dated 31.1.1997 and the Vice-Chancellor was directed to decide the validity of the election held on 18th August, 1996 without taking into consideration the order passed by the Chancellor in respect of the earlier election. Petitioner, thereafter, approached the Vice-Chancellor and made representation. The Vice-Chancellor upheld the validity of the election held on 18.8.1996 in which Sri Surendra Verma and Tej Pal Singh claimed to be elected, by judgment and order dated 24/29.9.1997. Petitioners have challenged the validity of the said order in the present case.
4. On behalf of respondents, a counter-affidavit has been filed, in which the facts stated in the writ petition have been controverted. It is stated that-in view of the fact that effective alternative remedy under Section 68 of U. P. State Universities Act. 1973 (for short 'the Act') against the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor is available, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of alternative remedy. It has also been stated that the amendment in the bye-laws, by the contesting respondents was legally ineffective and on the basis of the same, the enrolment of 433 members by them, was also illegal. The validity of election held on 22.8.1993 has also been disputed and it has been stated that the decree passed on 20.9.1995 was still operative and binding upon the parties, therefore, the impugned order passed by the Vice-Chancellor was perfectly valid and did not suffer from any illegality or infirmity.
5. Petitioners have also filed an amendment application, whereby they sought to bring certain facts on record and to add two grounds in the writ petition, which was allowed.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner Sri R. N. Singh, senior Advocate assisted by Sri A. P. Sahi, Advocate vehemently urged that Vice-Chancellor has passed the impugned order in violation of principle of natural justice as petitioners were not afforded sufficient opportunity to defend themselves and that the said order was not passed in conformity of the provisions of Statute 13.34 of the University and the order of the High Court dated 13.1.1997 was not complied with.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents supported the validity of the order passed by the Vice-Chancellor and it has been vehemently urged that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the ground of availability of statutory alternative remedy, which was equally efficacious and convenient. Learned counsel for the contesting respondents also submitted that the Vice-Chancellor, tn view of the provisions and Statute 13.05 rightly held that the amendment made in the bye-laws by the contesting respondent was Invalid and that the enrolment of 433 members made by the petitioners was also invalid and illegal, the writ petition was, therefore, liable to be dismissed.
8. I have seriously considered rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the record of the case.
9. There is no quarrel with the proposition of law that if an effective alternative statutory remedy is available against the action taken or order passed by the authorities below, normally a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not to be entertained by this Court ; but there are well recognised exceptions to the aforesaid general rule, i.e., firstly if the proceedings are taken before a Tribunal under the provisions of law, which is ultra vires, it is open to a party aggrieved, thereby to move the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuing an appropriate writ for quashing them on the ground that they are incompetent, without being obliged to wait until those proceedings run their full course and said doctrine has no application and secondly, where the impugned order has been made in violation of principles of natural justice ; it is well-settled law that existence of statutory remedy does not affect or bar the Jurisdiction of High Court to issue a writ. Rule of exhaustion of statutory remedy is a rule of self-imposed limitation, rule of policy and discretion rather than a rule of law. A reference in this regard was made to the decisions in Rashid Ahmed v. Municipal Board, AIR 1950 SC 163 : Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State ofBihar.'ZJR 1955 SC 661 ; State of U. P. u. Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 ; Card. Stell G. M. B. H. v. State of Bihar, AIR 1961 SC 1615 and M/s. Baburom Prakash Chandra Maheshwari v. Antarim Zila Parishad (now Zila Parishad), Muzqffarnagar, AIR 1969 SC 556.
10. It is well-settled law refusal to supply the documents which are sought to be relied upon by the competent authority amounts to denial of an opportunity to defend and to provide an opportunity to defend to the person or party against whom order is to be passed or action is to be taken is one of the principles of natural justice, the Vice-Chancellor was, therefore, supposed to afford- the petitioners the opportunity to defend themselves. It has come on the record that report of the Enquiry Committee dated 29.1.1994 as well as the report of the Principal were sent for by the Vice-Chancellor during the course of the enquiry. The said reports were never supplied to the petitioners, but have been referred to and relied upon the Vice-Chancellor to record finding against the petitioners. In the counter-affidavit, the facts stated in the writ petition, have not been specifically denied, but only it has been stated that the petitioners were confronted with the report of Enquiry Committee dated 29.1.1994. No material has been placed on record in support of the said allegation made in the counter-affidavit. Although, the contents of para 16 of the affidavit have been sworn/verified on the basis of the record, as such no reliance can be placed on the aforesaid statement of fact. Thus, in my opinion, the objection raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents regarding the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of existence of alternative remedy under Section 68 of the Act and non-exhaustion thereof cannot be a sufficient ground for dismissing the present petition.
11. The controversy regarding the validity of elections held on 22.8.1993 and 12.9.1993 was cut short by this Court, vide judgment and order dated 13.1.1997, which has become final. It is, therefore, not necessary to go into the said controversy. The relevant portion of the said judgment, as contained in Annexure-8 to the writ petition is quoted below :
".....Admittedly, the question as to which old Committee of Management was valid has lost its importance. The fresh election has admittedly taken place and there are two rival Committee of Management. The matter is to be decided afresh by the Vice-Chancellor, respondent No. 2, in accordance with law.
The petitioners alleged that they have forwarded the papers for recognition of their Committee of Management to the Vice-Chancellor on 19th August, 1996 and the rival Committee of Management has submitted the papers for its recognition on 29th December, 1996. The Vice-Chancellor, respondent No. 2. shall now decide the dispute regarding the validity of the Committee of Management as elected on 18th August, 1996, after giving an opportunity of hearing to all the contesting parties in accordance with law possibly within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order without being affected by earlier orders passed by the Vice-Chancellor or the Chancellor in respect of the old Committee of Management.
The writ petition is accordingly disposed of finally."
12. In view of the directions Issued by this Court, it was obligatory upon the Vice-Chancellor to decide the dispute regarding validity of the Committee of Management as elected on 18th August. 1996 after giving full opportunity of hearing to the contesting parties. The Vice-Chancellor was required to decide the said controversy in accordance with law.
13. Statuts No. 13.34 framed under the Act provides the procedure and guideline for decision of the said controversy. It reads as under :
"13.34. Whenever there is dispute regarding the Management of an affiliated college, persons found by the Vice-Chancellor to be in actual possession and control of the college properties may for purposes of the Act and these Statutes be recognised to constitute the Management of such college until a Court of competent jurisdiction orders otherwise :
Provided that the Vice-Chancellor shall before making an order under this Statute, afford an opportunity to the rival claimants to tafte written representations.
Explanation.--In determining the question as to who is in actual possession and control of the college properties the Vice-Chancellor shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the actual administration, the receipt of the income from the property of the institution and to other relevant circumstances which might have bearing on the question to be determined."
14. From a reading of the aforesaid Statute, it is evident that the Vice-Chancellor is required to record clear and categorical finding on the question of actual possession and control of the college properties before recognising any one of the claimants to constitute the validly Committee of Management. Since the proceedings are of summary nature, the said finding is to remain effective till the case is decided by a Court of competent Jurisdiction. In case, the aforesaid dispute is taken to the Court by the aggrieved person or party, before recording the said finding and making order under the said Statute, the Vice-Chancellor is required to afford an opportunity of hearing to the rival claimants to make written representations before determining the aforesaid question. The Vice-Chancellor is also required to have regard to control over the office of the Institution and over the actual administration. Receipt of income from the properties of the institution is also a relevant factor. In the present case. I am constrained* to observe that the Vice-Chancellor has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him in accordance with law and without recording any finding on the question of actual possession and control of the properties of the College, acting illegally recognised the Committee of Management of which respondent No. 2 claimed to be Secretary/Manager as validly elected/constituted Committee of Management.
15. Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents referred to and relied upon clause (f) of Statute 13.05. which reads as under :
(f) if any question arises whether any person has been duly chosen as. or is entitled to be a member or office bearer of the Management or whether the Management is legally constituted, the decision of the Vice-Chancellor shall be final."
The Vice-Chancellor has also relied upon the aforesaid clause. Statute 13.05 referred to above provides the guideline to draft the constitution and contents of the constitution of a College. Sub-clause (f) of the said Statute, in my opinion, confers the jurisdiction upon the Vice-Chancellor to decide the question whether any person has been duly chosen or is entitled to be a member of office bearer of the Management or the Management is legally constituted or not. The said clause does not provide the manner in which the dispute regarding validity of the Management is to be decided. Clause (f) of Statute 13.05 and Statute 13.34 are thus co-extensive and supplemental to each other. They are not. In any manner, conflicting or contradictory. The impugned order passed by the Vice-Chancellor does not comply with and conform to the aforesaid provisions of the Statute of the University and is, therefore, illegal and unsustainable in law.
16. The question of validity of the amendment in the bye-laws as well as the validity of the enrolment of members although not wholly irrelevant for the purpose of determination of validity of elections, but since they were subject-matter of litigation/proceedings pending before the Commissioner/Appellate Authority under the Societies of Registration Act as well as the civil suits pending before the civil cflurt. It was, therefore, not necessary for the Vice-Chancellor to go into the aforesaid questions in the present proceedings while deciding the dispute under Statute 13.34, under the direction of this Court.
17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the present petition deserves to be allowed.
18. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 24/29.9.97 passed by the Vice-Chancellor. Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. Is quashed. The matter is sent back to the Vice-Chancellor for decision afresh in the light of observations made above within one month from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. It is, further, directed that till decision of the dispute by the Vice-Chancellor, the affairs of the College shall be looked after by an Officer of Education department to be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. No order as to costs.