ORDER
1. This petition is directed against the order of the D.LO.S. Deoha dated 22-9-1994, Annexure-7 to the writ petition, by which the D.I.O.S. accepted the Committee of Management in which Sri Parmanand Pandey on the basis of election on 28-10-1-993 was approved as valid Manager of the Committee of Management. It was also directed that Sri Pandey shall operate all the accounts of the institution except the students' funds. Prior orders passed by the D.I.O.S. were cancelled.
2. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the judgment in Writ Petition No. 23830 of 1993, which was filed by the petitioner himself. By the said judgment dated 30-11-1993 the learned single Judge of this Court was pleased to observe that it was not necessary for the Court to traverse upon the question as to who should hold the Office of Manager inasmuch as the term of the Committee of Management admittedly constituted in July, 1990 had expired. The affairs of the college are to be managed by the duly constituted Committee of Management. It was observed in the said judgment that the last Committee of Management was constituted after election on 28-10-1993 under the supervision of the D.I.O.S. The learned counsel for the petitioner there in the said writ petition also had contended before the Court that no election was held on 28-10-1993 and if any election was at all held, it was not a valid election. The learned single Judge decided the said writ petition, by observing that it was the D.I.O.S. to recognise or not to recognise the Committee of Management, which was said to have been constituted on 28-10-1993. It was made clear by the learned single Judge in the said judgment observed that if the validity/ factum of election held on 28-40-1993 is called in question before the D.I.O.S., appropriate decision shall be taken by the Inspector after affording opportunity of hearing to the concerned panics.
3. It appears that after the judgment of the High Court the D.I.O.S. proceeded to decide the controversy raised before him by conciliation between the parties. The list of 1990 containing the name of members of the general body was the basis for holding the election on 28-10-1993. The D.I.O.S. further observed that the election had been con ducted under the supervision of Sri Bhagwat Prasad observed who was authorised by the D.I.O.S. for the said purpose.
4. The matter of approval and recognition about the election of the Committee of Management was not decided by the D.I.O.S. on the ground that the writ petitions concerning the petitioner's institution about the managerial dispute were pending in the High Court. It was on 30-11-1993 when all the writ petitions concerning the managerial disputes were dismissed and the interim orders were vacated, it was directed by the High Court to take decision about the Committee of Management constituted on 28-10-1993.
5. The order of the D.I.O.S. shows that on a number of occasions dates have been specifically mentioned and information was duly given to the petitioner for appearing, before the D.I.O.S. but he failed to appear before the D.I.O.S. on the date fixed. The D.I.O.S. by his order impugned approved the election held on 28-10-1993 and approved Sri Pandey as Manager of the Committee of Management.
6. The present writ petition has been filed by Sri Girish Dhar Dwivedi on the ground that the D.I.O.S. decided the matter without giving due opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case before him. It is submitted that the order passed by the D.I.O.S. violated the rules of natural justice and was passed without application of mind. The learned counsel for the petitioner further strenuously argued that the election held on 28-10-1993 was wholly illegal and the members of the office bearers of the Committee of Management alleged to be elected in the said election could not be declared to be validly elected members of the Committee of Management. Serious doubt and challenge has been made about the validity of the election itself.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, Standing Counsel and Sri S. N. Shukla, counsel for the caveator.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision reported in (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1043, Committee of Management, Sri Gandhi Adarsh Uchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Reoli, Deoria v. District Inspector of Schools, Deoria. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the decision cited by him fully applies to the facts, of the case and he referred to paragraphs 3 to 5 of the said j udgment. It is argued that the question for adjudication was the validity of the election itself and the District Inspector of Schools has not applied his mind all to this question and accorded approval and attested the signature of the contesting O.P. It is further submitted that the decision without proper evaluation and discussion cannot be said to be a reasoned order or speaking order. So far as the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is concerned, it is stated that the fact of the controversy which was not decided in the said writ petition, was different. Necessary issues are adjudicated and require decision on merits by application of mind. In Writ Petition No. 23830 of 1993 the High Court has observe that the D.I.O.S. may proceed to decide the matter and if the dispute about the validity of the election is raised, he shall decide the said question. Those observations do not mean that the High Court had issued a direction that the District Inspector of Schools shall make an endeavour to decide the disputed questions of fact while deciding the question of approval of the Committee of Management and attestation of the signature of the Manager. The settled law is that when the validity of the election is challenged it is for the parties to approach the Civil Court as held by the Division Bench in the case reported in (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1541, Committee of Management v. District Inspector of Schools, wherein it was held that in a disputed question about the validity of the election of office bearers of the Committee of Management, the only and proper forum is Civil Court. Thus the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the validity of the election of the Committee of Management was not at all decided by the D.I.O.S. is not of any help to him.
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the rule of natural justice was violated and no opportunity was given to the petitioner to put his case before the D.I.O.S. when he was adjudicating the question of approval cf the Committee of Management and attestation of signature. If the petitioner had chosen to remain absent on a number of dates and avoided to attend the office of the D.I.O.S. and subsequently if it is argued that no opportunity was given, that shall be of no avail. Fun her in view of the fact that in this writ petition the petitioner has challenged seriously the validity of the elec-tion held on 28-10-1993. Now the question of validity of election, as settled by the Division Bench of our Court, cannot be gone into by the D.I.O.S. which would require appreciation of evidence and decision on disputed questions of fact.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission about the principles of natural just ice placed reliance on the case reported in (1994) 23 All LR 106, Smt. Prabha Sharma v. D.I.O.S. The facts stated in the said decision are quite different, The principles of law, as enunciated and stated above, do not raise any controversy that rule of natural justice is to be followed but in the present case the facts clearly show that it was the petitioner, who himself was responsible for not appearing before the D.I.O.S.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner cited the decision reported in (1994) 2 UPLBEC 1281, Gorakhpur University, Go-rakhpur v. Shesh Nath Tripathi. This case arose out of a civil suit and the question before the Division Bench was neither analogous or akin to the facts of the present case.
I do not feel that this case shall be of any assistance to the petitioner.
12. For the reasons stated above, 1 do not find any merit in the case, which may call for interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution. If the petitioner feels aggrieved about the validity of the election of the Committee of Management the remedy lies in the civil court and not in this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
13. The petition is dismissed summarily.
14. Petition dismissed.