ORDER
1. The petitioners have approached this Court for issuing a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 14-12-1994, Annexure 6 to the writ petition passed by the authorised controller. The authorised controller appears to be entrusted with the duties of conducting election. In the course of conducting the election the controversy arose before him was about 34 petitioners certain other persons, who are respondents whether they are members of the general body, life members entitled to participate in the election of the committee of management. The authorised controller by the impunged order arrived at a conclusion that 29 persons in the list are eligible to participate in the election as members of the general body and life members.
2. The petitioner's grievance, as submitted before this Court, is that the authorised controller while examining 34 receipts, which were issued in their name, has wrongly discarded them to be the receipts for membership, which were in fact the receipts of membership and not for the aid given to the institution. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the authorised controller has committed a patent error of law and jurisdiction in refusing the claim of the petitioners. He also submits that the petitioners were not heard before passing the impugned order. Certain other persons, who had submitted their objection before the authorised controller, were heard and even some of them had been held to be the members of the general body eligible and entitled to cast their vote in the election.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to bring any such law, which may show that the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution would decide the disputed question of fact as to who was the genuine member entitled to participate in the election and who is not and the High Court would also enter into the question whether the receipts field by the petitioners were for membership and the seal put on the said receipts was correct showing that the amount paid through those receipts was towards membership fee or not. These all are disputed questions which cannot be examined in a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The forum for adjudication of such disputes is not before this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution but elsewhere, probably, the Civil Court. This Court cannot grant the relief as claimed by the petitioners.
4. The writ petition is dismissed summarily.
5. Petition dismissed.