ORDER
1. The petitioner claims to be a Registered Society of the Kayastha Sabha of Mainpur which is said to be running a Degree College and Inter College namely Sri Chitra-gupta Degree College and Sri Chitra Gupta Inter College. It is said that the election of the Committee of Management is likely to be held on 9th April, 1995 for the Degree College. It has been requested by a letter dated 23-3-95 addressed to the Vice-Chancellor, Agra University, Agra that an observer for conducting the elections of the office bearer of the Committee of Management be appointed. A representation was also sent by the petitioner on 13th March, 1995 to the Vice-Chancellor that 9th April is the date fixed for holding the election and the request for appointment of an observer was not accepted till then. Such a prayer was made again for appointing an observer.
2. The petitioner has prayed in the writ petition for issuing a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus commanding the respondent Vice-Chancellor, Agra University Agra to appoint an election observer for the election to be held on 9th April, 1995. It is well settled law that a writ of mandamus can be issued by the High Court if there is a breach of law or violation of legal provision or statute or violation of Constitutional rights. In such grave situation the High Court would come forward to issue necessary directions and a writ of mandamus learned counsel for the petitioner Shri K. Ajit has fairly conceded to the legal position that there is no statute ordinance or provision of law which requires appointment of an observer for conducting or supervising the election of the Committee of Management to be held by the society of such educational institution. If there is no such legal provision which makes it necessary that Vice-Chancellor is required under the law or as under legal obligation to appoint an observer, this Court is not supposed to issue any writ of mandamus for doing a thing which is not intended or supposed to be done by such authority.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also made a statement that previously there was the election of the Committee of Management of the Society and there was a dispute in between the rival Committee of Management by the institution and the parties had to go for litigation. This writ petition has been filed so that the election may be conducted peacefully and fairly and there may be no scope left for future litigation in respect of management of the institution.
4. It is worth mentioning that the petitioner namely Kayastha Sabha, Manipuri through its Secretary Shri Bhawani Shanker Saxena has filed this writ petition impleading the Vice-Chancellor, Agra University, Agra and Registrar, Agra University, Agra and he has not impleaded any other persons who were previously parties to the earlier litigation or who were members of rival Committee of Management. It cannot be assumed that the members of the general body were the same and two rival Committees of Management were elected out of the same members of the general body. In such situation it is well known that the rival claimants formed their own general body, get their elections separately conducted and then come forward with their rival claims. Since the petitioner has not impleaded all necessary parties who were interested in present writ petition, this Court in convenience should also not consider to issue a direction for appointing an independent officer of the University as observer to supervise the elections. It appears that the petitioner filed this writ petition without impleading those necessary persons, perhaps with an intention that a direction from this Court would furnish a seal for them. It was prayed that an officer be appointed by the University to supervise the election, so that the election may be held under his supervision fairly and legally. In view of the facts quoted above I do not consider that any direction or writ should be issued to such petitioners who do not come to the Court with clean hands and with some further ulterior motive.
5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and Shri Pankaj Mittal for the respondents, I do not consider it a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. The petition is dismissed summarily.
7. Petition dismissed.