ORDER
1. The petitioner is a student of B.A. Part III of Hindu Degree College, Zamania, district Ghazipur. The students Union elections are scheduled to be held. The respondent No. 2 notified the name of the Election Officer. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there has been a number of irregularities in the process of election that has been initiated. It is said that the election is scheduled to be held tomorrow. The learned counsel submit that according to the Constitution of the students union the rules provide about a particular manner. I do not consider it necessary to mention the rules in which the manner of conducting the election has been provided. The learned counsel pointed out that the respondents have adopted a course, which is wholly in contravention with the said students union Constitution. It is said that the petitioner being aggrieved by the process of election made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor, who is overall in charge of the affairs of the University and all institutions affiliated thereto. The Vice-Chancellor has not taken action thereon. The learned counsel submits that it is a fundamental right of the petitioner to contest the students union election and violation by the authorities in conducting the election confers a right to challenge the same before this Court and this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution is supposed to intervene and do justice with the petitioner's grievances.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted a number of decisions. These decisions do not concern with such educational institution students union election. The ratio of the decisions cited shows that once the process of election has been initiated the Court should be very reluctant in interfering with the process of election. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a decision reported in AIR 1980 SC 1612 at page 1621 on which the learned counsel made a stress that if there is no alternative remedy available and the entire process of election is challenged then the Court should interfere in such matters. It is also to be noted that the case cited is also not in respect of non-statutory body as students union as in the present case. The settled law is that this Court should be very reluctant when the process of election has taken place and the submission of the learned counsel that the student has a fundamental right to participate in the election of the students union which confers, fundamental right to claim the relief under Art. 226 of the Constitution is doubtful. The petitioner as he himself admits that the Vice-Chancellor is the sole authority, who is overall in charge of the affairs of the University and the affiliated Degree Colleges and the petitioner himself has moved a representation. Since the petitioner has already availed of a remedy, this Court is not inclined to invoke its jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The learned counsel for the respondents Sri S. Baghel has put in appearance for the respondents. He has also placed reliance on a decision reported in AIR 1988 SC 66, Gujarat University v. N.U. Rajguru. The ratio of this decision is that (para 6):
"It is well settled that where a statute provides election to an office, or an authority or institution and if it further provides a machinery or forum for determination of dispute arising out of election, the aggrieved person should pursue his remedy before the forum provided by the statute. While considering an election dispute it must be kept in mind that the right to vote, contest or dispute election is neither a fundamental or common law right instead it is a statutory right regulated by the statutory provisions. It is not permissible to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution by passing the machinery designated by the Act for determination of the election dispute. Ordinarily the remedy provided by the statute must be followed before the authority designated therein. But there may be cases where exceptional or extraordinary circumstances may exist to justify by-passing the alternative remedies. In the instant case, there existed no circumstances justifying departure from the normal rule as even the challenge to the validity of statute 10 was not pressed by the respondents before the High Court."
3. The learned Sri Baghel also referred to a decision reported in 1993 (2) UPLBEC (sic) by which this Court following a decision of the Supreme Court has held that such writ petitions do not call for interference under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am not inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner may seek other remedy which may be available to him according to law.
5. The petition is dismissed summarily.
6. Petition dismissed.