JUDGMENT D.K. Seth, J.
1. Pursuant to various orders passed in various litigations between the parties, ultimately the Administrator had finalised the list of members and had Issued a notice for election pursuant to an order dated 18.11.1996 which is contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition. This order was passed after provisionally publishing the list of the members and inviting objections to the said list by notice dated 28.10.1996 contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition. This order was challenged by alleged 46 members which included the name of one Prem Chand and another, who were elected as Manager and President respectively, by means of a writ petition. The said writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 29.11.1996. The claim of said 46 persons that they were inducted as members of the general body subsequent to 17.11.1995 and, therefore, they should be permitted to participate in the election, as was directed by various orders passed in different litigations. By an order dated 29.11.1996, the claim of said 46 persons was negated. There upon, Prem Chand filed a civil suit being Suit No. 288 of 1996 before the Civil Judge (S.D.), Ballia, praying for the relief that list of members finalised for the general meeting is illegal and that injunction should be granted so that no election can be held without allowing the plaintiff to participate in the said election. Pursuant to an interim order granted in the said suit, election was alleged to have been held on 8th March, 1998 at Azamgarh by virtue of a notice dated 24.2.1998 contained in Annexure-15, in which it was Indicated that a list of 289 life members has been verified.
2. Pursuant to the said election, charge was handed over by the Administrator to said Prem Chand on 8th March, 1998 itself. This election has been challenged in this writ petition.
3. Mr. I. R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that after the list of members had been finalised pursuant to various orders passed by this Court and in the said suit, it was not open to the successor-in-office of the Administrator to re-open the issue particularly when the claim of said Prem Chand and others was negated by this Court by an order dated 29.11.1996 passed in Writ Petition No. 37942 of 1996. He contends further that there was no order or direction modifying the said finallsation of the list so as to enable the Administrator to determine and finalise the list of members anew. He next contended that the election was held at Azamgarh whereas the institution is situated at Ballia, which is almost 80 Kms. away. According to the learned counsel, the general meeting can be held either in the school itself or around the locality where the institution is situated, but cannot be held at a different district 80 Kms. away from the school. It is also contended that by suppressing the fact about passing of the order dated 29.11.1996 by this Court, Civil Suit No. 288 of 1996 was filed which was also dismissed on 6.12.1997. Therefore, no election could be held on 8.3.1998 pursuant to the interim order granted in the said suit which already stood dismissed inasmuch as the interim order that was granted stood merged in the order of dismissal of the suit.
4. Mr. A. K. Yog, learned counsel for respondent Prem Chand, contends that on 18.11.1996 itself the appeal Court had passed an order in Special Appeal No. 260 of 1996, pursuant to which it was open to Prem Chand and others to approach the Deputy Director of Education for redressal of their grievance, therefore, there was no infirmity in holding of the election pursuant to the revised list. According to him, after the order was passed by the appeal Court, as soon the list of members is decided by the Deputy Director, there was no scope for the petitioner to challenge the same on the ground that has been canvassed by Mr. I. R. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.
5. I have heard Mr. Singh and Mr. Yog both at length. A perusal of the order dated 18.11.1996 passed in Special Appeal No. 260 of 1996 shows that the learned counsel for the appellants therein had submitted that the appellants would approach to the concerned Deputy Director for redressal of their grievance since the process of election was yet to start, therefore, the special appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The said order cannot be read to be any direction either to the Deputy Director of Education to decide the grievance of the appellants therein nor it can be said to be a liberty granted to the appellants to approach the Deputy Director. On the other hand, in the said order, it was held that in the writ petition learned single Judge infer alia had directed that the election could be held within two months from the date of production of a copy of the said order. Therefore, grievance of the petitioner in the prompt proceedings should not be considered at that stage. Therefore, by reason of such observation, it was not open to agitate the grievance of those appellants as was directed pursuant to the order dated 14th August, 1995 passed in Writ Petition No. 22871 of 1996 which was confirmed by order dated 21st August, 1995 passed in Special Appeal No. 517 of 1995.
6. Thus, the situation stood confirmed that it was no more open to the said appellants to agitate the point once more till the election pursuant to the order passed in Writ Petition No. 2887 of 1996 is concluded. No election could be held for some reason or the other. Ultimately the said election which was directed to be held by the order dated 14th August. 1995 was held only on 8th March, 1998 which has since been challenged in the manner as indicated above.
7. It appears from the said order dated 18.11.1996, that Prem Chand was not a party to the said appeal. But still then Prem Chand had filed a writ petition which was disposed of on 29.11.1996 where their claim was again negated. This fact does not find place in the plaint. It appears that in the plaint this fact was not disclosed. On the other hand, the list that was finalised was sought to be declared invalid without disclosing the order dated 18.11.1996. II appears that the plaint was filed by suppression of material fact and against the persons other than the petitioner. The interim order that was obtained in the said suit, was obtained without the petitioner being made a parly to the said proceedings in the suit. Pursuant to the interim order there was an election that was held on 8th March. 1998. It was not an election held during subsistence of the interim order since the suit already stood dismissed by an order dated 8.12.1996. Therefore, when the election had taken place, there was no other order except the order dated 18.11.1996, (Annexure-6) finding the list and the order dated 24.2,1998 cannot supersede the order dated 18.11.1996 (Annexure-8) passed in Special Appeal No. 260 of 1996, it is not known, under which authority the said order dated 24.2.1998 was passed pursuant to which election was held on 8th March, 1998 at Azamgarb. Thus, it appears that the order dated 24.2.1998 alleging to have verified the list of 289 life members, does not stand on any sound footing and the same being in conflict with the order dated 18-11.1996 passed in the Special Appeal No. 260 of 1996, cannot be sustained.
8. Then again, the election of general body cannot be held at a place outside the locality where the institution is situated. It is either to be held in the institution itself or in any nearby congenial place in or around the locality accessible by each member easily. The very holding of election at a place far away from the school that too in a different district, itself smacks mala fide and suspicion. The conduct of the Administrator also cannot be approved in the matter of his assistance rendered to said Prem Chand which can be called collusion which does not behove of a Government Officer. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. I am constrained to make the above observation which normally a Court should avoid. At the same time, it appears that Prem Chand and others had abused the process of the Court and had suppressed material facts and obtained interim order by misleading the Court despite unsuccessful on successive occasions as is apparent from the orders referred to above.
9. Normally in such disputes, High Court does not entertain a writ petition under writ jurisdiction and such disputes are relegated for appropriate proceedings before the civil court, but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case where the parties have several rounds before this Court and the matter has attained finality by virtue of the order dated 18.11.1996, 29.11.1996 respectively, as indicated above, this is a case which should be deemed fit where this Court should intervene and exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction to set right the sheer abuse of the process of law in order to do justice and prevent injustice being perpetuated through intelligent mechanism of Prem Chand and others.
10. The manner in which the process has been abused, It is high time that an example should be set to deter such people from abusing the process of law and approaching the Court with unclean hands standing in the way of dispensing justice and thwarting due process of law.
11. In that view of the matter, the writ petition is allowed and the election held on 8.3.1998 is hereby quashed. The order handing over charge by the Administrator is also quashed. The charge should be taken over by the Administrator to be appointed by the D.I.O.S. within a period of seven days by nominating a person other than the administrator who had issued the notice dated 24.2.1998. Such Administrator will hold the election as per the list finalised by the order dated 18.11.1996 at the institution or at any other place within the locality where the institution is situated after issuing appropriate notice within a period of two months as was directed in the order dated 14th August. 1995 and shall declare the result after the election is so held and should hand over charge within seven days from the date of declaration of result of the election. Any expenses that might have been incurred by Prem Chand and others may be recovered as arrears of land revenue from them by the D.I.O.S. and be refunded to the fund of the institution which are the expenses other than concerning routine affairs of the institution or which cannot be justified by the accounts that may be submitted by him within a period of a fortnight from the date, administrator is appointed. It would be open to the administralor to scrutinise the account and find out if any amount is paid by him which cannot be justified, direction for recovery of that amount should be initiated in terms of this order. It would also be open to the petitioner to initiate proceedings under Section 340, Cr. P.C. against Prem Chandra and others, before the appropriate court which had tried Suit No. 228 of 1996, if so advised. Let appropriate directions be issued accordingly. There will, however, be no order as to costs.