1. Jan Vikas Shiksha Prasarini Samiti, Jungle Babban Bhaura Bari, Gorakhpur is a registered society under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It runs an Intermediate College in the name of Jawahar Shiksha Niketan Intermediate College, Jungle Babban Bhaura Bari, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as 'the institution'). It is governed by a duly approved scheme of administration, whereunder, the term of the Committee of Management is five years. The Committee of Management is elected from the General Body of the society. The last undisputed elections of the Committee of Management were held on 11.1.2000, in which one Chunni Lal Srivastava was elected as President, Smt. Mani Raj Shukla as Manager and Sri Kaushlesh Dhar Mishra as Secretary. Smt. Mani Raj Shukla is alleged to have resigned from the post of Manager in the year 2000 itself and in her place, petitioner no.2 Rishabh Deo Shukla claims to have been elected as Manager. He was recognised as Manager by the order of Joint Director of Education, 7th Region, Gorakhpur dated 10.4.2002. Challenging the said order, Smt. Subhawati Devi filed Writ Petition No.47085 of 2002 in which no interim order was granted. It was followed by filing of Original Suit No.851 of 2002 by one Prahlad, a member of General Body for a direction to get the elections of the office bearers held. During the pendency of the said suit, fresh elections were allegedly held on 11.01.2003 and consequently, the parties entered into compromise in the civil suit and it was decreed in terms thereof. However, District Inspector of Schools by order dated 16.4.2003 refused to approve the said elections on the ground that these elections were held in the absence of observer. Further, direction was issued to hold fresh elections within two months, failing which, the Committee of Management will be dissolved and authorised controller will be appointed. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners filed Writ Petition No.20184 of 2003, in which an interim order was passed on 9.5.2003, whereby, direction contained in the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 16.4.2003, was stayed. Simultaneously, the petitioners claim to have submitted the list of office bearers elected on 11.1.2003 before the Assistant Registrar, which was registered by him on 21.3.2003. The case of the petitioners is that as a result thereof, they continued to function and held fresh elections in January, 2008. However, it is not disputed that the said elections were neither recognised by the Educational authorities nor by the Assistant Registrar.
2. On the other hand, Smt. Subhawati Devi set up an election in the year 2005 on the ground that the last elections were held in 2000 and the term of the said Committee came to an end after 5 years i.e. in the year 2005. The District Inspector of Schools did not pass any order on the elections so set up by Smt. Subhawati Devi and she, thus, filed Writ Petition No.54357 of 2006 for a direction to the Regional Level Committee to pass appropriate orders on the papers submitted by her. The writ petition filed by Smt. Subhawati Devi was disposed of on 27.9.2006 with a direction to the Regional Level Committee to decide the matter. In pursuance thereof, the Regional Level Committee by order dated 14.5.2009 refused to recognise the elections dated 13.2.2005 set up by Smt. Subhawati Devi and further directed District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur to hold elections of the Committee of Management of the institution as per provisions of approved scheme of administration from amongst the General Body of the society. The aforesaid order of the Regional Level Committee was not challenged by any party and it attained finality.
3. It seems that since there was direction by Regional Level Committee to conduct elections of the Committee of Management of the institution from the General Body of the society and, therefore, the District Inspector of Schools vide its letter dated 23.3.2010 followed by letter dated 6.6.2010 requested the Assistant Registrar to provide a copy of the list of the members of the General Body of the society. The Assistant Registrar issued notices to the parties and directed them to produce the relevant documents in support of their respective cases. The petitioner no.2 presented proceedings of election dated 11.01.2008 before the Assistant Registrar and also a list comprising of 36 persons to be the members of the General Body of the society. On the other hand, Sri Chunni Lal Srivastava, who was claiming himself to be the President alongwith Smt. Subhawati Devi as Manager of the Committee of Management of the institution, raised objections before the Assistant Registrar to the effect that hearing in the matter should be deferred in view of pendency of several writ petitions before this Court. Further, he filed a list of 16 persons purporting to be the members of the General Body of the society. The Assistant Registrar refused to defer the proceedings and by order dated 8.4.2011 held that at present, there is no validly elected Committee in existence and, therefore, fresh elections are to be held under Section 25 (2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). For the said purpose, the Assistant Registrar, Gorakhpur authorised District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur to hold the elections of the Managing Committee of the society. By the same order, the Assistant Registrar also determined the electoral college for holding the elections. He came to the conclusion that neither the list of 16 members submitted by Chunni Lal Srivastava nor of 36 members submitted by the petitioner no.2 can be recognised as valid. It was held that the electoral college shall comprise of the persons, who were there in the Managing Committee elected on 11.1.2000 (which is not in dispute) and the Managing Committee of the year 2002-2003 registered on 21.3.2003. Accordingly, he came to the conclusion that the General Body comprises of 12 members and the said list was marked as Annexure 'Ka' and was forwarded to District Inspector of Schools for holding elections on the basis thereof.
4 It appears that the Committee of Management of the institution through petitioner no.2 filed Writ Petition No.24587 of 2011 challenging the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 8.4.2011. It was contended in that writ petition that the Assistant Registrar does not have the power to decide membership dispute and as such, the order stands vitiated. However, the aforesaid submission did not find favour with the Court on the ground that the petitioners have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar and after the membership issue had gone against the petitioners, they cannot take a somersault and challenge the order passed by it. Being not satisfied by the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 24.07.2011 dismissing the writ petition, the petitioners carried the matter in Special Appeal No.981 of 2011. By interim order dated 24.5.2011 it was provided that the elections be held but the results will be subject to decision of the appeal.
5. It seems that Chunni Lal Srivastava claiming himself to be the President of the society wrote a letter dated 30.4.2012 to District Inspector of Schools for appointing an observer for holding elections of the Committee of Management on 20.5.2012. However, the District Inspector of Schools did not nominate any person as observer. As such, elections could not be held on that date. He, therefore, wrote another letter to the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur on 17.5.2012 for appointing an observer for elections to be held on 3.6.2012. This time, the request made by him, found favour with the District Inspector of Schools and by order dated 19.5.2012 he nominated the Associate District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur as observer in the proposed elections. By order dated 1.6.2012, earlier order was modified, as Om Dutt Singh Associate District Inspector of Schools was on duty in connection with the elections of the local bodies and, therefore, one Sri M. Rahman, Vice Principal, Rajkiya Jubli Inter College, Gorakhpur was nominated as observer. The election programme was notified by Chunni Lal Srivastava in newspaper 'Aaj' dated 26.5.2012. The petitioners, on coming to know of it, filed objections before the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur inter alia on the ground that Sri Chunni Lal Srivastava, who has issued the election notification, is not authorised to do so and as District Inspector of Schools was appointed as Election Officer both by the Regional Level Committee and the Assistant Registrar and, therefore, the aforesaid exercise should have been carried out by him. Alternatively, it was contended that since last recognised elections held on 11.1.2003 were conducted by the President Ram Sewak Giri and he could thus be the only person, who can issue such election programme. It was further stated that Sri Chunni Lal Srivastava is one amongst 12 persons, who has been declared as member of the General Body and, therefore, he cannot hold the election proceedings. It was, thus, prayed that the election notification be declared void. It was followed by additional objection in the nature of corrigendum dated 2.6.2012. However, no action was taken on these objections and elections were held on 3.6.2012, in which Chunni Lal Srivastava claims to have been elected as Manager and Sri Ram Narain Singh as President. Smt. Subhawati Devi, who had been the earlier Manager of the said faction, was elected as Vice President. These elections have been recognised by impugned order dated 15.6.2012 by District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur on the basis of the report submitted by the observer and the said order is subject matter of challenge in the instant writ petition.
6. It is common ground between the parties that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Special Appeal No.981 of 2011 filed by the petitioners came to be decided by order dated 11.4.2013, whereby, the correctness of the electoral college as determined by Assistant Registrar, was left open for being decided in the present writ petition. It was specifically observed that the findings recorded in the judgment of the learned Single Judge will not have any bearing upon the decision to be taken in the present writ petition. The judgment dated 11.4.2013 in Special Appeal is still binding on the parties, as it seems that no one challenged the same before any court of law. Thus, all questions including question relating to validity of the electoral college as determined by the Assistant Registrar, became subject matter of adjudication in the present writ petition.
7. Sri G.K. Singh, Senior Advocate assisted by Sri B.D. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that under the order of the Regional Level Committee dated 14.5.2009, the District Inspector of Schools, Gorakhpur was authorised to conduct the elections of the Managing Committee of the institution. Similarly, the Assistant Registrar by its order dated 8.4.2011 authorised District Inspector of Schools to conduct the elections of the Managing Committee of the society. In view of these orders, it was only the District Inspector of Schools who could have held the elections. However, the present elections have admittedly been held in a meeting convened by Sri Chunni Lal Srivastava in his capacity as President of the Managing Committee of the society, though his alleged elections in such capacity dated 13.2.2005 was specifically disapproved by the Regional Level Committee and the Assistant Registrar under its order 8.4.2011 has recorded a specific finding that there is no valid committee in existence and the elections were to be held under Section 25 (2) of the Act, consequently, the election meeting convened by Chunni Lal Srivastava and all consequential action is void ab initio. The petitioners have filed specific objection in this regard before the District Inspector of Schools on 30.5.2012 and 2.6.2012 but without taking the same into consideration, the District Inspector of Schools had mechanically approved the elections held on 3.6.2012 by the impugned order, which therefore stands vitiated. It is further contended that in such circumstances, in view of existence of a bonafide dispute regarding validity of the elections dated 3.6.2012, it was incumbent upon the District Inspector of Schools to have referred the dispute to the Regional Level Committee, as per stipulation in the Government Order dated 20.10.2008.
8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Sri Anil Yadav submitted that the petitioners, who simply claim themselves to be member of the General Body, have no locus to challenge the elections. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Court dated 7.09.2010 passed in Special Appeal No.1380 of 2008. It is urged that Chunni Lal Srivastava held the elections in his capacity as President, as after the order of Regional Level Committee dated 14.5.2009, there was no validly elected Committee in existence.
9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The first and foremost question for consideration in the present writ petition is whether the same is maintainable at the instance of the petitioners, who are only 5 members of the General Body of the society. It would be apt to deal with the judgment of Division Bench dated 7.9.2010 in Special Appeal No.1380 of 2008 on which reliance has been placed by the respondent. In that case, a member of the General Body challenged the elections of the Committee of Management. The Special Appellate Court, which decided the appeal, had expressed its displeasure over the manner, several writs are filed by single member of a society challenging the election and as a result whereof, this Court is flooded with such writ petitions. The Division Bench observed as under:-
"This Court is already over-burdened with the writ petitions filed by the rival Committees of Management, or the members, who have taken part in the elections, and did not succeed, in the matters arising out of thousands of educational institutions across the State. Every year thousands of writ petitions are being filed. In fact every election of the Committee of Management of education institution is challenged in the High Court, on the question of its recognition by the Regional Deputy Director of Education (now the Regional Level Committee), under Section-16A (7) of the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921. A single Judge has been assigned determination relating to only such matters. The valuable time of the Court for deciding important questions of law to reduce inequities and injustice in the society, is spent in resolving disputes between rival groups to gain control over the educational institutions for the purpose of access to the funds provided by the State Government. In most of the cases the Courts find that the elections are set up only on papers, without holding election meetings."
11. The Division Bench, thereafter concluded as under:-
"Be that as it may, learned Judge has rightly held that a life member does not have a right to challenge the elections unless his rights or interest are adversely affected by the elections.......
If the individual members of the general body of the educational society not directly affected by the election results, are also allowed to file objections and to challenge the elections, the fight for gaining control over the school funds will flood the High Courts with litigation. The election may be challenged by members of the general body separately after raising objections before the educational authorities, and thereafter filing writ petitions on variety of grounds.
We may add here that an individual member in such case, is not without remedy. He may file a suit challenging the elections, to enforce his right of association guaranteed under Section 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India.
The Special Appeal is dismissed."
12. The ratio of the judgment apparently is that where the society consist of several members and a substantial portion of the General Body is not aggrieved but only one or few individual members are subjecting it to challenge, then in such cases, the Court should refuse to entertain the writ petition at their instance. However, even the same is subject to exception and a single member or few of them can in certain circumstances maintain the writ petition, if their rights and interests are adversely affected. In the same judgment, the Division Bench referred to the case of Bhagwan Kaushik Vs. State of U.P. and others 2006 (2) ADJ 631, in which it was held that though an individual member not directly affected may not be heard in writ petition but if it is found that an election was held by an impostor, then even individual member can challenge the same. It was observed that each case has to be decided on its own facts taking into consideration all relevant provisions and other aspects. Thus, I find that there is no absolute prohibition for maintainability of writ petition by individual or few members. It all depends on fact of each case.
13. In the instant case, as per the determination made by the Assistant Registrar, the General Body comprises of only 12 members out of whom one Smt. Savitri Singh is reported to be dead, thus leaving only 11 members in the General Body. Out of these, six participated in the alleged elections under challenge dated 3.6.2012 and all of them were elected. The petitioners herein are the five remaining members of the General Body who are aggrieved and have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition. Thus, in the present case, the petitioners, though five in number, are the remaining members of the General Body except those elected and are aggrieved by the so called election. I am of the considered view that in the facts of the present case, the petitioners are not few individual members but comprises of a substantial portion of the General Body, except those elected, and thus have got every right to challenge such elections. Writ petition, at their instance, cannot be thrown on the preliminary objection raised by learned counsel for the respondent.
14. Now coming to the merits of the submission made by Senior Advocate Sri G.K. Singh regarding validity of the order of District Inspector of Schools dated 15.6.2012, it is noticeable that though in the earlier writ petition, the same petitioners contended before the learned Single Judge that the Assistant Registrar had no jurisdiction to determine the electoral college but before this Court, no such plea has been raised. Further, counsel for the petitioners has also not raised any plea that there was any legal embargo for holding the elections. The argument raised by Sri G.K. Singh was that the election meeting convened by Sri Chunni Lal Srivastava and all consequential action taken on the basis thereof, is wholly illegal, as Chunni Lal Srivastava was not competent to convene the election meeting. It was only the District Inspector of Schools, who could have convened the meeting and held the elections himself or at best by any person authorised by him in this regard. It was urged that District Inspector of Schools committed grave illegality in recognising such elections. The petitioners' objections dated 30.5.2012 and 2.6.2012 were before the District Inspector of Schools, which were not adverted to. It is further contended that in the fact situation aforesaid, District Inspector of Schools ought to have referred the dispute to the Regional Level Committee, as per Government Order dated 20.10.2008.
15. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College Vs. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and others (2005) 1 U.P.L.B.E.C. 85 has clearly laid down that in case, none of the elections set up by the parties are found to be valid, the elections can only be held through Prabandh Sanchalak. The relevant observation, in this regard, is as under:-
"Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education finds that the election of both the rival committees are invalid, he is not required to decide the question of actual control to recognise one or the other Committee of Management, and instead he shall, where the Scheme of Administration provides for appointment of an Administrator (Prabandh Sanchalak), appoint an Administrator with the direction to hold elections in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, and where there is no such provision in the Scheme of Administration he shall appoint an Authorised Controller who shall expeditiously hold elections to the Committee of Management and shall manage the affairs of the institution until a lawfully elected committee of management is available for taking over the management."
16. The Regional Level Committee, while deciding the validity of the elections set up by the respondents dated 13.2.2005 came to the conclusion that such elections are not valid and directed the District Inspector of Schools to hold fresh elections for constituting the Committee of Management of the institution. Simultaneously, the Assistant Registrar under its order dated 8.4.2011 has arrived at the same conclusion that there is no validly elected Committee in existence and thus, fresh elections are to be held under Section 25 (2) of the Act.
17. Section 25 (2) of the Act is as under:-
"Section 25 (2). Where by an order made under Sub-section (1), an election is set aside or an office-bearer is held no longer entitled to continue in office or where the Registrar is satisfied that any election of office-bearers of a society has been not held within the time specified in the rules of that society, he may call a meeting of the general body of such society for electing such office bearer or office bearers, and such meeting shall be presided over and be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorised by him in this behalf, and the provisions in the rules of the society relating to meetings and elections shall apply to such meeting and election with necessary modifications."
18. Elections held under Section 25 (2) of the Act are to be conducted by the Registrar or by any officer authorised by him in this behalf. A perusal of the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 8.4.2011 reveals that the Assistant Registrar had authorised the District Inspector of Schools to hold the elections of the Managing Committee of the society. Under such direction as well it is only the District Inspector of Schools, who was authorised to hold the elections. So, whether it be the election of the Committee of Management of the institution or that of the society, the same could have been held by the District Inspector of Schools. However, in the instant case, it is not in dispute that the elections dated 3.6.2012 were held in a meeting convened by Sri Chunni Lal Srivastava. Sri Chunni Lal Srivastava nor the Committee of whom he claimed himself to be the President, was recognised by either the Educational authorities or Assistant Registrar. On the contrary, the specific order of the Regional Level Committee dated 14.5.2009 disapproves the elections dated 13.2.2005, wherein, Sri Chunni Lal Srivastava claims to have been elected as Manager. Consequently, I am of the firm opinion that the meeting convened by Chunni Lal Srivastava or the Committee of which he was the President, was wholly illegal and elections held therein could not have been approved. Same view has been taken by this Court in its Division Bench judgment reported in 2010 (1) ADJ 381 Anand Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others, wherein it was held as under:-
"The committee of Management of which Chaudhary Anand Singh is the alleged Manager was never recognised by the Regional Level Committee nor accorded its approval to such elections, hence, any elections held by this Committee are illegal. The Regional Level Committee has not committed any illegality in not according sanction to this Committee of Management of which the election allegedly took place on 31.07.2007 and in which Smt. Binda Devi was elected as Chairman and Anand Singh as the Manager."
19. There is another aspect of the matter. Sri Chunni Lal Srivastava, who had convened the meeting, was supposedly elected as Manager and one Sri Ram Narayan Singh, who presided the meeting dated 3.6.2012, was elected as President of the Committee of Management. The Full Bench in the case of Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College (supra) when it held that where the term of the Committee had expired or if it is found that there is no validly elected Committee in existence, the authorised controller has to hold the elections, the object is to ensure that such elections are free and fair and are held by an independent agency. The same object is to be culled out from Section 25 (2) of the Act. However, in the instant case, the District Inspector of Schools, who was authorised to hold such elections completely abdicated his responsibility while permitting Chunni Lal Srivastava to convene the meeting and hold the elections. Presence of an observer in such meeting does not mean that the elections were held by District Inspector of Schools.
20. It is noteworthy that the petitioners have raised specific objection in this regard on 30.5.2012 soon after the election programme was notified. In such circumstances, it was incumbent upon the District Inspector of Schools to have considered such objections. However, District Inspector of Schools proceeded in great haste to accord approval to the elections dated 3.6.2012 ignoring specific provision under Government Order dated 20.10.2008, which provides that District Inspector of Schools can recognise the elections, only if there is no dispute. It provides that in case of legal difficulty in recognising the elections, the dispute should be referred to the Regional Level Committee. In the instant case, I find that since the objections filed by the petitioners dated 30.5.2012 were there before the District Inspector of Schools and which questioned the very power of Chunni Lal Srivastava to convene the meeting, there was a bonafide dispute in existence regarding validity of such elections. It was a fit case which ought to have been referred to the Regional Level Committee. Thus, the impugned decision of the District Inspector of Schools dated 15.6.2012 cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed.
21. The next contention of learned counsel for the petitioners relates to the challenge made to the order of the Assistant Registrar determining the electoral college on the ground that even as per the findings recorded in the said order, the electoral college should be of 18 persons and not 12 persons as mentioned in Annexure 'Ka'. It is contended that the list of office bearers of the Committee of Management in the elections held on 11.1.2000 comprises of 11 persons and same number of persons as per list approved by the Assistant Registrar on 21.3.2003. There were four persons whose name finds place in both the lists and thus, after clubbing the two lists, the final list should be of 18 members and not of 12 members. On the other hand, Sri Anil Yadav learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent contended that the dispute in this regard is no more open to the petitioners in the present writ petition, as they have only challenged the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 15.6.2012, and not the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 8.4.2011.
22. Though the aforesaid argument of learned counsel for the respondent appears to be attractive but on closer scrutiny, it has to be rejected. The order of the Assistant Registrar dated 8.4.2011 was subjected to challenge by the petitioners in earlier Writ Petition No.24587 of 2011, which was dismissed by judgment dated 27.4.2011. Against the same, the petitioners filed Special Appeal No.981 of 2011, which was disposed of with the following observations:-
"Since the elections have already taken place and have been approved and that matter is sub-judice in the other writ petition, therefore, we are of the opinion that instead of multiple litigations the issue of validity of the elections including the correctness of the electoral college as determined by the Assistant Registrar should be adjudicated together in that pending writ petition.
Therefore, we dispose of the writ petition finally with the observation that none of the findings recorded in the impugned order by the learned Single Judge will have any bearing upon the decision to be taken in the other pending writ petition, as above."
23. Thus, the Appellate Court left the question relating to the validity of the determination of electoral college by the Assistant Registrar a subject matter of adjudication in the present writ petition. It was further observed that none of the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge will have any bearing upon the decision to be taken in the instant writ petition. Consequently, I do not find any force in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent that the dispute relating to the validity of the electoral college as determined by the Assistant Registrar cannot be questioned in the present writ petition.
24. However, inspite of the said observation, it is always a question of judicial discretion of this Court whether to go into the question relating to determination of electoral college made by the Assistant Registrar, inasmuch as the petitioners can be relegated to raise such plea before the Regional Level Committee.
25. Ordinarily, such disputes which generally involves disputed questions of facts can more appropriately be decided by the Regional Level Committee. However, since in the present case, the list prepared by Assistant Registrar is being challenged on the basis of the finding recorded in the order itself and does not involve adjudication of any question of fact and therefore, I prefer to go into the plea made in this regard instead of remitting the matter to the Regional Level Committee, which would unnecessarily delay the finalization of the dispute between the parties.
26. The Assistant Registrar has held that the electoral college will comprise of the office bearers elected on 11.01.2000 and whose name finds place in the list registered on 21.3.2003. Copy of the proceedings dated 11.1.2000 has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition, which indicates that following 11 persons were elected as office bearers and members of the Committee of Management:-
1- v/;{k Jh pqUuh yky JhokLro 2- mik/;{k Jh jke lsod fxjh 3- izca/kd Jherh ef.kjkt 'kqDy 4- lfpo Jh dkS'kys'k /kj feJ 5- mifLFkr Jherh lqHkkorh nsoh 6- lnL; Jh lqjsUnz dqekj JhokLro 7- lnL; Jh _"kHk nso 'kqDyk 8- lnL; Jh eqUrj 9- lnL; Jh eqjkjh yky 10- lnL; Jh jktfd'kksj flag 11- lnL; Jh jke ujk;u flag
27. The list of office bearers for the year 2002-03 registered on 21.3.2003 has been brought on record as Annexure-11 to the writ petition, which are as follows:-
1- Jh jke lsod fxjh 2- Jherh lkfo=h flag 3- _"kHk nso 'kqDyk 4- HkwisUnz ukFk f=ikBh 5- iznhi dqekj flag 6- Jherh xhrk flag 7- jke ujk;u flag 8- eqUuj 9- jke u;u 10- eksrh yky 11- ân; ujk;u f=ikBh
28. A comparison of the two lists would show that there are four names, which are common. Thus, on clubbing these lists, the final list should be of 18 members. However, Assistant Registrar prepared a list of 12 members as Annexure 'Ka' and directed for elections being held from the said list of members. It is beyond comprehension that how by clubbing these two lists, the Assistant Registrar prepared a list of 12 members, though it should be of 18 persons. Thus, on the face of it, the list prepared by the Assistant Registrar, even according to the findings recorded in the order passed by him determining the electoral college, is erroneous and cannot be sustained. Any elections held on basis thereof are also liable to fall.
29. It is further noticeable that according to the case of the petitioners, the list of 11 persons of the year 2000 is not of the General Body but of the office bearers and members elected on 11.1.2000. Copy of the meeting dated 11.1.2000, in which elections were held, has been filed as Annexure-10 to the writ petition, according to which, 43 persons participated in the meeting. On the other hand, according to the respondent, elections of the year 2000 were held from a General Body comprising of 16 members.
30. Though there is difference in stand taken in this regard by the petitioner and the contesting respondent but it is common ground between them that the General Body for the elections held in the year 2000 was not of 11 members (as found by the Assistant Registrar) but more than that.
31. The respondent had submitted a list of 18 members before the Assistant Registrar to be the persons comprising General Body, while the petitioners have submitted list of 35 persons. Though in the order of Assistant Registrar, reasons have been given for discarding both the lists but the Assistant Registrar had not carried out any exercise to determine who were valid members, who indisputably participated in the elections of the year 2000 nor had carried out any objective exercise to determine whether any of the parties thereafter were entitled to enroll new members and if so, who are they. Thus, I am of the opinion that the order of the Assistant Registrar dated 8.4.2011, in so far as it determines the electoral college, cannot be sustained.
32. In view of the findings recorded above, irresistible conclusion is that the impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 15.6.2012 recognising the elections of respondent no.3, cannot be sustained and is hereby quashed. The order of the Assistant Registrar, in so far as it determines the electoral college, is also quashed to that extent. Since both, the Regional Level Committee and Assistant Registrar have held that at present there is no validly elected Committee and under their orders, District Inspector of Schools was directed to hold fresh elections and, therefore, it is hereby directed that the District Inspector of Schools will now hold fresh elections in accordance with law, expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, by any of the parties before it. It is further provided that before holding the elections, the District Inspector of Schools shall determine the electoral college and for the said purpose, it shall be open to him to take assistance of the Assistant Registrar as in the past, as before this Court, the parties have not challenged the jurisdiction of the Assistant Registrar to carry out such exercise. Whether the electoral college is determined by District Inspector of Schools himself or by the Assistant Registrar, it shall only be after publishing a provisional list and inviting objections from the parties and thereafter, passing a reasoned and speaking order taking into consideration the objections filed by respective parties. Soon after the electoral college is determined, which may preferably be done expeditiously and preferably within six weeks, the elections of the Committee of Management shall be held in accordance with law within next six weeks.
33. Subject to the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 24.07.2014 SL