Allahabad High Court
C/M Maharana Pratap Vidyalaya Prabandh ... vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. And 3 Others on 8 November, 2013
Bench: Sunil Ambwani, Surya Prakash Kesarwani
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 32 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1714 of 2013 Appellant :- C/M Maharana Pratap Vidyalaya Prabandh Samiti And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secry. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- A.K. Srivastava,Sudhir Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
We have heard Shri A.K. Srivastava and Shri Sudhir Srivastava for the appellants. Learned Standing Counsel appears for the State respondents.
This intra-court Special Appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 24.10.2013, by which learned Single Judge has declined to entertain the writ petition on the ground that in the previous writ petition, directions were given to decide petitioner's objections by a reasoned and speaking order to finalise the electoral college for holding elections. The Court also directed in the earlier Writ Petition No.16786 of 2013, that in respect of all other grievances the petitioner will be at liberty to seek remedies under Section 25 (1) of Societies Registration Act, or by way of Civil Suit.
It is submitted that the electoral college has been finalised without deciding petitioner's representation.
Learned Single Judge has observed that any grievance with regard to finalisation of electoral college and elections can be considered after the elections are held in accordance with the provisions of the Societies Registration Act or by filing a civil suit.
The elections for electing the office bearers of a society or a committee of management of an educational institution in accordance with the scheme of administration either by the office bearers of the outgoing committee of management or authorised controller appointed by the educational authorities, requires several steps to be taken, which includes the finalisation of the electoral college, advertising a date and venue for holding elections, appointment of observer etc. The persons participating in the election process raise several disputes during the process and file writ petitions seeking directions to the educational authorities. A large number of questions are raised such as the validity of the membership of the members, the number of electors and the finalisation of the electoral college. These disputes, during the process of elections in view of rival contentions on facts, consume valuable time of the Court. The directions issued are often not obeyed by the parties, who have gained momentary advantage, and may loose the opportunity to succeed in the elections.
A large number of writ petitions are being filed in the High Court seeking directions either way during the process of elections. The Court takes judicial notice of the fact that thousands of writ petitions are filed every year in the matters of elections of the societies and the committee of management of the educational institutions for which a separate determination has been carved out. This Court is very often swayed by the circumstances and the aggressive arguments advanced by learned counsels appearing for the parties and pass interim orders or directions, which causes interference in the process of election. Very often the parties do not give the background of the case and the number of writ petitions filed earlier in respect of same elections, causing further confusion, which is later on sought to be resolved by making representations to consider as to who is in effective control of the institutions to be decided by the Regional Level Committee. In the present case also a second writ petition was filed giving rise to this special appeal seeking directions for deciding the objections to the validity of the electoral college.
In the matter of elections the Supreme Court and this Court have consistently taken a view that the Courts should not interfere in the process of elections once the elections have been notified, as the adjudicating authority cannot conclusively decide any dispute in the middle of the process of election nor the fundamental rights of any of the parties are affected as elections have always been held to be statutory right. The parties can always be relegated to the forums of adjudication and election tribunals after the results of the elections are declared.
In the case of elections to the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, the Representation of People's Act, 1951 provides that election petitions be filed in the High Court. In the matter of elections to societies and cooperative societies, the statutes regulating the registration and elections of the societies provide for constitution of election tribunals for challenging the elections. In the case of societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, the elections of the office bearers can be challenged before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act and in order to determine as to who is in effective control, Section 16A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act provide for the authorities, which in the present case is the Regional Level Committee. A five judge Bench of this Court in Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education & Ors., Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36267 of 1992 decided on 15.10.2004 held as follows:-
"Accordingly, we answer the questions as follows:-
1. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A (7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, exercises quasi-judicial powers, and not purely administrative powers.
2. The Regional Deputy Director of Education while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921, must decide the question of validity of the elections prima facie, in deciding the question of actual control over the affairs of the institution.
3. 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."
In order to avoid a large number of writ petitions filed for quashing the orders passed by the educational authorities during the process of elections and in seeking directions to them, we hereby declare that the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64; Harcharan Singh v. Mohinder Singh & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 1500; Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851; Jyoti Basu & Ors. v. Debi Ghosal & Ors., AIR 1982 SC 983; Harikrishna Lal v. Babu Lal Marandi, (2003) 8 SCC 613 and Shyamdeo Pd. Singh v. Naval Kishore Yadav, (2000) 8 SCC 46 restraining the courts from interfering in the process of election after the elections are notified is equally applicable to the elections of the office bearers of the committee of management of the societies as well as the Committee of Management to be elected in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of administration of the educational institutions. The principles of law that the Courts should keep their hand off in electoral matters and that all election disputes must be tried by the Election Tribunal, is also incorporated in the Constitution of India under Art.329 (b) for the elections of the Parliament or to the house or either house of the legislature, under Art.243 O for the elections of Panchayats and Art.243 ZG in the matter of elections of the municipalities. There is no reason as to why these time tested and settled principles should not be made applicable to the elections of the office bearers of the societies and for the Committee of Management under the scheme of administration of the educational institutions.
We have every reason to believe that in future the Court will refuse to interfere in the process of elections until the elections are concluded and will refuse to entertain election disputes and relegate the parties to approach the Election Tribunals or to file civil suit to challenge the results of the elections.
The huge pendency in the Court denies access of justice to the thousands of litigants in need of justice from the Court. The filing of frivolous, premature and unnecessary writ petitions take away the valuable time of the Court and clogs the entire justice delivery system. This Court has to be conscious of the fact that writ petitions should be entertained only when parties have acquired a cause of action and have exhausted the alternative remedies before approaching the Court.
There is no legal error in the judgment of learned Single Judge.
The special appeal is dismissed.
Order Date :- 8.11.2013 RKP/SP/