Judgment:
Tarun Agarwala, J.
1. Heard Sri Amit Saxena, the learned Counsel for the petitioners, Shri Mohit Kumar, the learned Counsel for the applicant who seeks to be impleaded in the writ petition and the learned standing counsel for the respondents.
2. The last election was held on 16th of September, 2004, which was duly recognised by the Regional Committee, by its order dated 31st December, 2004. As per the scheme of administration, the term of the Committee of Management is 3 years and one month, during which period, fresh elections are required to be held.
3. It transpires that on 15th of July, 2004, a resolution was passed by the Committee of Management to hold elections, pursuant to which an election programme was notified informing the relevant authorities, including the District Inspector of Schools, about the election. It is alleged that the election programme was also published and letters were sent to the District Magistrate, the S.S.P. and the educational authorities to send their observers. It is alleged that observers of the District Magistrate were present and the election was held on 17th October, 2007, in which, the members of the Committee of Management, namely, the petitioners were elected. The results was sent to the authority for its approval and recognition.
4. It is alleged that the applicant Jagdish Prasad Sharma filed a complaint, and based on that, an enquiry was held by the District Inspector of Schools, and on that basis, a letter dated 4th of January, 2008 was sent by the District Inspector of Schools to the Regional Committee. Based on this letter, the Regional Committee passed an order dated 8th of January, 2008 holding that the election held on 17th of October, 2007 could not be recognised since the Committee of Management had become barred by time and was not entitled to hold the election. The Regional Committee, accordingly, appointed a Prabandh Sanchalak to manage the institution and hold the election after verifying the list of members. The petitioners, being aggrieved by the order of the Regional Committee, has filed the present writ petition.
5. Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma has filed a recall application, a stay vacating application and an Application No. 36306 of 2008 for being impleaded as a contesting respondent. The applicant Jagdish Prasad Sharma alleges that he is a life member of the society and that the elections conducted by the petitioners was illegal and against the provisions of the Scheme of Administration, and that, no valid election was held, and consequently, he is a necessary party and should be impleaded and be heard. It was alleged that the applicant had filed a caveat, but the petitioners deliberately got the writ petition reported as arising from district Meerut, whereas, the cause of action was from district Gautam Budh Nagar. On account of wrong mentioning of the district, the applicant's caveat could not be reported, which resulted in the Court issuing an ex parte interim order. The applicant further submitted that false facts have been stated and that material facts have been concealed, which again resulted in the Court granting an interim order. The applicant further stated that he has also challenged the last two elections held by the Committee of Management, which petitions are pending consideration before the Court. Consequently, the learned Counsel for the applicant prayed that he should be heard and the writ petition should be dismissed with exemplary cost. The learned Counsel for the petitioners has denied the allegation and submitted that there was no concealment of material fact nor was the district wrongly mentioned. The learned Counsel submitted that the cause of action had arisen from Meerut and consequently that district was mentioned in the petition.
6. This Court initially went into the allegations levelled by the applicant, but subsequently, during the course of the hearing of the petition, it was agreed that the matter may be heard on merit.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the applicant Jagdish Prasad Sharma is a busy body and has no right to oppose the petition or challenge the election of the Committee of Management. The learned Counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the elections were duly held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, and that, the mere fact that the election was held two days after the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management, would not make the election void.
8. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant, being a life member, is a necessary party and has a right to opposite the election. The learned Counsel further submitted that the election was held after the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management and consequently, the election held was a void election.
9. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, the Court finds that members of the Committee or of the society has no locus standi to challenge the election of a committee in a writ petition. One such decision was given by this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Sri Kachcha Baba Inter College, Varanasi and Ors. v. Regional Committee, Pancham Mandal, Varanasi and Ors. 2007 (7) ADJ 414, wherein the Court held that the petitioners, being members of the general body of the society, had no locus standi to file the writ petition challenging the election of the Committee of Management. The Court held that only a rival Committee of Management could oppose the elections. Similar view was held by a Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, District Basti and Anr. v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and Anr. 1995 UPLBEC 1242 and in Dr. P.P. Rastogi and Ors. v. Meerut University, Meerut and Anr. 1997 (1) UPLBEC 415.
10. In view of the aforesaid decisions, this Court is of the opinion that if the members of the Society or Committee of Management have no locus standi to challenge the election of a Committee of Management, in the same way, a life member is not entitled to oppose the writ petition or challenge the election of the Committee of Management. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the life member, Shri Jagdish Prasad Sharma has no locus standi to oppose the writ petition. The Impleadment Application No. 36306 of 2008 is consequently rejected.
11. Insofar as the impugned order is concerned, the Court finds that the Regional Committee has held that the Committee of Management had become barred by time, and therefore, could not hold the election after the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management. Under Clause (8) of the Scheme of Administration, the term of Committee of Management is 3 years and one month. The last election was held on 16th of September, 2004. The term, as per the Scheme of Administration was to expire on 15th of October, 2007. Admittedly, the, election was held on 17th of October, 2007, that is, two days after the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management. Certain judgments have been cited by the learned Counsel for the applicant Jagdish Prasad Sharma to the effect that no elections could be conducted by the Committee of Management after the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management and such elections held were ex facie illegal, namely, Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education and Ors. 2004 (4) ESC (All) 2257; Committee of Management Sukhpura Inter College, Sukhpura, District Ballia and Anr. v. Alleged Committee of Management, Sukhpura Inter College, Sukhpura, District Ballia and Ors. 1998 (1) UPLBEC 379; M.M.I. Inter College, Nehtour, Bijnor v. Deputy Director of Education 10th Circle, Moradabad and Ors. 1995 ACJ 132 and Committee of Management, Town Inter College, Mohamdabad, Gohna, Mau v. District Inspector of Schools, Mau and Ors. 1995 ACJ 420. The Court has perused these judgments and finds that the said decisions are distinguishable. In all these decisions, the election process was started after the term of the Committee of Management had expired.
12. In the present case, the Court finds that the election process had started prior to the expiry of the term. A resolution to hold election was passed on 7th of July, 2004, almost 3 months prior to the expiry of the term. It is also alleged that the election programme was published on 3rd October, 2007 and that, the letters were sent to the authorities to send their observers. The mere fact that the date of poll was fixed two days after the expiry of the term, in my opinion, would not be fatal to the election on the ground that, in the meanwhile, the term of the Committee of Management had expired.
13. From a reading of Clause (8) of the Scheme of Administration, this Court is of the opinion that the provision is directory in nature and is not mandatory. This Court is further of the opinion that since the election process had started which eventually culminated in the holding of the election, the said election would not be held to be illegal merely because the election was held two days after the expiry of the term of the outgoing Committee of Management. This view of mine is supported by a decision of this Court in Committee of Management, Arya Kanya Inter College, Secundra Rau, Aligarh v. Secretary, Arya Kanya Inter College, Secundra Rau, Aligarh and Ors. : 1998 (3) AWC 2166, wherein, in a similar situation, the election process had started prior to the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management and that the election was held 5 days after the expiry of the period. The Court held that the election held after the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management was not illegal.
14. In view of the aforesaid, the Court is of the opinion that the Regional Committee committed an error in holding that the election held by the outgoing Committee of Management was illegal because the term of the said Committee of Management had expired. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained.
15. There is another aspect of the matter. In paragraph 19 of the writ petition, it has been specifically alleged that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioners. The District Inspector of Schools has filed the counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2, and in paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that an opportunity of hearing was provided by the District Inspector of Schools. The impugned order was passed by the Regional Committee. Opportunity of hearing was required to be given by the Regional Committee and not by the District Inspector of Schools. Therefore, on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice, the impugned order also cannot be sustained.
16. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. The Regional Committee is directed to pass a fresh order, after considering all aspects of the matter, and after giving opportunity of hearing to all the interested parties concerned, within three months from the date of the production of a certified copy of this order.