O.P. Garg, J.
1. It is distressing to note that an illegally constituted Executive Committee, has, with a view to perpetuate or to linger on its continuance for an indefinite period, deliberately and with wholly dishonest and evil intention, been successful in procrastinating the election process. This observation is fortified from the following facts -
Executive Committee of Aryan Education Trust, 92-A, Meerapur, D.A.V. College Campus, Allahabad is a registered society. It filed a writ petition (No. 15764 of 1996) through its Secretary, Dr. Rudra Prakash Srivastava to challenge the order dated 27.3.1996, Annexure 14 to the writ petition passed by Smt. Sangeeta Singh, Prescribed Authority/Sub-Divisional Officer, Chial under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, whereby the election of the petitioner held on 9.5.1993 was found to be illegal. On 3.5.1996, the following order was passed by this Court :-
'Issue notice to respondents 2 and 3 returnable at an early date. List this case in the week connencing 15th July, 1996.
Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner on granting of interim relief.
According to Bye laws of the Society, the duration of the elected body shall be three years. The present body is said to be elected on 9.5.1993. The same is in dispute and the election held on that date has been cancelled by the Prescribed Authority vide order dated 27th March, 1996, which is impugned in the present writ petition.
In view of the present position, the elected body of the year 1988 is not disputed. It has been provided in the bye-laws that the Executive Committee and the office bearers of the elected body shall continue till the new election is held. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is directed to hold the election of the Society expeditiously. In view of this until further orders of this Court no action shall be taken by any of the authorities concerned in pursuance of the order dated 27th March, 1996.'
It was expected that in the light of the above order the petitioner shall hold election of the society within a reasonable time but unfortunately, the petitioner, meaning thereby Dr. Rudra Prakash Srivastava whiled away time and till 23.10.1997, i.e. after the expiry of 15 months, no steps for holding the elections appear to have been taken. The respondents moved an application pointing out the contumacy on the part of the petitioner and consequently on 23.10.1997, following order was passed by this Court :-
'It appears that the compliance of the order dated 3.5.1996 has not been made by the petitioner. List this case on 1.12.1997 on which dated the petitioner shall show the cause as to why order of this Court dated 3.5.96 has not been complied with and as to why this Court may not appoint a person for holding election and looking after the management due to non-compliance of the order passed by this Court. However, it will be open for the petitioner to make compliance with the order of this Court dated 3.5.1996 before the next date of listing of this case.
Copy of this order be given to Counsel for the respondents on payment of usual charges Sri S.K. Garg undertakers to serve a copy of this order on the Counsel for the petitioners within a week.
Sd/-I.M. Quddusi.'
It appears that learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri S.M.A. Kazmi, and learned Counsel for the contesting respondent No. 2, Sri S.K. Garg came to terms and moved a joint application on which this Court passed the following older on 18.12.1997:-
'With the consent of the parties and their learned Counsel it has been decided that the election process shall be completed and the meeting of the General Body will be held by 15.1.98 and the elections shall be held and process in this regard shall be completed by 15.2.98. The learned Counsel for the parties Sri S.K. Garg and Sri S.M.A. Kazmi have consented to give their advices and extent their valuable time in supervising election etc.
In view of the above consensus the contempt petition is disposed of finally and the notices are discharged, subject to liberty to file a fresh petition by the petitioner in case of breach of the above agreement of the parties.
Sd/- I.M. Quddusi.'
After passing of the above order, Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.S. Srivastava, a retired judge of this Court was appointed as Returning Officer in the meeting of the Executive Committee of the petitioner trust convened on 2.1.1998. The decision taken in the said meeting came to be ratified in the meeting of the General Body held on 11.1.1998. S/Sri S.M.A. Kazmi and S.K. Garg were also to act as Assistant Returning Officers and Advisors and S/Sri R.P. Gupta and S.C. Lal came to be appointed as observers. In pursuance of the decisions of these two meetings, election process was commenced by publishing and circulating the election agenda contained in election notice dated 23.1.1998 under the signatures of Dr. Rudra Prakash Srivastava. After the various steps in the chain of process of election had taken place, poll was to take place on 1.3.1998 and on the same day, the result was to be declared.
2. After the notification of the election, Sri Laxmi Prasad Srivastava, respondent No. 2 and a host of other trustees filed applications before the Returning Officer (for short 'RO') challenging the membership of 93 persons en bloc who were enrolled after 31.3.1993 as well as continuance of membership of some other persons. The petitioner also filed objection against the applications moved by Dakhini Prasad Srivastava and others, on 12.2.1998, RO passed a hand-written order, taking the following decisions :-
'1. Since this elections is being held under orders of the High Court made in the pending writ petition No. 15764 of 1996 wherein the annulment of the election of 1993 is impugned, this election is in substance the election of 1993.
2. Consequently the voters enlisted upto 31.3.1993 are eligible voters for this election. All voters enlisted subsequent to 31.3.1993 are not eligible to participate in the election.'
For certain reasons, delivery of detailed reasoned order was deferred and on 16.2.98, a typed detailed reasoned order was delivered. In a meeting held on 18.2.1998, the RO, with the help of S/Sri S.M.A. Kazmi ARO- cum -Advisor, and R.P. Gupta, Observer, took certain decisions. S/Sri S.K. Garg and SC Lal were not present in the meeting as they were out of station. It was decided that the voters enlisted subsequent to 31.3.93 are not eligible to participate in the election as the election, which is going to be held according to the election schedule is, in substance and virtually, is the election of 1993. Sri Kazmi, it appears did not agree by the above conclusion and decision and appended a note with a view to seek clarification of the order dated 18.12.1997 passed by this Court. It appears that certain persons, who were not party to the writ petition in any capacity. Moved an application on which this Court passed the following order on 24.2.1998 :-
'Sri S.K: Garg is reported to be out of station and after today, this Court will sit on 3.3.98 hence as an interim measure it is. provided that candidature of the person in participating elections to be held on 1.3.98 may be allowed. The persons in whose respect some dispute has arisen to the effect as to whether they are entitled for voting or not will also be allowed to cast their votes, but votes of such persons will be kept in a separate ballot box.
Put up this case on 3.3.98 for further orders. The result of the election will not be declared until further orders of this Court.
I.M. Quddusi.'
The RO issued certain directions to implement the order dated 24.2.1998, quoted above, and on 1.3.1998, as per schedule, the voting had taken place. The votes cast by the 93 persons who were enlisted subsequent to 31.3.1993 and were excluded from participation in the election in pursuance of the orders of the RO dated 12.2.1998 and 16.2.1998, have been kept apart in sealed ballot box. The contesting respondent No. 2 has moved an application praying that the interim order dated 24.2.1998 be vacated and a direction be issued for declaration of the result of the election by excluding 93 votes as well as excluding the contestants who were amongst those 93 voters.
3. The petitioner, it appears, is labouring under the misconception of fact that the writ petition No. 15764 of 1996 has been finally disposed of in terms of the order dated 18.12.1997, quoted above, and, therefore, the petitioner moved Civil Misc. Application No. 13392 of 1998 on 19.2.98, supported by an affidavit of Dr. Rudra Pratap Srivastava, for seeking guidance and directions of this Court with regard to right of participation in the election proceeding by 93 trustees who have been inducted and duly approved by the Executive Committee in 1994. A counter affidavit, as well as a rejoinder affidavit have also been filed.
4. At the outset, it would be proper to clarify that Civil Misc. Writ No. 15764 of 1996 was never finally disposed of by order dated 18.12.1997 by which the application for initiating contempt proceeding against Dr. Rudra Pratap Srivastava was disposed of and the notice issued to him was discharged. The order dated 18.12.1997 speaks for itself and a bare reading of it would make it clear that the writ petition was never finally disposed of. It remained pending and it was for this reason that even after 18.12.1997, orders were passed in the said writ petition. I, therefore, treat Misc, Application No. 13392 of 1998 as part of and having been moved in writ petition No. 15764 of 1996 which is now being finally disposed of.
5. Heard Sri S.M.A. Kazmi assisted by Sri Jayant Banerjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ravi Kant, assisted by Sri S.K. Garg, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 2, and perused the material available on record.
6. To begin with, it would be pertinent to observe that the battle which has been pitched in the present writ petition is totally on a foreign field far away from the recognised judicial forums before whom the complex and vex questions, requiring scrutiny of controversial facts, could be raised for scrutiny and adjudication. It is well settled that when once the election process commences, the Courts would be chary and cautions enough to interfere with the process unless it is brought to logical conclusion, the election process, needless to say, of necessity, has to go on unhindered and uninterrupted. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Basant Prasad Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1333, has taken the view that this Court should not interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution with the electoral process initiated for constituting a committee of management at the intermediate stage and the person who may be interested in challenging the election should wait till the election is over. The said case was followed by subsequent Division Bench of this Court which decided the case reported in (1994) 3 UPLBEC 1496, Smt. Santosh Kumar Kapoor and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors.. A learned Single Judge of mis Court in an earlier decision reported in (1992) 2 UPLBEC 1232, Hirdav Narain Rai v. Dy. Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi and Ors., was of the view that this Court does not interfere with the election process under Article 226 of the Constitution. In case the election is held not in accordance with law, or the persons who are not entitled to vote are permitted to cast their vote or the persons who are entitled to vote are excluded, it is open to the aggrieved persons to challenge the same before the appropriate forum.
7. There are a number of celebrated decisions of the Apex Court from which inspiration may be drawn to decide the question whether or not this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would be justified in interferring with the election process or to regulate by its dictates the intermediate stages of the various steps which compendiously taken together is known as election.' In AIR 1952 SC 64, N.P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency, the Apex Court ruled as follows :-
'Having regard to the important functions which the legislatures have to perform in democratic countries, it has always been recognised to be a matter of first importance that elections should be concluded as early as possible according to time schedule and all controversial matters and all disputes arising out of elections should be postponed till after the elections are over so that the election proceedings may not be unduly retarded or protracted.'
In another oft-quoted case reported in AIR 1975 SC 2140, Narhoo Mal and Ors. v. Hira Mal and others, it was observed in paragraph 5 of the report:-
'......,......................the election to the office of the President could be challenged only according to the procedure prescribed by that Act and that is by means of an election petition presented in accordance with the provisions of the Act and in on other way.'
In S.T. Muthusami v. K. Natrajan and Ors., AIR 1988 SC 616, it has been observed by the Apex Court:-
'............................Even if there is any mistake committed by either the election authority or the Returning Officer in the allotment of Symbol to the appellant the said mistake can only amount to a non-compliance with the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder. It is clear from clauses (c) of Rule 11 of the Rules made for the purpose of providing a machinery for the decisions of election disputes relating to Panchayat Union Councils that every action amounting to such non- compliance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder would not automatically vitiate an election. It is only when the election Court on a consideration of the entire material placed before it at trial of an election petition comets to the conclusion that the result of the election has been materially affected by such non- compliance with any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder the election of the returned candidates can be declared void ..............................'
There is plethora of decisions and the gamut of all such decisions on the point is that the election process, inter alia, involves determination of the members who can vote and participate in election; nomination; preparation and publication of programme; scrutiny polling and declaration of result, in case, at the intermediate stage of the election process, High Court entertains the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution, it will further delay the election process. Not only this, the disputed questions of fact as to who are the members and other related matters cannot be decided in writ jurisdiction. Most of the cases, referred to above, have been rendered with reference to the Representation of the People Act and other enactments. The principles that any matter which has the effect of vitiating election, should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before Court and the person who is interested in challenging the election should wait till the election is over, are the principles of general applicability not confined to the elections under the Representation of the People Act and other enactments. The principles laid down with reference to the elections held under the Representation of the People Act, have been applied by the Supreme Court to the elections of the Local Bodies. In view of the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Nanhoo Mal (supra), the above principles are fully applicable to the present case also. Therefore, I have no hesitation in concluding that this Court cannot throttle the election process or interfere with it, in any manner, as the controversy raised in the application No. 13392 of 1998 cannot be sifted and gone into in writ jurisdiction. This Court cannot determine as to who were the members entitled to vote and who had earned disqualifications. All these matters are left for decision and adjudication by the appropriate authority. The elections which have been held with some effort and pursuation of this Court and under the able supervision and observance of the RO and other Advisors have to be brought to a logical end.
8. Prima facie, the view taken by the RO that 93 voters who were enlisted subsequent to 31.3.1993 have to be denied the benefit of voting, appears to be quite convincing, plausible and acceptable. The elections held on 9.5.1993 in which the petitioner-Committee, of which Dr. Rudra Pratap Srivastava was elected as Secretary were challenged and held illegal by the Prescribed Authority exercising powers Under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. This Court has directed that the fresh elections to be held, obviously as a substitute for the elections which were held in the year 1993. Therefore, there was hardly any Justification to include the voters enrolled subsequent to 31.3.1993. It is no gain saying that simultaneously with the appointment of the RO it was decided by the Executive Committee as well as the General Body of the Trust that 472 members, which also included 93 members enrolled after 31.3.1993 shall constitute the electoral body to cast votes at the polls scheduled to be held on 1.3.1993. Since the matter may be agitated one way or the other, I would not dilate over this point, lest it may prejudice the case of either of the parties in the event of filling of a civil suit or initiation of fresh proceedings Under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act to challenge the validity or otherwise of the elections. I, therefore, refrain to make any observations on the merits of the various submissions raised by learned Counsel for the parties.
9. In the result, I find that the writ petition has achieved the very purpose for which it was filed, the elections have been held under the supervision of the RO. The declaration of the result is unnecessarily held up. The petitioner has already dragged the matter with an avowed object or sticking to the office of Secretary for an indefinite period. To say the least, it is sad and bad that the petitioner, Dr. Rudra Pratap Srivastava disregarded the initial order dated 3.5.96 and continued to behave in an obdurate manner, as he wanted to buy time with a view to clinge to the office without holding elections. Now that the elections have been held, it would be logical to put the now executive committee on rails, so that the element of uncertainty is brought to an end. The interest of the institution and its students is of paramount consideration and keeping it in view I finally dispose of the present petition, as it has achieved the desired purpose, with the directions that the result of the election held on 1st March, 1998 shall be declared by the Returning Officer (Hon'ble Mr, Justice A.S. Srivastava ) after counting the votes, excluding the voters who were enlisted subsequent to 31st Mach, 1993 within ten days from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. Upon the declaration of the result, the old executive committee shall cease to function and in its place, newly elected executive committee shall come into being and shall, subject to the decision, if any, of the appropriate forum, remain in office for the requisite term of three years, as specified in the bye-laws of the Trust. Parties shall bear their own costs.