Allahabad High Court
Mangal Das Pranami vs State Of U P And 3 Others on 6 May, 2022
Bench: Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12895 of 2022
Petitioner :- Mangal Das Pranami
Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Rai,Ajay Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned election programme dated 9th April, 2022 and the ground taken is that when the election was notified the objections were invited to the list of members but no date was fixed for disposal of the same and so the electoral college was virtually not determined.
On a pointed query being made, as to whether the petitioner is a member of the general body notified by the election officer, he did admit petitioner to be a member, however, he claimed to have filed objection questioning membership of certain others.
In the considered view of the Court, single member of general body of the Society or of the institution as the case may be, has a right to participate in the election proceeding and to cast vote and regarding objection to the membership of other persons he has to seek declaration either from civil court or to raise the issue before the appropriate authority namely the Prescribed Authority whenever reference is made.
This Court does not find the claim of the petitioner as set up in this petition to be sound enough to interfere with election programme already notified. Even otherwise, the Court is of the view that at the instance of the single member of the general body of the society or the institution, the entire election notification cannot be quashed. The individual member has every right to question his non inclusion as a member in the general body and if such a person is already included in the general body then no writ can be entertained questioning the entire election programme on the basis of the list already published by the election officer.
In the case of Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others in Special Appeal No.- 1380 of 2008 vide judgment dated 7th September, 2010 it has been observed thus:
"In Ratan Kumar Solanki vs. State of UP and others 2010 (1) ADJ 262 (DB) this Court had considered the question of law with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition by a member of the general body at great length and the earlier judgments of this Court in Dr. P.P. Rastogi and others v. Meerut University, Meerut and others (1997) 1 UPLBEC 415 and Smt. Vimla Devi v. Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra and others 1997 (3) ESC 1807 and Bhagwan Kaushik v. State of UP and others 2006 (2) ADJ 631. The Division Bench held in paragraph 24 as follows:-
"24. What is discernible from the above discussion is where the right of an individual is affected or infringed, and, he has no other effective remedy, if such rights of the individual concerned are borne out from the statute or the provision of bye-laws etc. having the flavour of statute, a writ petition at his instance may be maintainable subject to attracting the condition where the Court may decline to interfere namely availability of alternative remedy, delay, laches etc. but where a legal right of an individual is not directly affected, a writ petition expousing the cause of the collective body or other members of the collective body would not be maintainable at the instance of an individual who himself is not directly affected. We may add here that in a given case, if it is found that an election was held by an imposter and he is supported by DIOS or other educational authorities, such an action of DIOS as also the election can be challenged by the individual member since it cannot be said that he is not a person aggrieved but whether a writ petition at his instance would be maintainable or he can challenge the election by filing a civil suit etc., would be a different aspect of the matter and has to be considered in each and every case considering the facts, relevant provision and other relevant aspects of the matter."
The Division Bench, thereafter considering the facts of the case, found that Shri Ratan Kumar Solanki-the petitioner in that case had contested the elections. He had made a complaint of certain irregularities to the District Inspector of Schools. After getting the report of the Authorized Controller and recording prima facie satisfaction the District Inspector of Schools, had directed recount of votes, but that the elections were recognised without the recount. In such circumstances, it was held that the petitioner cannot be said to be a person, who was not aggrieved or has no locus standi.
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.
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."
In view of the above legal position, I decline to interfere at the instance of an individual member. Liberty rests with the petitioner to apply for common law remedy or raise the dispute at appropriate forum while election dispute is referred.
Order Date :- 6.5.2022
Atmesh
