R.A.Sharma - (1.) ELECTIONS of the Committee of Management of Saltamat Bahadur Mahavidyalaya, Badlapur district jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the college), were held on 10th January, 1988 The term of the Committee of Management being three years the elections were required to be held before the end of the term of the said Committee. The Committee of Management appointed a Returning Officer for conducting the election, who published the election programme In a local news paper. It appears that some objections were raised regarding right of some persons to vote in the election of the Committee and those objections were rejected by Returning Officer by his order dated 3-1-1991. The Returning Officer, thereafter, published a list of 309 members (trustees) of the General body who were to elect the Committee of Management. Respondents 2 to 4 made representation before the Vice-Chancellor of the Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, to which the college is affiliated, against the above order of the Returning Officer whereby a list of 309 members was published. The Vice Chancellor stayed the holding of the election by an interim order. Thereafter by an order, copy of which has been filed as arraexure-18 to the writ petition, set-aside the order of Returning Officer and declared that only 160 old members (trustees) are entitled to vote in the election. Subsequent addition of 148 members (trustees) was declared as illegal with the result that those 148 new members cannot participate in the election. It is against this order that the writ petition no. 15379 of 1991 has been filed by the petitioners. Petitioner no. 1 is said to be registered society of the college whereas the petitioner no. 2 is its Committee of Management. Petitioner no?. 4 to 12 are the new trustees, whose names have been struck of from electoral roll by the Vice Chancellor by the impugned order. This court by interim order dated 29-5-1991 has permitted the election to be held in accordance with the impugned order of the Vice Chancellor.
(2.) AFTER the aforesaid order was passed by the Vice-Chancellor the Deputy Director of Education on July 13, 1992 passed an order under section 60-D of the State Universities Act, for single operation of the college account, by Lekhadhikari The second writ petition no. 26308 of 1992 has been filed against this order. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 15379) of 1991. The Impugned order of the Vice Chancellor cannot be sustained, because the Vice-Chancellor, being entitled under the law to approve as elected Committee of Management of the college, has the power to interfere only after the election is over, and he is not entitled to interfere with the electoral process at the intermediate stage. Section 2 (13) of the State Universities Act defines the "management" as follows : "Management" in relation to an affiliated or associated college, means the managing committee or other body charged with managing the affairs of that college and recognised as such by the University." Statutes nave been framed under the Act for colleges affilated to the. Purvanchal University. Statute 13.05 which deals with the constitution of the Committee of Management of an affiliated college, so far as it is relevant is reproduced below : "13. 05. The constitution of the Management of every college shall provide that- (f) if any question arises whether any person has been duly chosen as, or is entitled to be a member of office-bearer of Management or whether the Management is legally constituted, the decision of the Vice-Chancellor shall be final." Statute 13.34 also gives power to the Vice-Chancellor to adjudicate on the dispute regarding management of an affiliated college. The said statute is as follows : "13.34 Whenever there is a dispute regarding the management of an affiliated college, persons found by the Vice Chancellor to be in actual possession and control of the college properties may, for purposes of the Act and these Statutes be recognised to constitute the Management of such college until a court of competent jurisdiction orders otherwise : Provided that the Vice-Chancellor shall before making an order under this Statute, afford an opportunity to the rival claimants to make written representations Explanation-In determining the question as to who is In actual possession and control of the college properties the Vice-Chancellor shall have regard to the control over the funds of the (institution and over the actual administration, the receipt of the income from the property of the institution and to other relevant circumstances which might have bearing on the question to be determined." The Vice-Chancellor derives the power to decide the dispute relating to the constitution of the Committee of Management of affiliated college from section 2 (13) of the Act. Statute 13.34 which is analogous to section 16-A (7) of the U. P, Intermediate Education Act, authorises the Vice-Chancellor to decide the dispute regarding the management of an affiliated college. A Division Bench of this Court in the Committee of Management v D.I.O.S , 1992 ACJ 505, while interpreting analogous provisions of section 16-A (7) of Intermediate Education Act, held that the Deputy Director gets jurisdiction to decide a dispute only when there are two or more rival Committees of Management which have staked their claim to manage the college. Unless there are rival Committees of Management the Deputy Director cannot exercise the power under section 16-A (7). On the same reasoning the Vice-Chancellor gets the power to decide the dispute under Statute 13.34 only if there is dispute between the rival Committees of Management regarding management of the affiliated college. Power under section 2 (13} of the Act can be exercised by the Vice-Chancellor when his approval of the Committee of Management is sought. But power under Statute 13 34 can be exercised only when the dispute is raised by two or more rival Committees of Management. Statute 13 05 is not self operative. Right given to the Vice Chancellor under Statute 13 05 becomes operative only after incorporation of the above Statute in the constitution of the management of the college. After incorporation of clause (f) of Statute 13.05 in the constitution of the management of the college the Vice-Chancellor has not only the power to decide a dispute pertaining to the management of the college but has also the power to decide whether any person has been duly chosen as or is entitled to be member or office bearer of the management. Under this provision, the Vice-Chancellor derives the power to decide both individual disputes pertaining to a member or an office bearer as well as the dispute relating to the constitution of the Committee of Management. For deciding the management dispute power has already been conferred on him by section 2 (13) of the Act and Statute 13.34. But the stage at which the Vice- Chancellor can exercise the power under the above provisions, is only after the election are over. He has the power to decide the dispute pertaining to constitution of the Committee of Management of the affiliated college and state for exercise of such power arises only after the elections are over and when either his approval is sought or dispute is raised on account of claims set up by rival Committees. Under these circumstances he cannot exercise the power before the elections are over. Power to approve includes the power not to approve or to approve with modification, But it does not include the power to interfere before occasion for granting approval arises and occasion for granting approval arises when the Committee has been constituted and not prior to it. The: Vice Chancellor, under the above provisions, does not exercise any supervisory jurisdiction so as to enable him to interfere at intermediate stage His power is limited which he can exercise only after the Committee or the Committees, as the case may be have been constituted.
(3.) THAT apart there is no justification for any authority to interfere with the electoral process before the elections are over. Any matter which has the effect of vitiating elections should be brought up before the appropriate forum only after the election is over and should not be challenged at the intermediate stage. I have dealt with this aspect of the matter in the judgement in Writ Petition No. 25472 of 1991, Hridaya Narain Rai v. Deputy Director of Education, decided on 17-3-1992. For the reasons given above the order of Vice-Chancellor, interfering with the electoral process at the Intermediate stage, before the elections are over, has to be set aside. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 26308 of 1992.;