R.A.Sharma - (1.) THE Prabandh Sanchalak of Kisan Mazdoor Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Gacpati Nagar,, Ghazipar (hereinafter referred to as the school), by his order dated 13-8-1991 declared a list of persons who are entitled to vote in the election of the Committee of Management of the school. THEreafter by another order dated 28-8-1991 the election schedule for holding the said election of the Committee has also been announced. It is against the latter order fixing the election schedule for holding the election of the Committee of Management of the school that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who claims to be a member and treasurer of the Committee of Management of the school. Prayer for writ of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the 39 members of the General body to take part in the election of the Committee of Management, has also been made. This Court by an Interim order dated 10-9-1991 permitted the election to be held with the condition to allow 39 members of the petitioner's group to participate in the election and not to declare the result of the election.
(2.) THIS Court does not interfere: with the election process under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In case the election is held not in accordance with law or the persons, who arc 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 person to challenge the same before appropriate forum. Supreme Court in N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64, has adopted wide meaning of the word 'election' by holding that it embarrasses the whole procedure which consists of several stages and many steps whereby an elected member is returned. It was also laid down in that case that challenge of the electoral process at intermediate stage under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is prohibited. The above principles which were laid down in connection with the election under Representation of People Act, were applied by the Supreme Court to municipal election in the case of Nanhoo Mal v. Hira Mal, AIR 1975 SC 2140. In the case of Nanhoo Mal (supra) an order of the District Magistrate, notifying the election schedule for election of the President of a Municipal Board, was challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. THIS Court allowed the writ petition and set aside the election proceedings. Supreme Court depricated practice of interfering with election process by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was observed thus t "We are of the opinion that the whole approach of the learned Judges of the High Court to this problem was mistaken. After the decision of this Court in N. P. Ponnuswami v. Returning Officer Namakkal Constituency, (1952) 3 SCR 218 = AIR 1952 SC 64, there is hardly any room for Courts to entertain applications under Article 226 of the Constitution in matters relating to elections." Thereafter is quoted the following passages from its earlier decision in N. P. Ponnuswami case, AIR 1952 SC 64. "(1) 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 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. (2) In conformity with this principle, the scheme of the election law in this country as well as in England is that no significances should be attached to anything which does not affect the "election"; and if any irregularities are committed while it is in progress and they belong to the category or class which, under the law by which elections are governed, would have the effect of vitiating tide "election" and enable the person affected to call it in question, they should be brought up before a special tribunal by means of an election petition and not be made the subject of a dispute before any court while the election is in progress." Principles contained in the above passages were applied by the Supreme Court to the ejection of the Local Bodies also, by holding that in the absence of any express provisions in the Act to the. contrary these principles are applicable to cases of election to local bodies also." The principles that any matter which has the effect of vitiating election should not be brought up at an intermediate stage before the 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 election under Representation of People Act. As mentioned above, these principles have been applied by the Supreme Court to the elections to the local bodies. There it nothing in the Intermediate Education Act or the Scheme of Administration, framed thereunder which excludes the applicability of the aforesaid principles to the election of a Committee of Management of an educational institution. In view of the ratio laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Nanhoc Mal (supra) the above principles are fully applicable to the instant case also. Hence there cannot be any interference with the electoral process at the intermediate stage, by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. It has been settled by this Court more than once that election of the Committee of Management of an educational institution can be challenged before Civil Court A dispute with respect to the management of such institution can also be agitated before Deputy Director of Education under section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act and the decision of the Deputy Director given under the above provision is subject to the decision of a competent court. Neither Intermediate Education Act nor the Scheme of Administration limits/restricts the ground on which the election of the Committee of Management can be challenged. Election of such a committee, as such, can be challenged, both on merits as well as on the ground that the persons who were not entitled to vote were permitted to vote or the persons who were entitled to vote were excluded. The order of any person or authority limiting the right to vote in the election to certain persons only is liable to be challenged, while challenging the election and competent authority or the Court can set aside the election of the Committee of Management on that ground. Under these circumstances it is not open to challenge any order at the Intermediate stage. The position would have been different had the law excluded the challenge to the election on the ground of defective electoral roll. But, as mentioned above, this is not the position in the instant case.
(3.) THE writ petition is accordingly dismissed as pre-mature. After the election is over it will be open to the petitioner, if he feels aggrived to challenge the election of the Committee of Management on all possible grounds, including the grounds which he has taken in this writ petition. As the writ petition is being dismissed any election, held, in pursuance of this Court's interim order dated 10-9-1991, cannot survive and is liable to be ignored. Appropriate authority will now hold the election in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this Petition dismissed.;