G.S.N. Tripathi, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 2.9.94 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. K. Singh, sitting single, in writ petition No. 28796 of 1994 whereby the learned single Judge has rejected the petition of the Appellants on numerous grounds, mainly on the ground that an alternative remedy by way of a reference to the Chancellor which lies under Section 68 of the State Universities Act. The learned Single Judge has ordered "I am of the view that in the above set of circumstances as well as legal provisions the Petitioners have alternative and efficacious remedy before the Chancellor under Section 68 of the State Universities Act referred to above. As such I decline to exercise extraordinary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and hold that this writ petition is barred by an alternative and efficacious remedy available under the Act." It was further directed that "It is accordingly provided that in case a reference is preferred by the Petitioners within the limitation then the Hon'ble Chancellor will dispose of the representation after affording opportunity to the Respondents within three months from the date the contesting opposite parties put in appearance before the Hon'ble Chancellor".
(2.) FROM the facts narrated in the judgment of the learned single Judge, the Petitioners (Appellants) impugned the order dated 19.3.94 passed by the Vice -Chancellor, Agra University whereby the Committee of Management of which Respondent No. 3 claims himself to be a member, has been recognized. The Petitioners claim themselves to be genuine Managing Committee of Dharam Samaj College, Aligarh of which Sri Ramesh Chandra Agarwal, is the Secretary. An election took place on 3.7.94. On 6.7.94, an information was sent by the Petitioners to the Vice -Chancellor of the Agra University informing about the election and impliedly claiming recognition in their favour. Rival election dated 13.7.94 was pleaded by the Respondents. They also made a prayer for being recognized as genuine Managing Committee of the said Institution. The Vice -Chancellor without affording opportunity to the Petitioner to show cause against the rival election, as alleged, recognized the Respondents as genuine Managing Committee and office -bearers. There was a plea of bias also taken before the learned single Judge, against the Vice -Chancellor, for which some facts and figures were pleaded, namely, the Vice -Chancellor happened to be an Ex -Principal of the Institution and after retirement he was appointed as a Vice -Chancellor by the State Government, Mr. S.P. Gupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has also made a statement at the Bar that the Vice -Chancellor has also retired w.e.f. 13.9.94. Thus on the ground of bias of Vice -Chancellor against the Petitioners and denial of natural justice inasmuch as no opportunity was afforded to the Petitioners to show cause against the rival claimants in the so -called election and alleged prayer for recognition, the petition was filed before the learned Single Judge. A preliminary objection was raised on behalf of the Respondents that there was an efficacious and alternative remedy by way of a reference to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the State Universities Act available. Therefore, the writ was not maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution. It was also urged before the learned Single Judge that Vice -Chancellor was duly informed by the Petitioners that they have been duly elected as office -bearers of the Committee of Management on 6.7.94 and 14.7.94. The other side i.e., Respondent No. 3 claimed to have been elected by an election, which was held on 13.7.94 and the information of the said election was sent to the Vice -Chancellor on 17.7.94. in this manner before the Vice -Chancellor recognized the Committee of Management of Respondent No. 3, a dispute of rival claimants about election, was raised before him. As such, he was required to have decided the dispute under Statute 12.34 of the Statute of the Agra University, which provides that all the parties shall be heard before any decision is arrived at. The Vice -Chancellor intentionally flouted those provisions on account of bias. He nourished ill -will and bias against the Appellant Petitioners. It was urged that the Vice -Chancellor was earlier the Principal of the College and from the period, he is not fairly disposed of towards the Petitioners. Rather he was more close to Respondent No. 3 and that was the governing factor in the mind of the Vice -Chancellor whereby he recognised the Respondents in an illegal manner, without properly applying his mind to the facts of the case set up by the Petitioners. He ignored the valid election in favour of the Petitioners and relied upon a fictitious election as set up by Respondents and that too without affording reasonable opportunity to the Petitioners.
(3.) AS against it, the learned Counsel for the Vice -Chancellor submitted that even after assuming the election of the Petitioners to be correct, and this was a case in which the order of the Vice -Chancellor suffered from the legal vice of violation of rules of natural. Justice and also bias, a very effective and efficacious remedy was available by way of reference to the Chancellor.;