Yashwant Varma, J. - (1.) The petitioners assail the validity of an order dated 16 November 2015 passed by the Vice Chancellor of the Deen Dayal Upadhya University Gorakhpur in purported exercise of powers conferred by Sec. 2(13) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. By the order impugned, the Vice Chancellor has refused to accord approval to the elections held on 21 June 2015 and the consequent constitution of the committee of management of the degree college. The Vice Chancellor has also proceeded to negative the claim set up by the private respondents with regard to the management of the institution. The order further dwells upon the state of affairs of the institution and consequently recommends to the State Government the need for appointment of an Authorised Controller/Receiver by invocation of its power under Sec. 57 of the 1973 Act over the affairs of the institution.
(2.) At the admission stage, this Court has heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Gautam Baghel for the petitioners, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Neeraj Tiwari for the respondent University and Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the private respondents. This Court was informed by Sri Misra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and other counsels appearing for the respondent Nos. 6, 7 and 8 who were all led by Sri Anil Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel that aggrieved by the rejection of their claim by the Vice Chancellor, a representation has been made to the Chancellor referable to Sec. 68 of the 1973 Act. However, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for all the contesting parties proceeded to address this Court on the merits of the order passed by the Vice Chancellor on 16 November 2015 impugned herein.
(3.) Bearing in mind the nature of the order which this Court is proceeding to pass, it would not be necessary to burden this judgement with a detailed history of the litigation inter -parties and the dispute itself which, like all other matters of its genre, has a history. Suffice it to note that the Vice Chancellor by the impugned order has proceeded to annul the claim of the petitioners on the following principal grounds: (a) Referring to an order of the Assistant Registrar dated 28 November 2001, he holds that the petitioners do not figure in the list of the general body of the society as it stood finalised by this order. (b) From the issues which stand raised and which spring forth for consideration from the order dated 28 November 2001, the various writ petitions preferred before this Court and the judgements rendered thereon it is apparent that inter parties Original Suit Nos. 380 of 2006, 1134/2011 and 19/2012 are pending. The issue of membership of the society is therefore, one which awaits adjudication and declaration by the Civil Court in the suits aforementioned. (c) During the pendency of the proceedings before the Civil Court in which the dispute of membership stands directly raised, it would be inappropriate to accord recognition and/or accord approval to the committee of management constituted pursuant to the elections stated to have been held by the petitioners.;