R.M.Sahai, J.N.Dubey, JJ. - (1.) In these petitioN.S.eking quashing of notification dated 19th March, 1983 issued by the Registrar of Aligarh Muslim University declaring that persons mentioned in it were representatives of ex - students of the University Court question is two - fold whether the election was invalid and even if it was, the petition is maintainable.
(2.) In fact it is the latter point which has been more vigoriously pressed. But before coming to it few facts may be mentioned which may be sufficient to dispose of the first point. Admittedly before commencement of process of election one Dr. Iqbal Hasan filed a suit in Civil Court in which a receiver was appointed. It was set aside in appeal against which writ petition No 676 of 1983 was filed. In it parties entered into compromise and agreed that election of representatives of Old Boys Association be held under supervision of an officer authorised by this Court on 16th March, on 10th March the Court accepted the compromise and directed District Judge either to supervise the election himself or to appoint any other officer for that purpose. In pursuance of this direction one Additional District Judge was appointed who directed all ballot papers to be brought to his chamber. After counting them he declared the result on 18th March, 1983. It is not disputed that election to Old Boys Association is held by postal ballot. It is claimed that before elections number of voters had moved application and affidavit before opposite party No. 2 alleging that they had not received their ballot papers, therefore, duplicate be issued. Allegations of rigging were made and it is claimed that Join Secretary of Association requested opposite party No. 2 to call a meeting of Central Executive which admittedly is the Supreme Body for conducting elections. In pursuance of this letter a meeting was called on 12th March, 1963 and it unanimously resolved : "(a) The ballot papers issued by the Election Committee and not delivered to the addresses be cancelled, and in lieu of that duplicate he issued. (b) Regarding the issuance of duplicate the decision be taken by the District Judge (who has been appointed by the Hon'ble High Court to supervise the elections) whether the duplicates be issued on affidavits or on submissions of simple application only. (c) The date for the deposit of the ballot papers is to be issued in duplicate may be deposited with the election committee. March 15 instead of 13th March, which date would remain to be the last date for the deposit of other ballot papers.
(3.) In paragraph 26 it is claimed that committee cancelled certain ballot papers. These allegations are more of less admitted. It is alleged that despite the decision of election committee, the Additional District Judge did not decide the dispute and counted all the ballot pipers without deciding If ballot papers sent to persons had been received by them and whether there was nay rigging or not ? In writ petition instances have been given of persons who had not received their ballot papers and had moved applications on which election committee had cancelled their original ballot papers. Allegations in respect or rigging of certain persons who were residing outside had also been made. In counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties, the factual allegations have not been sped-finally denied either for want of k now ledge or because they did not touch upon the controversy whether election was validly held or not. In any case they are vague and evasive;