- (1.) N. L. Ganguly, J. The election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management is scheduled to be held on 9-8-1995 i. e. , today. The petitioner has approached this Court and has prayed for issuing a writ of mandamus for direction that the respondents be restrained from holding the election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the person and the body who are proceeding for holding elections of the Committee of Management are wholly unauthorised and are not competent to hold the election. It is said that the Committee of Management which was elected on 26-7-1992 was not elected, in accordance with law, by the member of the General Body. THE learned counsel foe the petitioner draw the attention of the court about the Scheme of Administration. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, this Court is of the view that the settled law is that when the process of election has already started, the Court should not generally interfere. Today is the date of election. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking an injunction, as already mentioned above. The question whether the respon dents who are going to hold the election whether, are competent to hold the election and whether the persons, who will be elected from such elections which is going to be held today, would be legal and valid election of the office bearers, is a question which has to be adjudicated further. The stage has not come as yet to say anything whether the election likely to be held today, would be valid or invalid. Primarily, the scope before the D. I. O. S, examining the validity the election of the office bearers of the Committee of Management is only for the purpose of satisfying himself that the election was conducted according to the departmental rules and the person so elected was validly elected. This does not mean that the D, I. O. S. becomes a Civil Court who adjudicate the complicated question of fact in detail for the purpose of functioning of the institution, running the management, payment of salary to the institution, teachers and staff, the signatures are attested. The signatures of Managers are attested who are found to be valid, according to law. This satisfaction is a primary satis faction of the D I. O. S. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has already submitted representation before the D. I. O. S. representing that the present respondents who are going to hold the election, are wholly unauthorised and incompetent persons to hold the election. It is submitted that the said representation has not so far been decided. If it has not been decided so far, I do not find any legal force' in - the submission that it should have been decided prior to holding of the election. The petitioner if challenges the validity of the election which was held and approved in 1992, that question cannot be re-opened now. That question has become stale and could be adjudicated before the competent civil court and not before the educational authorities. However, without interfering with the present petition, I dismiss this writ petition with the observation that the D. 1. O. S. , Farukhabad, while approving the signatures of the persons elected as Manager of the Committee of Management and other office bearers may cursorily and summarily decide the question about the correctness of the election but he would not be a civil court to enter into the complicated legal questions like the civil court. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .;