Dharam Veer Sharma, J. - (1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.5.2006, passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition No. 2324(M/S) of 2006.
(2.) Initially the writ petition was filed with following reliefs : (a) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned Notification dated 2.5.2006 issued by the opposite party No 3, the true copy of which is contained as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, (b) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned election notice dated 26.4.2006 issued by the opposite party No. 3, the true copy of which is contained as Annexure 2 to the writ petition. (c) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of quashing the impugned order dated 22.8.2005 passed by the opposite party No.2, the true copy of which is contained as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. (d) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties not to hold the election of the Committee of Management of the Societies of the colleges so mentioned in Table No. 1 of the writ petition pursuant to the impugned order dated 22 8.2005 passed by the opposite party No.2. (e) To award the cost of this petition in favour of the petitioner. The appeal has been preferred against the following impugned order: "The petitioners have challenged the order dated 22.8 2005. Elections as scheduled earlier shall take place tomorrow and cannot be stayed at this belated stage. The objections with regard to electoral College have been rejected by the Director by means of order dated 20.4.2006. The petitioners are, however at liberty to challenge the said order. The hearing of the writ petition has taken place for two days. Both the parties have put their arguments at length The prayer of the petitioners to postpone the election on the ground of the Electoral College as not constituted properly, cannot be considered at this stage in view of the Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Basant Prasad Srivastava and others v. State of U. P and others. (1993) 2 UPLBEC 1333 . The record has also been produced by the learned Standing Counsel. The learned Standing Counsel has also placed on record, the order of the Director as aforesaid rejecting the petitioners' objections with regard to the voter-list. The out-come of the election will give right to the petitioners to proceed in accordance with law. Further hearing will continue."
(3.) It is relevant to mention brief facts of the case. It is alleged that the impugned order dated 12.5.2006 was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is further urged that learned Single Judge has failed to consider that the Director of Education while passing the order dated 22.8.2005 exceeded the domain of jurisdiction entrusted to him by this Court vide order dated 17.10 2000 passed in writ petition No. 2395 of 2000. The order suffers from perversities. It is further urged that 17 educational institutions were recognised by the District Inspector of Schools on 7.3.2000 and the election was not challenged in any of the case.;