Pradeep Kant, J. - (1.) HEARD Dr. L.P. Misra, learned Counsel for the appel lant and Ms. Winnie Srivastava, appearing for the respondents.
(2.) A writ petition, bearing No. 467 (M/S) of 2009, was filed by the respon dents challenging the election proceedings dated 22.9.2007, conducted by the present appellant as well as the decision of the Regional Committee dated 21.1.2008 and recommendation of the Joint Director of Education dated 24.1.2008. It appears that an election dispute was going on between the appellant with respect to the management of the institution in question, of which the pre sent respondents, namely, the petitioners in the writ petition, claimed their own right as against the right as claimed by the present appellant, namely, re spondent No. 7 in the writ petition. The matter was decided by the Regional Committee, but the plea of the respondents is that the decision of the Regional Committee is perverse and against the scheme of administration and, there fore, the election so held cannot be given any recognition. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, disputes and refutes the aforesaid position.
(3.) CONSIDERING the prayer of the respondents (petitioners in the writ peti tion), the learned Single Judge, by means of the order under appeal, has dis posed of the writ petition on day one, after hearing the Counsel for the respon dents and the State Counsel, but without giving any opportunity or notice to the present appellant, who was impleaded as respondent No. 7 in the writ petition and who was also likely to be affected in case any order was passed or was to be passed in favour of the present respondent. The learned Single Judge directed the Joint Director Education to decide the representation filed by the respon dents within a period of four weeks by a speaking and reasoned order from the date a certified copy of the order is served upon him. A writ in the nature of mandamus for deciding a representation said to have been made by a party, normally can be issued in case there is a statutory provision for making such a representation, or so to say, it is a statutory repre sentation and if the statutory authority, who is entrusted with the obligation to consider and decide the same, fails to do so within a reasonable time, or in a case though no statutory representation is provided, but where the Court feels, after considering the arguments and the material on record that the matter re quires to be re-considered by any authority competent to do so and for which any representation is made or directed to be made, the said representation can be directed to be considered and decided.;