COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT Vs. SANJEEV TYAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS special appeal is filed against an interim order passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 456 of 2005 (M/S.). The appellants are respondents Nos. 5 and 6 in the writ petition. The respondents herein are the petitioners in the writ petition. We have heard Mr. Sudhanshu Dhulia, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Alok Singh, learned Senior Counsel who accepted notice for respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

(2.) THE challenge in the writ petition is against Annexure -6 Election Programme issued by respondent No. 7 in the writ petition in respect of the election to the Committee of Management of the Nehru Rastriya Inter College, Mangalore, Haridwar. There is also a prayer for a direction commanding respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in the writ petition namely Joint Director of Education, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri and District Education Officer, District Haridwar to call for the list of members of the society and to finalise the list of voters of the Members of the General Body as per the orders of respondents Nos. 3 and 4 in the writ petition. There is also a prayer for a direction to respondent No. 3 Joint Director of Education, Garhwal Mandal to decide the dispute pertaining to the membership and to restrain respondents Nos. 6 and 7 from holding the election of the Committee of Management of the College till the dispute is resolved by the respondent No. 3.

(3.) THE main contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the dispute raised in the writ petition is not one which can be adjudicated in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and that once the election proceedings had commenced, the learned Single Judge could not have passed an interim order staying the election proceedings. When this special appeal came up for admission on 9.6.2005, we adjourned it to 20.6.2005 expecting that the learned Single Judge might in the meanwhile dispose of the application of the appellants for vacating the interim order. When the case came up for consideration on 20.6.2005, it was submitted that the application for vacating the interim order had not been disposed of by the learned Single Judge. Hence, this case was again adjourned to 27.6.2005. Today also, it was submitted that the application of the appellants for vacating the interim order has not been disposed of by the learned Single Judge. Under such circumstances we decided to dispose of this special appeal itself.