DINA NATH MISRA Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CHANDAULI AUTHORISED CONTROLLER SAKALDEEHA DEGREE COLLEGE CHANDAULI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) D. K. Seth, J. Mr. D. S. M. Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioners sub mits that the notice for holding election in terms of the judgment and order dated 8th February, 1999 in CMWP No. 12008 of 1997 was published in the newspaper on 13th January, 2000. It appears from the said notice that the date of publication of the members list was 12th January, 2000. According to him, the notice having been published on 13th January, 2000, there cannot be any publication of members list on 10th January, 2000. He further con tends that objections were invited to the members list within 17th January, 2000 and the objections were to be determined on 18th January, 2000. According to him, from 14th January, 2000 to 16th January, 2000 being holidays the petitioners could not effectively object to the members list. Therefore, the election cannot be held since in the absence of any copy of the members' list, it Was not possible for the petitioners to raise proper objections. At the same time, the petitioners are not being permitted to participate in the elec tion on the ground that they are not mem bers. However, Mr. D. S. M. Tripathi has not answered the question as to whether the petitioners has filed their objection or not. There is nothing in the writ petition that the petitioners had objected to the members' list Mr. Tripathi contends that he had prepared the writ petition on 16th January, 2000 there fore, there is no scope for mentioning the said fact. In the amendment filed today Mr. Tripathi contends that he has pointed out that the petitioners had applied for supplying the members' list but that has not been supplied. On these grounds, he prays that the election should be postponed and be held after giving opportunity to the petitioners to file their objections and after deciding the same.

(2.) MR. VK. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents on the other points out from copies of certain papers that at least two petitioners namely. Shri Binod Pandey and Shri Dina Nath Misra had filed their objections. He had submitted a copy of the objection filed by Shri Binod Pandey on 13th January, 2000 which is being con tended by MR. Tripathi to have been filed on 17th January, 2000. He also filed two orders by which the objection of Shri Dina Nath Misra and MR. Binod Pandey has since been rejected. MR. Shukla contends that all the petitioners had filed their ob jection which has since been decided by the authority concerned. But he could ob tain only two orders out of the four orders passed. Apparently on the face of the material which was permitted to be produced by MR. Shukla, it appears that the objection was filed at least on 17th January, 2000 if not on 13th January, 2000 and that there are two orders refusing two such objections. In the amendment ap plication, the petitioner has not categori cally disclosed the said fact. There may be some substance in the contention of MR. Tripathi to the extent that the members' list was not published but the fact remains that the members' list was published in the notice board on 10th January, 2000 though the notice was issued in the newspaper on 13th January, 2000. On these grounds MR. Shukla contends that the writ petition can not be maintained since necessary facts have not been disclosed and that objec tions were filed and considered.

(3.) WITH these observations, this writ petition is disposed of. However, there will be no order as to costs.