JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal and V.K. Khanna, JJ. - Chaudhary Chhotu Ram College Managing Committee, Muzaffarnagar, is a society, which is running a degree college, in the name of Chaudhary Chhotu Ram Degree College, Muzaffarnagar. This college is affiliated to the Meerut University. On 26-12-1976, election of the Executive Committee took place in which Indra Verma was elected as the President and Ved Pal Singh as the Secretary of the Executive Council. On 6-4-1979, Indra Verna tendered his registration. In his place, Veer Abhimanyu, respondent no. 2 was elected as the President. Soon thereafter, the petitioner alleges that, in a meeting of the Executive Council, Veer Abhimanyu was removed from the office on the ground of being in arrears of noun than six months. This according to the petitioner, was confirmed on 15-12-1979 by passing a resolution that Veer Abhimanyu had ceased to. be a member. There-after on 25-12-1979, notices were sent /or holding a meeting of the Committee of Management on 28-1-1980. The meeting took place on that dace and Hari Ratan Verma was elected as the President whereas Ved Pal Singh was elected as the Secretary. 2. To set up his claim, respondent no. 2. Veer Abhimanyu wrote to the Vice-Chancellor on 28-12-1979 that fresh elections of the Managing Committee of Chaudhary Chhotu Ram College had taken place od 27-12-1979 and he was elected as the President. This was disputed by Ved Pal Singh by filing a reply. The Vice-Chancellor made enquiries with regard to the dispute which had arisen between the two sets of the Committee of Management for the purposes of according recognition. On 2-5-1981, the Vice Chancellor held that the meeting, as pleaded by Veer Abhimanyu took place on 27-12-1979, in which Veer Abhimanyu was elected as the President and Narendra Pal Singh Balyan as the Secretary- The view further, was that the record shown by Ved Pal Singh appeared to be,fabricated. 3. Being aggrieved by this order, Hari Ratan Verma filed writ petition 7942 of 1981, while Ved Pal Singh preferred writ petition no. 5323 of 1981. In both of these cases, the order challenged is that of the Vice-Chancellor mentioned above, on common grounds. 4. From the facts stated above, it would appear that the main controversy in these writ petitions is as to the election of the Managing Committee of Chaudhary Chhotu Ram College. 5323 of 1981. In both of these cases, the order challenged is that of the Vice-Chancellor mentioned above, on common grounds. 4. From the facts stated above, it would appear that the main controversy in these writ petitions is as to the election of the Managing Committee of Chaudhary Chhotu Ram College. As stated above, this is a society registered under the Societies Registration Act and running a Degree College in the name of Chaudhary Chhotu Ram Degree College, Muzaffarnagar as well as an Intermediate College. The persons who are elected as the President and the Secretary of the Managing Committee become entitled to administer the Degree College and the Intermediate College. 5. One set of the persons pleaded that a meeting of the Managing Committee took place on 28-1-1980, whereas another set disputed the holding of the said meeting on the aforesaid date and claimed that the meeting had been held on 27-12-1979. In support of their versions, both the sides claimed that the meeting convened by the other was illegal. The assertion of Ved Abhimanyu was that Ved Pal Singh had been removed from the life membership of the Managing Committee and thereafter be had no power left to convene any meeting on 28-1-1980. This was disputed by Ved Pal Singh and Hari Ratan Verma on the ground that there was no power given to the Executive Council for terminating the membership of under bye-laws 9 and 10. This power could be exercised by the Managing Committee alone. Similarly, Ved Pal Singh's assertion that Veer Abhimanyu had been removed from membership as he was in default for more than six months, had been disputed by Veer Abhimanyu and others. 6. For the limited purpose of granting recognition to enable the functioning of the Degree College, the Vice-Chancellor held an enquiry and found that Ved Pal Singh's version was incorrect, and that Veer Abhimanyu had been elected as the President and Narendra Pal Singh as the Secretary. The question is about the validity of this order. The dispute between the parties cannot be resolved by taking evidence and going into the same. It is not possible for this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to decide the same. The remedy of the aggrieved parties lies elsewhere. The question is about the validity of this order. The dispute between the parties cannot be resolved by taking evidence and going into the same. It is not possible for this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to decide the same. The remedy of the aggrieved parties lies elsewhere. It may be worthwhile nothing that in connection with the management of the Intermediate College, which also goes by the name of Chaudhary Chhotu Ram, a dispute between the parties with regard to this very matter to when was the meeting held and who had been elected as the Office bearers of the Managing Committee, is pending in the Civil courts. The remedy of the two petitioners lies in preferring a suit. 7. Counsel for the petitioner emphasised on the basis of the use of the word 'final' in paragraph 13.05 of the statutes framed under the Act under which the impugned order had been passed by the Vice-Chancellor. Counsel, urged that since the order, of the Vice-Chancellor is final, neither can be petitioner file a suit nor a representation to the Chancellor under Section 68 of the U.P. State Universities Act. For non-application of Section 68, the additional argument made was that the Chancellor's jurisdiction was confined to looking into and finding out as a whether a particular act is in conformity with the act statutes and or Ordinance or not. The chancellor could not consider whether the decision of the Vice-Chancellor was right on merits. 8. The word `final' used in paragraph 13.05 has to be read in the context in which it is to be found. The order of the Vice-Chancellor 13 final subject to the decision of a competent court or authority. `Final' here does not mean that the determination of the civil rights as to-who are the office bearers of the society, has been finally made by die Vice-Chancellor, which cannot be challenged. It is not used in the sense that the decision is conclusive and is not open to further disputation, having set at rest the cause of action. Section 69 of the U. P. State Universities Act, the bar of which was also pleaded against himself, prima facie does not apply to the matter like the present. The dispute essentially is as to who were the members of the Society which claimed its right to manage the Degree College. Section 69 of the U. P. State Universities Act, the bar of which was also pleaded against himself, prima facie does not apply to the matter like the present. The dispute essentially is as to who were the members of the Society which claimed its right to manage the Degree College. That is a matter which can be investigated in the civil suit. 9. Another objection raised by the learned counsel for the other side that the petitioners could file a representation under Section 68 also appears to be tenable. It is not correct to say that the Chancellor's power conferred by this section is confined to the looking into as to whether the interpretation of a particular statute made by the Vice-Chancellor is right or wrong. Section 68 uses the expression "conformity", which would mean as to whether the order of the Vice-Chancellor was in agreement or harmonious with the provisions of the statute. This would clothe the Chancellor with the right to consider the correctness of the order of the Vice Chancellor. 10. For these reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed summarily.