JUDGMENT R.M. Sahai and J.N. Dubey, JJ. - In these petition seeking quashing of notification dated 19th March, 1983 issued by the Registrar of Aligarh Muslim University declaring that persons mentioned in it were representatives of ex - students of the University Court question is two - fold whether the election was invalid and even if it was, the petition is maintainable. 2. In fact it is the latter point which has been more vigoriously pressed. But before coming to it few facts may be mentioned which may be sufficient to dispose of the first point. Admittedly before commencement of process of election one Dr. Iqbal Hasan filed a suit in Civil Court in which a receiver was appointed. It was set aside in appeal against which writ petition No 676 of 1983 was filed. In it parties entered into compromise and agreed that election of representatives of Old Boys Association be held under supervision of an officer authorised by this Court on 16th March, on 10th March the Court accepted the compromise and directed District Judge either to supervise the election himself or to appoint any other officer for that purpose. In pursuance of this direction one Additional District Judge was appointed who directed all ballot papers to be brought to his chamber. After counting them he declared the result on 18th March, 1983. It is not disputed that election to Old Boys Association is held by postal ballot. It is claimed that before elections number of voters had moved application and affidavit before opposite party No. 2 alleging that they had not received their ballot papers, therefore, duplicate be issued. Allegations of rigging were made and it is claimed that Join Secretary of Association requested opposite party No. 2 to call a meeting of Central Executive which admittedly is the Supreme Body for conducting elections. In pursuance of this letter a meeting was called on 12th March, 1963 and it unanimously resolved : "(a) The ballot papers issued by the Election Committee and not delivered to the addresses be cancelled, and in lieu of that duplicate he issued. (b) Regarding the issuance of duplicate the decision be taken by the District Judge (who has been appointed by the Hon'ble High Court to supervise the elections) whether the duplicates be issued on affidavits or on submissions of simple application only. (b) Regarding the issuance of duplicate the decision be taken by the District Judge (who has been appointed by the Hon'ble High Court to supervise the elections) whether the duplicates be issued on affidavits or on submissions of simple application only. (c) The date for the deposit of the ballot papers is to be issued in duplicate may be deposited with the election committee. March 15 instead of 13th March, which date would remain to be the last date for the deposit of other ballot papers. 3. In paragraph 26 it is claimed that committee cancelled certain ballot papers. These allegations are more of less admitted. It is alleged that despite the decision of election committee, the Additional District Judge did not decide the dispute and counted all the ballot pipers without deciding If ballot papers sent to persons had been received by them and whether there was nay rigging or not ? In writ petition instances have been given of persons who had not received their ballot papers and had moved applications on which election committee had cancelled their original ballot papers. Allegations in respect or rigging of certain persons who were residing outside had also been made. In counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite parties, the factual allegations have not been sped-finally denied either for want of k now ledge or because they did not touch upon the controversy whether election was validly held or not. In any case they are vague and evasive 4. On the facts narrated above, it is apparent that election of the Old Boys Association held in March, 1983 was not in accordance with law. If the ballot papers were not font to the persons who were entitled to participate in the election or they were sent to incorrect persons then such ballot papers could not be taken into account. In any case, the petitioner had raised objection and the election committee which appears to be the final authority had directed that fresh ballot papers may be issued or not be decided by Additional District Judge. That it the committee was prima-facie satisfied that elections which was going to be held were not fair. In any case, the additional District Judge who was appointed to supervise the election exercised his power in not deciding the Controversy whether ballot papers issued were correct or not. That it the committee was prima-facie satisfied that elections which was going to be held were not fair. In any case, the additional District Judge who was appointed to supervise the election exercised his power in not deciding the Controversy whether ballot papers issued were correct or not. The purpose of appointing an imperial authority to supervise the elections was to ensure that it was fairly held. And that could not be done unless the dispute about incorrect ballot papers was decided The supervising did not mean only counting where voting was by postal ballot. From the nature of the duty that he was required to do it was necessary to see that lection was fair and that naturally involved scrutinising in the ballot papers were valid. As ho failed to discharge his duty as an officer of a court in accordance with law the election was obviously vitiated. 5. Learned Counsel for opposite parties, however, strenuously argued that the writ petition war not maintenable as elections held by Old Boys Association was under Bye-law framed by that Association and as it was not a statutory body, no writ could be issued to it. Learned Counsel urged that a mandamus could be issued only to a public officer for not observing the law but as the election was under private Bye-law of a society it was not amenable to writ jurisdiction. He urged that tho rules framed were not statutory. Reliance was placed on various provisions of the Act and Rules and it was urged that it demonstrates that the Association was not statutory body. Support was sought from, Arate Paul v. Calcutta High Court AIR 1969 SC 1138 and Prays Tools Corporation v. Imam and others, AIR 1969 SC 1306 . He urged that even if statute 43 had statutory force, the Bye-law framed in pursuance of it did not have any, therefore, election held in pursuance of it could not be held to be in Its violation which could be corrected in writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel urged that it was only writ of prohibition which could have been filed and not writ of mandamus. According to him writ of mandumus could be issued by this court for enforcing duty of statutory body but not em forcing Bye-laws of society. 6. Learned counsel urged that it was only writ of prohibition which could have been filed and not writ of mandamus. According to him writ of mandumus could be issued by this court for enforcing duty of statutory body but not em forcing Bye-laws of society. 6. The argument at the first flush appeared to have some substance, but after going through various provisions of the - vet it became that it has nor substance. The principle laid down in these decisions cannot be disputed that no writ petition can be issued to a private body But what is challenged in these petitions is not election held of a private body but constitution of Court of the University. The court is a statutory carry constituted under Section 23 of the Act and is the supreme governing body of University. It consist of 180 members to be elected or included in accordance with the statutes 14 which forms part of the Aligarh Muslim University Amendment Act, 1981. According to this statute 25 represantatives have to be from amongst ex-students of the University to De elected by the Old Boys Association Statutes 43 provides qualifications of the members of the Old Boys Association who shall be entitled to vote and Stand and in the election of the Court. The detailed procedure is given in the statutes itself. If the representatives or the members are elected illegally or nominated in violation of the provisions of law then certainly the writ could be issued. It is a misnomer to argue that this court in such circumstances issues writ to an election held under the Bye-laws. The election might be held under the Bye-law but it is for the Court. If by illegal election the Court is erroneously Constituted then certainly the writ can be issued. As mentioned earlier after the elections were held it was the Registrar who is Officer of the University authorised under the Act to perform and discharge duties on behalf of University, issued notification declaring that the opposite parties w ere duly elected representatives of the University Court. But if the constitution of the Court is illegal because of the illegal elections then that has to be set right and the notification issued by the Registrar has to be quashed. 7. But if the constitution of the Court is illegal because of the illegal elections then that has to be set right and the notification issued by the Registrar has to be quashed. 7. For these reasons which we are now giving we had allowed the petition and dictated the operative portion on March 1, 1985.