RAEKSH TIWARI, J. ( 1 ) HEARD Counsel for the petitioners, Sri A. K. Sachan for the respondents as well as Standing Counsel. ( 2 ) SRI Gandhi Seva Sadan, Asafpur, district Badaun is a registered society which runs an institution namely Triveni Sahai Intermediate College, asafpur, Budaun under approved scheme of administration which provides that office bearers of the Committee of Management of the institution will be elected by the General Body of the society. ( 3 ) IT is averred in the writ petition that last undisputed election of the committee of management was held on 18. 7. 2004 in which Sri Ram Das Katiyar was elected as the President and respondent No. 4 Brijendra Singh Rathor was elected as Manager of the Committee of Management. Recognition was also granted to the aforesaid election by order dated 23. 10. 2004 and consequently signatures of respondent No. 4 Brijendra Singh Rathore were attested as Manager. ( 4 ) CONTENTION of the learned Counsel for petitioner is that since certain irregularities had been committed by Brijendra Singh Rathore, the patron/governing body by its resolution dated 8. 10. 2006 removed him alongwith amba Singh Rathore and Vijay Pal Singh. An election of the Committee of management is said to have been held by Brijendra Singh Rathore-respondent no. 4 on 10. 7. 2007 and papers are also said to have been sent for grant of approval before the D. I. O. S. ( 5 ) THE petitioner claims that his Committee of Management also conducted fresh elections on 15. 7. 2007 of the Committee of management in presence of Sri Subhodh Kumar, President of the Society, in which Satish Chandra parasari-petitioner No. 2 has been elected as manager and one Sri Manoj Kumar gupta has been elected as President of the committee of management. The papers regarding election of the committee of management held on 15. 7. 2007 by the petitioner have been forwarded for grant of approval to the D. I. O. S. , who exercising powers under section 16-A (7) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 referred the election dispute before the Joint Director of Education since two election papers of the Institution were sent i. e. one by Brijendra Singh rathore in respect of his election said to have been held on 10. 7. 7. 2007 and the other in respect of the petitioner who claims the election to be held on 15. 7. 2007. ( 6 ) IT is further claimed that petitioner No. 2 Satish Chandra Parasari also submitted a representation dated 1. 10. 2007 to the Joint Director of education asserting his claim for the post of Manager of the Committee of management but the Joint Director of Education by his order dated 11. 10. 2007 granted approval to the election of Committee of Management held by brijendra Singh Rathore respondent No. 4, who claimed to have held election on 10. 7. 2007 and rejected the claim of the petitioner in respect of his election claimed to have been held on 15. 7. 2007. ( 7 ) IT appears that the D. I. O. S. after going through respective cases of the parties concerned found that the Scheme of Administration provided for election after every three years. The D. I. O. S. further found that election conducted by respondent No. 4 was in accordance with law and the election said to have been held by the petitioner on. 15. 7. 2007 was not in accordance with law as documents or evidence filed by him in support of his case was not cogent and was baseless. ( 8 ) IT has been noted by the authority that for election of the committee of management according to Scheme of Administration, the power to call meeting vests in President or the Manager with the approval of the President but the petitioner has claimed to have conducted election without permission of the outgoing President or Manager. On appreciation of evidence and record the authority has given concrete finding of fact that the petitioner has conducted election surreptitiously only to create a state of uncertainty and that he had allowed some of the persons to vote who were not members of the society as they had not deposited the fee in accordance with the rules. ( 9 ) ON a querry made from the counsel for the petitioner that whether any information etc. regarding expulsion of respondent No. 4 from the general body, had been sent to the D. I. O. S. , the reply given is that the same has not been filed alongwith the writ petition. ( 9 ) ON a querry made from the counsel for the petitioner that whether any information etc. regarding expulsion of respondent No. 4 from the general body, had been sent to the D. I. O. S. , the reply given is that the same has not been filed alongwith the writ petition. ( 10 ) A writ petition should be complete on its facts and papers in support of the averments made therein. The authorities appear to have considered the contentions of the petitioner and has recorded a finding of fact that election of the petitioners Committee of Management is only a farce and eye wash and not in accordance with law. No illegality or infirmity could be shown in the orders impugned. ( 11 ) IN case the petitioner is aggrieved by the findings of fact recorded by the Joint Director of Education, he has an alternative efficacious remedy to get the findings of fact decided in a suit and not in a writ petition as has been held in Himmat Singh v. State of Haryana and others, 2006 109 FLR 223 , in which it has been held that only question of law can be raised and not statement of fact and it was further held that "whether statements of the appellants or the respondents were correct or not could not ordinarily be decided in a writ jurisdiction. It is well known that in writ petition ordinarily such a disputed question of fact could not be entertained. The High Court arrived at finding of fact on the basis of affidavit evidence. " ( 12 ) IN the instant case there is series of litigations. The parties have approached the High Court number of times earlier but the factual dispute remains alive and has to be settled by adjudication of findings of facts through civil Court. I am supported in my view by judgment rendered in Civil Misc. " ( 12 ) IN the instant case there is series of litigations. The parties have approached the High Court number of times earlier but the factual dispute remains alive and has to be settled by adjudication of findings of facts through civil Court. I am supported in my view by judgment rendered in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 20719 of 2006, Uttam Nishad v. State of U. P. and others, wherein it has been held if the parties approach the High Court more than once, disputing election of Committee of Management or the college of the society, it is a sure indication that litigation has deep roots in disputed facts and in the circumstances the matter should invariably be ordered to be decided in Civil Courts, which can give findings of facts on basis of oral and documentary evidence, which is not feasible in writ jurisdiction where Courts are already burdened. If there is any grievance to either of the parties regarding election I am of the firm view that they have to approach the Civil court and get the dispute settled by findings of facts there. It is not open to them to approach in the writ petition again and again under Article 226 of the constitution without first getting the dispute settled finally through Civil Court. ( 13 ) IN cases of questions of memberships of Committee of Management under section 25 (1) of the Societies Registration Act, the only course open is by adjudication by Civil Court finally. Whenever there is a whisper of dispute regarding the electoral college, the Committee of Management elections or election process which requires findings of facts by oral and documentary evidence, civil Court is the only remedy and writ petition is not maintainable under article 226 of the Constitution as has been also held by the Division Benches of this Court in Basant Prasad Srivastava and others v. State of U. P. and others, 1993 2 UPLBEC 1333, wherein it has been held that in cases of educational institution where election/finalization of election process of Committee of Management is challenged by means of writ petition under Article 226 it would not be maintainable as the only remedy in such cases is by filing election petition or filing civil suit. Paragraph 4 of the aforesaid judgment is as under:- "the learned Single Judge has observed that it was well settled proposition of law that in proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution Courts should not interfere with election process and finalisation of list is not amenable to challenge in writ jurisdiction. It has also been observed that dispute regarding correctness of voters list is a highly disputed question of fact, which can be decided only by Civil Court. With these observations the learned Single Judge directed that the result of the election be declared forthwith and further steps be taken in accordance with law. " ( 14 ) I am also supported in my view by a recent judgment rendered by two division Benches of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1078 of 2005, munna Lal Singh and another v. State of U. P. and others and Special Appeal No. 1394 of 2004, committee of Management v. Regional joint Director of Education and another. ( 15 ) IT is open to the petitioners to raise all the questions raised in the writ petition as well as their representation in the suit through Civil Court or by filing election petition. ( 16 ) FOR the reasons stated above, without entering into disputed questions of facts, the petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. Petition Dismissed. .