JUDGMENT By the Court.—Chacha Nehru Samarak Inter College, Balapur Akheda, Bijnor (in brief the institution) is run by a registered society. An elected Committee of Management manages the affairs of the institution. The last election of Committee of Management with 151 valid members was held on 29.12.2002, which received recognition on 30.7.2003. As per the Scheme of Administration the term of Committee of Management was three years and after amendment it had been extended to five years. Therefore, the next election of Committee of Management was due in July, 2008 and the same could be held till August, 2008. 2. The Committee of Management of the institution had submitted a list of members on 18/22.10.2007 to the District Inspector of Schools and it was specifically stated at the end of the list of members that there were 130 old members and no new members have been made, which was marked ‘seen’ by the District Inspector of Schools on 19.11.2007. 3. The Committee of Management decided to hold the election and an election programme was published in the newspaper Dainik Jagran on 18.4.2008 fixing the date of election as 3.5.2008. It was also mentioned that list of members was being pasted on the notice board and objections with regard to membership were invited. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the parties that out of 151 members who were members when the election took place in the year 2002, 21 members had died and only 130 old members remained. No objection to the membership list was filed by the appellants to the list pasted on the notice board. The election could not take place on 3.5.2008 due to absence of the election officer appointed by the District Inspector of Schools. Thereafter, a fresh election schedule was notified on 16.6.2008 fixing 6.7.2008 for election. After the fresh election was notified, it appears that some objection was filed by the appellants before the Regional Joint Director of Education, Moradabad, who passed an order on 20.6.2008 stating therein that 130 new members have been enrolled and the election may be held out of total 260 members, as on 14.6.2008, 130 new members have completed 11 months and he directed the District Inspector of Schools to examine the list of 260 members. The District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor thereafter submitted a report on 25.6.2008 to the Regional Joint Director of Education, wherein it was mentioned that the election was being held on the basis of list of 130 members agreed by the Committee of Management and on examination the list of 260 members was not in consonance with the agreement/scheme. 4. The appellants filed civil misc. writ petition No. 30931 of 2008 for issuance of writ of mandamus for conducting the election of Committee of Management on the basis of list of 260 members which includes 130 members alleged to be enrolled on 14.7.2007. Since the writ petition was filed before the summer vacation but it could not be taken up during the vacations and the election was scheduled to be held on 6.7.2008, therefore, it appears that the appellants approached the Commissioner of Division for staying the election till the validity of membership is decided by the competent authority. The Commissioner directed on 5.7.2008 the District Inspector of Schools to stay the election and further directed the District Magistrate to examine the membership list. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Commissioner dated 5.7.2008 the respondents No. 5 and 6 filed civil misc. writ petition No. 32735 of 2008 challenging the order of Commissioner on the ground that the Commissioner or the District Magistrate had no authority to interfere in the matter of election of Committee of Management of educational institutions. Both the writ petitions came up for hearing before the learned single Judge. The writ petition filed by the respondents was allowed on 8.9.2008 and it was held that Commissioner or District Magistrate have no jurisdiction to interfere with the election of Committee of Management and the order of Commissioner dated 5.7.2008 was quashed. The order passed in the writ petition filed by the respondents has not been challenged by the appellants. 6. The writ petition filed by the appellants was also decided by the learned single Judge by a separate judgment on the same date i.e., on 8.9.2008 whereby the writ petition of appellants was disposed of with a direction to the District Inspector of Schools, Bijnor to supervise the election of Committee of Management by appointing Prabandh Sanchalak who would hold the election on the basis of valid members of the society which was approved and submitted on 22.10.2007 within the time fixed by the Court. It is this order passed in the writ petition of the appellants which has been challenged before this Court in this intra Court appeal. 7. We have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri V.M. Zaidi and Shri Arun Kumar Singh-I for the appellants, learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Shri Irshad Ali learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 5 and 6. 8. Shri Ashok Khare, learned senior counsel has vehemently urged that since the appellants No. 2 and 3 along with other 128 members have been enrolled as members on 14.7.2007 and they have become eligible to participate and vote in the election as 11 months have passed from the date of their enrollment. On the other hand, Shri Irshad Ali, learned counsel appearing for respondents has urged that the appellant No. 1 is an old member. Appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are included in the new 130 members who are not valid members and their enrolment as members on 14.7.2007 was contrary to clause 7 of the approved Scheme of Administration. They all are fake members because in the list submitted to the District Inspector of Schools on 22.10.2007 there was no mention that any new member was enrolled. 9. We have gone through the clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration which provides the procedure for enrollment of a new member of the general body. They all are fake members because in the list submitted to the District Inspector of Schools on 22.10.2007 there was no mention that any new member was enrolled. 9. We have gone through the clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration which provides the procedure for enrollment of a new member of the general body. It is extracted below : ^^7- lk/kkj.k lHkk ds lnL; cuus dh izfdz;k % dksbZ Hkh O;fDr tks laLFkk dk kqHk fpUrd gks pkgs og fdlh Hkh tkfr vFkok /keZ dk gks] lk/kkj.k lHkk dk lnL; gks ldrk gSA ;fn og ikxy u gks] vkSj mldh vk;q de ls de 21 o"kZ dh gks] lnL;rk kqYd fo|ky; ds uke cSad MªkQ~V }kjk tek djuk gksxkA ;g cSad MªkQ~V fdlh Hkh inkf/kdkjh lnL; }kjk izkIr dj dks"kk/;{k dks fn;k tk ldsxkA dks"kk/;{k v/;{k dks Hkstsaxs tks izcU/k lfefr dh vxyh cSBd esa fopkj gsrq j[kasxsA izcU/k lfefr ;fn fdlh dks lnL; cukuk Lohdkj ugha djrh rks ;g izdj.k iqu% fopkj gsrq lk/kkj.k lHkk dh cSBd esa j[kk tk;sxkA ;fn lk/kkj.k lHkk lnL; cukuk Lohdkj ugha djrh gS rks og lnL; cSad MªkQ~V frfFk ls gh lnL; ekuk tk;sxkA blh izdkj izcU/k lfefr }kjk Lohdkj djus ij Hkh cSad MªkQ~V dh frfFk ls lnL; ekuk tk;sxkA ;fn lk/kkj.k lHkk izcU/k lfefr ds er dks Lohdkj dj fdlh dks lnL; cukuk Lohdkj ugha djrh gS rks cSad MªkQ~V okfil dj fn;k tk;sxkA lk/kkj.k lHkk ds bl fu.kZ; ds fo:) dksbZ Hkh vihy fujh{kd dks ,d ekl esas gh nh tk ldsxh ftldk fu.kZ; vfUre gksxkA^^ 10. It is urged by the learned counsel for the appellants that the treasurer had full authority to accept membership fee by cash for enrolling new members. He urged that there is no bar in accepting membership fee by cash and clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration was not mandatory and was directory in nature and its non-compliance would not be fatal and the new 130 members have to be treated as valid members. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the question as to whether clause-7 of the Scheme of Administration is mandatory or directory. It has not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that new members enrolled on 14.7.2007 had deposited their membership fee by cash and they had not deposited the fee through a bank draft. 11. We have given our anxious consideration to the question as to whether clause-7 of the Scheme of Administration is mandatory or directory. It has not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants that new members enrolled on 14.7.2007 had deposited their membership fee by cash and they had not deposited the fee through a bank draft. The approved Scheme of Administration in clause-7 provides that for enrollment of a new member, the membership fee has to be deposited through a bank draft but if the general body decides not to make him a member the bank draft would be returned. Clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration has a definite purpose. It avoids dispute with regard to fictitious claim of membership. It also avoids frivolous litigation. It acts as a check on unscrupulous person who wants to grab the management of an institution by enrolling members of their choice and by creating artificial dispute of membership of the general body by manufacturing papers. It may be possible to manufacture papers regarding membership but a bank draft cannot be manufactured. If clause-7 mandates that a thing to be done in a particular manner then it has to be done in the same manner, and not in any other manner. The provision of clause 7 of the Scheme of Administration providing for deposit of membership fee through a bank draft is in the larger interest of the registered society and the institution and clearly intends that it should be followed and has to be held as imperative in nature and its non-compliance would be fatal. Thus, 130 new members enrolled on 14.7.2007 are liable to be held invalid members. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that clause-7 of the Scheme of Administration providing for deposit of membership fee through a bank draft, by a person who wants to become a member of the general body of the society is mandatory in nature. 12. There is yet another reason why the list of 130 members enrolled on 14.7.2007 is invalid. It is not disputed that President, Manager and Principal of the institution submitted a list of members along with their letter dated 18/22.10.2007 which clearly mentions that there were only 130 old members and no new member had been enrolled. In the column of new members, Zero had been mentioned. It is not disputed that President, Manager and Principal of the institution submitted a list of members along with their letter dated 18/22.10.2007 which clearly mentions that there were only 130 old members and no new member had been enrolled. In the column of new members, Zero had been mentioned. The learned counsel for the appellants has urged that in the new members column Zero was written for the reason that members who were enrolled on 14.7.2007 were not entitled to participate and vote in the election as they have not completed 11 months of their membership when the election was notified on 18.4.2008, but subsequently, they had become eligible to participate and vote as they had completed 11 months of their membership when the election was notified on 16.6.2008. 13. It is necessary to extract clause 9(3) of the Scheme of Administration as below : ^^lk/kkj.k lHkk ds lnL;ksa dh lwph izcU/k lfefr ds 3 o"kZ ds dk;Zdky ds lekIr gksus ls 11 ekg iwoZ ?kksf"kr dj nh tk;sxh] ftldh 5 izfr;ka fujh{kd dks Hksth tk;saxh rFkk ,d izfr lEHkkxh; mi f’k{kk funs’kd dks Hkh Hksth tk;sxhA** 14. From the bare perusal of Clause 9(3) of the Scheme of Administration it is apparent that it provides that membership list of the general body shall be published 11 months prior to the expiry of the term of Committee of Management. It does not provide that a member is required to complete 11 months as member prior to his becoming eligible to participate and vote in the election. The resolution of Committee of Management dated 2.10.2007, filed as RA-1 in the writ petition, therefore, does not inspire confidence and prima facie appears to be based on misconception of provisions of the Scheme of Administration. 15. We have already held that 130 new members enrolled on 14.7.2008 by deposit of membership fee in cash were not valid members, thus, this appeal deserves to be dismissed summarily. 16. No other point has been raised or argued before us. 17. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by learned Single Judge. This special appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. 18. Office is directed to issue a certified copy of this order to the learned counsel for the parties within 24 hours on payment of usual charges. ———