JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 16.1.2008 (Annexure-29 to the writ petition) passed by the Vice-Chancellor. 3. Shyameshwar Shiksha Parishad, Malawan, Sikriganj, Gorakhpur is a registered society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The aforesaid society is running an institution known as Shyameshwar Mahavidyalaya, Malawan, Sikriganj, Gorakhpur which is a registered institution. 4. It is stated that Election of the Committee of Management was held in which Ramashrey Rai was elected as the President Ram Nath Ojha was elected as Senior Vice President and Sri Adya Prasad was elected as Junior Vice President. In the aforesaid election proceedings late Kamalakar Shukla was appointed as the Secretary/Manager and Virendra Dutta Pandey was appointed as the Assistant Secretary. The Vice Chancellor recognized appointment of late Kamlakar Shukla as the Manager/Secretary of the Committee of Management. 5. It is stated that Sri Ramashray Rai expired, hence Sri Ram Nath Ojha was nominated as the President by the Sansthapak. 6. It is further stated that the tenure of the Committee of Management is five years. However, the Sansthapak extended the period of the Committee of Management for a further period of 18 months and the same was communicated to the University. On 18.2.2006 the Registrar of the University communicated that the term of the Committee of Management earlier elected on 10.6.2000 will be valid up to 10.6.2007. Earlier Secretary/Manager Kamlakar Shukla expired on 19.1.2007. On 21.1.2007 election of the Prabandh Samiti was held. Shesh Narain Shukla was appointed as the Secretary/Manager and Umesh Tiwari as the Assistant Secretary. 7. It is alleged that Smt. Asha Shukla wife of late Kamlakar Shukla manipulated election proceedings. The aforesaid election conducted by the petitioner was duly communicated to the Assistant Registrar which was also communicated to the Vice Chancellor. On 16.2.2007 the Vice Chancellor granted recognition to Smt. Asha Shukla for the remaining period i.e. up to 10.6.2007 as Manager. 8. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14431 of 2007 challenging the list of members by the Assistant Registrar on 24.1.2007 in which an interim order was granted. Smt. Asha Shukla is said to have again manipulated proceedings showing her fresh election as Manager. 9. 8. The petitioner filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 14431 of 2007 challenging the list of members by the Assistant Registrar on 24.1.2007 in which an interim order was granted. Smt. Asha Shukla is said to have again manipulated proceedings showing her fresh election as Manager. 9. It is submitted that the Vice Chancellor even without issuing any notice to the petitioner and without considering the pending claim of the petitioner for grant of recognition on the basis of election proceeding dated 21.7.2007 granted recognition to the election of respondent No. 5, vide order dated 1.6.2007. The order dated 1st June, 2007 was challenged by the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 27985 of 2007 which was finally disposed of vide order dated 21.6.2007. 10. Writ Petition No. 14431 of 2007 filed by the petitioner earlier challenging the list of member and connect with 14432 of 2007 filed by the respondents were finally disposed of by this Court vide order dated 11.7.2007. The order dated 11.7.2007 was challenged by the petitioner in Special Appeal No. 977 of 2007 which was disposed of vide order dated 30.7.2007. 11. The petitioner submitted an application for grant of a short opportunity to the petitioner to bring on record the order of the special Appellate Bench. The matter was adjourned to 3rd August, 2007. The petitioner again requested for copy of the objection filed by respondent No. 5 and for grant of time to file the order of the Special Appellate Bench but it is alleged that the Vice Chancellor did not consider any of the two requests of the petitioner inasmuch as neither the copy of the objections filed by respondent No. 5 was provided to the petitioner nor copy of the claims of her election in January, 2007 and May, 2007 were provided to the petitioner despite specific request made in this regard. 12. It is further submitted that the order of the Vice Chancellor dated 5.8.2007, apart from being in violation of the principles of natural justice, also suffers from manifest error of law. 13. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 5.8.2007 the petitioner and another filed Writ Petition No. 42561 of 2007, Committee of Management, Shyameshwar Shiksha Parishad, Malawan, Sikriganj, Gorakhpur v. State of U.P. and others. 13. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 5.8.2007 the petitioner and another filed Writ Petition No. 42561 of 2007, Committee of Management, Shyameshwar Shiksha Parishad, Malawan, Sikriganj, Gorakhpur v. State of U.P. and others. The aforesaid writ petition was allowed vide order dated 12.10.2007 quashing the impugned order dated 5.8.2007 and the matter was remitted back to the Vice Chancellor for fresh decision and the direction was also issued that the Vice Chancellor shall examine the membership of respondent No. 5 Smt. Asha Shukla before recognizing the committee of any group. Three substantial questions were also framed by the Court for decisions as to whether (i) person who convened the meeting had right to convene the meeting of general body of the society; (ii) persons who participated in the election were valid members entitled to participate in the election; and (iii) elections were held as per provisions as contained in the Constitution. The order is as under : “Serious issue has arisen as to whether Smt. Asha Shukla is valid member of the general body of the society or not. In support of this claim of Smt. Asha Shukla, it has been contended that receipt was issued in her favour at serial No. 125 dated 11.6.1996 for a sum of Rs. 500/- and by means of resolution No. 3 of the same date, she was inducted as member. There are documentary evidence on record which shows manipulation on this front. On page 41 of record, list of members of all category, certified by Kamlakar Shukla on 15.9.1997, is there, but name of Smt. Asha Shukla is not there in any category of members. In proceedings dated 5.6.1997 cutting has been done and name of Kedar Ojha has been scored out on the backside of page 45 of record, and in his place name of Smt. Asha Shukla has been inserted, showing her elected as ordinary member. Amongst signatory to the said meeting name of Smt. Asha Shukla is at the bottom at serial No. 55. Amongst signatory to the said meeting name of Smt. Asha Shukla is at the bottom at serial No. 55. In the proceeding dated 20.6.1997 at serial No. 52 manipulation is writ apparent, as at the said item name of Smt. Asha Shukla has been written and most surprisingly signature which has been appended is that of Manager Pandey, backside of page No. 46 of record, in proceeding dated 5.6.1997, similar situation is there, wherein at serial No. 52 running page 47 name of Smt. Asha Shukla has been shown and in its front Manager Pandey has put signature. At page 68 name of Smt. Asha Shukla has been added separately by pen. At the back of page 72, her name has been inserted. Most surprising feature is that virtually at all places in majority meeting her name has been inserted. All these documents clearly doubt the credibility of claim of Smt. Asha Shukla, who is no one else than the wife of Kamlakar Shukla, and after his death, attempt has been made to install her as Secretary/Manager of the Committee of Management of the society/institution. Vice Chancellor in the present case has proceeded on the presumption that Smt. Asha Shukla is valid member of the general body of the society. Record which has been produced before this Court requires inquiry in its correct perspective as to whether Smt. Asha Shukla is member of the general body of the society, as has been claimed by her and as to whether manipulations have been done in the resolutions dated 5.6.1997, 20.6.1997 and other resolutions. Vice Chancellor in the present case has proceeded on assumption and presumption without undertaking any genuine exercise. No exercise, whatsoever, has been undertaken to examine prima facie this aspect of the matter, as to (i) who had right to convene the meeting of general body of the society; (ii) Persons who participated in the election were valid members entitled to participate in the election; and (iii) elections were held as per provisions as contained in the constitution of institution. Vice Chancellor has proceeded as if each and every proceedings were valid proceeding without undertaking any exercise, whereas, it is clear from the record that parties are fighting tooth and nail by setting up claims and counter claims. Vice Chancellor has proceeded as if each and every proceedings were valid proceeding without undertaking any exercise, whereas, it is clear from the record that parties are fighting tooth and nail by setting up claims and counter claims. The fact of the matter is that no real exercise, whatsoever, has been undertaken while proceeding to accord recognition to the Committee of Management headed by Smt. Asha Shukla, and further Vice Chancellor has failed to take into account relevant documents, which clearly prima facie exposed Smt. Asha Shukla, clearly amounting to improper exercise of authority conferred. In the present case, it would not be out of place to mention here that even the claim which has been set up by petitioners, prima facie, does not conform to the bye-laws of the society. Admittedly manipulations have been made by the petitioners as well, inasmuch as when Kamlakar Shukla was alive, Shesh Narain Shukla, without any authority of law has sent notice by speed post on 2.1.2007describing himself as Secretary/Manager of the institution in question. During the course of hearing attempt has been made by contending that this error is admitted, but it has been sought to be explained by contending that Kamlakar Shukla was not well and in this background, said mistake has been committed. It appears that before the death of Kamlakar Shukla, struggle had started to take the reign of the Committee of Management and both sides were in competition with each other to prima facie manipulate the proceeding. Claim of Sri Shesh Narain Shukla also forms part of the record. On 6.8.2006, he has changed the entire electoral college, barring few members and based on the same, Sansthapak claims to have held elections dated 21.1.2007. Sansthapak has key role to play, under the constitution, but that ipso facto does not authorize him to act at his whims, his entire activity has to be within the four corners of the constitution. Shri Shesh Narain Shukla, will have to justify his action. In these circumstances and in this background, much more obligation was cast upon the Vice Chancellor to see and examine as to who could be charged with the authority to run and manage the affairs of the institution as per constitution and what role was assigned to be played by the Sansthapak under the said constitution. In these circumstances and in this background, much more obligation was cast upon the Vice Chancellor to see and examine as to who could be charged with the authority to run and manage the affairs of the institution as per constitution and what role was assigned to be played by the Sansthapak under the said constitution. It appears that Sansthapak with his group of persons had started undertaking proceedings for his own benefit and similarly after death of Kamlakar Shukla other group has installed wife of Manager/Secretary as Manager/Secretary to take charge of the affairs of the institution. When conduct of both the parties prima facie does not appear to be above board, then in this situation, Vice Chancellor was much more obligated to make real exercise. In view of the fact that no actual exercise has been undertaken by the Vice Chancellor and as Shesh Narain Shukla is not rank outsider, rather he is Sansthapak, his point of view has to be looked into, and group of persons who are found to be genuine, only said Committee of Management ought to be fastened with the responsibility to run and manage the affairs of the institution, who owe their existence to the constitution. In view of discussion made above, writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 5.8.2007 is hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back for being decided afresh by the Vice Chancellor. While proceeding to decide the matter afresh, Vice Chancellor shall proceed to examine as to whether Smt. Asha Shukla is valid member of the general body of the society or not and before proceeding to accord recognition to any election, Vice Chancellor shall examine for his prima facie satisfaction as to whether (i) person who convened the meeting had right to convene the meeting of general body of the society; (ii) persons who participated in the election were valid members entitled to participate in the election; and (iii) elections were held as per provisions as contained in the constitution. No order as to costs.” The Vice Chancellor accordingly issued notices to the petitioner as well as to respondent No. 5 fixing 20.11.2007 for filing their written submissions along with the supporting documents. On the date fixed petitioner filed his written submissions alongwith supporting documents which was duly served upon the opposite parties also. No order as to costs.” The Vice Chancellor accordingly issued notices to the petitioner as well as to respondent No. 5 fixing 20.11.2007 for filing their written submissions along with the supporting documents. On the date fixed petitioner filed his written submissions alongwith supporting documents which was duly served upon the opposite parties also. Smt. Asha Shukla did not file her written submission or any paper on the date fixed i.e. 20.11.2007 nor any paper was served upon the petitioner by Smt. Asha Shukla. 14. On 28.11.2007 the petitioner made an application before the Vice Chancellor for inspection of the records. Sri Basdeo, Manager Pandey, Ram Kinkar Dubey and Surendra Shukla filed affidavits before the Vice Chancellor thereby they denied that alleged proceedings dated 11.6.1996 in which Smt. Asha Shukla has allegedly been chosen as member. Moreover, signatures of the aforesaid persons have been shown in proceedings dated 11.6.1996 as forged. 15. It is submitted that on 16.1.2008 the impugned order has been passed by the Vice Chancellor, thereby list of the Committee of Management elected on 13.5.2007 has been approved by the Vice Chancellor and the election of the petitioner dated 21.1.2007 has been disapproved, hence this writ petition. 16. Vice Chancellor by the impugned order has addressed itself to the various doubt raised by the Court and has passed by the impugned order holding that respondent No. 5 has been validly elected member. 17. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner is that forgery and manipulation etc. have been made by the respondents in the records produced before the Vice Chancellor, who had not decided the matter in terms of the judgment in W.P. No. 42561 of 2007, Committee of Management (supra) as such the Vice Chancellor having proceeded contrary to the spirit of the judgment passed by the Court is liable to be hauled up for his contemptuous act and the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 18. 18. All these disputed questions of facts as to whether any forgery has in fact been committed or manipulations have been made requires findings of facts on the basis of oral and documentary evidence which is not feasible under Article 226 of the Constitution merely because the Court while looking into the record produced by the University in the aforesaid W.P. No. 42561 of 2007 has made certain observations but those observations cannot be said to be adjudication of the disputed questions of facts by oral and documentary evidence or any finding of facts having been recorded by the Court. Admittedly the matter had been remitted back to the Vice Chancellor for being decided afresh after examining as to whether Smt. Asha Shukla was a valid member or not, before proceeding to accord recognition to any elections of the parties. 19. Therefore on remand for decision afresh it cannot be said that the High Court had recorded findings of facts by final adjudication of matter. It may be that the High Court had drawn attention of the Vice Chancellor to certain aspects which may require to be addressed by him. If any mistake has been made by the Vice Chancellor in the order or any illegality is said to have been committed, ipso facto cannot make him liable for contempt. The validity and correctness of the order can be challenged by the aggrieved party by way of suit. 20. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has laid great emphasis upon the fact that the petitioner has not been given an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order as such the order is bad. This assertion of fact can also be challenged in the suit. 21. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to cost. ————