JUDGMENT : Rakesh Tiwari, J. Heard Sri R.K. Ojha, Counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.P. Singh representing respondent No. 4 and the standing Counsel appearing for respondent No. 1 to 3. 2. This petition has been filed by the President of Committee of Management, Mahavir Inter College, Bichhiya Bankat, Sant Ravidas Nagar, Bhadohi and three other members of the Committee of Management. 3. It is prayed that a direction in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the Joint Director of Education, Vindhyachal Region, Mirzapur-respondent No. 2 to look into the matter and finalise electoral college in accordance with the Scheme of Administration and permit the persons who are duly enrolled as members to the general body under the Scheme of Administration to participate in the proposed election dated 27.4.2008. 4. Contention of the Counsel for petitioners is that authorised controller had been working in the institution for the last 15 years and last election of the committee of management was held on 27.4.2005, in which the petitioner No. 1 was elected as President and petitioner No. 3 as Deputy Manager. As regards the respondent No. 4, he was elected as Manager. Term of the committee of management is three years and one month, therefore, next election of the committee of management is due to be concluded by 26.5.2008. 5. He further submits that 34 members had participated in the election held on 27.4.05, out of which three members are now no more and therefore proceedings had to be initiated for enrolment of new members. 6. It is urged by Sri Ojha that the respondent No. 4 - Manager of the committee of management without knowledge of the petitioner or any information to him, started process for enrolment of new members of the general body before the next election is due and for this purpose, an information was published in the newspaper "Amar Ujala" dated 15.9.07 appended as annexure-3 which is as under: vej mtkyk ’kfuokj bykgkckn 15 flrEcj] 2007 lwpuk lwP; gS fd egkohj b.VjehfM;V dkyst fofN;k cudV lUr jfonkl uxj Hknksgh dh lfefr dh vkthou lnL;rk@lk/kkj.k lnL;rk@laj{kd lnL;rk gsrq fu;ekuqlkj fu/kkZfjr ‘kqYd fnukad 30-09-07 rd fo|ky; ds izca/kd Jh pUnzHkky flag ds ikl tek dj jlhn izkIr dj ysa rkfd vkxkeh izca/kd lfefr ds pquko es lfEefyr gks lds A ‘kqYd vkthou lnL; 1000@& lk/kkj.k lnL; 300@& MªkQV }kjk pUnzHkky flag izca/kd A ,-,y-001 lh- 2803 7. Perusal of the aforesaid publication shows that those persons who are desirous to become members have to deposit membership fee and complete formalities by 30.9.2007. It is submitted by the counsel for petitioner that aforesaid publication has been made in "Amar Ujala" of Allahabad region whereas in Bhadohi areas, "Amar Uajala" published from Varanasi region has a wide circulation, which implies that the respondent No. 4 has deliberately got published information for enrolment of new members in "Amar Ujala" of Allahabad region so as to get his own men enrolled as members which may affect the election. 8. On the other hand, Sri B.P. Singh, Counsel representing respondent No. 4, contends that writ petition at the instance of the petitioner is not maintainable as he has no locus standi in the matter. He further submits that members of the general body who are alive, have been issued notice for the election proceedings by registered post as well as by notice published in "Amar Ujala" regarding the election schedule. It is also submitted by Sri Singh that contention of the petitioner that he had no information or notice in respect of enrolment of the new members is incorrect as the meeting for enrolment of news members was held on 24.7.07 in which petitioner No. 1 - President of the Committee of Management was present though in the second meeting held on 11.10.07 he was not present but he was present in the meeting dated 23.1.2008 in which minutes of the earlier meeting dated 11.10.07 were rectified, therefore, according to the respondent No. 4, the petitioner had knowledge about the enrolment of news members all along. 9. It is further submitted by Sri B.P. Singh for respondent that as the petitioner has no locus standi in the matter, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person under Article 226 of the Constitution by enrolment of the new members rather the persons who may have wanted to become a member of the general body, may be the aggrieved persons. He next submitted that no newspaper is published from Bhadohi. The institution is located only 1 kilometre away from the borders of Allahabad and Bhadohi. Publication in the newspaper published from Allahabad was made with the approval of the DIOS, hence petitioners' contention that the respondent wanted their own men to be inducted and enrolled as member is wholly incorrect. 10. The institution is located only 1 kilometre away from the borders of Allahabad and Bhadohi. Publication in the newspaper published from Allahabad was made with the approval of the DIOS, hence petitioners' contention that the respondent wanted their own men to be inducted and enrolled as member is wholly incorrect. 10. He lastly submitted that election process has already started and the DIOS after verification of records has finalised the list of the members and also appointed observer for holding the election proceedings. 11. According to the election schedule published in the newspaper, nomination forms are to be filled up and filed by 25.4.08 and the elections are to be held on 27.4.08. It appears that the DIOS has verified the records and has also appointed observer for the elections. 12. It is not that the petitioners are not being permitted to participate in the elections. No aggrieved person has come up in the writ petition to claim that he has been deprived of becoming a member by the aforesaid notice, as such this petition cannot be sustained. 13. Besides it, it is well settled that writ petitions challenging finalisation of election process are not maintainable and the election can only be challenged either by filing an election petition or a suit in civil court. Reference may in this regard be made to the decision in Basant Prasad Srivastava and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, AIR 1994 All 112 . 14. For the reasons stated above, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the matter. The writ petition has no force and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.