JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.P. Mehrotra, J.—Counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent No. 6 has been filed. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shobit Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners do not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit, and the matter may be heard for final disposal. Accordingly, the matter is being heard for final disposal. 2. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners, inter alia, praying for quashing the order dated 5/6.2.2009 (Annexure-34 to the Writ Petition) issued by the Regional Level Committee - 1st Region, Meerut/ Joint Director of Education- 1st Region, Meerut (respondent No. 2). 3. It is, inter alia, averred in the Writ Petition that Vaidik Inter College, Aurangabad Ahir, District-Bulandshahr (in short “the institution in question”) is a recognized Intermediate College and is governed by the provisions of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Regulations framed thereunder. 4. It is, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that the institution in question is not receiving grant-in-aid from the State Government and the provisions of the U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are not applicable to the institution in question; and that the institution in question has a duly approved Scheme of Administration framed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921; and that the said Scheme of Administration was accorded approval by the Deputy Director of Education, First Region, Meerut by an order dated 24.5.1993;and that under the Scheme of Administration, the General Body is to comprise of several categories of members, and all such categories of members constitute the General Body, which elects seven Members and five Office Bearers of the Committee of Management; and that the Committee of Management is to be elected for a term of three years but in case, a newly elected Committee of Management does not assume charge within an additional period of one month from the date of expiry of three years, then it is open to the Deputy Director of Education to appoint a Prabandh Sanchalak with power to hold a fresh election and to manage the institution in the intervening period; and that Clause-9 of the Scheme of Administration prescribes the procedure for holding the election. 5. 5. The petitioners have, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that the elections of the Committee of Management had been held periodically including the elections dated 12.12.1999, 14.12.2002 and 15.12.2005. 6. As regards the election dated 15.12.2005, it is, inter alia, averred in the Writ Petition that a Committee of Management with Om Veer Yadav as the Manager stood elected and all papers pertaining to such election were submitted before the education authorities; and that on 21.3.2007, the Joint Director of Education - 1st Region, Meerut appointed Bhoori Singh, Associate District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr as the Prabandh Sanchalak over the institution; and that the validity of the said order dated 21.3.2007 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Meerut was challenged before this Court by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18644 of 2007; and that the said Writ Petition was allowed by the judgment and order dated 10.4.2007, and a direction was issued to the Regional Level Committee to consider the validity of the elections of the year 2005. 7. It further appears that in pursuance of the said judgment and order dated 10.4.2007 passed in Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 18644 of 2007, the Regional Level Committee passed an order dated 22.8.2007 holding the election of the Committee of Management of the institution in question held on 15.12.2005 as invalid, and directing Bhoori Singh, Associate District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr, who had been appointed as the Prabandh Sanchalak, to finalize the list of members of the General Body before holding the election, and get the same certified by the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr, and thereafter proceed to hold the election of the Committee of Management within six weeks in accordance with the approved Scheme of Administration of the institution in question. 8. Relevant portion of the said order dated 22.8.2007 passed by the Regional Level Committee is quoted in paragraph 15 of the Writ Petition. Copy of the said order dated 22.8.2007 has been filed as Annexure-CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 6. 9. 8. Relevant portion of the said order dated 22.8.2007 passed by the Regional Level Committee is quoted in paragraph 15 of the Writ Petition. Copy of the said order dated 22.8.2007 has been filed as Annexure-CA-2 to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 6. 9. It is, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that on 20.10.2007, the Prabandh Sanchalak published a list of 22 members in the Newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ as provisional voter list of members of the General Body and invited objections against the same uptill 30.10.2007, and the said notice also directed that the hearing would be conducted at Government Inter College, Bulandshahr at 3.00 p.m. on 3.11.2007. 10. It is, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that the petitioner No. 2 alongwith several other members tendered their objections in the Office of the Associate District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr against the provisional voter list on 30.10.2007; and that on the said date, i.e., 30.10.2007, the said Bhoori Singh was not available in his Office and the staff also did not receive the objections of the petitioners; and that in such circumstances, the said objection was again tendered to Bhoori Singh, Prabandh Sanchalak personally on 2.11.2007. Copy of the said Objection dated 2.11.2007 has been filed as Annexure 2 to the Writ Petition. 11. In the counter affidavit, particularly in paragraphs 10,12 and 13 thereof, it is, inter alia, stated that upto 30.10.2007 only three persons filed objections before the Prabandh Sanchalak; and that no objections were filed by Kamlendra (petitioner No. 2) before the Prabandh Sanchalak before 30.10.2007; and that the date of filing of the objection was upto 30.10.2007, therefore, the alleged objection dated 2.11.2007, even if filed, was of no consequence. 12. It is, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that on 3.11.2007 an affidavit (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition) of Pramod Kumar was tendered in the Office of the Associate District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr; and that the Associate District Inspector of Schools was not available in his Office on 3.11.2007 and his subordinate staff did not receive the said affidavit in the said date; and that in the circumstances, the said affidavit was again tendered in the Office of the Associate District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr on 5.11.2007. In paragraph 14 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent No. 6, it is, inter alia, stated that the said Pramod Kumar,Sub-Inspector is posted in District-Aligarh; and that the affidavit (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition) is alleged to have been sworn in District-Bulandshahr on 3.11.2007; and that in response to a notice issued by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Aligarh, the said Pramod Kumar has given a letter (Anexure-CA-4 to the counter affidavit), inter alia, admitting that on 3.11.2007 he was on duty in District-Aligarh, and further stating that the Advocate/ Assistant had come to Aligarh for the purpose of taking his (Pramod Kumar’s) signature, and the signature on the affidavit was put by the said Pramod Kumar at Aligarh; and that, thus, the said affidavit was not sworn in District-Bulandshahr, and as such, the same is false on the face of it. 13. It is, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that on 5.11.2007, the Prabandh Sanchalak passed an order finalizing a list of 25 persons as the members of the General Body entitled to participate in the election of the Committee of Management. Copy of the said order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak has been filed as Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition. 14. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the Prabandh Sanchalak by the order dated 19.11.2007 appointed Dr. Sanjay Singh, Veterinary Officer, Veterinary Chikitsalaya, Gulawati, Bulandshahr as the Election Officer for getting the election conducted on the basis of the list of 25 members provided by the Prabandh Sanchalak. Copy of the said order dated 19.11.2007 has been filed as Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition. By another order dated 19.11.2007, the Prabandh Sanchalak appointed Sunder Singh, son of Ram Singh as the Assistant Election Officer. Copy of the said order dated 19.11.2007 has been filed as Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition. 15. Dr. Sanjay Singh, the Election Officer, issued an agenda of the election programme, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition. Copy of the said order dated 19.11.2007 has been filed as Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition. 15. Dr. Sanjay Singh, the Election Officer, issued an agenda of the election programme, copy whereof has been filed as Annexure-8 to the Writ Petition. Accordingly, 2.12.2007 was notified as the date for filing the nomination papers, 3.12.2007 as the date for scrutiny of nomination papers, 4.12.2007 as the date of publication of list of nomination papers, 5.12.2007 as the date for withdrawal of nomination papers, 6.12.2007 as the date for publication of list of the contesting candidates and 16.12.2007 as the date for holding election, if necessary. 16. In the said agenda, there was a note that in case only one nomination paper was received for a particular post, then election result, namely, unopposed elected, would be declared on 5.12.2007, i.e. on the date for withdrawal of the nomination papers. 17. By the order dated 23.11.2007 (Annexure-9 to the Writ Petition), the Joint Director of Education, Meerut appointed the Principal of Government Inter College, Bulandshahr as the Prabandh Sanchalak of the institution in question in place of the said Bhoori Singh, Associate District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr. The said Dr. Sanjay Singh (Election Officer) by a letter dated 24.11.2007 addressed to the said Sunder Singh, Assistant Election Officer expressed his inability to conduct the election on account of the departmental work, and directed the said Sunder Singh to hold the election in accordance with the aforesaid election agenda. Copy of the said letter dated 24.11.2007 has been filed as Annexure-10 to the Writ Petition. 18. The District Inspector of Schools sent a letter dated 1.12.2007 (Annexure-11 to the Writ Petition) to the Principal, Government Inter College, Bulandshahr (Prabandh Sanchalak) annexing copy of the said affidavit of Pramod Kumar dated 3.11.2007 and copies of the letters of certain other persons, and directing the Principal to hold enquiry regarding the said complaints. 19. The Prabandh Sanchalak of the institution in question issued a letter/order dated 3.12.2007 (Annexure-12 to the Writ Petition) postponing the election programme till the completion of the enquiry. 20. Against the said order dated 3.12.2007, Devendra Singh (respondent No. 6) filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51387 of 2007. 21. 19. The Prabandh Sanchalak of the institution in question issued a letter/order dated 3.12.2007 (Annexure-12 to the Writ Petition) postponing the election programme till the completion of the enquiry. 20. Against the said order dated 3.12.2007, Devendra Singh (respondent No. 6) filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 51387 of 2007. 21. It further appears that the result of the election was declared on 5.12.2007 wherein Pooran Singh was elected as the President and Devendra Singh was elected as the Manager. 22. The Prabandh Sanchalak of the institution in question submitted a Report dated 12.1.2008 (Annexure-14 to the Writ Petition) to the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr, inter alia, stating that the order dated 3.12.2007 for staying the election had been issued by mistake; and that the Election Officer had not been intimated regarding the aforesaid order dated 3.12.2007, and in the circumstances, the Election Officer did not stay the election; and that 25 persons included in the list of members had been made members in accordance with the Scheme of Administration and all of them were valid members. The Prabandh Sanchalak alongwith his Report forwarded the papers pertaining to the said election held on 5.12.2007, and recommended for giving approval to the said election. 23. The District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 28.1.2008 (Annexure 15 to the Writ Petition) sent the election papers to the Joint Director of Education -1st Region, Meerut for consideration. 24. The election papers were considered at a meeting of the Regional Level Committee held on 9.7.2008 wherein a decision was taken to disapprove the election held on 5.12.2007 and to direct for again holding the election in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. Pursuant to the said decision of the Regional Level Committee, the Joint Director of Education -1st Region, Meerut sent a communication/ letter dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure-16 to the Writ Petition) to the District Inspector of Schools, inter alia, directing the latter to act in accordance with the decision of the Regional Level Committee. 25. Against the said decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 9.7.2008 as communicated by the Joint Director of Education by the said communication dated 10.7.2008, a Writ Petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38235 of 2008 was filed before this Court. 25. Against the said decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 9.7.2008 as communicated by the Joint Director of Education by the said communication dated 10.7.2008, a Writ Petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38235 of 2008 was filed before this Court. By the order dated 12.8.2008 (Annexure-25 to the Writ Petition) passed by this Court, the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 9.7.2008 as communicated by the Joint Director of Education by the communication dated 10.7.2008 was set aside, and the Regional Level Committee was directed to examine the matter afresh and pass appropriate order after hearing the parties concerned. 26. However, in the meantime, in pursuance to the directions contained in the said communication dated 10.7.2008 issued by the Joint Director of Education (Annexure-16 to the Writ Petition), the Prabandh Sanchalak appointed one Anand Sharma as the Election Officer. The Prabandh Sanchalak published a provisional voter list in the Newspaper ‘Dainik Jagran’ dated 27.7.2008 (Annexure-17 to the Writ Petition) and in the Newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ dated 29.7.2008 (Annexure-18 to the Writ Petition). The said provisional voter list contained a list of 153 persons. 27. The Prabandh Sanchalak sent a communication dated 11.8.2008 to the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr annexing finalized list of 147 members of the General Body entitled to participate in the election. Copy of the said communication dated 11.8.2008 has been filed as Annexure-19 to the Writ Petition. 28. In response to the said communication dated 11.8.2008, the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr sent a communication dated 13.8.2008 to the Prabandh Sanchalak certifying the said list of 147 members of the General Body and directing the Prabandh Sanchalak to commence the process of election of the Committee of Management in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. Copy of the said communication dated 13.8.2008 has been filed as Annexure-20 to the Writ Petition. 29. It is, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that an election schedule was thereafter published in the Newspaper ‘Amar Ujala’ dated 26.8.2008 (Annexure-21 to the Writ Petition). 30. It is, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that in pursuance to the said election schedule, the election proceedings were finalized, and on 12.9.2008, the result of the election of the Office Bearers and the Members of the Committee of Management was declared. 30. It is, inter alia, further averred in the Writ Petition that in pursuance to the said election schedule, the election proceedings were finalized, and on 12.9.2008, the result of the election of the Office Bearers and the Members of the Committee of Management was declared. Copy of the Report of the Election Officer has been filed as Annexure-22 to the Writ Petition. 31. The Prabandh Sanchalak submitted a Report dated 18.9.2008 (Annexure-23 to the Writ Petition) to the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr, inter alia, stating that by the communication dated 8.9.2008, orders were issued to the Election Officer for postponing the election but the said order was received by the Election Officer on 13.9.2008 when the election process had already been completed. 32. The District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr sent a communication dated 31.10.2008 (Annexure-24 to the Writ Petition) to the Joint Director of Education/ Chairman, Regional Level Committee - 1st Region, Meerut, inter alia, stating that the certified copy of the order dated 12.8.2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38235 of 2008 was not made available to the Office of the District Inspector of Schools by any of the parties; and that he (District Inspector of Schools) came to know about the said order dated 12.8.2008 while examining the papers submitted by the Prabandh Sanchalak for approval of the Committee of Management. 33. It further appears that in compliance with the said order dated 12.8.2008 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38235 of 2008, the Regional Level Committee considered the validity of the election dated 5.12.2007, and passed an order dated 5/6.2.2009 approving the said election held on 5.12.2007. Copy of the said order dated 5/6.2.2009 has been filed as Annexure-34 to the Writ Petition. 34. Against the said order dated 5/6.2.2009, the petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition seeking the reliefs as mentioned above. 35. I have heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Shobit Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and the Shri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, and perused the record. 36. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has made the following submissions: 1. 1 to 5 and the Shri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, and perused the record. 36. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has made the following submissions: 1. The Prabandh Sanchalak while passing the order dated 5.11.2007 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) did not consider the objections filed on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 alongwith several others, nor did the Prabandh Sanchalak consider the affidavit of Pramod Kumar (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition), sworn on 3.11.2007. It is submitted that the observation in the said order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak that “vU; fdlh O;fDr }kjk fnukad 30-10-2007 rd fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dksbZ vkifRr v/kksgLrk{kjh dks izkIr ugha djkbZ xbZ A”, was not correct. Shri Khare in this regard refers to the averments made in paragraphs 18,19,20,21 and 23 of the Writ Petition. Thus, the order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak finalizing the list of 25 members of the General Body was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 2. By the letter/ order dated 3.12.2007 (Annexure-12 to the Writ Petition), the Prabandh Sanchalak directed for postponing the election programme till the completion of enquiry pursuant to the letter of the District Inspector of Schools dated 1.12.2007 (Annexure-11 to the Writ Petition), however, despite the said letter/ order dated 3.12.2007, the result of the election was declared on 5.12.2007. Subsequently, the Prabandh Sanchalak in his Report dated 12.1.2008, inter alia, stated that the order dated 3.12.2007 for staying the election had been issued by mistake. It is submitted that the election held on 5.12.2007 was invalid as the same was held without awaiting the result of the enquiry regarding the complaints sent by the District Inspector of Schools alongwith his letter dated 1.12.2007. 3. Referring to the communication dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure-30 to the Writ Petition) issued by the Prabandh Sanchalak of the institution in question in response to the queries made under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it is pointed out that various replies given in the said communication show that 25 persons including Devendra Singh (respondent No. 6), who had been accepted as members of the General Body by the order dated 5.11.2007 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition), were not the members of the General Body. 4. 4. It is further pointed out by Shri Khare that pursuant to a complaint dated 28.1.2009 made by Smt. Munesh Devi (forwarded by the Prabandh Sanchalak of the institution in question alongwith his letter dated 5.2.2009), the Joint Director of Education (Madhyamik), U.P., Lucknow by his communication dated 12.2.2009 (Annexure-31 to the Writ Petition) directed the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr to get the enquiry held in the matter in accordance with Rules. Thereupon, the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr by his communication dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure-32 to the Writ Petition) appointed the Assistant District Inspector of Schools as the Inquiry Officer and directed to submit the Enquiry Report within three days. Thereupon, the Assistant District Inspector of Schools/ Inquiry Officer, Bulandshahr submitted his Enquiry Report dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure-33 to the Writ Petition), inter alia, observing that the Bank Statement submitted by the aforesaid 25 persons including Devendra Singh (respondent No. 6) was forged . In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 6.2.2009 (Annexure-34 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Regional Level Committee recognizing the election of the Committee of Management of the institution in question held on 5.12.2007 on the basis of the list of 25 members finalized by the order dated 5.11.2007 by the Prabandh Sanchalak, was not valid. 37. In reply, Shri Vinod Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 has made the following submissions: 1. The petitioner No. 2 (Kamlendra), through whom the present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners, has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition challenging the impugned order dated 6.2.2009 whereby the Committee of Management elected on 5.12.2007 has been recognized. It is submitted that the petitioner No. 2 is not one of the 25 persons included in the list finalized by the order dated 5.12.2007. As regards the list of 147 members of the General Body finalized by the Prabandh Sanchalak by communication dated 11.1.2008 (Annexure-19 to the Writ Petition) and certified by the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr by his communication dated 13.8.2008 (Annexure-20 to the Writ Petition) as also the election held on 12.9.2008 (Annexure-22 to the Writ Petition) on the basis of the said list of 147 members, it is submitted that the said exercise was done in pursuance to the directions contained in the communication dated 10.7.2008 issued by the Joint Director of Education (Annexure-16 to the Writ Petition). As by the order dated 12.8.2008 (Annexure-25 to the Writ Petition) passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38235 of 2008, the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 9.7.2008 as communicated by the Joint Director of Education by the said communication dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure-16 to the Writ Petition) was set aside, the entire exercise undertaken pursuant to the said communication dated 10.7.2008 stood nullified. It is submitted that the petitioners did not pursue any remedy against the order dated 12.8.2008 passed by this Court and the consequent nullification of the list of 147 members of the General Body as also the election allegedly held on 12.9.2008. It is submitted that in the circumstances, the claim of the petitioner No. 2(Kamlendra) is merely based on his claim to be member of the General Body. No rival Committee of Management has been set up by the petitioners. As such, the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition. Reliance in this regard has been placed on the following decisions : 1. Dr. P.P. Rastogi v. Meerut University, Meerut and another, (1997) 1 UPLBEC 415 . 2. Bhagwan Kaushik v. State of U.P. and others, (2006) 2 UPLBEC 1372. 3. Amanullah Khan v. State of U.P. and others, 2009(2) ESC 1030 (All). 2. The order dated 5.11.2007 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak finalizing the list of 25 persons as the members of the General Body entitled to participate in the elections of the Committee of Management was never challenged by the petitioners. Even in the present Writ Petition, no relief has been sought for quashing the said order dated 5.11.2007 in the prayer clause of the Writ Petition. 3. As per the own showing of the petitioners in paragraph 16 of the Writ Petition, the objections against the provisional list of members of the General Body published by the Prabandh Sanchalak on 20.10.2007 were to be filed till 30.10.2007. Again, as per the own showing of the petitioners in paragraphs 18,19,21 and 23 of the Writ Petition, the objections on behalf of the petitioners were filed on 2.11.2007 while the affidavit of Pramod Kumar, sworn on 3.11.2007, was filed on 5.11.2007. As the said objections and affidavit were filed after the expiry of the said period on 30.10.2007, the same were rightly not taken into consideration by the Prabandh Sanchalak. As the said objections and affidavit were filed after the expiry of the said period on 30.10.2007, the same were rightly not taken into consideration by the Prabandh Sanchalak. It is pointed out that the Prabandh Sanchalak, in his order dated 5.11.2007, has considered the objections filed by the due date, i.e., 30.10.2007, and has rightly pointed out that till 30.10.2007, no other person had submitted any objections before the Prabandh Sanchalak. 4. The affidavit, allegedly sworn by Pramod Kumar on 3.11.2007 in District-Bulandshahr, was evidently false on the face of it as the said Pramod Kumar in his letter (Annexure-CA-4 to the counter affidavit), inter alia, admitted that on 3.11.2007 he was on duty in District-Aligarh. 5. As is evident from the Report dated 12.1.2008 (Annexure-14 to the Writ Petition) submitted by the Prabandh Sanchalak to the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr, the order dated 3.12.2007 (Annexure-12 to the Writ Petition) staying the election was not intimated to the Election Officer, and in the circumstances, the Election Officer rightly proceeded to hold the election on 5.12.2007. It is also noteworthy that the said Report, inter alia, itself stated that the said order dated 3.12.2007 had been issued by mistake. In the circumstances, the election was rightly held on 5.12.2007. 6. As regards the replies contained in the communication dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure-30 to the Writ Petition) in response to the queries under the Right to Information Act, 2005, it is submitted that the said replies were given on the basis of old records, as is mentioned in the said communication dated 10.10.2008. The said replies evidently did not take into consideration the order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak. 38. As regards the communication dated 12.2.2009 (Annexure-31 to the Writ Petition) issued by the Joint Director of Education (Madhyamik), U.P., Lucknow directing the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr to get the enquiry held in view of the complaint of Smt. Munesh Devi and the consequent Enquiry Report dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure-33 to the Writ Petition) submitted by the Assistant District Inspector of Schools/ Inquiry Officer, Bulandshahr, it is submitted that the said communication and the Enquiry Report were not relevant as the Regional Level Committee had already taken its decision by the impugned order passed on 6.2.2009. 39. In rejoinder, Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has reiterated the submissions made earlier. 39. In rejoinder, Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has reiterated the submissions made earlier. He further submits that even though the order dated 5.11.2007 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak was not challenged by the petitioners by filing Writ Petition, still the objections were filed before the Prabandh Sanchalak on 2.11.2007 but the same were not considered by the Prabandh Sanchalak. 40. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 41. The first question to be considered is as to whether the petitioners have any locus standi to file the present Writ Petition. 42. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners through Kamlendra (petitioner No. 2). By the order dated 5.11.2007 (Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition) passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak, a list of 25 persons of the General Body was finalized. The said Kamlendra (petitioner No. 2) was not included in the said list of 25 members. However, the petitioners did not challenge the said order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak, and the said order became final. Even in the present Writ Petition, no relief has been sought for quashing the said order dated 5.11.2007. 43. The election held on 5.12.2007 was held on the basis of the said list of 25 members finalized by the said order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak. The District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 21.1.2008 sent the election papers to the Joint Director of Education, 1st Region, Meerut for consideration. The election papers were considered at the meeting of the Regional Level Committee held on 9.7.2008 wherein the decision was taken to disapprove the election held on 5.12.2007 and to direct for again holding the election in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. Pursuant to the said decision of the Regional Level Committee, the Joint Director of Education, 1st Region, Meerut sent a communication/ letter dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure-16 to the Writ Petition) to the District Inspector of Schools, inter alia, directing the latter to act in accordance with the decision of the Regional Level Committee. 44. Against the said decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 9.7.2008 as communicated by the Joint Director of Education by the said communication dated 10.7.2008, a Writ Petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38235 of 2008 was filed before this Court. 44. Against the said decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 9.7.2008 as communicated by the Joint Director of Education by the said communication dated 10.7.2008, a Writ Petition being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38235 of 2008 was filed before this Court. By the order dated 12.8.2008 (Annexure-25 to the Writ Petition) passed by this Court, the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 9.7.2008 as communicated by the Joint Director of Education by the communication dated 10.7.2008 was set aside, and the Regional Level Committee was directed to examine the matter afresh and pass appropriate order after hearing the parties concerned. 45. In compliance with the said order dated 12.8.2008 passed in the aforesaid Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38235 of 2008, the Regional Level Committee considered the validity of the election dated 5.12.2007 and passed an order dated 5/6.2.2009 (Annexure-34 to the Writ Petition) approving the said election held on 5.12.2007. 46. In the meantime, as noted earlier, in pursuance to the directions contained in the said communication dated 10.7.2008 issued by the Joint Director of Education (Annexure-16 to the Writ Petition), a list of 147 members of the General Body was finalized by the Prabandh Sanchalak by communication dated 11.8.2008 (Annexure-19 to the Writ Petition), and the same was certified by the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr by his communication dated 13.8.2008 (Annexure-20 to the Writ Petition). On the basis of the said list of 147 members, the election was allegedly held on 12.9.2008 (Annexure-22 to the Writ Petition). It may be mentioned that the said Kamlendra (petitioner No. 2) was included in the said list of 147 members and he was shown to have been elected as Manager in the election allegedly held on 12.9.2008. 47. It is noteworthy that the entire exercise of finalization of 147 members of the General Body by the Prabandh Sancnalak and certification of the said list by the District Inspector of Schools as also the alleged holding of election on 12.9.2008 on the basis of the said list of 147 members, was done in pursuance of the directions contained in the communication dated 10.7.2008 issued by the Joint Director of Education (Annexure-16 to the Writ Petition). As by the order dated 12.8.2008 (Annexure-25 to the Writ Petition) passed by this Court in Civil Misc. As by the order dated 12.8.2008 (Annexure-25 to the Writ Petition) passed by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 38235 of 2008, the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 9.7.2008 as communicated by the Joint Director of Education by the said communication dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure-16 to the Writ Petition) was set aside, the entire above exercise undertaken pursuant to the said communication dated 10.7.2008 stood nullified. The petitioners did not pursue any remedy against the order dated 12.8.2008 passed by this Court and the consequent nullification of the list of 147 members of the General Body and the election allegedly held on 12.9.2008. Thus, the Committee of Management allegedly elected on 12.9.2008 never came into existence, and the Writ Petition filed on behalf of the said Committee of Management (petitioner No. 1) is wholly misconceived. Thus, the Writ Petition is basically a Writ Petition filed by the said Kamlendra (petitioner No. 2). The claim of the said Kamlendra (petitioner No. 2) is merely based on his claim to be member of the General Body. The Committee of Management (petitioner No. 1) allegedly elected on 12.9.2008 never came into existence, and no other rival Committee of Management was set up by the petitioners. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners through Shri Kamlendra (petitioner No. 2) is not maintainable as the claim of the said Kamlendra is based on his alleged membership of the General Body, and he has, therefore, no locus standi to challenge the validity of the order dated 5/6.2.2009 passed by the Regional Level Committee approving the election of the Committee of Management held on 5.12.2007. 48. Reference in this regard may be made to various judicial decisions including those cited by the learned counsel for the respondent No. 6. 1. In Dr. P.P. Rastogi case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court held as under (paragraphs 3 and 4 of the said UPLBEC): “3. In our opinion this application is liable to be rejected on the short ground that the applicants have no locus standi in the matter. Admittedly, this application for review has not been filed by the Committee of Management, but by certain members of the Committee of Management. 4. In our opinion this application is liable to be rejected on the short ground that the applicants have no locus standi in the matter. Admittedly, this application for review has not been filed by the Committee of Management, but by certain members of the Committee of Management. 4. In our opinion, an individual member of the Committee of Management has no locus standi in such cases and it is only the Committee of Management alone which can appear as a party in the case. To permit individual members of the Committee of Management to appear before us would create a lot of problems because any individual member or several members may file applications at any time through his/their own separate counsel, resulting in confusion. For instance, if there are 15 members of the Committee of Management and we permit each of them to appear before us through their separate counsels, it would result in chaos. In our opinion, the only legal entity which can appear in Court for the Management is the Committee of Management itself through its Manager or person authorised by a resolution of the Committee of Management.” (Emphasis supplied) 49. This decision, thus, lays down that an individual member of the Committee of Management has no locus standi to file application for review of the judgment passed by this Court. 2. In Smt. Vimla Devi v. The Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra and others, 1997 (3) ESC 1807 (All.), there was a dispute between rival Committees of Management. The Writ Petition before this Court was filed by a person who claimed himself to be the life-member of the General Body of the Society running and managing the institution in question. This Court held as under (paragraphs 10,11 and 12 of the said ESC): “10. It will be obvious from the above that at present the petitioner does not claim to be an office bearer of any Committee of Management which has raised a claim for recognition as a duly elected Committee of Management entitled to run and manage the institution. She has filed the writ petition in the capacity of a life member of the general body of the Society. She has filed the writ petition in the capacity of a life member of the general body of the Society. The learned counsel for the contesting respondent has urged that since the petitioner is not directly affected, this writ petition filed by her is not maintainable, and it is not a fit case for any interference by this Court at her instance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however urged that the petitioner has a right to challenge the impugned order as, she, being a life member has sufficient interest in the matter relating to running and managing of the institution by a proper person/ Authority. 11. In support of his submission, the learned counsel for the contesting respondent counsel/ has placed reliance upon the decision in the case of Indian Sugar Mills Association through its President Hari Raj Swarup v. Secretary to Government of U.P. Labour Department and others, rendered by a Full Bench of this Court reported in AIR (38) 1951 Allahabad 1. In the aforesaid decision, it was clearly indicated that only those persons whose interests are directly affected by a Statute or an order can apply for redress under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was clarified that it is in the interest of the applicant which must be directly affected and the powers in the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should be sparingly used and only in those clear cases where the rights of a person have been seriously infringed and he has no other adequate and specific remedy available to him. 12. In this case none of the affected office bearers alleged to have been elected constituting the Committee of Management for running and managing the institution have chosen to avail the extraordinary remedy envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the quashing of the impugned order as sought for by the petitioner. Really affected party having not approached this Court I do not find the present one to be a fit case for the intervention of equity at the instance of the petitioner specially when the petition is directed against an interlocutory order.” (Emphasis supplied) 50. Really affected party having not approached this Court I do not find the present one to be a fit case for the intervention of equity at the instance of the petitioner specially when the petition is directed against an interlocutory order.” (Emphasis supplied) 50. This decision, thus, lays down that in case there was dispute between the rival Committees of Management, a person who was not an Office Bearer of any Committee of Management but claimed merely to be a life member of the General Body of the Society, had no locus standi to file Writ Petition before this Court. 3. In Bhagwan Kaushik case (supra), the petitioner claiming himself to be a life-member of the General Body of the Society in question, filed the Writ Petition challenging an order dated 24.4.2004 passed by the District Inspector of Schools whereby the signature of the respondent No. 5 in the said Writ Petition was attested as Manager of the Committee of Management in pursuance of the approval accorded by the Regional Committee on 19.4.2004 whereby the elections dated 19.10.2003, in which respondent No. 5 was elected as Manager, had been recognized. This Court dismissed the Writ Petition as not maintainable holding as under (paragraphs 5,6 and 7 of the said UPLBEC): “5. A learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Janta Inter College v. Joint Director of Education, (1999) 1 UPLBEC 170 , has while considering a case under Section 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, observed that “In case such dispute is stretched or extended to the right of each individual member, in that event, if any member raised such dispute then the whole administration is expected to collapse since the Joint Director would remain busy and pre-occupied with deciding such disputes which may be raised by any individual.” 6. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dr. P.P. Rastogi v. Meerut University, Meerut, (1997) 1 UPLBEC 415 , has, in a case filed by an individual member of the Committee of Management, held that “ an individual member of the Committee of Management has no locus standi in such cases and it is only the Committee of Management alone which can appear as a party in the case. To permit individual members of the Committee of Management to appear before us would create a lot of problems because any individual member or several members may file applications at any time through his/their own separate Counsel, resulting in confusion............” 7. In the present case, the petitioner is also an individual member of the general body of the society and has challenged the decision of the District Inspector of Schools whereby the signature of Respondent No. 5 has been attested, after the approval has been granted by the Regional Committee. In such facts, this writ petition would not be maintainable on the ground that the petitioner does not have the locus standi to file this writ petition. In my view, if each individual member of the general body is allowed to file writ petitions, without the law recognizing their right to raise such dispute, the same would open a flood gate of litigation, adding, further confusion to the already existing situation where very often separate petitions are filed by different relating to the same election of the Committee of Management.” (Emphasis supplied) 51. This decision, thus, lays down that an individual member of the General Body of the Society had no locus standi to file the Writ Petition challenging the decision of the District Inspector of Schools whereby the signature of respondent No. 5 in the said Writ Petition as Manager was attested after the approval had been granted by the Regional Level Committee. 4. In Special Appeal No. 194 of 2007, Anjani Kumar Mishra and another v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 19.2.2007, the Writ Petition was filed by the petitioners/appellants challenging the result of the election of the Committee of Management of a School run by a Society, on the ground that they were not permitted to participate in the election as voters. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Thereupon, the petitioners/appellants filed Appeal. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition. Thereupon, the petitioners/appellants filed Appeal. A Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Appeal and held as under: “............More so, appellants are merely members of the Society and they do not have any right to agitate the result of the election as they had no locus standi to challenge the result of the election on the ground that they were not permitted to participate in the election as has been held by the Division Bench of this Court in Sri Digambar Jain Panchayat and another v. State of U.P. and others, 1998 Revenue Judgments 503; Bhagwan Kausik v. State of U.P. and others, 2006(2) ADJ 631 ; and Committee of Management, Janta Inter College, Sultanpur, District Haridwar and another v. Joint Director of Education, I Region, Meerut and others, (1999) 1 UPLBEC 170 ...................” (Emphasis supplied) 52. This decision, thus, lays down that the petitioners/ appellants, who were merely members of the Society, did not have any right to agitate the result of the election of the Committee of Management as they had no locus standi to challenge the result of the election on the ground that they were not permitted to participate in the election. 5. In Committee of Management, Sri Kachcha Baba Inter College, Varanasi and others v. Regional Committee, Pancham Mandal, Varanasi and others, 2007(4) ESC 2500 (All.), the Writ Petition was filed by certain members of the General Body challenging the decision of the Regional Level Committee recognizing the election of the Committee of Management. This Court held that the petitioners had no locus standi and the Writ Petition at their instance was not maintainable. It was observed as under (paragraphs 7,8,9 and 10 of the said ESC): “7. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management, Jangali Baba Intermediate College Garwar, district Ballia and another v. Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi and others, (1991) 2 UPLBEC 1183, as well as a decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Committee of Management, Lakhori Inter College, Moradabad and another v. District Inspector of Schools, Moradabad and others, (2002) 1 UPLBEC 199 . 8. 8. Having given my thoughtful consideration in the matter this Court is of the opinion, that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief. The writ petition is not maintainable. 9. In Dr. P.S. Rastogi v. Meerut University, Meerut, (1977) 1 UPLBEC 415 it was held that an individual member of the committee of management had no locus standi to file a petition. Similar view was held by a learned Single Judge in the case of Bhagwan Kaushik v. State of U.P. and others (supra). A Division Bench in Anjani Kumar Mishra’s case (supra) in Special Appeal also held that the members of a society had no right to agitate the result of the elections, as they had no locus standi to challenge the result of the elections. In the present case, the petitioners are the members of the general body. It is not a rival committee of management as alleged by them in the writ petition, inasmuch as admittedly, the authorised controller was managing the affairs of the administration since the year 1996. The elections were conducted by the authorised controller. Consequently, the petitioners cannot be held to be the rival committee of management. The petitioners are none other than the members of the general body of the society and, in view of the decisions of this Court, they have no locus standi to file the present writ petition. Further, in my opinion, the list of electoral college which has been finalised by the authorised controller and affirmed by the regional committee is based on findings of fact which cannot be interfered in a writ jurisdiction. 10. In Committee of Management, Kisan Shiksha Sadan, Banksahi, Basti and another v. Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur, (1995) UPLBEC 1242, a Division Bench of this Court held : “The list of members determined by the authority was not open for a member of the society to challenge in a writ jurisdiction and the proper course open to him was to approach the Civil Court and seek an appropriate relief. In my view also, the appropriate remedy to challenge the determination of the list of the electoral college cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to file a civil suit.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. In my view also, the appropriate remedy to challenge the determination of the list of the electoral college cannot be adjudicated in a writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the appropriate remedy for the petitioners is to file a civil suit.” (Emphasis supplied) 6. In Amanullah Khan case (supra), the petitioner claiming to be a member of the General Body of the Society filed the Writ Petition challenging the decision of the Regional Level Committee approving the elections of the Committee of Management. This Court dismissing the Writ Petition held as under (paragraph 19 of the said ESC) : “19. The enquiry regarding validity of the elections, where no rival committee has been set up, has to be confined under Section 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, is confined only to find out whether the valid members of the society have elected a Committee of Management, which is in effective control of the affairs of the educational institution. In such a case the rights of the individual members of the society do not extend to file a writ petition to challenge the elections, the decision of the Regional Level Committee and the orders of the Joint Director of Education. The Court would be slow to examine these complaints made by individual members to the validity of the elections. Similar views were taken by this Court in Committee of Management, Sri Kachcha Baba Inter College, Varanasi and others v. Regional Committee, Pancham Mandal, Varanasi and others, 2007(4) ESC 2500 (All) and Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, 2008(9) ADJ 660 , following the Full Bench decision of this Court in Committee of Management, Pt. Jawahar Lal Nehru Inter College, Bansgaon, Distt. Gorakhpur and another v. Deputy Director of Education, Gorakhpur Region, Gorakhpur and others, (2005) 1 UPLBEC 85 .” (Emphasis supplied) 53. This decision, thus, lays down that the individual member of the Society has no locus standi to file Writ Petition challenging the decision of the Regional Level Committee approving the elections of the Committee of Management. 54. In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 5/6.2.2009 passed by the Regional Level Committee, and the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed on the said ground. 55. 54. In view of the above discussion, it is evident that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition challenging the order dated 5/6.2.2009 passed by the Regional Level Committee, and the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners is liable to be dismissed on the said ground. 55. In view of the above conclusion that the petitioners have no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition, and the same is liable to be dismissed on the said ground, it is not necessary to deal with various submissions made by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners on merits of the case. However, as elaborate submissions have been made by the learned counsel for the parties on merits also, I am proceeding to deal with the said submissions. 56. Taking up the first submission made by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the objections dated 2.11.2007 (Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition) filed on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 and the affidavit of Pramod Kumar (Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition), sworn on 3.11.2007, were not considered by the Prabandh Sanchalak while passing the order dated 5.11.2007, it is noteworthy that as per the averments made in the Writ Petition itself, the objections against the provisional voter list of members of the General Body published by the Prabandh Sanchalak were to be filed till 30.10.2007. As per the own showing of the petitioners, the objections dated 2.11.2007 were filed on 2.11.2007 while the affidavit of Pramod Kumar, sworn on 3.11.2007, was filed on 5.11.2007. Thus, neither the said objections nor the said affidavit was filed till 30.10.2007, which was the last date for filing objections against the provisional voter list published by the Prabandh Sanchalak. In the circumstances, the Prabandh Sanchalak while passing the order dated 5.11.2007 rightly did not take into consideration the said objections and the affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner No. 2. It is further noteworthy that whatever objections were received by the Prabandh Sanchalak till 30.10.2007, were considered by him in the order dated 5.11.2007 as is evident from a perusal of the said order. 57. It is further noteworthy that whatever objections were received by the Prabandh Sanchalak till 30.10.2007, were considered by him in the order dated 5.11.2007 as is evident from a perusal of the said order. 57. As the said objections and the said affidavit, as per the own showing of the petitioners, were filed on behalf of the petitioner No. 2 subsequent to 30.10.2007, the observation made by the Prabandh Sanchalak in the order dated 5.11.2007 that “vU; fdlh O;fDr }kjk fnukad 30-10-2007 rd fdlh Hkh izdkj dh dksbZ vkifRr v/kksgLrk{kjh dks izkIr ugha djkbZ xbZ” was correct. 58. As regards the second submission made by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, that by the letter/order dated 3.12.2007 (Annexure-12 to the Writ Petition), the Prabandh Sanchalak directed for postponing the election programme, still the election was held on 5.12.2007, it is noteworthy that in the Report dated 12.1.2008 (Annexure-14 to the Writ Petition) submitted by the Praband Sanchalak to the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr, it was, inter alia, stated that the said order dated 3.12.2007 (Annexure-12 to the Writ Petition) staying the election was not intimated to the Election Officer, and in the circumstances, the Election Officer did not stay the election. 59. In my view, as the order dated 3.12.2007 was not communicated to the Election Officer, the Election Officer rightly proceeded to hold the election. 60. It is also noteworthy that the said Report dated 12.1.2008, inter alia, itself stated that the said order dated 3.12.2007 staying the election had been issued by mistake. In view of the said Report, the passing of the order dated 3.12.2007 staying the election lost its significance and there was no illegality in holding the election on 5.12.2007. 61. Let us now come to the third submission made by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners. It is submitted that the communication dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure-30 to the Writ Petition) issued by the Prabandh Sanchalak of the institution in question in response to the queries made under the Right to Information Act, 2005 showed that 25 persons including Devendra Singh (respondent No. 6), who had been accepted as members of the General Body by the order dated 5.11.2007(Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition), were not the members of the General Body. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the Queries and the Replies thereto, as contained in the said communication dated 10.10.2008, which are reproduced below: Thus, Query No. 1, which was specifically on the question of membership of the aforesaid 25 persons, was answered by stating “iqjkus vfHkys[k miyC/k ugha“ , i.e., the old records were not available. Again, Query No. 4 was answered by stating “dksbZ fVIi.kh ughsssa”, i.e., no comments. 62. Thus, the said Replies evidently did not show that 25 persons, who had been accepted as members of the General Body by the order dated 5.11.2007 passed by the Prabandh Sanchalak, were not members of the General Body. Therefore, the submission made on behalf of the petitioners on the basis of the said communication dated 10.10.2008 cannot be accepted. 63. Coming now to the fourth submission made by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the Enquiry Report dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure-33 to the Writ Petition) submitted by the Assistant District Inspector of Schools/ Inquiry Officer, Bulandshahr pursuant to the communication dated 19.2.2009 (Annexure-32 to the Writ Petition) issued by the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr read with the communication dated 12.2.2009 (Annexure-31 to the Writ Petition) issued by the Joint Director of Education (Madhyamik), U.P., Lucknow showed that the Bank Statement submitted by the aforesaid 25 persons including Devendra Singh (respondent No. 6) was forged, and, therefore, the impugned order dated 6.2.2009 (Annexure-34 to the Writ Petition)passed by the Regional Level Committee was not valid, it is relevant to note that the said communications issued by the Joint Director of Education (Madhyamik) U.P., Lucknow and the District Inspector of Schools, Bulandshahr and the said Enquiry Report submitted by the Assistant District Inspector of Schools/ Inquiry Officer, Bulandshahr were subsequent to the decision taken by the Regional Level Committed on 6.2.2009. Therefore, the said documents relied upon on behalf of the petitioners are not relevant for deciding the validity of the order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the Regional Level Committee. The submission made by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 64. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 65. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. The submission made by Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners cannot be accepted. 64. In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the Writ Petition lacks merits, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 65. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. ————