JUDGMENT Hon’ble Dilip Gupta, J.—The Committee of Management, Hindu Inter College, Mogra Badshahpur, District Jaunpur and Jai Ram Tripathi claiming himself to be its Manager have filed this petition for setting aside the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 19th December, 2008 to grant approval to the respondent-Committee of Management elected on 20th December, 2008 with Daya Shanker Pandey as the Manager. 2. The Hindu High School Society, which is registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’), runs an Intermediate College known as the Hindu Inter College, Mogra, Badshahpur, District Jaunpur (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Institution’). This Institution is recognised under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and has its own Scheme of Administration. The Scheme of Administration of the Institution provides that the term of the Committee of Management shall be three years. 3. It is stated that in the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution held on 24th July, 2005 from the list of 1489 members of the General Body, the Committee of Management with Dr. Raghu Nath Pandey as the President and Jai Ram Tripathi as the Manager was elected and the Regional Level Committee granted approval to this election on 8th August, 2005. Before the expiry of the term of the Committee of Management, a meeting of the Committee of Management was held on 17th June, 2008 for finalising the election programme for holding fresh the elections. The elections were subsequently held on 20th July, 2008 in which Jai Ram Tripathi was elected as the Manager. Papers were sent to the District Inspector of Schools. However, the respondent-Committee of Management also claims to have held the election of the Committee of Management of the Institution on 20th July, 2008 from a list of 224 members of the General Body in which Daya Shanker Pandey was elected as the Manager. Papers were also sent by him to the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools referred the matter to the Regional Level Committee which on 19th December, 2008 took a decision to approve the election of the respondent-Committee of Management with Daya Shanker Pandey as the Manager. 4. Papers were also sent by him to the District Inspector of Schools. The District Inspector of Schools referred the matter to the Regional Level Committee which on 19th December, 2008 took a decision to approve the election of the respondent-Committee of Management with Daya Shanker Pandey as the Manager. 4. The Regional Level Committee has given the following reasons for discarding the election of the petitioner-Committee of Management and for approving the election of the respondent-Committee of Management : (i) The last election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held on 24th July, 2005 on the basis of the 1386 members of the General Body in which Jai Ram Tripathi was elected as the Manager. It was approved by the Regional Level Committee on 8th August, 2005. (ii) The Manager of the Committee of Management had sought permission from the District Inspector of Schools on 14th June, 2008 to hold the subsequent elections but since permission was not given in time, the erstwhile Manager/President, on the basis of the resolution dated 8th July, 2008 of the Committee of Management, published the election programme and the election of the Committee of Management was held from the list of the 1389 members of the General Body and, according to the report of the Election Officer, since only one nomination was filed against each post, the election result was declared on 20th July, 2008 in which Jai Ram Tripathi was elected as the Manager. (iii) On the other hand, according to the Committee of Management in which Daya Shanker Pandey was elected as the Manager, the election was held after the publication of the election programme in two newspapers namely “Manyavar” on 11th July, 2008 and “Tarun Mitra” on 12th July, 2008 from the list of the 224 members of the General Body. (iv) The following facts emerge in respect of the election set up by the Committee of Management with Jai Ram Tripathi as the Manager : (a) It is claimed that the election was held from the 1389 members of the General Body but from the documents which have been produced it transpires that only 43 members were present. This creates doubt in the election proceedings. This creates doubt in the election proceedings. (b) The last election of the Committee of Management of the Institution was held from the list of the 1386 members but the present election is claimed to have been held from the list of the 1389 members without indicating how three members were subsequently added since from the examination of the papers, it appears that the Committee of Management had not made any effort in the past to increase the membership in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. Sri Tripathi has not produced any evidence to show that the list of members produced by him is a valid list and has been approved. (c)The election proceedings produced by Sri Tripathi show that the President of the Society was made the Election Officer but according to the Bye-Laws, some outsider should have been elected as the Election Officer. (d) For these reasons, it was not possible to grant approval to the election of the Committee of Management in which Jai Ram Tripathi was elected as the Manager. (v) On the other hand, the election of the Committee of Management in which Daya Shanker Pandey was elected as the Manager was held from the list of the 224 members out of which 160 members participated in the election proceedings. Daya Shanker Pandey also filed the uncertified list obtained from the office of the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Assistant Registrar’) which contained 224 members. In the decision given by the Assistant Registrar on 28th February, 1995, it transpires that the list produced by Jai Ram Tripathi under Section 4 of the Act was registered but this order had been set aside by the High Court and the matter was remanded. The election in which Daya Shanker Pandey was elected as the Manager was conducted from the list of members obtained from the office of the Assistant Registrar and in the absence of any other valid list, this list should be accepted. Thus, the election held by the Committee of Management with Daya Shanker Pandey should be recognised. 5. The election in which Daya Shanker Pandey was elected as the Manager was conducted from the list of members obtained from the office of the Assistant Registrar and in the absence of any other valid list, this list should be accepted. Thus, the election held by the Committee of Management with Daya Shanker Pandey should be recognised. 5. Sri R.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that only the outgoing Committee of Management could have held the elections of the Committee of Management of the Institution and so Daya Shanker Pandey could not have convened the meeting of the General Body for holding the elections. He further submitted that the reasons given by the Regional Level Committee for not approving the Committee of Management with Jai Ram Tripathi as the Manager are arbitrary and that no good reason has been given by the Regional Level Committee for coming to the conclusion that the election of the respondent-Committee of Management was valid. It is also his submission that the Regional Level Committee should have determined the validity of the electoral College independently and no reliance could have been placed on the uncertified copy of the list produced by the respondent-Committee of Management. 6. Sri P.N. Saxena, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Committee of Management, however, submitted that the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee does not suffer from any infirmity. According to him, out of the list of 1489 members there were only 1387 members as number of members have been repeated and from them 224 remained as members but only 43 members participated in the election. The election of the respondent-Committee of Management was held from the list of 224 and 160 of them participated in the election. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. The Regional Level Committee has proceeded to examine the validity of the two elections on the basis of the lists of members of the General Body submitted by the rival Committee of Managements. The petitioners claim to have held the election on the basis of the list containing 1489 members, while the respondents claim to have held the election on the basis of the list containing 224 members. The petitioners claim to have held the election on the basis of the list containing 1489 members, while the respondents claim to have held the election on the basis of the list containing 224 members. The Regional Level Committee observed that the list submitted by the petitioners contained 1389 members without explaining as to why it has not thought it fit to accept the list of 1489 members submitted by the petitioners. Even this list of 1389 members has been discarded by the Regional Level Committee since the earlier elections were held on the basis of 1386 members and there was nothing on the record to indicate how three additional members were subsequent enrolled. The list of 224 members submitted by the respondent Committee of Management has been accepted since the respondent placed an uncertified copy of the list obtained from the office of the Assistant Registrar which also contained the same 224 members. The reasons given by the Regional Level Committee in discarding the list submitted by the petitioner-Committee of Management and accepting the list of the respondent-Committee of Management cannot be accepted. The Regional Level Committee failed to take into consideration that the uncertified list produced by the respondent-Committee of Management was nothing but a copy of the list submitted by the respondent-Committee of Management before the Assistant Registrar for registering the office bearers of the Committee of Management of the Society. The Regional Level Committee should have independently examined the validity of the two lists submitted by the rival Committee of Managements on the basis of the documents filed by the parties but that has not been done. 9. One factor which also weighed with the Regional Level Committee in doubting the elections held by the petitioner-Committee of Management is that only 43 members were shown present whereas there were 1389 members. The Regional Level Committee should have examined whether notices had been issued to all the members of the General Body and merely because 43 members were present on the date of filing of the nomination should not have created any doubt since according to the petitioners there was no occasion for casting votes as only one nomination was filed against each post. 10. Another factor which weighed with the Regional Level Committee against the elections held by the petitioner-Committee of Management is that the Election Officer was not an outsider. 10. Another factor which weighed with the Regional Level Committee against the elections held by the petitioner-Committee of Management is that the Election Officer was not an outsider. This issue should have been examined in the light of the Scheme of Administration of the Institution and general observations should not have been made. 11. It was also necessary for the Regional Level Committee to examine as to who could have held the election under the Scheme of Administration of the Institution as the contention raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners is that only the outgoing Committee of Management could have held the elections under the Scheme of Administration of the Institution. 12. It was also necessary for the Regional Level Committee to have examined the validity of the election held by the respondent-Committee of Management but that has also been done only in a cursory manner. 13. Thus, for all the reasons stated above, it is not possible to sustain the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee. The order of the Joint Director of Education and the decision taken by the Regional Level Committee on 19th December, 2008 are, accordingly, set aside. The Regional Level Committee shall examine the matter afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made above expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is filed by the petitioners before the Regional Level Committee. 14. The writ petition succeeds and is allowed to the extent indicated above. ————