Hon’ble V.K. Shukla,J.—Petitioner has rushed to this court questioning the validity of the order dated 17.6.2011 communicated by the Registrar of the University informing that election dated 26.9.2010 has been declared to be illegal null and void by the Vice Chancellor of the University. 2. Brief background of the case as is reflected from the pleadings set out that there is Girls College known as Kamla Arya Kanya Post Graduate College, Mirzapur. Initially aforesaid Degree College was affiliated with Gorakhpur University, thereafter, with Purvanchal Univeristy and currently with Kashi Vidya Peeth, Varanasi. Petitioners have stated that said society in question had been registered in year 1969 and has got its approved bye-laws/constitution. Petitioners have stated that registration of the society was renewed on 10.10.2005 and have further come up with the case that election of the Managing Committee was held under the supervision of observer appointed by the Vice Chancellor. Petitioners have come with the case that election has been held on date fixed and papers were sent to the Vice Chancellor for approval. Record in question reflects that as per petitioners complaint had been made complaining that elections in question have not at all been validly held. Petitioners have stated that observer also sent some confidential adverse report against the petitioners. Petitioners have stated that thereafter, date was fixed for 6.6.2011 by letter dated 29.4.2011. On the said date petitioners submit that their authorized representative participated in the meeting, and on the said date written submission was given and thereafter, petitioners claim that order impugned have been passed by the Vice Chancellor. At this juncture present writ petition has been filed. 3. Sri. U.N. Sharma, Senior Advocate , assisted by Sri K.C. Vishwakarma, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners contended with vehemence that in the present case reasonable opportunity of hearing has not been provided and no reason whatsoever has been given for dislodging the election as such order dated 17.6.2010 is bad. 4. Sri. Anil Tiwari, Advocate on the other hand justified the action so take whereas Sri R.K. Ojha, Advocate appearing with Sri Arun Kumar, Advocate contended that there is serious dispute of the membership pending at the level of Arta Pratinidhi Sabha, U.P., Lucknow and as such by no stretch of imagination petitioners’ election could have been approved of. 5. 4. Sri. Anil Tiwari, Advocate on the other hand justified the action so take whereas Sri R.K. Ojha, Advocate appearing with Sri Arun Kumar, Advocate contended that there is serious dispute of the membership pending at the level of Arta Pratinidhi Sabha, U.P., Lucknow and as such by no stretch of imagination petitioners’ election could have been approved of. 5. After respective arguments have been advanced, factual situation that petitioners claims themselves to be elected in the election held on 26..9.2010 in the presence of observer appointed by the Vice Chancellor. This is also precise case of the petitioners that behind their back, some adverse report has been given by the observer. This much has also come on record that last date fixed in the matter for hearing was 6.6.2011 and on the said date, as far as representative of the petitioners is concern he was present, but the other side was not present. Thereafter Vice Chancellor has proceeded to mention that both the parties were not available at one time and on the basis of the report of the observer elections are being disapproved. 6. Vice Chancellor at the point of time when he proceeded to consider the validity of the election in exercise of authority vested under Section 2(13) of the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973, then Vice Chancellor has to examine on prima facie that (i) incumbents who have held election, had right to convene meeting and hold the election (ii) persons who had participated in the election had right to participate in the election (iii) election has been held strictly as per bye-laws of the society/constitution. In the present Vice Chancellor has not at all adverted on this aspect of the matter which goes to the root of the election which have been held and Vice Chancellor as is reflected from the order impugned, placed reference on report of the observer even without adverting to its contents vis-a-vis claim of petitioners and has proceeded to mention that both the sides are not simultaneously present and as such election are being disapproved. On the parameter which are provided, election in question has not been judged specially when opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioners as well as Satish Kumar Yadav. Factual situation which was so emerging, on the basis of papers so submitted, has not at all been discussed. On the parameter which are provided, election in question has not been judged specially when opportunity of hearing had been provided to the petitioners as well as Satish Kumar Yadav. Factual situation which was so emerging, on the basis of papers so submitted, has not at all been discussed. In such a situation decision making process adopted by the Vice Chancellor cannot be approved of. 7. Consequently, order dated 17.6.2011 to the extent it proceeds to declare the election dated 26.9.2010 as null and void and direct for holding fresh election is set aside. Vice Chancellor is directed to pass fresh order in accordance with law, as already directed above, preferably within period of next eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order after affording opportunity of hearing to Sita Ram as well as Satish Kumar Yadav. 8. With these observations writ petition stands allowed. 9. No order as to cost. _____________