JUDGMENT V.K. Shukla, J. Bijendra Singh Claiming himself to be the Manager of Sri Jawahar Inter College Bamnauli district Baghpat has approached this Court questioning the validity of the decision taken by Additional District Magistrate dated 26.02.2009 finalizing the electoral college and consequential order dated 25.03.2009 passed by District Inspector of Schools, District Baghpat wherein District Inspector of Schools has proceeded to recognize the election. 2. In the District of Baghpat there is recognized Intermediate College known as Sri Jawahar Inter College Bamnauli which is to be managed by duly elected Committee of Management elected in consonance with the Scheme of Administration framed in exercise of authority vested u/s 16-A of U.P. Act No. II of 1921. The institution in question is in grant-in-aid list of the State Government and the provision of U.P. Act No. 24 of 1971 are fully applicable to the said institution. Petitioner claims that earlier tenure of the Managing Committee of the institution has been three years and subsequent to the same said tenure has been extended from three years to five years and the said amended so proposed has been approved by the Regional Joint Director of Education on 13.10.2003. Petitioners have claimed that thereafter election of the Managing Committee of the institution was held on 15.01.2004 wherein Virendra Singh had been elected as President and Bijendra Singh had been elected as Manager of the Committee of Management. Said election in question had been duly approved by the Educational Authority i.e. District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat on 16.02.2004. Petitioners have claimed that vide letter dated 03.03.2008 agenda was issued on 04.03.2008 whereby emergency meeting was called on 19.03.2008 to consider enrolment of new members and Petitioners claim that thereafter 1090 members have been accepted as members of the General Body. Petitioners have further stated that complaint was made by one Mahipal Singh complaining that enrolment of members made was perse illegal. After said complaint in question has been moved Assistant Registrar Firm Societies and Chits issued notices on 23.01.2009 and thereafter reply was submitted by the Petitioner mentioning therein that valid action has been taken. Thereafter election programme was announced in Dainik Jagran dated 14.01.2009 showing election to be held on 12.02.2009 and Tehsildar Baraut was appointed as Election Officer. After said complaint in question has been moved Assistant Registrar Firm Societies and Chits issued notices on 23.01.2009 and thereafter reply was submitted by the Petitioner mentioning therein that valid action has been taken. Thereafter election programme was announced in Dainik Jagran dated 14.01.2009 showing election to be held on 12.02.2009 and Tehsildar Baraut was appointed as Election Officer. District Inspector of Schools, Baghpat on 19.01.2009 informed the Petitioners of the said situation at this juncture Petitioners have rushed to this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4458 of 2009 and this Court on 30.01.2009 passed following order which is being extracted below: Additional District Magistrate, (City) Meerut is appointed as Election Officer to hold the election of the Committee of Management of the college in question. Even though it is not the duty of Additional District Magistrate, (City) Meerut to look after the conduct of the election of a college Baghpat but the court hopes that the officer concerned will not mind this additional burden and will discharge the duty willingly. All the parties concerned are directed to give full assistance to A.D.M. (City), Meerut. The Election Officer shall make all efforts to conduct the election peacefully. All decision regarding Election including finalisation of electoral college shall be taken by the A.D.M. (City)Meerut. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of. Office is directed to supply a copy of this order free of cost to learned standing counsel by 3.2.2009 who shall immediately despatch the same to District Magistrate Baghpat and District Magistrate, Meerut and A.D.M. (City) Meerut. Office is further directed to supply certified copy of this order to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges immediately latest by 03.02.2009. 3. Thereafter Assistant Registrar Firm Societies and Chits proceeded to pass order holding therein that valid members of the General Body are 4037 + 500, and they are entitled to participate in the election. Petitioner at this juncture again rushed to this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 6266 of 2009 and this Court had proceeded to passed final order as follows : As learned Counsel for both the parties have agreed hence it is directed that A.D.M. (City) Meerut who has already appointed as Election Officer should decide about the strength of electoral college and as to who are valid members of the Society. Writ Petition No. 6266 of 2009 and this Court had proceeded to passed final order as follows : As learned Counsel for both the parties have agreed hence it is directed that A.D.M. (City) Meerut who has already appointed as Election Officer should decide about the strength of electoral college and as to who are valid members of the Society. While deciding this question he shall not be influenced by the order of any authority. However, for the said purpose rival factions may be heard who are led by Sri Bijendra Singh and Sri K.P.Singh Writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Certified copy of the order may be supplied to the learned Counsel for the parties on payment of usual charged by 09.02.2009. 4. Thereafter election process was on and again A.D.M. (City) Meerut as reiterated the same set of electoral college i.e. 4037+500=4537. Petitioner again rushed to this Court by filing Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12330 of 2009 and this Court on 06.03.2009 has proceeded to pass following order which is being extracted below: In pursuance of my second order A.D.M. City, Meerut has decided the question of valid membership through order dated 26.02.2009 which has been challenged through this writ petition. The argument of learned Counsel for the Petitioner is that in the impugned order contention of the Petitioner that the amount which was being shown to have been paid by 500 new members as membership fee was infact only a gift has not been decided. This is not correct. In the impugned order it has specifically been held that it is in dispute that the amount of Rs. 50500/- was not membership fee but was gift. The second argument is that Election officer/ADM has not recorded independent findings and has simply followed the order of the Deputy Registrar (FSC) which was not permissible according to my earlier order. This contention is also not tenable. A.D.M. has in fact recorded independent finding. The third argument is that the findings are erroneous. This is not the stage to determine the correctness of the said findings. Election programme has been announced. The said programme was shown to the Court yesterday when arguments were heard by Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Counsel for the rival group headed by Sri K.P.Singh. He was party in earlier writ petitions but in this writ petition he has not been made party. Election programme has been announced. The said programme was shown to the Court yesterday when arguments were heard by Sri P.S. Baghel, learned Counsel for the rival group headed by Sri K.P.Singh. He was party in earlier writ petitions but in this writ petition he has not been made party. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion regarding correctness or otherwise of any finding recorded by A.D.M. City Meerut Election officer. This petition is dismissed at this stage. Elections have been announced. After the declaration of the result of the election, in case Petitioner is aggrieved therewith, he will be at complete liberty to challenge the elections and also the order dated 26.02.09 (which has been challenged through this writ petition) before appropriate forum/forums including the Regional Committee consisting of D.I.O.S., Deputy Director of Education and Joint Director of Education constituted through Government Order dated 19.12.2000. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed as premature. 5. Against the said order in question Special Appeal No. 374 of 2009 had been preferred and same has been decided with following observations: We are of the view that as according to the both the parties election process had started, learned Single Judge did not commit any error in not interfering in the election process at this stage. However, we do find some merit in the contention of learned Counsel for the Appellant that it was not necessary for the learned Single Judge to have decided the question above the availability of forum to challenge the election which were yet to be held and that it could have been left open to the Appellant to seek any remedy in accordance with law including a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution or to approach any other appropriate forum in which the election dispute can be decided. In the circumstances we modify the order of the learned Single Judge to this extent. We leave it open to the Appellant to challenge the election either by a fresh petition under Article 226 or before any other forum including the Regional Committee or D.I.O.S. as may be provided under the law. In the circumstances we modify the order of the learned Single Judge to this extent. We leave it open to the Appellant to challenge the election either by a fresh petition under Article 226 or before any other forum including the Regional Committee or D.I.O.S. as may be provided under the law. It will be open to the Respondents to raise objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition in case it is filed and it would be for the learned Single Judge to consider all aspects placed before him and as to whether it is a fit case for interference or not. 6. Thereafter election have been held and same has been accorded approval on 25.03.2009 by the District Inspector of Schools and the Petitioners have rushed to this Court questioning the validity of the order of recognition of the said election as well as the determination of electoral college by Additional District Magistrate. 7. Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have been filed and to the same rejoinder affidavit has been filed. Thereafter present writ petition has been taken up for final hearing and disposal with the consent of the parties. 8. Sri Ravi Kant, Senior Advocate, appearing with Sri Prabhakar Awasthi Advocate, contended that in the present case electoral college has been illegally determined on totally wrong premises and once electoral college is essence of free and fair election, then in such a situation and in this background writ petition as it has been framed and drawn deserves to be allowed. 9. Countering the said submission learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter and as such this Court should refuse to interfere. 10. 9. Countering the said submission learned Standing counsel on the other hand contended that rightful view has been taken in the matter and as such this Court should refuse to interfere. 10. Sri P.S. Baghel, Senior Advocate appearing with Sri Rahul Mishra, Advocate has questioned the authority of Petitioner No. 2 to question exclusion of the members specially when said members have not approached this Court and have already filed civil suit for declaration of their right and further much emphasis has been led on the fact that brother of Petitioner No. 2 had contested the election and lost the said election by huge margin of votes and there is nothing on record to show and substantiate that exclusion of these members ipso facto has materially effected the validity of the election, in such a situation and in this background writ petition as it has been framed and drawn deserves to be dismissed. 11. After respective arguments have been advanced factual situation on which there is No. dispute that last election of the Committee of Management of the institution had been held on 15.01.2004 and accepting the facts for the moment that the tenure of the Managing Committee of the institution is five years and said tenure has come to an end on 14.01.2009, and thereafter Petitioners as per the provision of Scheme of Administration were further entitled to continue for further period of one month and thereafter Managing Committee of the institution has No. authority whatsoever to run and manage the affairs of the institution and Regional Joint Director of Education is obliged to appoint Prabhandha Sanchalak for holding of election. In the present case accepted position is that fresh elections have been shown to have taken place on 22.03.3009 and same has been accorded recognition on 25.03.2009. Once such is the factual situation that tenure of the erstwhile Managing Committee of the institution had run out and fresh elections have taken place and same has been recognized can even then Petitioner No. 2 could have filed present writ petition showing himself to be in the capacity of Manager present writ petition is to be treated as having being filed by a member of the General Body espousing cause of other member of the General Body. 12. 12. Answer to this question would be no, for the simple reason that once tenure of the Managing Committee of the institution has already run out after five year regular tenure and one month grace tenure thereafter by No. stretch of imagination Petitioners can claim their continuance, as there is No. provision in the Scheme of Administration providing for their continuance rather provision is there to appoint Prabhandha Sanchalak, forthwith then by No. means present writ petition could have been filed under the umbrella of the Committee of Management with Petitioner No. 2 as Manager. As on date Petitioner No. 1 through Brijendra Singh is non-existent body and capacity of Petitioner No. 2 is that of Ex-Manager and nothing beyond the same. Once Petitioner No. 2 is Ex-Manager then he has No. right or authority to file writ petition on behalf of the Committee of Management. Such writ petition on behalf of Committee of Management is not at all competent and maintainable. Status of Petitioner No. 2 is that of member of the General Body and nothing beyond the same. Thus, writ petition is to be treated having been filed on behalf of member of General Body and not at all on behalf of Committee of Management, Sri Jawahar Inter College Bamnauli district Baghpat. 13. Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management Arya Kanya Pathshala Inter College, Bulandshahar v. State of U.P. and Ors. reported in [ 2011 (2) ADJ 65 (DB)] has summed up the law, qua maintainability of writ petition at the behest of members of the general body. Relevant paragraphs 9 to 12 of the said judgement is being extracted below: 9. The question as to whether writ petition filed by an individual member of the society challenging the election of the Committee of Management had come for consideration in several cases before this Court. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has placed reliance on two judgments of this Court, the first judgment is of an Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 62190 of 2010 (Kanwar Singh v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 11th October, 2010 and the second judgment is a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1380 of 2008 (Rajveer Singh v. State of U.P. and others) decided on 7th September, 2010. 10. 10. The Hon'ble Single Judge in Kunwar Singh's case (supra) has relied on the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Rajveer Singh's case (supra) for holding that if an individual member of the general body is not directly effected, his remedy is to challenge the election after raising objection before the education authorities. Hon'ble Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of Kunwar Singh in the aforesaid case. The Division Bench judgment in Rajveer Singh's case (supra) had occasion to consider the above issue. The Division Bench made following observations while dismissing the appeal in Rajveer Singh's case (supra): Be that as it may, learned Judge has rightly held that a life member does not have a right to challenge the elections unless his rights or interest are adversely affected by the elections. In Ratan Kumar Solanki v. State of UP and Ors. 2010 (1) ADJ 262 (DB) this Court had considered the question of law with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition by a member of the general body at great length and the earlier judgments of this Court in Dr. P.P. Rastogi and Others Vs. Meerut University and Another, (1997) 1 UPLBEC 415 and Smt. Vimla Devi v. Deputy Director of Education, Agra Region, Agra and Ors. 1997 (3) ESC 1807 and Bhagwan Kaushik v. State of UP and Ors. 2006 (2) ADJ 631 . The Division Bench held in paragraph 24 as follows: 24. What is discernible from the above discussion is where the right of an individual is affected or infringed, and, he has No. other effective remedy, if such rights of the individual concerned are borne out from the statute or the provision of bye-laws etc. having the flavour of statute, a writ petition at his instance may be maintainable subject to attracting the condition where the Court may decline to interfere namely availability of alternative remedy, delay, laches etc. but where a legal right of an individual is not directly affected, a writ petition expousing the cause of the collective body or other members of the collective body would not be maintainable at the instance of an individual who himself is not directly affected. but where a legal right of an individual is not directly affected, a writ petition expousing the cause of the collective body or other members of the collective body would not be maintainable at the instance of an individual who himself is not directly affected. We may add here that in a given case, if it is found that an election was held by an imposter and he is supported by DIOS or other educational authorities, such an action of DIOS as also the election can be challenged by the individual member since it cannot be said that he is not a person aggrieved but whether a writ petition at his instance would be maintainable or he can challenge the election by filing a civil suit etc., would be a different aspect of the matter and has to be considered in each and every case considering the facts, relevant provision and other relevant aspects of the matter. The Division Bench, thereafter considering the facts of the case, found that Shri Ratan Kumar Solanki-the Petitioner in that case had contested the elections. He had made a complaint of certain irregularities to the District Inspector of Schools. After getting the report of the Authorized Controller and recording prima facie satisfaction the District Inspector of Schools, had directed recount of votes, but that the elections were recognised without the recount. In such circumstances, it was held that the Petitioner cannot be said to be a person, who was not aggrieved or has No. locus standi. This Court is already over-burdened with the writ petitions filed by the rival Committees of Management, or the members, who have taken part in the elections, and did not succeed, in the matters arising out of thousands of educational institutions across the State. Every year thousands of writ petitions are being filed. In fact every election of the Committee of Management of education institution is challenged in the High Court, on the question of its recognition by the Regional Deputy Director of Education (now the Regional Level Committee), under Section-16A (7) of the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921. A single Judge has been assigned determination relating to only such matters. In fact every election of the Committee of Management of education institution is challenged in the High Court, on the question of its recognition by the Regional Deputy Director of Education (now the Regional Level Committee), under Section-16A (7) of the UP Intermediate Education Act, 1921. A single Judge has been assigned determination relating to only such matters. The valuable time of the Court for deciding important questions of law to reduce inequities and injustice in the society, is spent in resolving disputes between rival groups to gain control over the educational institutions for the purpose of access to the funds provided by the State Government. In most of the cases the Courts find that the elections are set up only on papers, without holding election meetings. If the individual members of the general body of the educational society not directly affected by the election results, are also allowed to file objections and to challenge the elections, the fight for gaining control over the school funds will flood the High Courts with litigation. The election may be challenged by members of the general body separately after raising objections before the educational authorities, and thereafter filing writ petitions on variety of grounds. We may add here that an individual member in such case, is not without remedy. He may file a suit challenging the elections, to enforce his right of association guaranteed u/s 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution of India. The Special Appeal is dismissed. 11. The Division Bench in Rajveer Singh's case (supra) had placed reliance on another Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ratan Kumar Solanki v. State of U.P. reported in 2010(1) Additional District Judge 262 (Division Bench). The Division Bench in Ratan Kumar Solanki's case had elaborately considered the issue in question and after considering laid down that the question as to whether an individual member has locus to challenge the election depends on facts of each case and an individual member may have locus to challenge the election if he is person aggrieved. There is No. such proposition that an individual member cannot, in No. circumstance, challenge the election of the Committee of Management. The Division Bench in Ratan Kumar Solanki's case (supra), laid down following in paragraphs 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the judgment: 23. There is No. such proposition that an individual member cannot, in No. circumstance, challenge the election of the Committee of Management. The Division Bench in Ratan Kumar Solanki's case (supra), laid down following in paragraphs 23, 24, 25 and 26 of the judgment: 23. In Satya Narain Tripathi (supra) the question whether a member of the general body can challenge the election by filing a writ petition was considered by the Hon'ble Single Judge (Hon'ble Janardan Sahai, J.) and his Lordship held that participation either by contesting election or exercising right to franchise is not a fundamental right, but merely a common right originating from the statute or the rules and bye-laws of an association etc. A breach of such statutory rights or right under the rules and Regulations can be redressed by the available remedy which the statute or bye-laws provide or by a civil suit where such remedy is not otherwise barred. Where the elections are held under statutory provision, the remedy of challenging the election, if provided under the statute, has to be availed as an alternative remedy which would ordinarily bar the maintainability of a writ petition. The infringement of a right under the bye-laws of the society would not make the writ petition maintainable under Article 226 but in such a case the incumbent would have to avail remedy either by filing a civil suit or u/s 25 of the Societies Registration Act. His Lordship also observed if there is a breach of a right of a person affecting his right to form an association, which is a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(c) of the Constitution, in that case or where there is breach of the statute, the writ petition may be maintainable subject to the Court exercising its discretion if an alternative remedy is available. The proposition, therefore, that an individual member cannot challenge an election in any circumstance is not correct. When a writ petition can be maintainable at the instance of an individual member of the general body of the society or the office bearer of the society or by the body itself is a different issue but when an election itself can be challenged is another aspect. Similarly whether a writ petition would be maintainable at the instance of an individual or the collective body and in what circumstances stands on different footings. 24. Similarly whether a writ petition would be maintainable at the instance of an individual or the collective body and in what circumstances stands on different footings. 24. What is discernible from the above discussion is where the right of an individual is affected or infringed, and, he has No. other effective remedy, if such rights of the individual concerned are borne out from the statute or the provision of bye-laws etc. having the flavour of statute, a writ petition at his instance may be maintainable subject to attracting the condition where the Court may decline to interfere namely availability of alternative remedy, delay, laches etc. but where a legal right of an individual is not directly affected, a writ petition expousing the cause of the collective body or other members of the collective body would not be maintainable at the instance of an individual who himself is not directly affected. We may add here that in a given case, if it is found that an election was held by an imposter and he is supported by District Inspector of Schools or other educational authorities, such an action of DIOS as also the election can be challenged by the individual member since it cannot be said that he is not a person aggrieved but whether a writ petition at his instance would be maintainable or he can challenge the election by filing a civil suit etc., would be a different aspect of the matter and has to be considered in each and every case considering the facts, relevant provision and other relevant aspects of the matter. 25. Now coming to the present dispute, we find that here the election was held in accordance with scheme of administration which has been prepared in accordance with 1921 Act and the Regulations framed thereunder and is duly approved by the educational authorities. The Petitioner was a contestant in the election. Complaining some irregularities, he made a complaint before District Inspector of Schools who after getting a report from the Authorised Controller and prima facie getting satisfied directed for re-counting of the votes and accepted the request of the Petitioner to this extent. But thereafter No. re-counting took place. The elections were recognised by the education authorities without such recounting. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Petitioner is not an aggrieved person or has No. locus standi. But thereafter No. re-counting took place. The elections were recognised by the education authorities without such recounting. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the Petitioner is not an aggrieved person or has No. locus standi. Whether the writ petition was filed for infringement of a legal or statutory right or a right under bye-laws having force of law is not an issue raised by the Respondents in the earlier petition as well as the present one but their basic objection is that the Petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved person and thus has No. locus standi. From the record of the earlier writ petition filed by the Petitioner, we find that the Respondents at No. point of time raised this issue since the locus standi of the Petitioner Appellant was writ large. It is a different aspect as to why and in what circumstances, the writ petition was dismissed as having rendered infructuous by observing that term of the Committee of Management has expired. It is the consequential order passed by the DIOS after dismissal of the first writ petition of the Petitioner-Appellant that he has to file the second writ petition which is concerned with the correctness of the order of DIOS, and in the above facts and circumstances, we find it difficult to subscribe the view as canvassed by the Respondents that the Petitioner has No. locus standi to maintain the writ petition and, therefore, reject the same. We hold that the Petitioner is a person aggrieved and has locus standi in the matter. 26. We again clarify that our observations are only confined for the purpose of the present case to the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Respondents that the Petitioner-Appellant has No. locus standi i.e. he is not the person aggrieved. In respect to the wider issue as to when a writ petition can be entertained challenging the validity of an election is a different aspect of the matter and in this respect neither any objection has been raised by the Respondents nor the arguments have been advanced, therefore, we are leaving this issue to be considered in some other case at appropriate time. 12. 12. From the proposition as laid down in the above Division Bench judgments, it is clear that the question as to whether an individual member has locus to challenge the election of the Committee of Management depends on facts of each case. In the present case, the objection was raised on behalf of the present Appellant, who was Respondent to the writ petition, that the writ petition at the instance of Respondent No. 4, who is alleged to be member of general body, is not maintainable. The Hon'ble Single Judge has accepted the said objection and, in fact, has held that writ petition is not maintainable. There is No. appeal by the writ Petitioner challenging the said view taken by the Hon'ble Single Judge. Thus it is not necessary for us to proceed to examine as to whether in the present case writ petition could have been entertained at the instance of Respondent No. 4 who alleged himself to be member of the general body. It is suffice to say that Hon'ble Single Judge having taken the view that the writ petition was not maintainable at the instance of Respondent No. 4, the matter should have been closed there and there was No. occasion for issuing any direction at the instance of a person on whose instance the writ petition was held to be not maintainable. 14. Petitioners' principle contention has been that 1090 members have been validly enrolled as per the provision as contained Scheme of Administration and they could not have been left out and further 500 members have been enrolled illegally and their enrolment has not been made in consonance with the provision as contained under Scheme of Administration, and such illegally enrolled members could not have participated in the election, as such election in question is bad. Further exclusion of members is perse bad for the simple reason that authority who have determined the electoral college has proceeded on presumption that tenure of the Committee of Management of the institution was three years and same had run out. 15. In the present case last election was held on 15.01.2004 wherein Petitioner No. 2 was elected as Manager and same has been accorded recognition by the Educational Authority. Petitioners have come up with specific case that Scheme of Administration has been amended and said amendment was approved on 13.10.2003. 15. In the present case last election was held on 15.01.2004 wherein Petitioner No. 2 was elected as Manager and same has been accorded recognition by the Educational Authority. Petitioners have come up with specific case that Scheme of Administration has been amended and said amendment was approved on 13.10.2003. Once order dated 13.10.2003 is valid then tenure of the Committee of Management of the institution is to be treated as five years and same cannot be permitted to be curtailed. However Managing Committee of the institution recognised on 25.03.2009 is terming entire action of amendment extending the tenure from 3 to 5 years to be illegal and in contravention of Scheme of Administration and in this regard representation was made before Regional Joint Director of Education and Regional Joint Director of Education on 28.07.2009 on account of the fact that matter was old one proceeded to reject objection filed by newly elected Managing Committee of the institution. New elected Managing Committee of the institution preferred writ petition against the same and same has been dismissed by this Court and thereafter Special Appeal No. 1251 of 2009 has been filed against the same, same is pending after same has been admitted. In view of this as on date this Court proceeds on presumption that there has been amendment extending the tenure of Managing Committee of the institution from three years to five years and same has been approved by the Regional Joint Director of Education. However this presumption is subject to the decision of the Special Appeal wherein matter is yet to be examined by this Court. It is being accepted that the term of the Managing Committee of the institution is five years and opinion formed on this score is subject to the Special Appeal. 16. Once it is accepted that tenure of Committee of Management is five years next question is whether on behalf of Petitioner No. 2 who is member of the General Body can challenge to electoral college be entertained and specially when incumbents whose membership has been recalled or done away with have already filed civil suit pursuing their remedy and vis-a-vis incumbent qua whom it has been alleged that they have been illegally permitted to participate in the elections they have not at all been impleaded and arrayed as Respondents. 17. Electoral college is the essence of the of valid election. 17. Electoral college is the essence of the of valid election. It is also equally true that right to vote or stand to the election for office, is not a fundamental right rather it is common law right emanating from the statute; bye-laws or the provision of Scheme of Administration and subject to the limitation imposed by the statute, by the provision of bye laws of the society or Scheme of Administration as the case may. Once electoral college is determined, then incumbent or group of incumbents who have been left out their right is absolutely personal to them as ultimately is their membership on stake and in case their membership has been done away with then they have right to raise their grievance against the same. Reason appears to be obvious as in case an incumbent intends to become a member then initiative has to be taken by him/her by moving requisite application and parting away with membership fee and thereafter in exercise of authority vested in Committee of Management under Scheme of Administration form association under Article 19(1)(c), of the Constitution, Managing Committee has to give his consent and thereafter in case there is refusal then larger body i.e. General Body has to give consent. There are only two parties engaged in the enrolment of member at the initial stage, and only these two parties have right to complain i.e. the incumbent who has applied for membership and the Committee of Management who has the authority to enrol member. This Court in the case of Committee of Management, Janta Inter Colege and another Vs. Joint Director of Education, Merrut and others, AIR 1999 All 201 has clearly answered the these issue by mentioning that the persons who have been precluded from participating in the election, have not approached this Court and in such a situation in this background, once the right to vote having being a right personal to the persons excluded their cause of action cannot be espoused by any persons other than those who have been so precluded. 18. 18. In the present case once 1090 members who have been precluded from participating in the election have not approached this Court by questioning their exclusion and they have already filed suit praying therein for declaration that incumbents who have been enrolled as member on 19.03.2008 they be accepted and treated as valid member of the General Body of the institution, and said suit in question is pending, then in such factual situation at the behest of Petitioner No. 2 said question is not at all being entertained as none of his personal right has been infringed. 19. Coupled with this in the present case Petitioner No. 2 is complaining that 500 persons have been illegally permitted to participate in the election. Most surprising feature of the writ petition is that none of these 500 persons, either in representative capacity or individual capacity have been impleaded and arrayed as Respondent. Once such is the factual position that complaint is being made of illegal participation of 500 persons in the election and none of them have been impleaded and arrayed as Respondents either in individual capacity or representative capacity then vis-a-vis said incumbents qua whom claim has been sought to be agitated, that they have not legally enrolled cannot be permitted to be agitated. 20. In the present case factual situation which has also emerged that Petitioner No. 2 has been agitating before this Court in respect of electoral college but had not contested the election and on the other hand brother of Petitioner No. 2 has participated in the election with full force and therein margin of votes has been on very higher side. Once elections have been held and as to whether exclusion of these incumbent and participation of incumbents alleged by Petitioners would have any effect of the validity of the election is essentially question of fact. In such a situation and in this background also once elections have been held and as to whether said election has been materially effected or not on account of exclusion of members and inclusion of members being pure question of fact is not at all liable to be gone into in writ jurisdiction. In such a situation and in this background also once elections have been held and as to whether said election has been materially effected or not on account of exclusion of members and inclusion of members being pure question of fact is not at all liable to be gone into in writ jurisdiction. This Court, in this background, is of the opinion that as member of the General Body who have been excluded have already approached the civil court and as validity of the electoral college is also directly interlinked with the validity of election and also as to whether aforesaid election in question has been materially effected or not on account of inclusion or exclusion of members is essentially question of fact, in such a situation in the fact of the case this Court refuses to interfere in the matter consequently writ petition is dismissed on the ground that Petitioner should approach civil Court. 21. No order as to cost.