JUDGMENT Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—The challenge in the present petition is to an order passed by the Joint Director of Education on 24.4.2015 upholding elections conducted and held by the private respondent No. 7. In sum and substance it accords approval to the elections conducted by the Authorized Controller on 8/9.1.2015. 2. This Court has heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare in support of the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Santosh Kumar appearing for the contesting respondent No. 7. 3. As per the case taken in the writ petition, the last undisputed elections were held in the year 2003. The Committee of Management which comprised of the petitioner No. 2 and Manager was recognized by the educational authorities. It is then contended that on or before October, 2006, a notice was published inviting applications for fresh enrolment of members. The petitioners contend that since the applications received and numbered as 22 were not accompanied with requisite fee, the same were not accepted and consequently, the 22 members never became part of the General Body of the Society. It is however, noteworthy here that the respondent No. 7 is stated to have accepted the enrolment of the aforesaid 22 members and it is here that the disputes inter se parties came to the fore. 4. The dispute with respect to the inclusion of 22 members travelled up to the District Inspector of Schools who upheld the enrolment of new members in a meeting of the General Body stated to have been held on 2.12.2006. This dispute was decided by the District Inspector of Schools by his order dated 13.12.2006 which was subjected to challenge by the petitioners by means of Writ Petition No. 70850 of 2006. This Court by its judgment dated 18.1.2013 disposed of the writ petition with certain directions. 5. It firstly held that in so far as the membership of the 22 persons is concerned, it would be open to the petitioners to file a suit questioning the decision of the District Inspector of Schools as also the membership claimed by the aforesaid persons. It further provided the continuance of the Authorized Controller for a period of three months. It firstly held that in so far as the membership of the 22 persons is concerned, it would be open to the petitioners to file a suit questioning the decision of the District Inspector of Schools as also the membership claimed by the aforesaid persons. It further provided the continuance of the Authorized Controller for a period of three months. The Court further recorded that if a suit is instituted by the petitioners then the Authorized Controller would continue until the decision on the application for temporary injunction. The last significant direction issued was that consequent to the decision on the temporary injunction application, the elections would be held by the Authorized Controller on the basis of the list of the members found to be prima facie correct by the Civil Court in its judgment on the temporary injunction application. 6. The petitioner No. 2 thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ Petition No. 15521 of 2014 seeking issuance of an appropriate writ commanding the Authorized Controller to hold elections for constitution of the Committee of Management. The grievance of the petitioners was that the Authorized Controller who was appointed in the year 2006, was continuing for the last eight years but had failed to hold any elections. This petition was disposed of leaving it open to the petitioners therein to make a representation before the Joint Director of Education who may pass appropriate orders. 7. The order of the learned Single Judge referred to above was subjected to challenge in an intra Court appeal by one Sri Ishrat Ali Khan which came to be disposed of on 23.5.2014. The Special Appeal Court while disposing of the said appeal made the following observations : “On account of pendency of civil suit, authorized controller cannot be permitted to function indefinitely. The election for the constitution of committee of management is to be held in accordance with the scheme of administration, therefore, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the elections of the committee of management be held, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The participation of the disputed members in the election shall depend upon the outcome of the civil suit where the membership of the said members has been disputed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. The participation of the disputed members in the election shall depend upon the outcome of the civil suit where the membership of the said members has been disputed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. The special appeal is accordingly disposed of.” 8. The Joint Director of Education by an order made pursuant to the above direction of this Court held that during pendency of the suit instituted by the petitioner No. 2, the matter could not be proceeded further and accordingly deferred passing any further orders. The order of the Joint Director of Education dated 7.5.2014 referred to above was subjected to a fresh challenge by the petitioner No. 2 by means of Writ Petition No. 47505 of 2014. The learned Single Judge hearing the above writ petition recorded the following submission as having been made on behalf of the petitioners herein. “The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that as the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal (defective) No. 490 of 2014 had specifically observed that on account of pendency of civil suit, authorised controller cannot be permitted to function indefinitely as also that the election for the constitution of Committee of Management was to be held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, therefore, the order impugned, by which the holding of election was postponed until the decision of the civil suit concerning membership of 22 members, is in the teeth of this Court’s order and, therefore, cannot be legally sustained.” 9. The Court ultimately disposed of the writ petition with the following directions: “In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the order dated 5.7.2014 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Bareilly Region, Bareilly deferring the election till conclusion of the proceedings of the civil suit cannot be sustained and, is therefore, set aside. The Joint Director of Education will ensure holding of election in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme of Administration after first determining the electoral college, in accordance with law. At the stage of determination of the electoral college, parties will be at liberty to place their respective cases including the membership of 22 alleged new members. The Joint Director of Education will ensure holding of election in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme of Administration after first determining the electoral college, in accordance with law. At the stage of determination of the electoral college, parties will be at liberty to place their respective cases including the membership of 22 alleged new members. The aforesaid exercise may be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the Joint Director of Education. It would be open to the Joint Director to appoint an officer for the aforesaid purpose. With the aforesaid directions/observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.” 10. The District Inspector of Schools thereafter appears to have passed an order on 8.11.2014 issuing a tentative list of members. Upon publication of this list, the District Inspector of Schools called upon the parties to submit their objections so that the Electoral Body of the Society may be finalized. This tentative list submitted by the District Inspector of Schools did not include the 22 newly enrolled members. 11. Aggrieved thereby, one Ishrat Ali Khan challenged the validity of this order by means of Writ Petition No. 62365 of 2014 and this Court by its judgment dated 20.11.2014 allowed the said writ petition. While allowing the writ petition, this Court proceeded to set aside the order dated 8.11.2014 and passed a further direction requiring the District Inspector of Schools to include the names of the 22 newly enrolled members and then proceed to invite objections thereto and consequently determine the electoral body. This combined list of the general body consisting of 41 members was then published by the District Inspector of Schools and objections invited thereto. The petitioner No. 2 also appears to have preferred objections against the said list. It appears that during the pendency of the above proceedings, the Joint Director of Education is stated to have constituted a three Member Committee by an order dated 2.1.2015. This three Member Committee is stated to have submitted a report on 2.1.2015 finalizing the General Body of the Society to comprise of 41 members. 12. This order was again challenged by the petitioner No. 2 by means of Writ Petition No. 118 of 2015. This petition was dismissed. This three Member Committee is stated to have submitted a report on 2.1.2015 finalizing the General Body of the Society to comprise of 41 members. 12. This order was again challenged by the petitioner No. 2 by means of Writ Petition No. 118 of 2015. This petition was dismissed. This Court however, left it open to the Joint Director of Education to decide the matter as early as possible after hearing the respective parties. 13. It appears that consequent to the finalization of the list by the three Member Committee, the Authorized Controller proceeded to hold elections for constituting the Committee of Management on 8/9.1.2015. In the said elections, the Committee comprising of the respondent No. 7 is stated to have been elected. 14. The dispute with respect to elections set up by the respective parties then travelled up to the Regional Level Committee which proceeded to hear the respective parties and decided to accord approval to the elections set up by the respondent No. 7. This order dated 24.4.2015 was specifically directed and described to be subject to such further orders as may be made by the Civil Court in O. S. No. 348 of 2013. It is against the above order that the instant writ petition has come to be filed. 15. Sri Khare learned Senior Counsel has contended that the inclusion of the 22 members in the general body was in the teeth of the judgment of this Court rendered upon Writ Petition No. 70850 of 2006 which had been decided on 18.1.2013. It is his contention that this Court had specifically provided that the elections would have to be conducted on the basis of the list which is found to be prima facie correct by the Civil Court while deciding the application for temporary injunction. He, therefore, contends that the Authorised Controller could not have included the names of these 22 members unless they were found to be entitled and eligible by the Civil Court in the suit pending inter parties. It is further contended that the impugned order refers to the Report submitted by a three member Committee which is stated to have finalised the list of the general body. He submits that the Petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing or of filing objections. It is further contended that the impugned order refers to the Report submitted by a three member Committee which is stated to have finalised the list of the general body. He submits that the Petitioners were not afforded any opportunity of hearing or of filing objections. He submits that the composition of the general body being an issue which goes to the root of the matter, the impugned order, which proceeded to rely upon the same, is liable to be quashed. 16. Sri G.K. Singh on the other hand submits that the composition of the general body and the exercise undertaken by the three member Committee is not liable to be faulted inasmuch as the objections of the Petitioners already existed on record and the same were taken into consideration. He further contends that till date there is no prima facie determination of the matter by the Civil Court nor is there any other injunction operating against the 22 members. It is his contention that they were therefore correctly included in the general body and that they had every right to participate in the election. Sri Singh, learned Senior Counsel, has further submitted that these were not elections conducted by private parties. He submits that the elections were held under the supervision and the aegis of the Authorised Controller and therefore also there arises no occasion for this Court to entertain the challenge to the elections in question. He has also referred to the report submitted by the District Inspector of Schools dated 17.1.2015 to buttress his submission that the elections were held by the respondents in a fair and transparent manner. He has further referred to the facts recorded and noticed in this report to submit that the elections stated to have been held by the Petitioner No. 2 were not liable to be countenanced. 17. Dealing with the second submission of Sri Khare first, this Court finds that the process of finalisation of the list of members of the general body was initiated by the District Inspector of Schools vide his notice dated 8.11.2014. This notice required all parties to furnish their objections by 15.11.2014. Initially the tentative list published alongwith this notice itself became subject-matter of controversy leading to filing of Writ Petition No. 62365 of 2014 decided on 20.11.2014. This notice required all parties to furnish their objections by 15.11.2014. Initially the tentative list published alongwith this notice itself became subject-matter of controversy leading to filing of Writ Petition No. 62365 of 2014 decided on 20.11.2014. Then again and pursuant to the order passed by this Court upon the writ petition aforementioned, the tentative list was published to include the 22 newly enrolled members and the election programme published on 5.12.2014. This programme clearly provided for publication of the tentative list and also fixed 22.12.2014 for all objections to be filed. The Petitioner also filed his objections pursuant to this notice. 18. The report of the three member committee clearly takes into consideration the objections of the Petitioner as would be evident from the detailed report drawn up by it. The contention of the Petitioner with respect to denial of opportunity is therefore not liable to be accepted. Regard may aslo be had to the fact that the three member Committee did not receive any further objections from parties. The objections were those which had been received pursuant to the election programme published by the District Inspector of Schools. This Court in light of the above does not find any force in the submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioners on this score. 19. This Court also cannot loose sight of the background in which this three member committee came to be constituted. Although this aspect was not adverted to by the learned counsels, this Court finds on record a communication of the District Inspector of Schools dated 15.12.2014 wherein he recorded that the process of finalising the electoral college was to be undertaken. He further recorded that both factions were laying allegations and complaints even before the election process had commenced. He therefore requested the Joint Director Education to suggest the names of three other officers from out of five who may be coopted to assist him in finalising the electoral college. It was on the basis of this letter that the Joint Director Education perhaps constituted the three member committee vide his order dated 2.1.2015. From the above narration of facts it is apparent that the anxiety of the District Inspector of Schools was clearly not to derail the process of elections. It was on the basis of this letter that the Joint Director Education perhaps constituted the three member committee vide his order dated 2.1.2015. From the above narration of facts it is apparent that the anxiety of the District Inspector of Schools was clearly not to derail the process of elections. His actions appear to have been informed by the objective of maintaining probity in the exercise and to allay all doubts as also to put to rest various allegations being made by either side. For this reason also this Court finds no merit in the challenge laid to the formation of the electoral college. 20. It may lastly be only noted that the principles of natural justice do not in all circumstances entail or enjoin an oral hearing. All contesting factions were afforded an opportunity to submit their objections which were duly taken note of, considered and the general body then finalised. It cannot, therefore, be said that the principles of fair play or natural justice were not adhered to. 21. Coming then to the second submission of Sri Khare, this Court finds that undisputedly this Court while rendering judgment on Writ Petition No. 70850 of 2006 had clearly indicated that the elections were to be held on the basis of the list which the Civil Court may find prima facie as constituting the general body of the society. In fact it was perhaps on this score that it was provided that elections take place thereafter. However then came the subsequent decisions rendered upon Writ Petition No. 15521 of 2014, Special Appeal Defective No. 490 of 2014, Writ Petition No. 47505 of 2014 and lastly Writ Petition No. 62365 of 2014. 22. In Special Appeal Defective No. 15521 of 2014 the Division Bench of this Court clearly recorded “On account of pendency of civil suit, authorized controller cannot be permitted to function indefinitely.......... The participation of the disputed members in the election shall depend upon the outcome of the civil suit where the membership of the said members has been disputed.” 23. In Special Appeal Defective No. 15521 of 2014 the Division Bench of this Court clearly recorded “On account of pendency of civil suit, authorized controller cannot be permitted to function indefinitely.......... The participation of the disputed members in the election shall depend upon the outcome of the civil suit where the membership of the said members has been disputed.” 23. More significantly in Writ Petition No. 47505 of 2014 this Court observed as follows- “In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the order dated 5.7.2014 passed by the Joint Director of Education, Bareilly Region, Bareilly deferring the election till conclusion of the proceedings of the civil suit cannot be sustained and, is therefore, set aside............. At the stage of determination of the electoral college, parties will be at liberty to place their respective cases including the membership of 22 alleged new members.” 24. More significant was the submission advanced on behalf of the Petitioner No. 2 in the said writ petition which was to the following effect : “.......therefore, the order impugned, by which the holding of election was postponed until the decision of the civil suit concerning membership of 22 members, is in the teeth of this Court’s order and, therefore, cannot be legally sustained.” 25. However the most salient aspect of the above is that the writ petition referred to above was one preferred and prosecuted by the Petitioner No. 2 himself. Surely it does not lie in his mouth to now contend that the inclusion of the 22 members was to be deferred till decision by the Civil Court on the temporary injunction application. 26. The death knell of the above submission was the order made by this Court in Writ Petition No. 62635 of 2014 which clearly mandated the inclusion of the 22 members in the tentative list which was never subjected to challenge by the Petitioners and became final. 27. Apart from the above, no other objection to the inclusion of the 22 members was urged in oral submissions. The Court further finds that the impugned order itself is made subject to orders that the Civil Court may choose to make upon the suit preferred and pending before it. For the aforesaid reason also this Court finds no ground warranting interference with the impugned order. 28. The Court further finds that the impugned order itself is made subject to orders that the Civil Court may choose to make upon the suit preferred and pending before it. For the aforesaid reason also this Court finds no ground warranting interference with the impugned order. 28. Accordingly and in light of the above submissions, this Court repels the challenge laid to the impugned order. The writ petition is consequently dismissed. ——————