Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1845 (ALL)

Kamlapati Singh v. State of U. P.

2019-07-31

GOVIND MATHUR, VIVEK VARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Vivek Varma, J. 1. This appeal is preferred to question the correctness of the order dated 22.12.2017 passed by the learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 62262 of 2017 (Kamlapati Singh Vs State of UP and 5 others) whereby the writ Court declined to interfere in the process of election set in motion by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies & Chits, Jhansi Division Jhansi invoking his jurisdiction under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. 2. In brief Captain Shankar Dhwaj Audhyogik Vidyalaya Malheta, Post Malheta, Tehsil Rath, District Hamirpur is a Society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred as the Act) in the year 1985. Affairs of the Society are managed by a Committee of Management i.e. periodical election. Under bye-laws of the Society, term of the last elected Managing Committee expired in the year 2000 but periodical elections thereafter were not held and an Authorized Controller was appointed on 16.9.2005. The term of the Authorized Controller was extended from time to time. It was only in the year 2011 that the elections to elect Managing Committee were held on 31.1.2011 and the Committee elected there under was registered by the Assistant Registrar Societies on 9.2.2011. However, the order of registration was recalled by him by order dated 27.6.2011. That order was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 37249 of 2011, which was dismissed by order dated 11.7.2011. However, while dismissing the writ petition the Court provided that it would be open for the parties concerned to either approach the Civil Court or invoke the provision of Section 25(1) of the Act, for resolution of dispute relating to election in question. Pursuant to aforesaid liberty granted by the writ Court, the aggrieved persons made a reference, which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority by order dated 13.9.2012. By dismissal of the aforesaid reference the Society came to be placed in the same situation as was existing in the year 2000. Meanwhile out of 12 members, who constituted the Committee of Management, only five members survived. From amongst five life members, four of them namely, Raghuraj Singh, Bachhraj Singh, Kamlapati and Ranveer Singh approached the Assistant Registrar to permit them to enroll new members. The Assistant Registrar on 25.2.2013 accorded permission and in pursuance thereof the four life members authorized Sri Raghuraj Singh to induct new members. From amongst five life members, four of them namely, Raghuraj Singh, Bachhraj Singh, Kamlapati and Ranveer Singh approached the Assistant Registrar to permit them to enroll new members. The Assistant Registrar on 25.2.2013 accorded permission and in pursuance thereof the four life members authorized Sri Raghuraj Singh to induct new members. It was also resolved that the defective rules of the Society be also corrected. On 10.3.2013 three members namely Dr Satya Narain Singh Parihar, Satya Prakash Singh and Ram Sewak were enrolled as members. Thereafter, on different dates 19 more members were enrolled. Thus, total 22 new members were enrolled. On 29.12.2013 an election of the Committee of Management was held wherein Dr Satya Narain Singh Parihar, was elected as Manager and Sri Sant Pal Singh was elected as President. The election was approved by the Assistant Registrar on 9.7.2015. Out of five surviving members, one of the surviving member i.e. Mr Arun Kumar Singh, approached the authorities contending that entire enrollment and induction of new members as well as subsequent holding of election were farce and manipulated and was without his consent and knowledge. On this complaint certain ex-parte inquiry was conducted and Assistant Registrar passed an order dated 25.8.2015. Against the said order, Dr Satya Narain Singh Parihar, filed writ petition No. 52861 of 2015. It was allowed vide order dated 30.10.2015 with following observation: “7. Since it is not being disputed by the respondents that the proceedings which were initiated before the Registrar, Lucknow as well as the directions contained in the report are not within the jurisdiction of the authorities and thus, the impugned report/order dated 25.8.2015 by the third respondent is quashed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the fifth respondent to approach the Assistant Registrar, Jhansi, in regard to his grievance. In the event, any such application is filed by the fifth respondent, the Assistant Registrar, Jhansi shall decide the same in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within next three months, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or any other party likely to be affected thereby. 8. With these clarifications, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.” 3. Consequently, respondent no. 5 (Arun Singh Bhadoria) approached the Assistant Registrar. The Assistant Registrar passed an order dated 24.5.2016. 8. With these clarifications, the writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above.” 3. Consequently, respondent no. 5 (Arun Singh Bhadoria) approached the Assistant Registrar. The Assistant Registrar passed an order dated 24.5.2016. The order dated 24.5.2016 noticed that since the Committee became time barred in the year 2000, the subsequent election held in the year 2011, had no sanctity. It was also held that Sri Raghuraj Singh had no authority to enroll new 22 members and accordingly such proceedings were illegal. It was also held that even before any Committee could be elected, a resolution was passed to amend the bye-laws. The order further records that this was impermissible as only the elected Committee could have taken such decision. That order was subjected to challenge along with consequential actions in Writ-C No. 30476 of 2016 [Committee of Management, Captain Shankar Dhwaj Audhyogik Vidyalaya and an another Vs State of UP and others]. The writ petition was finally decided by order dated 28.2.2017 whereby the learned Single Bench up-held the order dated 24.5.2016 of the Assistant Registrar and following directions were issued. The same is quoted below:- “16. In view of the above, writ petition stands allowed with following directions:- (I) The order of Assistant Registrar dated 24.5.2016 is upheld. However, all subsequent orders permitting induction of new members and holding of elections, as well as its recognition dated 2.6.2016, 16.6.2016, 2.6.2016 along with entire election proceedings dated 27.6.2016, and also the order dated 4.7.2016 passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms Societies and Chits, Jhansi (Annexure Nos. 20B, 20D, 20E, 20F and 20A) are set aside. (ii) The Assistant Registrar shall indicate a date within 15 days from presentation of certified copy of this order, intimating all surviving members to hold a meeting in the presence of Sub Divisional Magistrate, concerned, to amicably consider and resolve to enroll members of the general body to a minimum that may be required for the purpose of holding elections of the committee of management. Such enrollment shall be in accordance with the Bye-laws and in accordance with the wishes of the other surviving members of the society. Once, the general body is constituted to the minimum, which is required for holding the elections of the committee of management, then the said list shall be forwarded to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Funds for his records. Once, the general body is constituted to the minimum, which is required for holding the elections of the committee of management, then the said list shall be forwarded to the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits Funds for his records. (iii) The Assistant Registrar shall have the elections conducted under Section 25(2) of the Act within a further period of two months thereafter. ” 4. The aforesaid order dated 28.2.2017 of the learned Single Bench was challenged in Special Appeal No. 193 of 2017 which was dismissed by detailed order dated 7.4.2017. The life members, who were under obligation to comply the aforesaid directions of the learned Single Bench, made several attempts towards that end but they could not reach a consensus particularly with regard to enrollment of the new members. In the meanwhile strength of the General Body of the Society was reduced due to death of some of them. It was first reduced from five to three and after the death of one Arun Singh it was further reduced to two. The two surviving members were Kamlapati Singh [the appellant] and Ranveer Singh. 5. Finally a meeting was held on 6.12.2017, in which the said two surviving members, Assistant Registrar and Sub Divisional Magistrate participated. Minutes of this meeting records that at one point of time two of three surviving members named, Arun Singh Bhadauria and Ranveer Singh had furnished, under their joint signatures, a list of 12 newly enrolled members. 6. On the other hand the third surviving member Kamlapati Singh had submitted a list of 88 enrolled members. Since the list of 12 newly enrolled members was a consensus list prepared by two out of three members and the list of 88 newly enrolled members was submitted by a single member, the list having approval of two out of three surviving members of the Society was accepted and the Assistant Registrar acted upon it and took further steps to comply with the order of this court. Pursuant there to the Assistant Registrar passed an order dated 11/14.12.17 by which he declared and published Electoral College of 14 members which consisted of said 12 newly enrolled members and the two surviving members Kamlapati Singh and Ranveer Singh and also notified the election schedule for election of the Managing Committee of the Society. 7. Pursuant there to the Assistant Registrar passed an order dated 11/14.12.17 by which he declared and published Electoral College of 14 members which consisted of said 12 newly enrolled members and the two surviving members Kamlapati Singh and Ranveer Singh and also notified the election schedule for election of the Managing Committee of the Society. 7. The appellant challenged the validity of the proceedings of meeting dated 6.12.2017 and order of Assistant Registrar dated 11/14.12.2017 in W.P. No. 62262 of 2017. Prayers made in the said writ petition are quoted below:- “i. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and to quash the impugned proceedings dated 6.12.2017 formulated and drawn by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Rath, Hamirpur (Annexure No. 27 to the writ petition). ii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records of the case and to quash the impugned the finalization of list of members by the Assistant Registrar on 11.12.2017 alongside the order dated 11/14.12.2017 passed by Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi Region, Jhansi (Annexure No. 28 to the writ petition) whereby election programme has been notified for the election commenced from 03.01.2018. iii. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Societies and Chits, Jhansi Region, Jhansi with enrolment of members strictly in terms of the judgment and order dated 28.2.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 30476 of 2016 and thereafter may hold election under Section 25(2) of the Societies Registration Act, 1860.” 8. Learned Single Bench by order dated 22.12.2017 declined to interfere in the powers of election set in motion by the Assistant Registrar, Firms, Society and Chits, Jhansi Division and the challenge made to resolution dated 6.12.2017 was not accepted. Hence, the present appeal. 9. This appeal was entertained on 23.1.2018 and on the said date it was informed that election of Managing Committee of the Society which was scheduled to be held on 10.1.2018 has already been held and a Managing Committee has been elected. Upon this information the court ordered to implead the elected Committee of Management and the Committee of Management was included as respondent no. 6 in the appeal. 10. Upon this information the court ordered to implead the elected Committee of Management and the Committee of Management was included as respondent no. 6 in the appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order of the learned Single Bench dated 28.2.2017 was not followed in letter and spirit when 12 new members were enrolled as members of the Society, in as much as learned Single Bench has clearly directed that the surviving members would fix a critera for enrollment of new members with a stipulation that only persons of clean record having interest in academic and may be willing to deposit the membership fee etc be inducted in the Society. The Single Bench further directs that the resolution would be passed by on the strength of 2/3rd members. But none of the record of meeting held regarding enrollment of the new members would demonstrate that any deliberation was made in the meeting regarding fixation of the said criteria. 11. Learned counsel next submitted that in the meeting dated 28.6.2017 a list of 12 person proposed to be enrolled as new members was submitted but their membership fee was not deposited in the Bank by them and the same was deposited in the Bank on 26.10.2017. He further submitted that in the meeting dated 28.6.2017 the record of deposit of membership fee in the Bank was submitted by the appellant along with a list of 88 persons that he proposed to be enrolled as members. As such, he added that the electoral college, consisting of those 12 (other) members, was, on the face of it, illegal and the election held on basis of such an illegal electoral college would be ipso facto illegal. 12. On the other hand, Sri R. K. Ojha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 5 submitted that a valid Committee of Management had been constituted and he, therefore, urged that in view of the election, special appeal has become in fructuous and it would be open to the appellant to challenge the said election under Section 25 of the Act before the competent authority. 13. We have heard rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. 13. We have heard rival submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 14. It is admitted fact that when the writ petition was filed by the appellant, the election process had already begun, in as much as the Electoral College for the election was determined and declared and the election schedule was also notified. To be precise, the electoral college was determined in the meeting dated 6.12.2017 and it was declared and published by the order of Assistant Registrar dated 11/14-12-2017 and the election schedule was also notified by the same order. 15. It is settled legal proposition that the court should not interfere with the election process once the election has been set in motion. The Apex Court in the case of Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha & another Vs State Of Maharashtra And Ors., 2001 [8] SCC page 509 has held in paragraph no. 9 as under: “If the contention of the appellant is that there was a breach of rule or certain mandatory provisions of the rules were not complied with while preparing of the electoral roll, the same could be challenged under Rule 81 (d)(iv) of the Rules by means of an election petition. In view that, the preparation of electoral roll in part of the election process and if there is any breach of the rules in preparing the electoral roll, the same can be called in question after the declaration of the result of the election by means of an election petition before the tribunal.” 16. In the same judgment, in paragraph 12, it has been held asunder:- “In view of our finding that preparation of the electoral roll is being an intermediate stage in the process of election of the managing committee of a specified society and the election process having been set in motion, it is well settled that the High Court should not stay the continuation of the election process even though there may be some alleged illegality or breach of rules while preparing the electoral roll. It is not disputed that the election in question has already been held and the result thereof has been stayed by an order of this Court, and once the result of the election is declared, it would be open to the appellant to challenge the election of returned candidate, if aggrieved, by means of an election petition before the election tribunal.” 17. The same view has been reiterated by a Division Bench of this Court rendered in the case of Vineet Agnihotri and another Vs State of UP and others, 2014 [4] ADJ page 716. The relevant passage of the judgment is quoted herein below:- “18. We have time and again expressed our concern in the manner in which learned Single Judges of the Court has been interfering during the process of elections at every stage. It is fairly well settled that in the matters of elections the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere until elections are concluded and the parties have availed the alternative remedies provided under the law. The interference at every stage had encouraged the disputing parties to approach the Court time and again. In the present case the elections scheduled to be held in 2013 have not been held so far and in between four writ petitions have been filed and in each writ petition the High Court has passed some or other order giving momentary advantage to the parties. 19. The elections to the Committee of Management to gain control over the educational institutions, which have become profit making organizations in variety of ways, has resulted into thousands of writ petitions being filed every year. These elections to the private bodies are held under the Scheme of Administration approved by the Joint Director of Education. The disputing parties in the elections do not spare any weapon in their arsenal to wrest control over management, and file writ petitions on the drop of the hat for gaining advantage at almost all the stages of the elections and thereafter at the stage of approval. At such intermediate stages, the Court does not have sufficient material to adjudicate and is tempted to pass interim order as in the present case directing the Authorized Controller to hold elections. At such intermediate stages, the Court does not have sufficient material to adjudicate and is tempted to pass interim order as in the present case directing the Authorized Controller to hold elections. Some times the Courts in an overzealous exercise to set the things right pass orders laying down the procedure as to how the electoral college will be finalized and also appoints observer and fixes dates for holding the elections. Most of the times, the loosing parties do not follow the order giving rise to further litigation. 20. In Special Appeal No. 1714 of 2013 (Committee of Management Pratap Vidyalaya Prabandh Samiti and another Vs. State of U.P. and others -decided on 08.11.2013), relying upon Five Judges judgment of the Court in Committee of Management Vs. Deputy director of Educations and others in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 36267 of 1992, decided on 15.10.2004, it was held that the parties are not allowed to challenge the election midway during the process of election including finalization of electoral list. The relevant portion of judgment in Special Appeal No. 1714 of 2013, is quoted as hereunder:- "In the matter of elections the Supreme Court and this Court have consistently taken a view that the Courts should not interfere in the process of elections once the elections have been notified, as the adjudicating authority cannot conclusively decide any dispute in the middle of the process of election nor the fundamental rights of any of the parties are affected as elections have always been held to be statutory right. The parties can always be relegated to the forums of adjudication and election tribunals after the results of the elections are declared. "In the case of elections to the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, the Representation of People's Act, 1951 provides that election petitions be filed in the High Court. In the matter of elections to societies and cooperative societies, the statutes regulating the registration and elections of the societies provide for constitution of election tribunals for challenging the elections. "In the case of elections to the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, the Representation of People's Act, 1951 provides that election petitions be filed in the High Court. In the matter of elections to societies and cooperative societies, the statutes regulating the registration and elections of the societies provide for constitution of election tribunals for challenging the elections. In the case of societies registered under the Societies Registration Act, the elections of the office bearers can be challenged before the Prescribed Authority under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act and in order to determine as to who is in effective control, Section 16A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act provide for the authorities, which in the present case is the Regional Level Committee. A five judge Bench of this Court in Committee of Management Vs Deputy Director of Education & others, Civil Misc Writ Petition No.36267 of 1992 decided on 15.10.2004 held as follows:- "Accordingly, we answer the questions as follows:- 1. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A (7) of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, exercises quasi-judicial powers, and not purely administrative powers. 2. The Regional Deputy Director of Education while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921, must decide the question of validity of the elections prima facie, in deciding the question of actual control over the affairs of the institution. 3. 2. The Regional Deputy Director of Education while deciding a dispute under Section 16-A (7) of the U.P. Intermediate Act, 1921, must decide the question of validity of the elections prima facie, in deciding the question of actual control over the affairs of the institution. 3. Where the Regional Deputy Director of Education finds that the election of both the rival committees are invalid, he is not required to decide the question of actual control to recognise one or the other Committee of Management, and instead he shall, where the Scheme of Administration provides for appointment of an Administrator (Prabandh Sanchalak), appoint an Administrator with the direction to hold elections in accordance with the Scheme of Administration, and where there is no such provision in the Scheme of Administration he shall appoint an Authorised Controller who shall expeditiously hold elections to the Committee of Management and shall manage the affairs of the institution until a lawfully elected committee of management is available for taking over the management." In order to avoid a large number of writ petitions filed for quashing the orders passed by the educational authorities during the process of elections and in seeking directions to them, we hereby declare that the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in N.P. Ponnuswami Vs Returning Officer, AIR 1952 SC 64 ; Harcharan Singh Vs Mohinder Singh and others., AIR 1968 SC 1500 ; Mohinder Singh Gill and another Vs The Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851 ; Jyoti Basu & others Vs Debi Ghosal and others., AIR 1982 SC 983 ; Harikrishna Lal Vs Babu Lal Marandi, (2003) 8 SCC 613 and Shyamdeo Pd Singh Vs Naval Kishore Yadav, (2000) 8 SCC 46 restraining the courts from interfering in the process of election after the elections are notified is equally applicable to the elections of the office bearers of the committee of management of the societies as well as the Committee of Management to be elected in accordance with the provisions of the scheme of administration of the educational institutions. The principles of law that the Courts should keep their hand off in electoral matters and that all election disputes must be tried by the Election Tribunal, is also incorporated in the Constitution of India under Art. 329 (b) for the elections of the Parliament or to the house or either house of the legislature, under Art 243 O for the elections of Panchayats and Art 243 ZG in the matter of elections of the municipalities. There is no reason as to why these time tested and settled principles should not be made applicable to the elections of the office bearers of the societies and for the Committee of Management under the scheme of administration of the educational institutions. We have every reason to believe that in future the Court will refuse to interfere in the process of elections until the elections are concluded and will refuse to entertain election disputes and relegate the parties to approach the Election Tribunals or to file civil suit to challenge the results of the elections. The huge pendency in the Court denies access of justice to the thousands of litigants in need of justice from the Court. The filing of frivolous, premature and unnecessary writ petitions take away the valuable time of the Court and clogs the entire justice delivery system. This Court has to be conscious of the fact that writ petitions should be entertained only when parties have acquired a cause of action and have exhausted the alternative remedies before approaching the Court. There is no legal error in the judgment of learned Single Judge. The special appeal is dismissed." 18. The Apex Court in the case of Shaji K. Joseph Vs V. Viswanath and others, (2016) 4 SCC 429 , while dealing with the case of election of the members of Dental Council of India reiterated aforesaid proposition of law. In paragraph no. 15 of the said judgment, it has been held that High Court should not have interfered with the election after the election process has commenced. In paragraph no. 15 of the said judgment, it has been held that High Court should not have interfered with the election after the election process has commenced. The said paragraph 15 is extracted herein below:- “In our opinion, the High Court was not right in interfering with the process of election especially when the process of election had started upon publication of the election program on 27th January, 2011 and more particularly when an alternative statutory remedy was available to Respondent no.1 by way of referring the dispute to the Central Government as per the provisions of Section 5 of the Act read with Regulation 20 of the Regulations. So far as the issue with regard to eligibility of Respondent no.1 for contesting the election is concerned, though prima facie it appears that Respondent no.1 could contest the election, we do not propose to go into the said issue because, in our opinion, as per the settled law, the High Court should not have interfered with the election after the process of election had commenced. The judgments referred to hereinabove clearly show the settled position of law to the effect that whenever the process of election starts, normally courts should not interfere with the process of election for the simple reason that if the process of election is interfered with by the courts, possibly no election would be completed without court's order. Very often, for frivolous reasons candidates or others approach the courts and by virtue of interim orders passed by courts, the election is delayed or cancelled and in such a case the basic purpose of having election and getting an elected body to run the administration is frustrated. For the aforestated reasons, this Court has taken a view that all disputes with regard to election should be dealt with only after completion of the election.” 19. In a recent judgment of the Apex Court, reported in West Bengal State Election Commission and others Vs Communist Party of India (Marist) and others, AIR 2018 SC 3964 , it has been held in paragraph no. 29 as under: “Thirdly, once the election process has commenced, it is trite law that it should not be interdicted mid stage. The electoral process is afforded sanctity in a democracy. 29 as under: “Thirdly, once the election process has commenced, it is trite law that it should not be interdicted mid stage. The electoral process is afforded sanctity in a democracy. That is the reason why in a consistent line of precedent, this Court has insisted upon the discipline of the law being followed so that any challenge to the validity of an election has to be addressed by adopting the remedy of an election petition provided under the governing statute.” 20. In the present case, admittedly, election was held on 10.1.2018 and the newly Committee of Management is in office. The compliance of directions of this Court in judgment and order dated 28.2.2017 passed in Writ-C No. 30476 of 2018 [Committee of Management, Captain Shankar Dhwaj Audhyogik Vidyalaya and an another Vs State of UP and others] and the issue of enrollment of members in adherence of the directions of this court in the aforesaid judgment require consideration. This issue requires verification of facts and reception of evidence, in the facts of this case. This exercise can be undertaken by the competent authority. This Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution has refrained from entering into such exercises, which require adjudication of disputed facts or assessment of evidence. Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act as amended by the State Legislature enacts a comprehensive code and creates a designated forum or tribunal for adjudication in a summary manner of all disputes or doubts in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of Society. It also provides the grounds upon which the election of an office-bearer can be set aside. For ease of reference, the provision is extracted here under:- "25. It also provides the grounds upon which the election of an office-bearer can be set aside. For ease of reference, the provision is extracted here under:- "25. Dispute regarding election of office-bearers.--(1) The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least one-fourth of the members of a society registered in Uttar Pradesh, hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of an office-bearer of such society, and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit : Provided that the election of an office-bearer shall be set aside where the prescribed authority is satisfied- (a) that any corrupt practice has been committed by such office bearer ; or (b) that the nomination of any candidate has been Improperly rejected ; or (c) that the result of the election in so far it concerns such office-bearer has been materially affected by the improper acceptance of any nomination or by the Improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or the reception of any vote which is void or by any non-compliance with the provisions of any rules of the society. Explanation I--A person shall be deemed to have committed a corrupt practice who, directly or indirectly, by himself or by any other person- (i) includes, or attempts to induce, by fraud intentional misrepresentation, coercion or threat of injury, any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not withdraw from being a candidate at the election ; (ii) with a view to inducting any elector to give or to refrain from giving a vote in favour of any candidate, or to inducing any person to stand or not to stand as, or to withdraw or not to withdraw from being, a candidate at the election, offers or gives any money, or valuable consideration, or any place of employment, or holds out any promise of individual advantage or profit to any person ; (iii) abates (within the meaning of the Indian Penal Code) the doing of any of the acts specified in clauses (i) and (ii) ; (iv) induces or attempts to induce a candidate or elector to believe that he, or any person in whom he is Interested, will become or will be rendered an object of divine displeasure or spiritual censure ; (v) canvasses on grounds of caste, community, sect or religion ; (vi) commits such other practice as the State Government may prescribe to be a corrupt practice. Explanation II--A 'promise of individual advantage or profit to a person' includes a promise for the benefit of the person himself, or of any one in whom he is interested. Explanation III--The State Government may prescribe the procedure for hearing and decision of doubts or disputes in respect of such elections and making provision in respect of any other matter relating to such elections for which insufficient provision exists in this Act or in the rules of the society. 21. Issue of continuance of office bearers of newly elected Committee of Management has to be decided with the issue of correctness of the Electoral College. The validity of Electoral College is linked to the compliance of the directions of this court contained in judgment rendered on 28.2.2017 by learned Single Bench in Writ-C No. 30476 of 2018 [Committee of Management, Captain Shankar Dhwaj Audhyogik Vidyalaya and an another Vs State of UP and others]. 22. The validity of Electoral College is linked to the compliance of the directions of this court contained in judgment rendered on 28.2.2017 by learned Single Bench in Writ-C No. 30476 of 2018 [Committee of Management, Captain Shankar Dhwaj Audhyogik Vidyalaya and an another Vs State of UP and others]. 22. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, aggrieved party, if so advised, may approach the Prescribed Authority under Section 25(1) of the Act for deciding the controversy regarding the validity of the Electoral College in compliance of the directions of this Court dated 28.2.2017 passed in Writ-C No. 30476 of 2018 [Committee of Management, Captain Shankar Dhwaj Audhyogik Vidyalaya and an another Vs State of UP and others]. If any such challenge is made before the concerned authority within two weeks from today, the Prescribed Authority shall decide the same in accordance with law within eight weeks thereafter after returning specific findings on all relevant issues before it including the determination of Electoral College in compliance of the order of this Court dated 28.2.2017. 23. It is made clear that the Prescribed Authority shall not be influenced by any finding recorded by us or by judgment of the learned Single Bench dated 22.12.2017 in any manner and shall decide the controversy with an independent mind. 24. The special appeal is disposed off finally.