JUDGMENT : Ravindra Maithani, J. The challenge in this petition is made to the order dated 08.10.2007 passed by the respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer, Dehradun, by which the directions for election of the management committee of Inter College, Balawala, District Dehradun (“the college”) have been issued. The petitioners also seek other reliefs. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 3. The instant petition has a long drawn history. The college is run by a management committee (“the committee”). Factual narration may be briefly stated as follows:- (i) Earlier election of the committee was held on 22.12.2002. On 30.12.2005, the Manager of the committee wrote to the respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer, Dehradun proposing the next date of election of the committee as 08.01.2006 with the request for appointment of the observers. (ii) The respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer, Dehradun required the Manager of the committee to forward the list of the members, which was forwarded by the Manager of the committee. (iii) The respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer, Dehradun raised certain objection on 04.01.2006. (iv) The election was stayed. Meanwhile, on 18.03.2006, the Authorized Controller was appointed. (v) Various communications were made between the Authorized Controller and the respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer, Dehradun with regard to approval of the members of the General Body and for holding of the elections. (vi) Pursuant to the directions issued by the respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer, Dehradun, the Principal of the college pasted the list of the members on the notice board inviting objections. Four persons filed their objections. The objections were attended to. (vii) The Authorized Controller, on 29.06.2007, sought approval of the list of the members from the respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer, Dehradun. (viii) The approval was accorded by the respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer, Dehradun on 05.07.2007. (ix) Pursuant to it, the date of election of the committee was notified on 07.07.2007. It is at this stage, a Writ Petition No. 948 of 2008 was filed, which was disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer, Dehradun to decide the objections raised by the petitioners. (x) The objections raised by the petitioners were rejected. It is at this stage, a Writ Petition No. 948 of 2008 was filed, which was disposed of with the direction to the respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer, Dehradun to decide the objections raised by the petitioners. (x) The objections raised by the petitioners were rejected. Thereafter, another Writ Petition being WP (M/S) No. 1457 of 2007, Jai Singh v. State of Uttarakhand and others, was filed, which was decided on 06.09.2007 with the directions to the respondent no. 3, the District Education Officer, Dehradun to take a decision afresh. Pursuant to it, the impugned order has been passed. 4. For the sake of convenience, the status of the petitioners qua membership and the General Body of the committee is as follows:- Sr. No. Name Nature of Membership Previous Year when membership was obtained Last time when the fee for membership was deposited 1. Jai Singh Bisht Ordinary Member 2002 30.12.2005 2. Virendra Singh Rana Ordinary Member 1999 30.12.2005 3. Bijendra Dutt Bhatt Ordinary Member 2002 4. Shyam Singh Panwar Ordinary Member 2002 5. Ramesh Teerthwal Ordinary Member 2002 6. Kishal Lal Ordinary Member 2002 7. Prabhulal Upadhyay Ordinary Member 2002 8. S.P. Singh Lifetime Member -- 19.12.2005 9. Smt. Laxmi Devi Ordinary Member 1999 19.12.2005 10. Padam Singh Bangariyal Ordinary Member 1999 19.12.2005 11. Vijay Pal Singh Rawat Ordinary Member 1999 30.09.2005 12. Satyapal Singh Ordinary Member 1999 30.09.2005 13. Pratap Singh Manwal Ordinary Member 1999 19.12.2005 14. Bhagwan Singh Bisth Ordinary Member 1999 19.12.2005 15. Ramesh Dutt Bhatt Ordinary Member 1999 19.12.2005 16. Shyam Singh Panwar Ordinary Member 1999 19.12.2005 17. C.N. Thapliyal Ordinary Member -- 19.12.2005 18. Dhanveer Singh Rana Ordinary Member -- 19.12.2005 19. Smt. Satya Panwar Ordinary Member -- 19.12.2005 5. It is the case of the petitioners that by the impugned order, their names have been struck off from the membership of the General Body, which is not justified. It is also the contention of the petitioners that the impugned order is a non-speaking order. There are other grounds as well taken in the petition. 6. The State as well as the respondent no. 5 has filed their separate counter affidavit. 7. According to the State, the claim of the petitioners is wholly unsustainable and the writ petition is devoid of merits. 8. The respondent no. 5 has filed a supplementary counter affidavit dated 05.09.2010. According to the respondent no. 6. The State as well as the respondent no. 5 has filed their separate counter affidavit. 7. According to the State, the claim of the petitioners is wholly unsustainable and the writ petition is devoid of merits. 8. The respondent no. 5 has filed a supplementary counter affidavit dated 05.09.2010. According to the respondent no. 5, the Authorized Controller is not empowered to induct any member, therefore, since the tenure of the existing member had already expired in the month of December, 2008, the writ petition is not maintainable. 9. Before the Court proceeds to record its finding, it would be apt to mention the Scheme of Administration of the committee, which is filed as Annexure No. 21 to the writ petition. According to it, the General Body consists of – (i) Patron and Life Members, (ii) General Members, (iii) Nominated Members and (iv) Life Members. 10. Sub-clause (5) of Clause 4 of the Scheme of Administration also provides that the General Body shall elect 12 members of the Management Committee and office bearers of the Management Committee. Clause 9 deals with the election process of the Management Committee. Sub-clause (2) of it, inter alia, provides that the Management Committee shall declare the date of next election two years prior to the expiry of their term. Sub-clause (3) of Clause 9 provides that the list of the members of the General Body shall be published one year prior to the expiry of the tenure of the Management Committee. 11. In fact, in this matter, instead of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State Counsel and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 assisted the Court to understand as to whether the impugned order is in accordance with the Scheme of Administration or not. Collectively this exercise has been undertaken in view of the Scheme of Administration. 12. Admittedly, the term of the committee, which was elected on 22.12.2002 had to expire on 21.12.2005. In view of Sub-clause (2) of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration, it was obligatory on the committee to declare the date of election two years prior to the expiry of their term. Admittedly, such declaration of the date of election had not been done. 13. In view of Sub-clause (2) of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration, it was obligatory on the committee to declare the date of election two years prior to the expiry of their term. Admittedly, such declaration of the date of election had not been done. 13. According to Sub-clause (3) of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration, one year prior to expiry of the term of the committee, the list of the members of the General Body ought to have been declared. Admittedly, such declaration has not been made. 14. Now, what is left is as follows. The term of the committee that was elected on 22.12.2002 was to expire on 21.12.2005. The list of the members of the General Body, for the purposes of election, ought to have been declared one year prior to 21.12.2005 as per Sub-clause (3) of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration, which is not done. An endeavour was made to identify as to who were the members on 21.12.2004. Since, there was no declaration of list of members eligible for election in accordance with Sub-clause (3) of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration, it cannot be said that there was no member available for the election. Therefore, this exercise is to identify as to who were the members in existence as on 21.12.2004. 15. The following petitioners were the member of the General Body on 21.12.2004:- Sr. No. Name 1. Jai Singh Bisht (Petitioner No.1) He was a member in the year 2002, which means his term was to expire in the year 2005. Therefore, he was a valid member on 21.12.2004, when the list of the members of the General Body eligible for election ought to have been published as per Sub-clause (3) of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration. 2. Bijendra Dutt Bhatt (Petitioner No.3) He was a member in the year 2002, which means his term was to expire in the year 2005. Therefore, he was a valid member on 21.12.2004, when the list of the members of the General Body eligible for election ought to have been published as per Sub-clause (3) of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration. 3. Shyam Singh Panwar (Petitioner No.4) He was a member in the year 2002, which means his term was to expire in the year 2005. 3. Shyam Singh Panwar (Petitioner No.4) He was a member in the year 2002, which means his term was to expire in the year 2005. Therefore, he was a valid member on 21.12.2004, when the list of the members of the General Body eligible for election ought to have been published as per Sub-clause (3) of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration. 4. Ramesh Teerthwal (Petitioner No.5) He was a member in the year 2002, which means his term was to expire in the year 2005. Therefore, he was a valid member on 21.12.2004, when the list of the members of the General Body eligible for election ought to have been published as per Sub-clause (3) of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration. 5. Kishan Lal (Petitioner No.6) He was a member in the year 2002, which means his term was to expire in the year 2005. Therefore, he was a valid member on 21.12.2004, when the list of the members of the General Body eligible for election ought to have been published as per Sub-clause (3) of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration. 6. Prabhulal Upadhyay (Petitioner No.7) He was a member in the year 2002, which means his term was to expire in the year 2005. Therefore, he was a valid member on 21.12.2004, when the list of the members of the General Body eligible for election ought to have been published as per Sub-clause (3) of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration. 16. The above members were definitely such members, who were eligible on the expiry of the term of the committee on 21.12.2005 to cast their vote for the next election. 17. The following petitioners were not validly elected members on 21.12.2004, when the list of the members of the General Body ought to have been declared for the election, as per Sub-clause (3) of Clause 9 of the Scheme of Administration:- Sr. No. Name 1. Virendra Singh Rana (Petitioner No.2) He was the member in the year 1999. His term must have expired in the year 2002. Thereafter, he again deposited the fee on 30.12.2005. It was not prior to one year of the expiry of the term of the committee. 2. S.P. Singh (Petitioner No.8) For the first time, he deposited the fee on 19.12.2005 for procuring membership. His term must have expired in the year 2002. Thereafter, he again deposited the fee on 30.12.2005. It was not prior to one year of the expiry of the term of the committee. 2. S.P. Singh (Petitioner No.8) For the first time, he deposited the fee on 19.12.2005 for procuring membership. He was not a member one year prior to expiry of the term of the committee. 3. Smt. Laxmi Devi (Petitioner No.9) She was the member in the year 1999. Her term must have expired in the year 2002. Thereafter, she again deposited the fee on 10.12.2005. It was not prior to one year of the expiry of the term of the committee. 4. Padam Singh Bangariyal (Petitioner No.10) He was the member in the year 1999. His term must have expired in the year 2002. Thereafter, he again deposited the fee on 19.12.2005. It was not prior to one year of the expiry of the term of the committee. 5. Vijay Pal Singh Rawat (Petitioner No.11) He was the member in the year 1999. His term must have expired in the year 2002. Thereafter, he again deposited the fee on 30.09.2005. It was not prior to one year of the expiry of the term of the committee. 6. Satyapal Singh (Petitioner No.12) He was the member in the year 1999. His term must have expired in the year 2002. Thereafter, he again deposited the fee on 30.09.2005. It was not prior to one year of the expiry of the term of the committee. 7. Pratap Singh Manwal (Petitioner No.13) He was the member in the year 1999. His term must have expired in the year 2002. Thereafter, he again deposited the fee on 19.12.2005. It was not prior to one year of the expiry of the term of the committee. 8. Bhagwan Singh Bisht (Petitioner No.14) He was the member in the year 1999. His term must have expired in the year 2002. Thereafter, he again deposited the fee on 19.12.2005. It was not prior to one year of the expiry of the term of the committee. 9. Ramesh Dutt Bhatt (Petitioner No.15) He was the member in the year 1999. His term must have expired in the year 2002. Thereafter, he again deposited the fee on 19.12.2005. It was not prior to one year of the expiry of the term of the committee. 10. 9. Ramesh Dutt Bhatt (Petitioner No.15) He was the member in the year 1999. His term must have expired in the year 2002. Thereafter, he again deposited the fee on 19.12.2005. It was not prior to one year of the expiry of the term of the committee. 10. Shyam Singh Panwar (Petitioner No.16) He was the member in the year 1999. His term must have expired in the year 2002. Thereafter, he again deposited the fee on 19.12.2005. It was not prior to one year of the expiry of the term of the committee. 11. C.N. Thapliyal (Petitioner No.17) He was not an earlier member. On 19.12.2005 only he obtained membership. He was not member prior to one year of the expiry of the term of the committee. 12. Dhanveer Singh Rana (Petitioner No.18) He was not an earlier member. On 19.12.2005 only he obtained membership. He cannot be considered. He was not member prior to one year of the expiry of the term of the committee. 13. Smt. Satya Panwar (Petitioner No.19) She was not an earlier member. On 19.12.2005 only she obtained membership. She cannot be considered. She was not member prior to one year of the expiry of the term of the committee. 18. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the petitioner nos. 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19 have rightly been not considered to be eligible to cast their vote in the election to be held after expiry of the then Managing Committee (which had expired on 21.12.2005). The impugned order deserves to be modified accordingly. In the nutshell, the conclusions are as follows:- The petitioner nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 & 7 are eligible to cast their vote in the next election of the Management Committee. The remaining petitioners, viz., petitioner nos. 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 & 19 are not eligible to cast their vote in the next election of the Management Committee. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 19. The Court has not made any observations with regard to the other members, who are not before the Court. 20. This petition has travelled more than a decade in this Court. It was filed in the year 2007. The impugned order is modified accordingly. 19. The Court has not made any observations with regard to the other members, who are not before the Court. 20. This petition has travelled more than a decade in this Court. It was filed in the year 2007. For more than 16 years the Management Committee of the college is under the control of the Authorized Controller. Therefore, the Court directs that the Authorized Controller to conduct the election of the Management Committee of the college within six weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this judgment. 21. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.