IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No.1947 of 2009 Smt. Rajbala W/O Ashwani Kumar Manager, Janta Inter College, Village Marji, Gummawala, District Haridwar and 29 others. … Petitioners. Versus 1. Additional Education Director Garhwal Mandal, Pauri, District Pauri. 2. District Education Officer, Haridwar. 3. Gajendra Singh S/O Sri Santi Ram, R/O Village Majri Post Piran Kaliyar, District Haridwar. 4. Rajesh Kumar S/O Molhar Singh, R/O Village Majri, P.O. Piran Kaliyar. 5. Block Education Officer Khanpur, District Haridwar. 6. Deputy Registrar Firs Societies & Chits, Haridwar, District Haridwar. … Respondents. Mr. Sharad Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioners. Mr. K.P.Upadhyay, Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents No. 1, 2, 5 & 6. Mr. Ajay Veer Pundir, Advocate, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4. Date June 16, 2010. Hon’ble B.S.Verma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. By means of this writ petition, the petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29- 10-2009 passed by respondent no.1, whereby in compliance of the order dated 28-8-2009 passed by the Apex Court, the representation of the respondent no.4 was decided and it has been held that the membership fees of 35 members was not deposited, therefore, the membership was cancelled and the committee, which was constituted on 17-4-2007 was derecognized. Pursuant to the order dated 29-10-2009, the authorized controller was directed to conduct the election, preferably within a period of two months. Thereafter consequent to the list, the election was notified for 6-11-2009. That order has been challenged in the present writ petition. 2 It is pertinent to mention here that as per counter version of the respondents, the election of committee of management was held on 2-12-2009. The respondent no. 4 has raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the petitioner has a statutory alternate remedy to challenge the election under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court has directed the respondent no.1, after hearing the petitioner as well as other members, who are going to be affected be heard and appropriate order be passed by deciding the representation after hearing the affected members. According to the petitioners, no opportunity of hearing was given to them. Only the reference was made in the order itself that the petitioner No. 1 was directed to give intimation to other members on his behest to appear before the authority for hearing. In the counter affidavit, filed by the respondent no. 1, averment was made that all the affected parties were heard. This Court in Writ Petition (M/S) No. 304 of 2007, Gajendra Singh Vs. Upper Shiksha Nideshak, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri Garhwal and 38 others in earlier round of litigation. This Court vide order dated 16-4-2007 has held that in exercise of writ jurisdiction, the disputed questions of fact cannot be decided. The petitioner may approach to the Civil Court for adjudication on the points of genuineness, correctness and validity of the list of members, in view of judgment in the case of Tribhuwan Prasad Vs. Deputy Director of Education [(1996) 1 UPLBEC, Page 909] wherein ratio of a Division Bench judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case Basant Prasad Srivastava and another Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1993(2) UPLBEC, Page 1333 was followed. The Special Appeal No. 43 of 2007 preferred against the order dated 16- 4-2007 was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 10-5-2007. In view of the facts and circumstances, narrated above, the petitioners may approach either the Civil Court or may assail 3 the election before the Registrar, Co-operative Societies under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. After reference by the Registrar, the petitioners may also raise the plea before the Prescribed Authority that they were wrongly deprived of their right to vote by deleting the names from their membership. The Prescribed Authority, after reference from the Registrar, shall decide the reference expeditiously in accordance with law. With the above observation, on the ground of alternate statutory remedy, the writ petition is dismissed. (B.S.Verma, J.) RCP