In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh CWP No. 11713 of 2008 Date of decision:10.7.2008 Satnarain and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.KUMAR HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.N.K.Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioners. **** JUDGMENT M.M.KUMAR, J. The petitioners, who are aggrieved by rejection of their right to be members of Saini Education Society, Rohtak-respondent No.2, have approached this Court under Article 226 with prayer for issuance of directions to respondent-society as well as their office bearers/Returning Officer to permit them and other 2800 members/voters of the society to cast vote. They have alleged that their names have been illegally deleted from the voter list dated 14.8.2005 (Annexure P-7) which violate principles of natural justice and is against the constitution of the society. The election of the society is to be held on 13.7.2008 and petitioner No.1 has claimed that he should be permitted to contest the election as secretary of the society. However, his candidature has been rejected by the Returning Officer-respondent No.5. After hearing learned counsel and perusing the averments made in the petition, we are of the view that the Saini CWP No. 11713 of 2008 -2- Education Society, Rohtak-respondent No.2, is a private institution and its election is also a private affair. The society is neither controlled nor financed by the respondent-State of Haryana. Therefore, it can not be considered as an instrumentality or agency of the State. It does not perform any public function in so far as the cause of action related to election is concerned. The society through various institutions might be performing public function of imparting education which is aiding governmental function but in the present case the cause of action is not with regard to imparting of education but only of holding of election. A Five Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Ravneet Kaur v. Christian Medical College, Ludhiana AIR 1998 Pb.& Hry. (FB) 1 has held that imparting of education by a private body like Christian Medical College, Ludhiana could be considered to be a public function and the college would be amenable to the writ jurisdiction. In other words if a more meritorious candidate approaches the Court for admission as against the one who has been admitted then this Court might interfere by exercising powers under Article 226. However, the dispute of the nature raised in the instant petition could not be adjudicated. Therefore, there are all valid doubts about the maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail regular remedy of filing civil suit. (M.M.KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) JUDGE July 10, 2008 anita