IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 11130 of 2008 Date of Decision: July 2, 2008 Ram Kumar Saini 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. Rajesh Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing election notification dated 7.6.2008 (P-6). A further prayer for issuance of direction to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 i.e. the Saini Education Society, Rohtak (for brevity, ‘the respondent Society’) and its President has also been made for providing time schedule for the purposes of getting the members enrolled with the respondent Society before the conduct of election of the Society. It is conceded position that the respondent Society is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The respondent Society is neither controlled by any public authority nor any financial help is given to it C.W.P. No. 11130 of 2008 by the State Government. For all intends and purposes it is a completely private body managing the affairs of the educational institutions. On the basis that the petitioners have not been enrolled as members of the respondent Society, a prayer has been made for annulling the election process initiated by the respondent Society as per schedule dated 7.6.2008 (P-6). At the outset we have asked learned counsel for the petitioners as to how a writ petition against the private boy like the respondent Society would be maintainable because it does not possess any public character nor does it perform any statutory duties. Mr. Rajesh Arora, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to give any satisfactory answer except saying that the respondent Society performs public functions. It may be true that the respondent Society is controlling, managing and financing educational institutions and in the performance of its public function of imparting education it might be amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. In fact, a Five-Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Miss Ravneet Kaur v. The Christian Medical College, Ludhiana, AIR 1998 P&H 1, has held that a writ petition under Article 226 would be maintainable against any person or body performing public function. It has further been held that the institutions providing medical education form a distinct class and they perform a public duty by supplementing the State’s efforts. Such like institutions are liable to restrictions contained in Part-III of the Constitution and they are bound to act in conformity with the provisions of the Indian Medical 2 C.W.P. No. 11130 of 2008 Council Act, 1956 and the Rules framed thereunder. The Bench has also opined that if such institutions act unfairly, arbitrarily or violate the prohibitions contained in Part-III of the Constitution or Rules framed by the University etc. then their actions can be corrected by issuing an appropriate writ or direction. It was emphasised that the principles laid down by the Bench were not to be attracted in case of every private school or college. In the present case, the activities of the respondent Society, which have been made subject matter of challenge has nothing to do with the performance of its public function of imparting education. The dispute raised before us pertains to few individuals, who wants to be members of the respondent Society so as to enable them to participate in the election process either as voters or candidates. We are unable to comprehend as to how such an action can be brought within the sweep of Article 226 of the Constitution or by treating the same as a public function. The dispute is purely of private nature inter se the petitioners and the respondent Society. There is no violation of any provision of an Act or contravention of public function so as to bring the challenge within the sweep of Article 226 of the Constitution. The writ petition is not maintainable and is wholly without merit and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (SABINA) 3 C.W.P. No. 11130 of 2008 July 2, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 4