C.W.P. No.11294 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.11294 of 2011 Date of Decision. 04.07.2011 Ishwar Singh Saini s/o Hira Singh, resident of House No.168/14, Sainipura, Rohtak and others ......Petitioners Versus State of Haryana through Commissioner and Secretary, Education Department, Civil Secretariat, Haryana, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents Present: Mr. Sandeep K. Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioners' grievance is that the election to office bearers of the Society is undertaken in violation of the bye-laws of the Constitution of the Society. The fundamental flaw pointed out in the writ petition is that the election is being notified and sought to be conducted within a period less than what is prescribed under the bye-laws and the process of election through publication of voters' list inviting objections, filing of nominations etc. have gone on in violation of the terms of the bye-laws of the society. In effect, the grievance of the petitioners is against the office-bearers of the society. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners states that he has a limited prayer at this stage, when the election is ought to be held, that the election shall be conducted with an observer with the Deputy Commissioner to whom the representation had been given on 28.06.2011. Clause 25 of MDU Calendar stipulates that the election shall be held under the supervision of C.W.P. No.11294 of 2011 -2- an observer to be appointed by the University, who shall certify that the election shall be held according to rules. In my view, the person before whom the petitioners must have approached before coming to this Court is only the chief functionary of the University, who shall ensure that election is held properly according to the rules by having an observer appointed. There is no statutory mandate that the Deputy Commissioner shall always ensure that the proper election takes place. There is already a civil suit pending where some of the members of the society have challenged the deletion and disfranchisement of some of the members of the society. It appears that an attempt was also made before the Civil Court to have election stalled but the Civil Court too refused intervention on the ground that relief sought through the suit was beyond the scope of the Court. 3. The validity of an election conducted and the procedural flaws pointed out by the petitioners are more in the nature of private dispute amongst the members of the society and has no public element involved except that the elected members will constitute a managing committee for college, which is subject to Rules and Regulation of the M.D. University. The points raised in the writ petition cannot be decided in a writ petition but the appropriate remedy would be only by means of a civil suit for the petitioners to ventilate their grievance and to secure reliefs which are appropriate to them. 4. The intervention sought through this writ petition is not appropriate and it is accordingly dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE July 04, 2011 Pankaj*