JUDGMENT
D.K. Seth, J.
1. Life of the Committee of Management came to an end few months back and an election was held but the Election Officer had declared the said election invalid and irregular and, therefore, the Committee of Management purported to have been elected could not be approved. Therefore, a fresh election was directed to be held in accordance with law by an order dated 24th March. 2000. Since there was no Committee of Management, by an order dated 7th April. 2000 an authorised controller was appointed. Mr. M.S. Negi, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the said order does not contain any reason and that the District Basic Education Officer has no authority or jurisdiction to appoint authorised controller. He has challenged both these orders. So far as the order dated 24th March. 2000 is concerned, he contends that the order cannot be sustained since there is no specific allegation as to on which ground the election was held to be invalid.
2. I have heard Mr. Negi and the learned standing counsel at length.
3. In the order dated 24th March, 2000, it was pointed out that the Election Officer had declared the election invalid and, therefore, the Committee of Management purported to have been elected could not be approved. In such circumstances, a
fresh election was directed to be held. The question of election is a question which is related to certain facts. The observer and the Election Officer had submitted their report and had opined that the election was invalid. Whether the election was valid or invalid is a question dependant on certain facts. The petitioner claims that the election was valid, whereas the Election Officer in his report had made out certain grounds on which he declares the election invalid. These are disputed questions of fact. This Court sitting in writ jurisdiction cannot go into these disputed questions of fact.
4. Therefore. I am not inclined to interfere with the order dated 24th March. 2000.
5. In case the order dated 24th March. 2000, is not interfered with and a fresh election is to be held, when admittedly, the life of the Committee of Management has come to an end, it is necessary that an authorised controller should be appointed to hold the election. Inasmuch as soon the life of the Committee of Management conies to an end or expires, the committee becomes functus ofjicio. As such it has no competence to hold the election after its life expires. With the expiry of the life of the Committee of Management, its entity and existence is lost. There is no existence of any Managing Committee in such circumstance in the eye of law. In the absence of the Managing Committee, the institution can be managed only by an authorised controller, who is the only person competent to hold such election.
6. Therefore, in the fact and circumstances of the case even though the order dated 7th April, 2000, does not contain any reason, but the facts and circumstances of the case reveals that the appointment of an authorised controller was necessitated for the purpose of holding the election in the absence of Committee of Management the life whereof having ended.
7. For the reasons aforesaid. I do not find it necessary to interfere with the order dated 24th March. 2000, or the order dated 7th April. 2000, since impugned.
8. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No cost.