JUDGMENT
Rakesh Tiwari, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the impugned orders dated 25,5.2005 and 9.9,2004 passed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 respectively besides the prayers for commanding the respondents not to give effect to the aforesaid orders and to decide the matter of validity of Committee of Management in accordance with law.
3. From a perusal of the record it appears that there is a dispute regarding validity of the Committee of Management of Rahmaniya School Society, Shutar Khana. Kanpur Nagar between the petitioners and respondent No. 5.
4. It appears that the Deputy Registrar, Firms. Chits and Societies vide order dated 25.4.1995 referred the matter for adjudication under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act. The reference order dated 25.4.1995 was challenged by the petitioners in Writ Petition No. 13455 of 1995 wherein vide order dated 23.5.1995 the operation of the reference order was stayed to the extent that Fazlur Rahman who raised the dispute with regard to his election as the Secretary/Manager of the Society was permitted to act as Manauer. The writ petition was allowed vide order dated 1.8.1995. The reference made by the Deputy Registrar was decided by the Prescribed Authority Sub-Divisional Magistrate vide order dated 31.3.1998 holding the Committee of Management headed by Buniyad Ali to be valid.
5. The order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate passed in favour of the petitioner-committee was challenged before this Court in Writ Petition No. 13479 of 1998 which was dismissed vide order dated 15.5.1999.
6. It is alleged by the petitioners that after Fazlur Rahman failed in his attempt he in connivance with the office of the Deputy Registrar forged a proceeding that Buniyad Ali has resigned and got issued the annual list in his favour for the year 1999-2000. It is stated that after coming to know about the fraud the petitioners filed objection that Buniyad Ali has not resigned. Thereafter Writ Petition No. 35894 of 1999 was filed by the petitioners which was disposed of vide order dated 24.8.1999 directing the Deputy Registrar to decide the matter and in compliance of the directions of this Court the Deputy Registrar vide order dated 4.10.1999 decided the matter holding that the son of Fazlur Rahman namely Mahfoozul Rahman had acted fraudulently and thus the annual list issued for the year 1999-2000 was cancelled in favour of the petitioners.
7. Again Writ Petition No. 4468 of 2000 was filed by the petitioners against the said forged committee of Fazlur Rahman and Mahfoozul Rahman of which Dr R.A. Siddiqui was made Secretary which was also disposed of vide order dated 4.11.1999 directing the Deputy Registrar to decide the matter. In pursuance of a judgment and order dated 4.11.1999 the Deputy Registrar decided the matter finally vide his order dated 24.1.2000 holding the Committee of Management headed by the petitioner to be valid.
8. After expiry of the term of the Committee of Management headed by the petitioner election was held on 7.6.2000. Again a dispute was raised by one Ahmad Husain claiming himself to be the President and Mahfoozul Rahman as Secretary/Manager. The matter was again referred under Section 25 of the Societies Registration Act to the Prescribed Authority by the Assistant Registrar. The reference was dismissed in default vide order dated 12.9.2002. A restoration application was filed by the petitioners on 23.9.2002. However, in the mean time the term of the Committee of Management was to expire, as such election is said to have been held in May 2003 and copy of the election proceeding along with annual list for the year 2003-04 was submitted to the Deputy Registrar on 14.5.2003.
9. Sarvasri Mahfoozul Rahman and Ahmad Hussain arc alleged to have illegally obtained the annual list in collusion with the office of the Deputy Registrar. It is alleged that meanwhile Buniyad Ali submitted his resignation on 10.1.2005 which was accepted by the Committee of Management and the petitioner being the Assistant Secretary/Assistant Manager was elected as Secretary Manager. Sri Mahfoozul Rahman is also alleged to have forged an affidavit on behalf of Buniyad Ali that he did not want to press restoration application and that he was admitting the claim of Sri Ahmad Hussain and Sri Mahfoozul Rahman. The Prescribed Authority rejected the restoration application dated 16.3.2005 holding that the restoration application had become infructuous as the term of the Committee of Management had expired. The election of Sri Ahmad Husain and Sri Mahfoozul Rahman having been accepted by the Deputy Registrar and the annual list of 2004-05 also having been issued and the Basic Shiksha Adhikari having attested the signatures of Mahfoozul Rahman on 29.1.2004 that nothing had been submitted on behalf of Buniyad Ali who had admitted the claim of Ahmad Husain vide his affidavit dated 9.3.2005 and further that objections of Sri Rais Ahmad could not be entertained because in the reference his name was not shown as Secretary/Manager and he had nothing to do with the dispute.
10. In the counter affidavit to the amendment application filed on behalf of contesting respondent No. 5 it has been averred that the impugned orders have already been given effect to and the annual list has also been issued to the Committee of Management headed by respondent No. 5. It is also averred that renewed registration certificate has also been issued to the Committee of Management of respondent No. 5 and salary of the staff of the institution is being paid by it since March 2005. i.e., the Committee of Management of respondent No. 5 is in actual and effective control over the institution.
11. The petitioners have not filed any rejoinder affidavit rebutting the averments made in the counter affidavit; hence the averments made in the counter affidavit by the respondents have to be taken as correct.
12. There are disputed questions of facts in this writ petition which cannot be decided without oral and documentary evidence of the parties and as such the only remedy available to the petitioners is to get the matter adjudicated before the civil court by adducing oral and documentary evidence which is not feasible under Article 226 of the Constitution.
13. The law is well entrenched that alternative remedy cannot be bye-passed and it has to be exhausted before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly in cases where Labour Court or Tribunal having exclusive jurisdiction is highly contested. The matter requires adjudication by recording findings of facts on the basis of oral and documentary evidence, which can be adduced only before the Civil Court. The alternate and efficacious remedy available to the parties in such matters is absolute bar in case where question of facts are to be decided by adjudication. The petitioners have thus an alternative and efficacious remedy before the civil court.
14. For the reasons aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter in exercise of its extra-ordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution,
15. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy. No order as to cost.