ORDER
S.S. Subramani, J.
1. Petitioner seeks issuance of writ of certiorari, calling for the records of 4th respondent dated 20-7-1998 based on the order of 2nd respondent in his Proceedings No. 3869/A3/ 98 dated 16-7-1998 and quash the Order dated 20-7-1998, and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Petitioner claims himself as President of Parents-Teachers Association of Anandur Government High School. It is stated that for every three years, the General Body of the Parent-Teacher Association would elect the Members of Executive Committee for administration of the Association. The elected members of the Executive Committee would function for a period of three years from the date of their election as per Rule No. 6 (ii) of the Parent-Teachers Association Bye-laws. Based on the letter of the Secretary of Chennai State Parents Teachers Association dated 10-1-1997, third respondent, by letter dated 9-6-1998, informed that the General Body of the said Association would meet on 18-6-1998 at 2-00 P.M., for the purpose of electing the Executive Committee Members. On 18-6-1998 at 2-00 P.M., majority of Members attended the General Body and elected new President, Vice-President, Treasurers and Members of Executive Committee. It is said that the deponent was elected as President, and one Vaji Ram as Vice-President and one Arunachalam as Treasurer. Third respondent is the Headmaster of the School, and, it is the case of petitioner that he was very irregular in attending the School, and there were several complaints against him, and, as President, petitioner sent several representations to respondents 1 and 2 to take necessary action against third respondent. While the period of newly elected members of the Executive Committee is subsisting, 4th respondent, under instructions of 2nd respondent, as per proceedings dated 16-7-1998, conducted a fresh election and elected new President, new Vice-President, new Treasurers and Members for the Executive Committee of the said Association. It is said that the second respondent has no locus standi or jurisdiction to direct the school authorities to conduct fresh election for electing the members of the Executive Committee. When the term of the duly elected members is not over, a fresh election cannot be conducted, and the new Committee has no right to function as such. According to petitioner, the election held on 20-7-1998 is illegal and against the provisions of Bye-laws of the Association. It is also said that there was no. quorum to conduct the Election on 20-7-1998. It is said that on the basis of the alleged new election, the Office-bearers are attempting to interfere with the petitioner’s right to act as President of the Association.
3. Detailed counter affidavit has been filed by second respondent.
4. The newly elected President filed WMP 24408 of 1998 for impleadment, and the same has been ordered, and he has been impleaded as fifth respondent herein,
5. In the counter-affidavit of second respondent, it is said that there was no election on 18-6-1998, and proceedings of third respondent shows that no election on 18-6-1998, and proceedings of third respondent shows that no election could have taken place on 18-6-1998. Even though General Body meeting was convened, there was a confusion created by a section of the members who wanted postponement of the election. Hence all the members dispersed. Thereafter, the matter was reported to the District Education Officer, who direct that election should be conducted on 20-7-1998. On that basis, a fresh election was conducted for the Parent-Teacher Association on 20-7-1998, and they have also assumed charge. The District Education Officer directed only the Headmaster to conduct the election as per Bye-laws of the Parent Teacher Association. The period of the President, i.e. petitioner, was over, on 13-6-1998 and he was not elected as claimed by him. It is also contended that the writ petition is not maintainable.
6. In the counter-affidavit filed by the fifth respondent (newly impleaded), it is contended that the writ petition itself is bad, since he has not been impleaded as a party. When the writ petitioner himself has stated that an election was conducted on 20-7-1998 and has also questioned its validity, the newly elected office-bearers are also necessary parties to the writ petition. It is further contended that the writ petition of this nature is not maintainable. The District Educational Officer happens to be the Joint Secretary of the District Parent-Teacher Association, and only in that capacity, second respondent gave the direction for holding the election, and not in his official capacity as District Education Officer-The Parent-Teacher Association is not amenable to the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, and the question regarding the validity of election of office-bearers to the Association cannot be decided in writ proceedings. It is also contended that the conduct of petitioner is such that he does not deserve any indulgence, and the equitable and extraordinary original jurisdiction of this Court should not be invoked in such cases. It is also said that election was conducted on 20-7-1998 and the office-bearers were elected, and the deponent (Fifth respondent) was elected as President; on the same day.
7. I heard learned Counsel for all the parties.
8. Even at the time when learned Senior Counsel for petitioner commenced his arguments, since I felt that fifth respondent, herein was a necessary party, I heard him regarding impleadment of fifth respondent, and allowed W.M.P. 24408 of 1998 and petitioner therein has been impleaded as Fifth respondent.
9. In this case, Heel that the petitioner has not come to Court with clean hands. When the petitioner himself has admitted that an election was conducted on 20-7-1998 and the writ petition was filed only on 27-8-1998, he should have impleaded the elected representatives as parties to this writ petition. Relief sought for in this writ petition is, that the election held on 20-7-1998 is invalid. Naturally, the affected persons are the newly elected representatives and they should have been impleaded. Without them on the party array, the writ petition itself could not be maintained. Petitioner wanted to get the relief behind their back, without impleading them. Such conduct on the part of petitioner disentitles him from avai ling the discretionary remedy from this Court.
10. The writ petition is not maintainable for another reason also, namely, the Parent-Teacher Association is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court. Though the District Education Officer and Headmaster of the School have been made parties, under the Bye-laws of the Parent-Teacher Association, the District Education Officer acts only as Joint Secretary of the District Parent-Teacher Association. Only in that capacity, he directs the Headmaster to conduct the election, and not in his capacity as District Education Officer. The Bye-laws of the Society have no “statutory force, nor is the D.E.O. doing a public function. For that reason also, the writ petition is not maintainable.
11. Even on merits, I do not find anything in favour of petitioner. Even though he claims himself as duly elected President, no materials have been placed to hold that he was duly elected and the election was held on 18-6-1998. Definite stand taken is that on 18-6-1998, no election was held, and to substantiate that, Minutes of the Meeting held on 18-6-1998 have also been produced before Court. A reading of the same shows that many members wanted postponement of the election, and the atmosphere was also not congenial to hold an election and, therefore, it was postponed. Petitioner herein who was also a participant in that meeting, has now made a false claim that he was duly elected. Thereafter, election was connected on 20-7-1998, and the officebearers have also been recognised by the Authorities. The questions whether the election held on 20-7-1998 is valid or not, and whether the newly elected members have been duly elected, are all disputed questions of fact, which cannot be decided in writ proceedings.
12. I do not find any merit in the writ petition, and consequently it is dismissed. No costs. Connected W.M.Ps. that are pending, are closed.