Hon’ble Yashwant Varma, J.—The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 4th March, 2015 in terms of which the electoral college of the Society Sri Tilak Kisan Laghu Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kamhariya, Post Padari Bazar, Tehsil Salempur, District Deoria has come to be finalized and an election schedule announced by the District Basic Education Officer, Deoria. As was noticed by this Court in its order dated 26th March, 2015, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 had raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the writ petition and it was on the said objection alone that the learned counsel for parties were heard and orders reserved.

2. The basic grievance of the petitioner, who is a member of the General Body of the Society, is the non-inclusion of the names of 54 members in the list finalized by the respondent No. 5. Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the writ petition has submitted that the said respondent is patently illegal for that the non-inclusion of the 54 members will materially affect the results of the election. He has further submitted that insofar as the State of U.P. is concerned, the legislature by enacting U.P. Act No. 23 of 2013, has consciously added Section 4B to the Societies Registration Act, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act, 1860”) as a consequence of which, it was incumbent upon the respondent to undertake an inquiry into the membership of the General Body.

3. However, firstly this Court necessarily needs to consider the preliminary objection raised by Sri Pandey. Sri Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents has submitted that the petitioner is a member of the General Body of the Society whose name stands included in the list finalized by the Assistant Registrar. He submits that the petitioner would have no locus standi to challenge or assail the non-inclusion of 54 members. He submits that if there be any cause which may exist against the impugned order, the same would inhere only in those 54 members and not in the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel has further submitted that this Court has on more than one occasion held that the finalization of an electoral college and a challenge thereto, should not be entertained by this Court inasmuch as it would clearly derail the election process and in any view of the mater it is always open to an aggrieved person to challenge the elections as a whole after completion of the process.

5. In support of his above submission, Sri Pandey has relied upon the following judgments of this Court: (i) Ratan Kumar Solanki v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (1) ADJ 262; (ii) Comm. Of Management Maharana Pratap Vidyalaya v. State of U.P., 2013 (10) ADJ 532; (iii) Uttam Nishad v. State of U.P., 2006 (6) AWC 6354.

6. Responding to the above submissions, Sri H.N. Singh, learned Senior Counsel has submitted that the petitioner being an active member of the Society was clearly entitled to assail the orders passed by the Assistant Registrar finalizing the Electoral College and the consequential order passed by the District Basic Education Officer announcing the election programme. Placing reliance upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh and others, AIR 1980 SC 1612, he submits that an individual member does have a right to challenge an order finalizing a voter list as is sought to be done in the facts of the present case. Responding to the submission of Sri Pandey that this Court should lay its hands off deciding upon the validity of the orders impugned herein at this stage. Sri Singh, learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Election Commission of India v. Ashok Kumar and others, 2000 (8) SCC 216. Referring particularly to Para 20 of the report, Sri Singh submits that as was held by the Apex Court, the present challenge was not designed to interfere with the progress of elections b