JUDGMENT : YASHODA NANDAN, J. 1. Petitioner No. 1 claims to have been duly elected Committee of Management and Petitioner No. 2 the Manager of Durgeshwarnath Intermediate College, Rudrapur district Deoria which is run by Respondent No. 5, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act. They claim to have been elected at a meeting held on the 3rd July, 1977 for a term of three years which would expire on the 3rd July 1980. The college is run under a Scheme of Administration to be now on described as the Scheme according to the context, framed u/s 16-A of the Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) which had received the approval of the Director of Education under Sub-section (5) of Section 16-A. Paragraph 21 of the Scheme admittedly was in the following terms: 21. Decision of dispute relating to the right of management. (A) In case there is dispute relating to the right of Management of D.N.H.S.S. Rudrapur Distt. Deoria, the matter shall be referred to D.D.E. of the region. (B) The D.D.E. of the region shall on being satisfied that there is dispute relating to the right of Management and shall declare as such and appoint a competent person to manage the institution during the period of dispute. (C) Within a month of declaration by the D.D.E. that there is a dispute relating to the right of management, the General Body of Society shall hold a meeting and elect a new Committee of Management. 2. On the 3rd February, 1979 the Deputy Director of Education passed an order which was addressed to the District Inspector of Schools, Deoria, relevant portion of it as appears from Annexure 3 to the counter-affidavit filed by Bashishtha Lal Srivastava, Assistant Manager-cum-Joint Secretary of the Society--Respondent No. 5 on behalf of Respondent No. 4 was in the following terms: * * * * * 3. Copies of this order were forwarded to the Lekhadhikari, Petitioner, No. 1, officiating principal of the college and Respondent No. 4. The Petitioners had filed an incomplete and inaccurate copy of the order. 4. By means of this petition, which was presented in this Court on the 8th February, 1979, the Petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 3rd February 1979 passed by Respondent No. 1. 4. By means of this petition, which was presented in this Court on the 8th February, 1979, the Petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari or any other order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 3rd February 1979 passed by Respondent No. 1. There is a further prayer for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents not to interfere in the Petitioners' working as duly elected office-bearers of the Committee of Management. When this petition was admitted to hearing, an ex-parte interim order was passed by this Court staying the operation of the order dated 3rd February, 1979. The interim order was subsequently vacated. From the rejoinder-affidavit filed it appears that Respondent No. 1, by an order dated 2nd August, 1979 during the pendency of this petition, extended the appointment of Respondent No. 3 by a further period of six months. 5. When this petition came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court, it was urged on behalf of the Petitioners that Paragraph 21(B) of the Scheme, in exercise of powers under which Respondent No. 1 appears to have passed the impugned order, was illegal and ultra-vires of the provisions of the Act. Relying on a Division Bench case of this Court in Prabandha Samiti, T.J.P. Arya Kannya Inter College, Etawah and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others, AIR 1976 All 488 decided by Hon'ble K.B. Asthana, C.J. & Hon'ble J.M.L. Sinha, J. it was contended that a Scheme framed under the Act must be strictly in accord with Section 16-A, 16-B and 16-C and none of them contemplated a provision being made in a Scheme for replacement of a duly elected Committee of Management under orders passed by the Deputy Director of Education either by an administrator or by election of another Committee of Management. It was further urged that Section 16-D of the Act provides exhaustively the situations under which and the manner in which a Committee of Management can be superseded or suspended and replaced by an administrator or another Committee of Management. It was further urged that Section 16-D of the Act provides exhaustively the situations under which and the manner in which a Committee of Management can be superseded or suspended and replaced by an administrator or another Committee of Management. Sri S.C. Verma, learned Standing Counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that Section 16-D was not concerned with a situation where there was a dispute with regard to the existence of a valid Committee of Management or a dispute between two rival bodies claiming to be the Committee of Management. He placed reliance on Regulation 14(1) of Chapter I of the Regulations framed under the Act and urged that Paragraph 21(B) of the Scheme of the College concerned which bad been accorded approval by the Director of Education u/s 16-A(5) of the Act was in accord with that provision. It was submitted that in Prabandha Samitl T.J.P. Arya Kanya Inter College, Etawah (supra) the Division Bench which decided the case had not taken notice of the existence of Regulation 14 and the decision consequently requires reconsideration. The decision in Prabandha Samiti T.J.P. Arya Kanya Inter College, Etawah, was followed by another Division Bench of this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 2083 of 1977 Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education, decided on 4th October, 1979. The Bench before which the instant petition initially came up for decision was of the opinion that while deciding the above mentioned cases, Regulation 14 had not been taken into account and consequently directed the papers of this petition to be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a Full Bench for an authoritative pronouncement as to whether the above mentioned cases have been correctly decided. 6. Before we comment on the correctness or otherwise of the decisions of this Court in the cases cited above, we propose to consider the validity or otherwise of paragraph 21 of the Scheme with which we are concerned and the legality of the order passed by Respondent No. 1 which is the subject-matter of challenge in this petition, unembarrassed by the earlier decisions of this Court, purely on the basis of the relevant statutory provisions. 7. 7. The preamble of the Act as stated therein run as follows: Whereas it is expedient to establish a Board to take the place of the Allahabad University in regulating and supervising the system of the High School and Intermediate Education in Uttar Pradesh and Prescribed courses therefor... 8. The various provisions of the Act aim at securing the stated objective. We are informed that there are more than 16000 colleges imparting High School and Intermediate Education to students in the State. There is no gainsaying that colleges which are mismanaged or in which disputes exist about their management cannot possibly be expected to efficiently cater to the educational needs of students. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that in most of the educational institutions governed by the provisions of the Act and recognised thereunder disputes do exist with regard to the office-bearers and committees of management resulting in mismanagement thereof and disruption of educational facilities. There are consequently provisions in the Act and the Regulation framed thereunder to deal with such situations. Section 15(1) of the Act provides that "the Board may make regulation for the purpose carrying into effect the provisions of this Act". The provisions of the Act, as already stated, inter-alia aim at ensuring proper management of educational institutions recognised under the Act so that the cause of education might not be jeopardized. A Division Bench of this Court in Committee of Management S.A.V. Inter College v. District Inspector of Schools CMW No. 12725 of 1975 D/- 24th November, 1977 took the view that even in the absence of any statutory provision empowering the District Inspector of schools to do so, it was open to such officers since they had various statutory functions to discharge in cooperation with the Committee of Management of the recognised institution, in the event of there being a dispute between two rival bodies claiming to be the Committee of Management to decide on an administrative level as to which of them was the duly elected Committee of Management subject to adjudication by a competent court. The decision was followed with approval by another Division Bench of this Court in the Committee of Managements. The District Inspector of Schools 1978 AWC 124 . The view taken in the above-mentioned decisions has not been departed from in any case brought to our notice. 9. The decision was followed with approval by another Division Bench of this Court in the Committee of Managements. The District Inspector of Schools 1978 AWC 124 . The view taken in the above-mentioned decisions has not been departed from in any case brought to our notice. 9. Thus, if the Board in exercise of powers u/s 15(1) of the Act frames a regulation to deal with situations where a dispute exists with regard to the office-bearers of a recognised institution or its committee of management no exception can be taken to the validity of such a regulation. 10. Section 16-A(1) of the Act, to the extent relevant for our purposes, runs as follows: 16-A Scheme of Administration -The Scheme of Administration shall amongst other matters provide for the constitution of a Committee of Management (hereinafter called the Committee of Management) vested with authority to manage and conduct the affairs of the institution... Sub-section (6) of Section 16-A, on which considerable stress was laid by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners in support of his contention that paragraph 21(B) of the scheme of Administration is beyond the purview of the Act, is in the following terms: Every recognised institution shall be managed in accordance with the Scheme of Administration framed under and in accordance with Sub-section (5) and Section 16-B and 16-C. Sub-section (5) to which a reference has been made in Sub-section (6), quoted above, provides that "the scheme of Administration of every institution shall be subject to the approval of the Director. The use of the words "shall amongst other matters" in Sub-section (1) of Section 16-A leaves no room for doubt that apart from the matters specifically mentioned in Sub-section (1) of Section 16-A, a Scheme can legitimately provide for other matters provided they are not in conflict with the provisions of the Act or the Regulation framed thereunder and aim at a proper and efficient administration and management of recognised institution, which is essential for ensuring a satisfactory educational system. 11. In exercise of powers u/s 15, Regulations have been framed by the Board. Regulation 14 of Chapter I, on which reliance was placed by the learned Standing Counsel in support of the validity of paragraph 21(B) of the Scheme of Administration, is in the following terms: 14. 11. In exercise of powers u/s 15, Regulations have been framed by the Board. Regulation 14 of Chapter I, on which reliance was placed by the learned Standing Counsel in support of the validity of paragraph 21(B) of the Scheme of Administration, is in the following terms: 14. Approval of the Scheme of Administration The principle on which approval to a Scheme of Administration shall be accorded would be that it should conform to the following rules: (a) to (h)... (i) A Scheme shall contain specific provisions for speedy decision of disputes relating to right of management declared as such by the Regional Deputy Director or the Deputy Director of Education (women), as the case may be, as also regarding management of the institution during the period of dispute...."The validity of this regulation was not challenged before us and in our considered view is not capable of being challenged. This regulation clearly aims at requiring provision in a Scheme for speedy resolution of disputes relating to the right of management of recognised institution because if such disputes are allowed to persist the object of the Act is bound to be defeated since educational facilities would inevitably be put in hazard. 12. The validity of paragraph 21 of the Scheme might now be examined in the light of Regulation 14(1) on the basis of which the learned Standing Counsel sought to support it. This regulation merely makes it imperative for a Scheme to make provision for speedy disposal of disputes relating to the right of management as also regarding management of the concerned institution till such time as the dispute is resolved. It envisages a provision for arrangements being made for discharging functions of the Committee of Management only as an interim measure. In our opinion, it contemplates an administrative decision speedily by some authority recognised by the provisions of the Act as to which of the rival committees is the genuine committee of management so that the department may deal with it for the purpose of carrying out its duties under the Act itself and other enactments like the Uttar Pradesh High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. Paragraph 21(C) of the Scheme, however, does not provide for resolution of disputes between rival committees of management even though one of the contending bodies might have been the duly elected committee of management. Paragraph 21(C) of the Scheme, however, does not provide for resolution of disputes between rival committees of management even though one of the contending bodies might have been the duly elected committee of management. It provides that within a month of declaration by the Deputy Director of Education that there is a dispute relating to the right of management, a new committee of management shall replace the existing committee of management even in cases where there is a duly elected committee of management. Paragraph 21(C) is consequently, in our judgment, beyond the purview of Clause (1) of Regulation 14. 13. Clause 21(B) cannot, in our view be read as one providing for such an interim arrangement as is contemplated by Regulation 14(1). This clause is inextricably interwoven with Clause (C) and cannot be considered in isolation. In this view of the matter, the legality of Clauses (B) and (C) of paragraph 21 of the Scheme cannot be sustained. Clause (A) of the paragraph, under the circumstances, is rendered meaningless because the Scheme does not arm the Deputy Director of Education either with powers to resolve the dispute, if any, regarding right of management or to direct some other authority to do so and consequently a reference to the Deputy Director of such a dispute would be purposeless. 14. Since in our opinion the legality of the provisions of the Scheme on the basis of which the order under challenge was passed are themselves not in accord with Regulation 14(1), its validity also cannot be upheld. No attempt was made to justify the legality of paragraph 21 of the Scheme except on the basis of Regulation 14(1). We shall presently consider the question as to what relief should, in the circumstances of the case, be granted to the Petitioners but before we proceed to do so, we shall express our opinion regarding the correctness or otherwise of the decisions which necessitated a reference of this case to a Full Bench. 15. Prabandha Samiti T.J.P. Arya Kanya Inter College, Etowah v. State of U.P. (supra) was referred to Division Bench because when it came up for hearing before a learned single Judge he was of the opinion that there was a conflict of view in the two decisions of this Court viz. Adarsh Kanya Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kanpur Vs. 15. Prabandha Samiti T.J.P. Arya Kanya Inter College, Etowah v. State of U.P. (supra) was referred to Division Bench because when it came up for hearing before a learned single Judge he was of the opinion that there was a conflict of view in the two decisions of this Court viz. Adarsh Kanya Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kanpur Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, AIR 1972 All 133 , decided by B.N. Lokur, J. and D.A.V. Inter College Board Meerut v. State of U.P. CMW No. 3273 of 1970, decided by C.D. Parekh, J. on the 10th December, 1970. In Adarsh Kannya Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kanpur v. State of U.P. (supra) Lokur, J. was called upon to decide the validity of Paragraph 20 of a Scheme made u/s 16-A and approved by the Director under Sub-section (5) thereof which was described as 'Emergency provision' and was as follows: (1) When the State Government is of the opinion that circumstances have arisen which have rendered it impossible to carry on properly the administration of the school/college in the normal manner it may appoint; an administrator provided that no such Administrator shall be appointed except-- (a) on the recommendation of the Committee, or (b) on the recommendation of the Director of Education and after allowing the President an opportunity to submit a written explanation against the said recommendation. (2) Upon such appointment being made the Committee and all the office bearers shall stand suspended and all their powers and functions shall vest in the Administrator except that he will not have the authority to take loan for or on behalf of the Society or School/College or to transfer any Immovable property thereof. Exercising powers under this paragraph of the Scheme, the State Government had appointed an Administrator of the Petitioner-institution. It was contended before the learned Judge that paragraph 20 of the Scheme was ultra vires being inconsistent with the Scheme of the Act. It was pointed out that Section 16-D of the Act provided for the appointment of an Authorised Controller where the affairs of the institution were being mismanaged or where the management of the institution had persistently failed in the performance of its duties. It was pointed out that Section 16-D of the Act provided for the appointment of an Authorised Controller where the affairs of the institution were being mismanaged or where the management of the institution had persistently failed in the performance of its duties. It was urged that the Act made adequate provision to deal with a situation of mismanagement of the affairs of the institution and it could not be the function of the Scheme to substitute for or add to the provision of Section 16-D of the Act. The learned Judge found that the contention was sound and held that: Since the Act itself provides for the remedy against the mismanagement of the institution, the scheme of Administration cannot create another alternative remedy inconsistent with the express remedy provided by the Act, moreover, the remedy provided by paragraph 20 of the Scheme of Administration is more stringent than that provided by the Act itself... The contention raised by the learned Standing Counsel, who supported the order passed by the State Government and paragraph 20 of the Scheme that the paragraph of the scheme under consideration and Section 16-D(4) dealt with different situation was repelled. From the judgment as reported it appears that it was also contended by the learned Standing Counsel that Section 16-A which contemplated the formulation of a scheme did not limit the nature of the provisions, and the scheme could, therefore, provide for an emergency. Reliance in support of this contention was placed on the use of the words "amongst other matters occurring in Section 16-A of the Act. The learned Judge held that, Section 16-A(6) states that every institution shall be managed in accordance with the scheme of Administration and this statement places limits on the scope of the Scheme which is to provide a procedure and norms for managing the affairs of the administration by the Management. In my opinion the Scheme of Administration is not intended to make provision against the mis-management by the Committee of Management. No reliance was placed before the learned single Judge on Regulation 14(1) which, n our view, was not applicable to the facts of the case since as is apparent from the judgment as reported there did exist a Committee of Management whose validity was not in dispute. 16. No reliance was placed before the learned single Judge on Regulation 14(1) which, n our view, was not applicable to the facts of the case since as is apparent from the judgment as reported there did exist a Committee of Management whose validity was not in dispute. 16. We requisitioned from the office the record to Writ Petition No. 3273 of 1970 decided by C.D. Parekh, J. on the 10th December 1970. The office informs us that since the old records are being shifted to a new record room the judgment of C.D. Parekh, J. is not traceable. From the registers maintained by the office informaiion has been furnished to us that the judgment of Parekh, J. was challenged in Special Appeal No. 1096 of 1970 but the appeal was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on the 13th March, 1973. The judgment of the special Appeal is also not traceable. From the judgment in Prabandha Samit. Special Appeal is also T.J.P Arva kanva inter College. Etawah v. State of U.P. (supra) it appears that the fact that the judgment of Parekh, J. in D.A.V. Inter College Board, Meerut v. State of U.P. (supra) has been upheld by a Division Bench was not brought to its notice. We are consequently not in a position to persue the provision in the Scheme which was considered by Parekh, J. and the validity of which was upheld by a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal. It is stated in the judgment In Prabandha Samiti T.J.P. Arya Kanya Inter College Etawah (supra) that the paragraph of the scheme, the validity of which was upheld by Parekh, 3 was identical with the paragraph of the Scheme, the legality of which was challenged before B.N. Lokur, J. in the case referred to earlier as also paragraph 20 of the Scheme, the legality of which was examined in Prabandha Samiti T.J.P. Arya Kanya Inter College Etawah. From the judgment rendered in Prabandha Samiti T.J.P. Arya Kanya, Inter College, Etawah it appears that Parekh, J. had taken the view that Section 16-D of the Act did not apply to cases where there was a dispute regarding the constitution of the managing committee and in such cases an order appointing an administrator could be passed under paragraph 31 of the Scheme which was under challenge before him. As earlier stated, the provision of the Scheme of Prabandha Samiti T.J.P. Arya Kanya Inter College, Etawah was identical with the provision examined by Lokur, J. which has already been quoted in an earlier part of this judgment. It was urged in Prabandha Samiti T.J.P. Arya Kanya Inter College, Etawah that paragraph 20 of the Scheme of the Petitioner-institution before the Bench was repugnant to the Act and could not be acted upon by the Government to appoint an Administrator of the Petitioner-Institution. Emphasising the language used in Sub-section (6) of Section 16-A the Bench held that: On the language used in Sub-section (6) of Section 16-A it is clear that the Scheme of Administration must be under and in accordance with Sub-section (1) to Sub-section (5) of that section and Section 16-B and Section 16-C. In other words, the Scheme of Administration cannot provide for any thing which falls outside the scope of the aforesaid provisions of the Act. It was observed that "none of the clauses of Section 16-A of the Act provides for the replacement of a committee of management by an administrator-'. The view was taken that it was obvious that paragraph 20 of the Scheme which was impugned before the Bench travelled beyond the scope of Sub-section (1) to Sub-section (5) of Sections 16-A, 16-B and 16-C and violated the mandate contained in Sub-section (6) of Section 16-A, inasmuch as it is not under and in accordance with the aforesaid provision. Referring to Section 16-D of the Act, it was held that: Now, since the legislature itself provided in the Act this elaborate procedure for dealing with the mismanagement in any educational institution, the Scheme of Administration which is framed by a subsidiary body cannot in the absence of express powers in that regard provide for an alternative procedure for the same purpose which is wholly different from that contained in Section 16-D and even more stringent than that procedure. The petition was, for the reasons stated in the judgment, allowed. B.N. Lokur, J. and the Bench consisting K.B. Asthana, C.J. and J.M.L. Sinha, J. were both concerned with the cases where a provision was made in the Scheme under challenge for replacement of a duly elected Committee of Management and while still in existence it was found to be mismanaging the affairs of the institution. B.N. Lokur, J. and the Bench consisting K.B. Asthana, C.J. and J.M.L. Sinha, J. were both concerned with the cases where a provision was made in the Scheme under challenge for replacement of a duly elected Committee of Management and while still in existence it was found to be mismanaging the affairs of the institution. Neither of the two cases were concerned with a situation where the existence of a valid Committee of Management itself was in doubt or a dispute existed with regard to the Committee of Management entitled to manage the affairs of the Institution. In these cases Reg. 14(1) of the Regulations evidently has no application. There are, however, observations contained in the judgments which might give rise to the contention that in no event can a provision be made in a Scheme for an administrator being appointed or other arrangement being made to manage the affairs of a recognised institution, except in accordance with Section 16-D of the Act. If these judgments intended to lay down any such proposition, we respectfully disagree. A mere perusal of Section 16-D of the Act discloses that it only deals with a situation where a duly elected Committee of Management does exist or is in any case recognised as such and yet it is mismanaging the affairs of the institution. Sub-section (2) of Section 16-D as a condition precedent for passing of orders under the subsequent Sub-sections requires the Director to direct the management to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise. It is only when the management fails to comply with directions made under Sub-section (2) that steps contemplated by the subsequent sub-sections can be taken. Section 16-D in our opinion, had no relevance where the existence of a valid Committee of Management itself is in doubt or there is a dispute between two rival bodies contending to be the duly elected Committee of Management. If the views taken by C.D. Parekh, J. in D.A.V. Inter College Board, Meerut v. State of U.P. have been rightly expressed in Prabandha Samiti T.J.P. Arya Kanya Inter College, Etawah, we are in agreement with him. 17. The question still remains as to what relief should be granted to the Petitioners and directions issued to the Respondents. 18. Though Petitioners Nos. 17. The question still remains as to what relief should be granted to the Petitioners and directions issued to the Respondents. 18. Though Petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 assert that they were validly elected as the manager and the Committee of Management of the College at a meeting held on 3rd July, 1977, counter affidavits have been filed by Bashishtha Lal Srivastava on behalf of Ram Prasad Tripathi, President of the Society, Durga Prasad Srivastava on behalf of the Deputy Director of Education and Lalsa Yadav on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools. In all of them the Petitioner's claim has been denied and it has been asserted that no meeting was held on the 3rd July, 1977 or in any event the meeting, if any held, was invalid. It is significant to note that Ram Prasad Tripathi (Respondent No. 4) according to paragraph 4 of the petition itself is alleged to have been elected Adhyaksh of the Committee of Management on 3rd July, 1977. It was he who, as would appear from the annexures of the counter-affidavits of Bashishtha Lal Srivastava and various reports submitted by officers of the department, moved the Deputy Director of Education for appointment of an administrator. Though the allegations contained in the counter-affidavits have been denied, the affidavit accompanying the petition and rejoinder-affidavit have both been verified by Petitioner No. 2 who is a highly interested person. Under the circumstances, it is not unreasonable to hold that there are very remote chances of the Petitioners having been legally elected as Manager or the Committee of Management of the College. In any event, even if the Petitioner's case were to be accepted, the term of office of the Petitioners would expire on the 3rd July, 1980. We consequently while allowing this petition and quashing the impugned order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 3rd July, 1977, as well as the order dated 2nd August, 1979 passed during the pendency of this petition direct that under orders of this Court Respondent No. 3 shall continue to discharge the functions of the Committee of Management till such time as a fresh election for the Committee of Management is held. We further direct that Respondent No. 2 will take immediate steps for election of the office-bearers and members of the Committee of Management within a period of two months from today.