JUDGMENT M.N. Shukla, J. - These two writ petitions raise more or less common points of facts and law for decision and may, therefore, be conveniently disposed of together. They relate to a dispute with regard to the Committee of Management. Nonapur Inter. College, Nonapur, district Kanpur between two rival factions lei by Sri Anant Ram (Petitioner No. 2) and Sri Gaya Prasad Shastri (Respondent No. 2) respectively, each of whom claims to be the Manager of the institution. The crucial date in the case is 13-11-197 7 when the election of the Committee of Management is alleged to have been held. The version of the petitioners is that in the said election Petitioner No. 2 and some other members along with him were elected members of the Committee of Management whereas according to tee respondents in the election in held on the same date Respondent No. 2 was elected as the Manager of the Committee of Management. It may be noted that the proceedings or election in the meeting dated 13-11-1977 were conducted under the supervision of an observer sent by the then District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur. However, on 13-1-1978 the then District Inspector of Schools verified the signature of petitioner No. 2 who claimed to be the Manager elected. The contention of the respondent is that this was done without any knowledge to Respondent No. 2, that the proceedings book of the alleged election favour of petitioner no. 2 was never submitted by him before the District Inspector of Schools while respondent no. 2 submitted the proceedings book of the election in his favour before the District Inspector of Schools Kanpur The latter bore the signature of the observer in whose personae the election of the Committee of Management had been conducted. Therefore, the allegation of respondent no. 2 is that the then District Inspector of Schools, without taking into consideration the minutes of the meeting and the respect of the observer had vilified the signature of petitioner no. 2 on 13 1-1978. A perusal of the minute of the riveting (Annexure 2 to the counter-affidavit of respondent no. 2) shows that respondent no. 2 and others had been elected members of the Committee oI Management and respondent no. 2 had been elected as the Manager. 1 hereafter respondent no. 2 on 13 1-1978. A perusal of the minute of the riveting (Annexure 2 to the counter-affidavit of respondent no. 2) shows that respondent no. 2 and others had been elected members of the Committee oI Management and respondent no. 2 had been elected as the Manager. 1 hereafter respondent no. 2 approached the District Inspector of Schools for attestation of his signature and then he came to know of the fact that the signature of petitioner no. 2 as Manager of the Institution had already been verified. In these circumstances the District Inspector of Schools passed another order on 31-5-1978 whereby he recognised Sri Anant Ram (petitioner no. 2) and directed that Sri Gaya Prasad Shastri (respondent no. 2) who had been Manager prior to the election held on 13-11-1977 would continue to be recognised as the Manager of the institution. It was against this order that petitioner no. 1 filed Civil Misc. Writ No. 4997 of 1978 which was allowed by this Court on 15-11-1978 and the order of the District Inspector of Schools dated 31-5-1978 was quashed on the sole ground that it had been passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to petitioner no. 2 who had earlier been recognised as the Manager of the College by order dated 13-1-1978. 2. It is alleged that in the mean time two persons belonging to the group of petitioner no. 2 had filed Civil Suit No. 35 of 1977 on 19-11-1977 in the Court of Munsif, Hawaii, Kanpur challenging the Validity of the election dated 13-11-1977 of the Committee of Management in which respondent no. 2 was elected as Manager. This suit was dismissed on 22-12-1978 On the basis of this decree of the civil court the District Inspector of Schools passed another order on 5-1-1979 accepting respondent no. 2 as the Manager. The petitioners challenged the above order by filing Civil Misc. Writ No. 395 of 1979 which was admitted on 12-1-1979 by this court and an interim order was also passed staying the opera lion of the-impugned Older. During the pendency of that writ petition the District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 1-2-1979 recalling his order dated 5-1-1979 and called upon both parties to appear before him with all the documents etc. During the pendency of that writ petition the District Inspector of Schools passed an order dated 1-2-1979 recalling his order dated 5-1-1979 and called upon both parties to appear before him with all the documents etc. on which they pro nosed to rely for determining the legality or otherwise of the election dated 13-11-1977 with regard the Committee of Management The petitioner applied for amendment of the writ petition for the purpose of adding another relief, namely the quashing of the other of the District Inspector of Schools dated 1-2-1979. The amendment application was allowed and the operation of the order dated 1-2-1979 was stayed. That stay order was later vacated on 15-10-1979. Both parties were invited by the District Inspector of Schools for proving their respective claims. Accordingly they appeared b fore him on 3-11-1979 and after hearing them and scrutinising the material furnished by them the District Inspector of Schools passed the order dated 19-11-1979 recognising respondent no. 2 as the Manager of the institution. Civil Misc. Writ No. 9843 of 1979 is directed against that order. 3. It may be noticed that the order dated 5-1-1979 which was the subject-matter of Civil Misc. Writ No. 395 of 1979 had been latter recalled by the District Inspector of Schools himself and hence that writ petition has become virtually infructuous. Of course, the subsequent order dated 1-2-1979 wherein the District Inspector of Schools said that he would hear both parties again on the matter in controversy has also been challenged in that writ petition by means of an amendment but as a result of the hearing afforded to both parties the order dated 19-11-1979 was passed which is the subject-matter of Civil Misc Writ No. 9843 of 1979. Hence, the real question which now arises for decision is as to whether the order dated 19-11-1979 is valid. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioners was that the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter and review his previous order dated 13-1-1979 recognising petitioner no 2 as the Manager of the College. In this connection it is significant that in the decision of this Court dated 15-11-1978 passed in Civil Misc. The only point urged on behalf of the petitioners was that the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter and review his previous order dated 13-1-1979 recognising petitioner no 2 as the Manager of the College. In this connection it is significant that in the decision of this Court dated 15-11-1978 passed in Civil Misc. writ No. 4997 of 1978 there was no adjudication on the merits of the dispute and the order dated 31-5-1978 had been quashed on the solitary ground that it had been passed without giving an opportunity of hearing o petitioner no. 2. In other words, there was no order restraining the District Inspector of Schools from deciding the matter in dispute after hearing both parties. 4. The jurisdiction of the District Inspector of Schools to adjudicate upon the rival claims of two contending Committees of Management lies within a very short and narrow compass The full and final determination of such controversy belongs to the domain of civil court by meant of a declaration of the rights of the parties. The District Inspector of Schools has only a limited jurisdiction to pass a tentative, administrative order accepting one Committee or the other on prima facie material for the purpose of carrying on the management of an institution least there may cheas and the functioning of the institution may be paralysed. Having once taken such an administrative decision it is not open to the District Inspector of Schools to review that order but this clog on his power is subject to the well or own exception that an order can always be reviewed if it is established that it had been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts or in contravention of the principles of natural justice. See Jaswant Singh and another v. District inspector of Schools and others, 1980 A L.J. 174 : 1980 U.P.L B.E.C. 43. We have already seen that in the instant case there was no prohibition at any stage against the District Inspector of Schools arriving at a tentative order after hearing both parties as to which one of them constituted the validly elected Committee of Management. Hence, the impugned order of review would not he vulnerable if it was passed on the finding, express or implied, that the order dated 13-1-1978 had been obtained by misrepresentation of facts etc. Hence, the impugned order of review would not he vulnerable if it was passed on the finding, express or implied, that the order dated 13-1-1978 had been obtained by misrepresentation of facts etc. We have carefully persued the impugned order and in our opinion such finding is implicit therein because the District Inspector of Schools has mentioned a number of circumstances which warrant the inference that the previous order had been procured by suppression of material facts. He has found that the order dated 13-1-1978 had been obtained from the then District Inspector of Schools without any notice to respondent no. 2, that the District Inspector of Schools intimated the order to respondent no. 2 for the first time by his letter dated 6-3-1978, that the order dated 13-1-1978 had been procured by the petitioners by deliberately concealing the fact that a suit with regard to the same matter had already been instituted in the court of Munsif, Hawaii, Kanpur on 19-11-1977 and was pending, that the said suit had been ostensible filed by two out of the seven members of the Society who supported petitioner no. 2 but it was really instituted at the instance of petitioner no. 2 that in the meeting of the Committee of Management held on 12-11-1977 petitioner no. 2 had enrolled some new members without any notice to respondent no. 2 and that such freshly enrolled members had illegally participated in the election of the Committee of Management, that the order dated 13-1-1978 had been passed by the then District Inspector of Schools without taking into consideration the order of the Registrar Co-operative Societies dated 24-8-1979 whereby the list of 24 members of the Society presented by respondent no. 2 for renewal of registration had been accepted as valid with effect from 10-11-1977. It had been specifically observed in the impugned order that the then District Inspector of Schools had been persuaded to pass the order dated 13-1-1971 on the basis of the various receipts and proceedings registers etc. relating to the members newly enrolled by petitioner no. 2, which had been rejected as taken by the Registrar before-passing his order dated 24-8-1979 after hearing both parties. relating to the members newly enrolled by petitioner no. 2, which had been rejected as taken by the Registrar before-passing his order dated 24-8-1979 after hearing both parties. Thus it is abundantly clear that there was overwhelming material before the District Inspector of Schools to demonstrate that the order dated 13-1-1978 had been procured by misrepresentation and deliberate suppression of facts and also by infringing the principles of natural justice inasmuch as it was without any no ice to respondent no 2 Obviously, there could be no legal inhibition for reviewing a previous order secured in such a questionable manner. It was imperative for carrying on the management of the College that some administrative decision be taken by the District Inspector of Schools and precisely with that end in view the impugned order was passed which would ensure until a declaration of rights of the parties by a competent court. In such circumstances the principal objection of the petitioners on which the two writ petitions appear to be founded viz , that the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to reopen the matter, is untenable. 5. We, therefore, find no force in these writ petitions and they are dismissed with costs and the stay orders passed therein are discharged.