JUDGMENT N.D. Ojha, J. - Shri Annapurna Shiksha Parishad, Gurvalia, Deoria, is is a registered society (hereinafter referred to as the Society). It runs an intermediate college known as Chri Annapurna Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Gurvalia, Deoria (hereinafter referred to as the College). The affairs of the College are looked after by a committee of management constituted in accordance with the scheme of administration framed under Section 16-A of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). One of the elections of the committee of management of the College was held in the year 1978 and petitioner no. 3 was elected as the manager of the committee of management in that election. The term of the Committee of Management was three years under the scheme of administration. According to the petitioners an election of the committee of management was held on 17th May, 1981, in which petitioner no. 3 was again elected as the manager. Respondents 3 and 4 on the other hand set up a case that on the same date a meeting of the Society was held in the evening in which respondent no. 3 was elected the President and respondent no. 4 the Manager of the committee of management. Since a dispute in this behalf arose the matter came up for determination before the Deputy Director of Education, VII Region, Gorakhpur, respondent no. 1 in pursuance of the requirements oi sub-section (7) of Section 16-A of the Act as inserted by U.P. Act 1 of 1981. Respondent no. 1 by his order 3rd August, 1911 held that respondents 3 and 4 were in effective control of the affairs of the institution is completed by sub-section (7) of Section 16-A of the Ac, as President and Manager of the committee of management respectively having been elected as such on 17th May, 1981. It is this clear of respondent no. 1 which is sought to be quashed in the present writ petition. 2. It was urged by counsel for the petitioners the impugned order deserves to be quashed inasmuch as it is partly based on irrelevant considerations and partly on material which was never brought to the notice of the petitioners so as to enable them to give an effective reply in respect of that material. 3. 2. It was urged by counsel for the petitioners the impugned order deserves to be quashed inasmuch as it is partly based on irrelevant considerations and partly on material which was never brought to the notice of the petitioners so as to enable them to give an effective reply in respect of that material. 3. Before dealing with that the various submissions made by counsel for the petitioners we consider it necessary to narrate at this place in brief some more facts. According to respondents 3 and 4 in a meeting of the Society held on 3rd May, 1981, a vote of no-confidence was passed against the President, the Vice-President and the Manager of the committee of management elected in 1978 and on the same date respondent no. 3 was elected as the President and respondent no. 4 as the manager of the College for the remaining term of the committee of management. Their case further was that on 3rd May, 1981 itself it was decided to hold another meeting of the Society on 17th May, 1981, to elect a new committee of management and that in pursuance of that resolution a meeting of the Society was held on 17th May, 1981, in which respondent no. 3 was elected as the President and respondent no. 4 as the manager of the College. 4. In reply to the case set up by respondents 3 and 4 it was asserted by the petitioners that neither the meeting said to have been held on 3rd May, 1981, nor the meeting said to have been held on 17th May, 1981, according to respondents 3 and 4 was validity convened. It was asserted by the petitioners that if the meetings had not been convened in accordance with the relevant provisions of the scheme of administration in this behalf even if it may be accepted for the sake of argument that any of the said meetings w is held on 3rd May, 1981, or 17th May, 1981, the entire proceedings of this meeting were invalid. 5. The Deputy Director of Education while repelling the case of the petitioners in this behalf has relied on three requisitions said to have been made by certain members of the society on 2nd January, 1981, 3rd February, 1981, and 14th March, 1981. 5. The Deputy Director of Education while repelling the case of the petitioners in this behalf has relied on three requisitions said to have been made by certain members of the society on 2nd January, 1981, 3rd February, 1981, and 14th March, 1981. The Deputy-Director of Education has held that since notwithstanding the requisitions referred to above no meeting was convened by either the President or the Manager elected in the year 1978 there, appeared to be nothing illegal if the meeting of 3rd May, 1981, was convented on the requisition of some of the members of the Society. 6. Reverting back to the submissions made by counsel for the petitioners it may be pointed out that it has been emphatically asserted by them that no material to the knowledge of the petitioner was placed before the Deputy Director of Education indicating that any requisitions had been made on 2nd January, 1981, 3rd February, 1981, or 14th March, 1981. Reliance in this behalf has been placed on the representation made by respondent no. 4 before the Deputy Director of Education a copy whereof has been filed as Annexure 13 to the Writ Petition, as also on the reply given by respondent no. 4 to the representation made by the petitioners a copy of which reply has been filed as Annexure 15 to the writ petition. It has been pointed out that in the original representation which was made by respondent no. 4 it was not even stated that any requisitions had been made for convening a meeting but they were ignored by the President or the Manager of the committee of management. It has again been pointed out that even though in his reply respondent no. 4 had stated in paragraph 14 that no meetings were convened notwithstanding several requisitions having been made, dates on which these requisitions were made were not stated in the reply. The list of documents which were filed as annexures to the representation made by respondent no. 4 is not to be found at the foot of the representation itself. Even in that list there was no reference of any of these requisitions. According to counsel for the petitioners it has not clear as to from what source respondent no. 3 gathered this information that three requisitions were made on 2nd January, 1981, 3rd February, 1981, and 14th March, 1981. Even in that list there was no reference of any of these requisitions. According to counsel for the petitioners it has not clear as to from what source respondent no. 3 gathered this information that three requisitions were made on 2nd January, 1981, 3rd February, 1981, and 14th March, 1981. In this connection it has also been urged that if at any stage it was behind the back of the petitioners brought to the notice of the Deputy Director of Education that requisitions were made on the three dates mentioned above, it was the duty of the Deputy Director of Education to have apprised the petitioners of this act and given an opportunity to them to give their reply but this was not done. Emphasis has been placed strongly on the circumstance that copies of any of these requisition have not been filed even in this Court along with the counter-affidavit. 7. Haying heard counsel for the parties we find substance in this submission. It does not appear the petitioners were ever apprised of the three requisitions stated above and naturally they were not in a position to give any reply in respect of these requisitions before the Deputy Director of Education. Another circumstance which is relevant in this connection is that it has been mentioned even in the impugned order that copies of the annexures attached to the representation made by respondent no. 4 were not supplied to the petitioners Respondent no. 4 was required to supply these copies but there is no mention in the impugned order that copies of these annexures were ever supplied to them. On the ether hand the impugned order indicates that it was only the copy of the representation made by one party which was supplied to the other party. As such it also stands established that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to give any reply to the annexures of the representation made by respondent no. 4 as has been strenuously urged by their counsel. 8. As such it also stands established that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to give any reply to the annexures of the representation made by respondent no. 4 as has been strenuously urged by their counsel. 8. The dispute as seen above before the Deputy Director of Education was as to which of the two meetings said to have been held on 17th May, 1981, was valid and in this connection if any inquiry was to be made in regard to the by embers of the Society who are said to have participated in these members as it stood on the date of election. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, however, indicates that he required the petitioners to produce evidence in regard to the members of the Society who participated in the election of the year 1978. Same of the papers which were required by by the Deputy Director of Education to be produced by the petitioners in this record having not been produced by the petitioners the Deputy Director of Education drew an inference against the petitioners. In our opinion since the validity or ether wise of the netting of 1978 was not in issue before the Deputy Director of Education the point for determination on the ether hard was rs to who were the members who were entitled to participate in the meetings said to have been held on 17th hay, 1981, inquiry in this behalf alone was material. In this behalf it was urged by counsel for respondents 3 and 4 that the Deputy Director of Education had r ally required the petitioners to produce evidence in regard to the election of 1978 to ensure as to whether the same members were still continuing or net. We are not inclined to accept this submission firstly because the Deputy Director of Education has not said in his order, and secondly this is not even otherwise borne out. True copy of the representation filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Director of Education has been filed as annexure 14 to the writ petition. Annexure 1 to this representation was a list of the members of the Society at the lime when the election in 1978 had taken place. True copy of the representation filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Director of Education has been filed as annexure 14 to the writ petition. Annexure 1 to this representation was a list of the members of the Society at the lime when the election in 1978 had taken place. If the Deputy Director waned to ensure whether are same members w ere still continuing or not this impose was severed by the aforesaid document. There was no occasion to require the petitioners to produce evidence to prove that the members mentioned in the said list had been correctly enrolled. 9. One of the grounds being ground No. F taken in the writ petition is that the petitioners had produced relevant documents to prove that they were it effective control of the affairs of the college and its administration and in view of those documents the impugned order deserved to be set aside. A copy of the representation filed by the petitioners before the Deputy Director of Education has, as already pointed out abuse, been filed as Annexure 14 to the writ petition. Its perusal indicates that as much as twenty-three documents were filed as annexures thereto. These documents prima facie appear to be containing material evidence for determination of the question which fell for consideration before the Deputy Director of Education. Strongly enough almost all of them baring perhaps one or two have been completely ignored by the Deputy Director of Education. In Nanha v. Deputy Director Consolidation, AIR 1976 All 91 a Full Bench of this Court held that if it appears that a court of fact has in substance based its findings on no evidence or that its finding is perverse in the sense that no reasonable per-on could possibly come to that conclusion or that it erroneously ignores a vital pica or material evidence which effects the result, a manifest error of law apparent on the face of the record leading to failure of justice can be said to be established. 10. Having heard counsel for the parties and given our anxious consideration to the matter we are opinion that the impugned order suffers from most of the defects pointed out in Nanhds ease (supra). 10. Having heard counsel for the parties and given our anxious consideration to the matter we are opinion that the impugned order suffers from most of the defects pointed out in Nanhds ease (supra). Further the said order is in violation of principles of natural justice as the petitioners were not given reasonable opportunity to meet the case set out by respondent 3 and 4 as already pointed out above. The said, order cannot, therefore, be sustained. 11. The impugned order has been passed by Shri Indu Prakash Singh as Deputy Director of Education, 7th Region, Gorakhpur, Since he has already expressed his opinion in the matter we re of opinion that the matter should now be decided in pursuance of this order be some other Deputy Director of Education nominated by the Director of Education '(Secondary on Education). In case, however, Shri Indu Prakash Singh has already been transferred and the case in now to be decided by some other Deputy Director of Education it will not be necessary for the Director of Education to make any nomination. 12. Before parting with the case we also consider it necessary to answer a technical plea raised by counsel for respondents 3 and 4 to the effect that the name petitioner no. 1 had been mention in the writ petition as Shri Annapurna Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalya, Gurvalia, Deoria, and not as Shri Annapurna Shiksha Parishad, Gurvalia, Deoria, an consequently the writ Petition was not maintainable. In paragraph 5 of the joinder-affidavit it has been stated that the correct name of the Society was Annapurna Shiksha Parishad but it was due to in advertence that it was mis-described in the writ petition. Reliance has been placed on Annexure 1 filed along with the writ Petition which discloses the correct name of the Society. We are satisfied that the mistake in typing out the name of petitioner no. 1 is inadvertant. It is not the case of respondents 3 and 4 that there are two societies one known as Annapurna Shiksha Parishad and the other known as Annapurna Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya. In fact Annapurna Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya is the name of the College which as pointed out above is being run by the Society. Further the writ petition would still have been maintainable even petitioner no. 1 had not been impleaded at all. 13. In fact Annapurna Uchchattar Madhyamik Vidyalaya is the name of the College which as pointed out above is being run by the Society. Further the writ petition would still have been maintainable even petitioner no. 1 had not been impleaded at all. 13. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 3rd August, 1981, passed by respondent no. 1 is quashed and the matter which came up for consideration before respondent no. 1 and which was decided by the impugned order shall now be decided afresh in the manner stated above. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.