JUDGMENT S.D. Agarwala, J. - The dispute in the present petition relates to the management of Janta Uchhatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya situated in the village Dhumari. Aliganj Road. Etach. This college is run by a Society known as Janta Shiksha Pracharini Samiti. An election of the Committee of Management of the said college took place on. 19-1-1978 and Naurangi Lal Yadav was elected as Manager of the said college for a period of three years. When the three years' period was about to pass, a fresh election took place on 19-1-1981 on that date a fresh Committee of Management was elected and the Manager elected was Naurangi Lal Yadav who had also been elected in the year 1978. 2. The papers in relation to the election held in 1981 were submitted to the District Inspector of Schools, Etach, who by an order dated 11th Feb. 1981 approved the election and recognised Naurangi Lal Yadav as a Manager of the college and attested his signatures. Subsequently, Anand Prakash Gupta, the respondent No. 3, moved an application before the Deputy Director of Education, Agra, the respondent No. 1, stating therein that he and other residents of the village Dhumari where the college was situated, were not given adequate opportunity for enrolling themselves as members of the Society, hence, the election held on 19th Jan., 1981 was an invalid election. The Deputy Director of Education by an order dated 4th July, 1981, passed an order setting aside the election held on 19th Jan., 1981 on the ground that the residents of village Dhumari did not get an opportunity of becoming the members of the Society and directed a fresh election to be held. He further found that Naurangi Lal Yadav was in actual control of the affairs of the college and issued a direction that he would continue to remain in actual control of the college till fresh election took place as directed by him. This order dated 4th July, 1981 has been challenged in the present petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. This order dated 4th July, 1981 has been challenged in the present petition. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that under S. 16-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the Deputy Director is only called upon to decide as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the institution and he has no power to set aside the election and as such the order passed by the Deputy Director is wholly without jurisdiction. 5. S. 16-A (7) was inserted by the U. P. Act No. I of 1981 (The Intermediate Education (Amendment) Act, 1980). This Act was published in the U. P. Gazette Extraordinary dated 11th Feb., 1981. Sub-cl. (7) which has been inserted in S. 16-A, is as follows : "(7) Whenever there is dispute with respect to the Management of an institution, persons found by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, upon such enquiry as is deemed fit, to be in actual control of its affairs, may, for purposes of this Act, be recognised to constitute the Committee of Management of such institution until a Court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise : Provided that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall, before making an order under this sub-section, afford reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make representations in writing. Explanation - In determining the question as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the institution, the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall have regard to the control over the funds of the institution and over the administration, the receipt of income from its properties, the Scheme of Administration approved under sub-sec. (5) and other relevant circumstances." 6. On a reading of the above sub-cl. (7) it is clear that the Regional Deputy Director of Education is required to decide as to which of the rival claimants is in actual control of the affairs of the institution in a case where a bona fide dispute has arisen with respect to the management of the institution. On a reading of the above sub-cl. (7) it is clear that the Regional Deputy Director of Education is required to decide as to which of the rival claimants is in actual control of the affairs of the institution in a case where a bona fide dispute has arisen with respect to the management of the institution. If a person raises a dispute with mala fide object to retain the actual control over the institution, the Regional Deputy Director of Education would be justified in holding that there is no valid bona fide dispute and consequently it would not be necessary for him to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him to decide the factum of actual control. This position is clear on a reading of the proviso to sub-cl. (7) where the Legislature has categorically laid down that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall pass an order under sub-cl. (7) after giving a reasonable opportunity to the rival claimants to make a representation in writing. 7. The intention of the legislature in inserting sub-cl. (7) appears to be that where a bona fide dispute has arisen in respect of the management of the institution, the Regional Deputy Director of Education as an interim arrangement could direct as to which person should constitute the committee of management till a competent Court finally decides the dispute, so as to secure a peaceful administration in the College avoiding irreparable injury to the cause of education in the institution. 8. The Deputy Director of Education being a statutory authority constituted under the Act has to act within the four corners of the powers conferred on it under the provision of the Act. Under sub-cl. (7) the only power given to the Regional Deputy Director of Education is that it has to determine as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the college, under sub-cl. (7) a person who does not claim any right in the management cannot approach the Deputy Director of Education on the ground that he did not get an opportunity of becoming a member of the society and consequently was denied an opportunity to take part in the election. In the instant case Anand Prakash Gupta is not claiming any right in the management of the institution. In the instant case Anand Prakash Gupta is not claiming any right in the management of the institution. His only claim before the Deputy Director of Education was that he was denied an opportunity of becoming a member of the society and as such he could not take part in the election of the committee of management. This dispute was not cognizable by the Deputy Director of Education under sub-cl. (7) and hence the Deputy Director of Education has acted without jurisdiction in setting aside the election on the ground that Anand Prakash Gupta did not have an opportunity of becoming a member of the society. 9. In the instant case the Deputy Director of Education by the impugned order has recorded a finding that Naurangi Lal Yadav is in actual control of the affairs of the college. The Deputy Director of Education consequently after finding that Naurangi Lal Yadav is in actual control, should have recognised Naurangi Lal Yadav as Manager to run the college till the dispute is decided by a competent court. It had no jurisdiction to set aside the election on the ground that the respondent No. 3 did not have an opportunity to become a member of the Society which runs the college. In our opinion, therefore, the submission raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is well founded and the petition is liable to succeed. 10. In the result, the petition is allowed. The order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 4-7-1981 is quashed. In the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their own costs.