JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - These three petitions are being disposed of by a common judgment as the disputes giving rise to the same are inter-connected. 2. There is a College named Adarsh Uchchatar Madhyarnik Vidyalaya in village Narhi, district Ballia. It is run by a registered society called' Adarsh Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya. Narhi. Ballia. Two groups - one led by Sri Gauri Shanker Rai and Chandrakesh Rai and the other by Sri Vishwanath Rai - have been claiming to be the validly elected Committee of Management and its office-hearers entitled to manage the affairs of the said College. Both of them are aggrieved by various orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Ballia from time to time between 1980 and 1983. 3. Writ petition No. 6875 of 1980 has been filed by one Sri Gauri Shanker Rai and Chandrakesh Rai who claimed respectively to be the President and the Manager of the Committee of Management. We will dispose of this petition first. 4. The relevant facts are that under the supervision of the Authorised Controller who was appointed' by the Government under S. 16-D(5) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. the election to the Committee of Management of the College was held on 13-2-1979 at which Gauri Shanker Rai (Petitioner No. 1 herein) was elected as the President, Sri Vishwanath Rai, the respondent No. 2 as the Manager and Sri Chandrakesh Rai (Petitioner No. 2 herein) as the Deputy Manager. It appears that soon after this election disputes started between the rival groups, with Gauri Shanker Rai and Chandrakesh Rai ranged on one side and Vishwanath Rai on the other. The Registrar of Societies referred the dispute to the Sub-divisional Magistrate under S. 25 of the Societies Registration Act. The Sub-divisional Magistrate eventually passed on order on 3-5-1982 recognising Gauri Shanker Rai and Chandrakesh Rai as the validly elected President and Manager of the Society. This order has been challenged by Sri Vishwanath Rai in the second writ petition No. 10413 of 1982. 5. On 29-3-1980 an emergent meeting was called by Gauri Shanker Rai, President at which it is alleged that Sri Vishwanath Rai was removed from the office of the Manager. This order has been challenged by Sri Vishwanath Rai in the second writ petition No. 10413 of 1982. 5. On 29-3-1980 an emergent meeting was called by Gauri Shanker Rai, President at which it is alleged that Sri Vishwanath Rai was removed from the office of the Manager. Sri Vishwanath Rai on the other hand is stated to have held a meeting of the `general body of the Society on the next day, that is, 30th March 1980 at which the general body is said to have passed a resolution dissolving the Managing Committee elected on 13-2-1979. This gave rise to a dispute as a consequence of which the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 8-4-1980 restraining both sides from operating the accounts of the College until further orders. On 14-4-1980 it is stated that the petitioner No. 1 held a meeting electing Chandrakesh Rai as the Manager and sent the information to the District Inspector of Schools with a request that the change maybe noted. 6. In view of these developments the District Inspector of Schools passed an order on 10-6-1980 directing single operation of the accounts of the College. This order was passed by Mohd. Wasi Khan, the then District Inspector of, Schools. 7. The said District Inspector of Schools took cognizance of the aforesaid dispute and after giving the parties opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims and after hearing them passed a detailed order on 13-6-1980 holding that the Committee of management elected on 13-2-1979 was entitled to continue to manage the affairs of the Institution and he further directed that in accordance with the decision taken by the Committee of Management in its meeting held on 3-3-1980 the account of the College shall be jointly operated by the President and the Manager of the Committee of Management. Thereafter on 4-7-1980 Sri Ram Lakhan Pandey took over as the District Inspector of Schools from Sri Mohd. Wasi Khan and by the impugned order passed on 1-8-1980 he reviewed the order dated 13-6-1980 passed by his predecessor. 8. Two contentions have been raised in support of the writ petition No. 6875 of 1980 which is directed against the aforesaid order dated 1-8-1980. These are : 1. The District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to review the order passed by his predecessor on 13-6-1980. 2. 8. Two contentions have been raised in support of the writ petition No. 6875 of 1980 which is directed against the aforesaid order dated 1-8-1980. These are : 1. The District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to review the order passed by his predecessor on 13-6-1980. 2. No opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioners before the District Inspector of Schools passed the impugned order dated 1-8-1980. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are clearly of the opinion that both these contentions are right. 10. Both these points are being dealt with together. The legal position seems indisputable namely that the District Inspector of Schools was not invested either under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act or the Regulations framed thereunder to review an order passed on merits recognising a Managing Committee as a body which is for the time being in effective control of the management of the Institution. As an administrative authority the District Inspector of Schools could exercise only such powers and functions as were specifically conferred upon him by the applicable statutes. It is thus apparent that the District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to review the order dated 13-6- 1980. The same view has been taken in the case of Jaswant Singh v. The District Inspector of Schools, reported in 1980 U.P. LBEC 43 : 1980 All LJ 174 in which a Division Bench of this court held that the District Inspector of Schools after having once passed an order on merits for the limited purpose of performing duties and functions cast upon him under the relevant Statutes, recognising any group of individuals as being in effective control of the management, has no jurisdiction to review his order later, unless it is established that the said order was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. The Division Bench further held that even in cases of fraud or misrepresentation, the District Inspector of Schools must not recall his earlier order without giving opportunity of hearing to the person in whose favour the earlier order was passed. 11. The same principle has been reiterated by this court in a subsequent decision in the case of Mohan Lal Sharma v. The District Inspector of Schools Muzaffarnagar, reported in 1982 U.P. LBEC 213. 11. The same principle has been reiterated by this court in a subsequent decision in the case of Mohan Lal Sharma v. The District Inspector of Schools Muzaffarnagar, reported in 1982 U.P. LBEC 213. Although that was a case relating to the grant of approval of appointment of a teacher under S. 16-E of the Intermediate Education Act, the principle therein enunciated was the same namely the in the absence of any statutory provision the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to review his order except on the grounds of fraud or misrepresentation in which case also the order should not be recalled without affording opportunity of hearing to the affected parties. 12. We are in agreement with the law laid down in the aforesaid decisions and hold that the order dated 1-8-1980 passed by the District Inspector of Schools is clearly without jurisdiction as he had no power of review, and admittedly no opportunity was afforded to the petitioners before passing the same. In paragraph 36 of the petition it has been categorically averred that no opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioners by the District Inspector of Schools before passing the impugned order. This assertion has not been denied by the contesting respondent. The stand taken by the contesting respondent in his counter- affidavit however, is that the relevant records were already before the District Inspector of Schools, when the order dated 13-6-1980 was passed and that consequently any further opportunity to the petitioners for hearing was unnecessary. 13. We do not agree with the respondents' contention. On the principle spelled out above the District Inspector of Schools was bound to inform the petitioner of any action proposed to be taken by him in pursuance of the various letters and communications received by him from the rival group and to call upon the petitioners to submit their version in regard thereto before passing the impugned order dated 1- 8-1980. This was admittedly not done. 14. Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that this petition has become infructuous because three year term of the Committee of Management elected on 13-2- 1979 has come to an end. We cannot agree. Under the scheme of administration of the College the term of the Committee of Management does not automatically come to an end on the expiry of three years. We cannot agree. Under the scheme of administration of the College the term of the Committee of Management does not automatically come to an end on the expiry of three years. It expends till a new Committee of Management is duly elected. 15. In the result writ petition No. 6875 of 1980 is entitled to succeed and the order dated 1-8-1980 is liable to be quashed. 16. We next turn to the second petition namely Writ Petition No. 10413 of 1982 which has been filed by the Committee of Management through its then Manager and Secretary, Sri Vishwanath Rai. In this petition three orders have been challenged namely the order dated 3-5-1982 whereby the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Ballia purporting to exercise powers as the Prescribed Authority under section 25 of the Societies Registration Act upon a reference made to him by the Registrar disposed of a dispute between the petitioners and the contesting respondents Chandrakesh Rai holding that Sri Gauri Shanker Rai was the President and Sri Chandrakesh Rai was the Secretary of the Society and accorded recognition to the said office-bearers. The second and the third orders dated 10th June 1982 and 25th June 1982 are those which have been passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia. The latter of these two--orders are in the nature of consequential orders whereby the District Inspector of Schools has, relying on the first order dated 3-5-1982, merely attested the signatures of Sri Chandrakesh Rai for the purposes of payment of salary to the teachers and staff of the institution. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, confined his submissions mainly to attacking the validity of the order dated 3-5-1982 passed by the Sub-divisional Magistrate. 17. His main contention was that S. 25 of the Societies Registration Act becomes attracted only when the dispute is as regards the election or continuance in office of office-bearers of the Society and not where the dispute is between rival committees of management, in which case, according to the learned counsel, the dispute is referable under S. 3-B of the Societies Registration Act to the State Government. 18. We find no merit in the above contention. 19. 18. We find no merit in the above contention. 19. The dispute was referred by the Registrar by an order dated 17th (August 1979 as a result of objections filed by the petitioner on 14-2-1979 against the reeistration of a society called "Shiksha Society" Adarsh Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Narhi, Ballia" of which Baleshwar Rai claimed to be the Secretary. From a perusal of the objections filed as well as the referring order passed by the Registrar dated 17-8-1979 it is apparent that the dispute was in substance one with regard to the election of the office-bearers of the Society and hence it was clearly referable under S. 25 of the Societies Registration Act. In the referring order, too, the Registrar has asked the Sub-divisional Magistrate to give a decision after hearing the parties as to which of the contenders are the validly elected office-bearers of the Society. 20. Such a dispute, in our considered view. falls squarely within the four-corners of S. 25. The sub-Divisional Magistrate, has also, in the operative part of the order, merely granted recognition to Sri Gauri Shanker Rai, as the President and Sri Chandrakesh Rai as the Secretary, of the Society. He could clearly pass such an order under S. 25 and the contention of the learned counsel to the contrary is untenable. 21. Further, the Registrar referred the dispute to the Sub-divisional Magistrate, on 17th August, 1979. If the petitioner thought that the Sub-divisional Magistrate was not authorised to hear the dispute he should have challenged that order in the year 1979 itself. Instead, he participated in the proceedings all these years. Further, the Prescribed Authority decides a dispute under S. 25 only in a summary manner and the decision so given is not a final determination of the rights of the parties. Under the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order on this technical objection in any case, though in our opinion, even on merits, there is no substance in the same. As we are upholding the validity of the first order, the subsequent two orders assailed in this petition are also upheld as the same are only consequential in nature. The writ petition No. 10413 of 1982 is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as we find no merits in the same. 22. As we are upholding the validity of the first order, the subsequent two orders assailed in this petition are also upheld as the same are only consequential in nature. The writ petition No. 10413 of 1982 is, therefore, liable to be dismissed as we find no merits in the same. 22. We now turn to the third and the last of the series of petitions namely writ petition No. 7482 of 1983. 23. This petition has been filed in the name of the Committee of Management through Chandrakesh Rai against an order dated 12-5-1983 whereby the District Inspector of Schools has recognished the new Committee of Management, with Sri Baleshwar Rai as the President and Sri Hirdai Narain Rai as the Manager, which is said to have been elected on 31st May 1982. 24. The contention of the petitioners was that the District Inspector of Schools has no power to accord any such recognition, as in view of the insertion of S. 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. it is only the Deputy Director of Education who has been empowered to determine disputes with respect to the management of an institution. 25. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find no merit in this petition. The relevant facts are that the impugned order has been passed by the District Inspector of Schools in pursuance of a letter dated 5-6-1982 addressed to the District Inspector of Schools by the Manager of the institution wherein it was stated that the term of the previous Committee of Management having cone to an end on 13-2-1982, a new Committee of Management has been duly elected on 31st May 1982 in accordance with the Scheme of Administration of the College. Upon this letter, the District Inspector of Schools passed the impugned order in which he has simple stated that for administrative purposes. the new Committee of Management elected on 31st May 1982 with Sri Baleshwar Rai as the President and Sri Hirdai Narain Rai as the Manager is recognised. The copies of this order have been endorsed to the State Bank of India, the Post Office and other local authorities. 26. It is thus apparent that the impugned order has not been passed under S. 16-A(7). It does not purport. directly or indirectly, to determine any dispute between two rival Committees of Management. The copies of this order have been endorsed to the State Bank of India, the Post Office and other local authorities. 26. It is thus apparent that the impugned order has not been passed under S. 16-A(7). It does not purport. directly or indirectly, to determine any dispute between two rival Committees of Management. It does not profess to be an adjudication of the rival claims of the parties. It is a plain and simple recognition of a new Committee of Management for day to day work of the department such as payment of salary to the teachers and staff of the College. In any case, the impugned order does not purport to decide any dispute and consequently it cannot be said that the District Inspector of Schools has arrogated to himself the powers which were exclusively exercisable by the Deputy Director of Education under S. 16- A(7). Further, there is nothing to indicate that the petitioners had till the date of the passing of the impugned order by the District Inspector of Schools raised any dispute with regard to the validity of elections held on 31st May 1982. We, therefore, find no merit in the only contention raised in support of the petition. 27. In view of what has been stated above, writ petition No.7482 of 1983 is liable to be dismissed. 28. The result of the aforesaid discussion, therefore, is that Writ Petitions Nos. 10413 of 1982 and 7482 of 1983 fail and are dismissed. Writ Petition No. 6875 of 1980 succeeds and is allowed and the impugned order dated 1-8-1980 passed by the District Inspector of Schools is quashed. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs in all the three petitions.