JUDGMENT O.P. Saxena, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners have prayed for quashing the impugned orders dated 5th March. 1984 and 17-1-1984 passed by respondent No. 1. the Deputy Director of Education. Meerut. 2. The dispute relates to the management of Maharshi Sukhdeo Inter College, Morena, district Muzaffarnagar. In the elections held on 30th June, 1980 Sri Vedpal Singh was elected Manager and Sri Satyavir Singh was elected the President of the Management Committee. Two elections are said to have been held on 26th June, 1983. On 20th May 1983 Sri Ishwar Singh circulated the agenda for holding the election on 26th June, 1983. It is said that Sri Ishwar Singh was elected Manager and Sri Chetan Singh was elected President. On 23rd May, 1983 Sri Vedpal Singh circulated the agenda for the election to be held on 26th June, 1983. Sri Vedpal Singh was elected Manager and Sri Satyavir Singh was elected President. The dispute regarding these elections was referred to the Deputy Director of Education, Meerut and he decided the dispute on 5th March, 1984 vide Annexure V. He appointed respondent No. 2, Sri R. K. Sharma, as Authorised Controller. 3. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 17th Jan., 1984, vide Annexure VI, whereby the Deputy Director of Education` amended the Scheme of Administration and also challenged the order dated 5th March, 1984, vide Annexure V, whereby the authorised Controller was appointed. 4. The petition has been contested by respondent No. 2, Sri R. K. Sharma, the Authorised Controller, as well as by Sri Ishwar Singh, the Manager of the rival Management Committees. 5. After exchange of affidavits between the parties, we have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned Standing Counsel and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners did not press the prayer regarding the impugned order dated 17-1-1984, vide Annexure VI. 7. As far as the impugned order dated 5-3-1984, vide Annexure V, is concerned, under S. 16-D(4) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921, only the State Government can appoint an Authorised Controller. The Deputy Director of Education could not make any such appointment. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Education appointing respondent No. 2, Sri R. K. Sharma, as Authorised Controller, is liable to be quashed. 8. The Deputy Director of Education could not make any such appointment. The order passed by the Deputy Director of Education appointing respondent No. 2, Sri R. K. Sharma, as Authorised Controller, is liable to be quashed. 8. On a perusal of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education, we find that no proper order has been passed as required under S. 16-A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Section 16-A(7) provides as below : "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 its deemed fit to be in actual control of its affairs may, for purposes of this Act, be recognised to continue 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." 9. We find that there is a lot of confusion in the minds of the Deputy Directors of Education regarding the scope of the enquiry to be made under the said provision. The Deputy Director has to decide as to which of the two rival management committees is in actual control over the affairs of an institution. The Deputy Director has to satisfy himself that the management committee recognised by him to be in actual control has been duly elected. The scope of enquiry regarding the validity of the election of a management committee is, however, limited. The Deputy Director is not expected to make a detailed enquiry and function like an election tribunal. He has only to prima facie satisfy himself about the validity of election. If a management committee has been elected after due notice to the members entitled to vote in accordance with the register maintained by the former . management committee according to the rules and the election has been held in accordance with the approved scheme of administration, the management committee shall be deemed to have been duly elected. It is not necessary to go into further details. If any party wants to contest the validity of election of management committee on other grounds, a regular suit is the proper remedy. It is not necessary to go into further details. If any party wants to contest the validity of election of management committee on other grounds, a regular suit is the proper remedy. For determining as to whether a management committee is in actual control of the affairs of an institution, the Deputy Director has to consider control over the funds, control over day to day administration, disbursement of salaries, receipt of income from property of the institution, receipt of Government aid and other matters which throw light on actual control. We reject the contention that the Deputy Director has no jurisdiction to go into the validity of the election of the rival management committees. We hold that he can go into the matter incidentally as explained above. 10. We find that the Deputy Director of Education has not passed proper order in this case and we deem it proper to direct him to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties. 11. The learned counsel for respondent No. 2 drew our attention to Annexures 9, 10 and 11 to the counter affidavit of Sri R. K. Sharma. It will be open for respondent No. 2 to move the Deputy Director of Education and apprise him of the allegations made against Vedpal Singh. The Deputy Director of Education has wide powers under S. 16-D(3) of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. 12. In view of the above discussion, the relief for quashing the order dated 17-1-1984, Annexure VI, is refused as not pressed and the order dated 5th March, 1984, vide Annexure V, is quashed. Respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the dispute in accordance with law and the directions given above after hearing the parties. It will be open for` respondent No.1 to make an interim arrangement for the management of the institution pending the consideration of the dispute. We make no orders as to costs. 13. A copy of the order will be issued to the parties by 6-2-85 on payment of usual charges.