JUDGMENT O.P. Saxena, J. - By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 1st Dec, 1983 (annexure II) and 21st Jan, 1984 (Annexure VI) and directing respondent No. 1 to decide the controversy under under section 16 A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act. 2. Dispute relates to the management of Adarsh Uchchttar Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Narhi, district Ballia. On 13th Feb, 1979, Sri Gauri Shankar Rai was elected President. Sri Vishwanath Rai was elected Manager and Sri Chandrakesh Rai was elected Deputy Manager. On 31st Dec, 1982, a fresh election is said to have been held in which Sri Baleshwar Prasad Rai was elected President and Sri Hridaya Narain Rai (R. 3) was elected Manager. The District Inspector of Schools. Ballia (R.2) recognised the management committee of which Sri Hridaya Narain Rai was the Manager. Three writ petitions were filed. Writ petition. Nos. 6875 of 1980 and 7882 of 1983 were filed by the petitioner. The three writ petitions were decided by a common judgment dated 17-11-83 vide Annexure I. Writ petition No. 7882 of 1983, against the order of District Inspector of Schools recognising the Management Committee elected on 30th May 1982 was dismissed. On 1-12-83, the District Inspector of Schools again recognised the said Committee, vide Annexure II. Annexures IIIB (d. 24-11-83 and III dated 29-11-83 are the representations made by the petitioner to Deputy Director of Education and District Inspector of Schools respectively. On 5-12-83, the District Inspector of Schools referred the dispute to the Deputy Director of Education vide Annexure IV. He passed an order of single operation and stayed the order dated 1-12-83, on 20-1-84, the Deputy Director of Education refused to decide the dispute, vide Annexure V on the ground that the High Court had already done so in the judgment dated 17-11-83. On 21-1-84, the District Inspector of Schools again recognised the new Management Committee vide Annexure VI. Hence this petition. 3. After the exchange of affidavits, we heard Sri R.N. Singh, Sri A.N. Tripathi and the learned Standing Counsel and were deciding the petition on merits at the admission stage. 4. On 21-1-84, the District Inspector of Schools again recognised the new Management Committee vide Annexure VI. Hence this petition. 3. After the exchange of affidavits, we heard Sri R.N. Singh, Sri A.N. Tripathi and the learned Standing Counsel and were deciding the petition on merits at the admission stage. 4. Sri R.N. Singh, learned counsel for petitioner is certainly right when he says that no dispute was decided by this Court in the judgment dated 17th Nov, 1983 vide Annexure I. As a matter of fact what was held was that there was no dispute before the District Inspector of Schools regarding the validity of election held on 31st Jan, 1982 at the time he recognised the new management committee. Thus, the Deputy Director of Education was wrong in refusing to decide the dispute on the ground that the matter has been decided by the High Court. 5. We, however, find substance in the contention of Sri A.N. Tripathi, learned counsel for respondent 3. He contended that the District Inspector of Schools, Ballia could refer only a dispute under under section 16A(7) to the Deputy Director of Education and unless there was such a dispute, no reference could be made to the Deputy Director of Education. He therefore, submitted that as there was no dispute which could be referred to the Deputy Director of Education, we should not accept the petitioner's prayer that the Deputy Director of Education should he called upon to decide the dispute. 6. Section 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act 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 is deemed fit to be in actual control of its affairs may, for purposes of this Act, he 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." 7. Sri A.N. Tripathi placed reliance on the case of Digambar Jain High School Association, Baraut, District Meerut v. Chancellor, Meerut University, Meerut, 1983 UPLBEC 438 : 1983 All LJ 1255. 8. Statute 13.34 of the Statutes applicable to the Meerut University was considered. It provides as below : "13.34. Sri A.N. Tripathi placed reliance on the case of Digambar Jain High School Association, Baraut, District Meerut v. Chancellor, Meerut University, Meerut, 1983 UPLBEC 438 : 1983 All LJ 1255. 8. Statute 13.34 of the Statutes applicable to the Meerut University was considered. It provides as below : "13.34. Whenever there is a dispute regarding the management of an affiliated college, persons found by the Vice-Chancellor to he in actual possession and control of the college properties may, for purposes of the Act and these statutes he recognised to constitute the Management of such college until a court of competent jurisdiction orders otherwise. Provided that the Vice-Chancellor shall before making an order under this Statute afford an opportunity to the rival claimants to make written representations. Explanation - In determining the question as to who is in actual possession and control of the college properties the Vice-Chancellor shall have regard to the control over the funds of the Institution and over the actual administration, the receipt of the income from the property of the institution and to other relevant circumstances which might have bearing on the question to he determined." 9. It was held that on a reading of the Statute, it is evident that the Statute applies to disputes between two managements. The proviso in this regard is very significant as it clearly lays down that the Vice-Chancellor, before making an order, under the Statute, shall afford an opportunity to rival claimants to make representations. The rival claimants here contemplates the Management committee which asserts that, actually, it is that Management Committee which should be the management committee of the College. In the said case there was no rival management committee and it was held that the question of applicability of statute 13.34 did not arise. 10. The provisions of Statute 13.34 of the Meerut University are similar to the provisions of S. 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act and we are of the opinion that the case of Digambar Jain High School Association, 1983 All LJ 1255 (supra) is applicable to the present case. We respectfully agree with the said decision and hold that before a dispute can be referred to the Deputy Director of Education under S. 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act, there should be two rival management committees. 11. We respectfully agree with the said decision and hold that before a dispute can be referred to the Deputy Director of Education under S. 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act, there should be two rival management committees. 11. The term of the Management Committee elected on 13th February 1979 came to an end on the election of a new Management Committee on 30th May 1982. The District Inspector of Schools recognised the new Management Committee. Writ petition No. 7882 of 1983 filed by the petitioner against the said order has been dismissed. On 1-12-83, District Inspector of Schools again recognised the new Management Committee. There is no other management committee in existence. In the representations made by the petitioner after the dismissal of writ petition No. 7482 of 1983, vide Annexures III-B and III, he challenged the validity of elections held on 30th May 1982. In para 27 of Annexure III B. he also claimed to be in actual control of the management of the institution. No such averment has been made in the Writ petition. In view of the recognition of the new Management Committee by the District Inspector of Schools soon after the election on 30th May 1982 and again on 1-12-83, vide Annexure II the petitioner could not reasonably claim to be in actual control of the management of the institution. If the petitioner wanted to challenge the validity of the election held on 30th May 1982, he ought to have filed a regular civil suit. The scope of enquiry under S. 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act is rather limited. The Deputy Director of Education has to decide on the basis of actual control. He may incidentally consider the validity of rival elections said to have been held after the expiry of the term of the earlier management committee. For determining as to which of the two rival management committees is in actual control of the management of the institution, the Deputy Director has to consider the control over the funds, the control over the day to day administration, the disbursement of salaries, the receipt of income from the property of the institution, the receipt of Government aid and other matters which may throw light on actual control. His jurisdiction however arises when there are two rival Management Committees claiming control over the management of the institution. His jurisdiction however arises when there are two rival Management Committees claiming control over the management of the institution. The averments in the writ petition do not show that the Committee of which the petitioner was the manager continues in actual control of the management of the institution. There is as such no dispute which could be referred to or decided by the Deputy Director. The mere fact that the District Inspector of Schools made a reference to the Deputy Director would not confer any jurisdiction on the latter. 12. The impugned order dated 1-12-83 Annexure II is a consequential order passed after the dismissal of writ petition No. 7882 of 1983 in which the order of the District Inspector of Schools recognising the Management Committee elected on 30th May 1983 was challenged. After the filing of the writ petition, the order had been suspended vide letters dated 12-5-83 and 25-5-83. The consequential order passed by the District Inspector of Schools does not give a fresh cause of action to the petitioner to reagitate the matter and the decision in the earlier writ petition is binding on the parties. 13. As there is no dispute between two rival management committees which can be decided by the Deputy Director of Education, the petitioner is not entitled to a mandamus as prayed. 14. Impugned order dated 21-1-84 Annexure II is also a consequential order and does not call for any interference. 15. The petition fails and is dismissed with costs.