JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - Sri Bala Prasad Kushwaha Intermediate College, Balrampur District Allahabad is a recognized Institution governed by the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act, 1921. It is run by a Society called " Mata Dayal Educational Society, Balrampur, Barethi Allahabad. " The management of the college vests in a Committee of Management elected by the general body of the aforesaid Society. Two rival groups-one represented by the Petitioner and the other by the Respondent No. 3 claimed to be in effective control of the management of the Institution. By the impugned order dated 21st June, 1985 the Deputy Director Education IV Region, Allahabad has held that the Committee of Management of which Sri Ram Sumer Singh (the Respondent No. 3) is the Manager, is in actual control of the Management and affairs of the Institution. The order has been passed u/s 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act. 2. Briefly stated the Petitioner's case is that one Sri Avinash Chandra was the President of the Society. He had not convened any meeting of the Society for the election of the new Committee of Management for a long time. Sri Brij Basi Lai was as a result continuing as the Manager of the Institution since 1967. Consequently Har Prasad and nine other persons alleged to be the members of the Society sent a notice to the President Sri Avinash Chandra on 20th June, 1983 for convening a meeting of the Society for electing a Committee of Management, which was long over due, as well as for electing the office bearers thereof. Avinash Chandra, however, did not convene any meeting. Consequently a meeting of the general body of the Society was convened by the aforesaid ten persons on 3rd July, 1983 at which a new Committee of Management was elected which, in its turn, on the same date elected its office bearers with Sri Manik Chandra Singh (Petitioner No. 3) as the President and Sri Tej Bahadur Singh (the peitioner No. 2) as the Manager oi the Institution. The new office bearers found that the registration oi the Society which. v as initial v registered on 1947 had lapsed and their predecessors had not cared to have the same renewed. Accordingly Sri Tej Bahadur Singh applied for the renewal of registration on 26.9.83 which was rejected on some technical ground. The new office bearers found that the registration oi the Society which. v as initial v registered on 1947 had lapsed and their predecessors had not cared to have the same renewed. Accordingly Sri Tej Bahadur Singh applied for the renewal of registration on 26.9.83 which was rejected on some technical ground. Thereafter he applied for fresh registration which was "ranted on 28.11.83. On 26.12.1983 Sii Tej Bahadur Singh applied to the District Inspector of Schools for attestation of his signatures when he was informed that the District Inspector of Schools had already attested the signatures of Sri Ram Sumer Singh on 1.11.1983 treating him as the validly Reeled Manager of the Institution. The Petitioners, therefore, filed objections as a result of which the District Inspector of Schools directed that the salary account of the Institution shall be operated by him singly and by another order dated 15.2.1984 he referred the dispute between the two rival groups to the Deputy Director Education (IV) Region Allahabad. 3. The Deputy Director Education purporting to exercise powers u/s 16A(7) which provides that whenever there is a dispute with respect to the management of an Institution, persons found by the Deputy Director of Education upon such inquiry as he deems fit to be in actual control of its affairs may for purposes of this Act be recognized to constitute the Committee of Management of such Institution until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise, invited the two rival committees to give their versions in writing. The parties were also invited to file relevant documents and records in support of their respective claims. On a consideration of the entire evidence on record the Deputy Director Education held by the impugned order that the Committee of Management which was elected on 28.10.1982 with Sri Ram Sumer Singh as the Manager, and Sri Avinash Chandra as the President, was in effective control of the affairs of the Institution. 4. The case of the contesting Respondents is that the Committee of Management which was elected on 28.10.1982 was the only legitimate and validly elected Committee and it is this Committee which has been in effective control of the Management and affairs of the Institution. Sri Avinash Chadra never received any requisition alleged to have been sent by Har Prasad and others. Sri Avinash Chadra never received any requisition alleged to have been sent by Har Prasad and others. Indeed, the nine o'her persons who are alleged to have requisitioned the meeling of the general body on 20th June, 1983 are not even members of the Society. Nor is the Socelly which Tej Bahadur Singh got registered on 28.11.1983 the real Society which has been running the Institution. At any rate the registration which was obtained by Tej Bahadur Singh on 28.11.1983 was cancelled by the Registrar by an order dated 12.4.85 (vide annexure CA3 to the counter- affidavit filed on behalf of the Society by Sri Ram Sumer Singh). Undisputedly Brii Basi Lai was the Manager of the Society until the new Society was elected on 28.10.1982 and it was the signature of Sri Brij Basi Lal which had been attested by the District Inspector of Schools all along until the signatures of Ram Sumer Singh were attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 1.11.1983 in consequence of the new elections which were held on 28.10.82. The District Inspector of Schools was thus throughout dealing with the Committee of Management of which Ram Summer Singh was Manager till the dispute was referred by him on 15.2.1984 treating that Committee as the validly constituted Committee of Management of the Institution. Further the registration of the Society which has been running the Institution from the very beginning was a so got renewed by Ram Summer Singh and a certificate of registration dated 22nd November, 1982 bearing registration certificate No. 2469:82-83 was in operation when the dispute was raised by the Petitioners and the Society covered by this registration is the real and original Society which has been running the Institution from its inception.... The Petitioners never came in control effective or otherwise, of the Management of the Institution in pursuance of their so called election alleged to have been held on 3.7.1983. 5. For the Petitioners Sri N.C. Upadhyaya contended that the impugned order suffers from a patent illegality in that the Deputy Director Education has failed to record any finding as regards which of the two Committees v\as in effective control of the Institution. It was urged that the basic thing to be examined u/s 16A(7) is as to which of the two rival Committees is in actual control. It was urged that the basic thing to be examined u/s 16A(7) is as to which of the two rival Committees is in actual control. The Deputy Director Education committed an error in preoccupying himself wholly with the question of the validity of the elections held by the two committees. 6. We are unable to agree. In our opinion the Deputy Director Education did address himself to this issue and has given a clear and categorical finding that the Committee of Management represented by Sri Ram Sumer Singh is in effective control. After setting out the cases and contentions of the two parties, the Deputy Director has observed that from an examination of the material brought on the record of the case and upon hearing the two sides it was clear that the Committee of Management of which Sri Ram Sumer Singh was the Manager had been elected by the original Society namely " Mata Dayal Educational Society Balrampur Barethi " and it is this Committee of Manage ment which was in effective and actual control of the affairs of the Institution until the dispute was referred by the District Inspector of Schools. He has further observed that the District Inspector of Schools was dealing with this very Committee at the time of reference of the dispute to the Deputy Director Education. The Deputy Director Education has also referred to a letter of Sri Avinash Chandra dated 10.8.1983 addressed to the District Inspector of Schools which indicated that Sri Brij Basi Lai the Manager of the former Committee of Management was continuing to act as the Manager. Thereafter admittedly the signatures of Ram Sumer Singh was attested by the District Inspector of Schools on 1.11.1983. He has also observed that the registration of the Society which Tej Bahadur Singh had obtained, had been cancelled by the Registrar and that the Society which is alleged to have elected the Petitioners' Committee of Management on 3.7.83 is diiferent from that which has been running the Institution from the beginning. On the other hand, the Society which Sri Ram Sumer Singh got registered appeared to be the real Society which has been running the Institution and it is this Society which has been recognized by the Registrar. On the other hand, the Society which Sri Ram Sumer Singh got registered appeared to be the real Society which has been running the Institution and it is this Society which has been recognized by the Registrar. The Deputy Director Consolidation has referred to and relied on the order of the Registrar dated 12.4.85 whereby the registration of the Petitioners' Society was cancelled and that set up by the Respondent was recognized. 7. The fact that at the time when the dispute was referred the District Inspector of Schools had recognized and was dealing with the Committee of which Sri Ram Sumer Singh was the Manager and that prior to Ram burner Singh the District Inspector of Schools was dealing with Sri Brij Basi Lai, the predecessor of Ram Sumer Singh as the lawfully elected Manager of the Institution were both relevant and material for arriving at the conclusion that it is the Respondents' Committee which was in actual control. The Deputy Director Education was entitled to rely on these circumstances. In our opinion tiie further fact that the registration of the very Society which is alleged to have elected the Petitioners' Committee of Management on 3.7.83 had been cancelled by Registrar and that it v\as a different Society from the original or.e, was equally material and could be relied on by the Deputy Director Education for the determination of the question as to whether the Petitioners were in efiective control. Explanation to Section 16A(7) states that in determining the questions of effective control, the Deputy Director 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 and all other relevant circumstances. The Deputy Director Education could, therefore for the purpose of determining the question rely on the order of the Registrar cancelling the registration of the Society set up by the Petitioners as a relevant fact showing that they are not likely to be in effective control of the affairs of the Institution. A serious dispute' having been raised by the parties as regards whether the Petitioners' Society was running the Institution, the Deputy Director Education was within his rights in relying on the order of the Registrar cancelling the registration obtained by Tej Bahadur Singh. A serious dispute' having been raised by the parties as regards whether the Petitioners' Society was running the Institution, the Deputy Director Education was within his rights in relying on the order of the Registrar cancelling the registration obtained by Tej Bahadur Singh. The Deputy Director Education has referred to the aforesaid facts and circumstances and thereafter categorically held that Ram Sumer Singh's Committee is in effective control over the affairs of the Institution. 8. We therefore reject the first contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioners. 9. Before we pass on the next point, we may observe that the conclusion reached by the Deputy Director Education as regards effective control of the Committee of Management seems to be correct. Admittedly prior to the attestation of the signature of Ram Sumer Singh, the District Inspector of Schools was dealing with Sri Brij Basi Lai as the Manager of the Institution upto 8th October. 1983. Soon thereafter the District Inspector of Schools attested the signatures of Ram Sumer Singh and this position continued until the dispute was referred. These facts have not been disputed. It is not understandable as to when and how the Petitioners came in effective control of the Management of the Institution. The assertions made by the Petitioners in the petition as regards how they got hold of the control of tne Institution are significantly vague. Under the circumstances, the Deputy Director Education rightly concluded that at the material time it is the Committee of Management represented by Ram Sumer Singh which was in actual control of the affairs of the Institution. 10. Sri N.C. Upadhyaya, learned Counsel next submitted that the Deputy Director Education has not considered the material furnished by the Petitioners in support of their claims. He relied on paragraph-22 of the writ petition in support of this contention. This submission is also devoid of any merit. Paragraph-22 states that photo stat copies of cash-book of 1984 and vouchers and receipts were filed by the Petitioners to show effective control over the properties of the Institution. Original papers were also produced before the Deputy Director Education. These assertions have been denied in paragraph 26 of the counter-affidavit of Ram Sumer Singh. In the counter-affidavit, it has been asserted that the Petitioners could not produce any document relevant to the controversy. Original papers were also produced before the Deputy Director Education. These assertions have been denied in paragraph 26 of the counter-affidavit of Ram Sumer Singh. In the counter-affidavit, it has been asserted that the Petitioners could not produce any document relevant to the controversy. The documents produced by the Petitioners did not pertain to the relevant period, namely, the date of the reference of the dispute. The genuine ness of these documents has also been questioned in the counter-affidavit. It is alleged that they were forged for the purpose of the case. Further, the Deputy Director Education has stated in his order that he considered the entire evidence on record and we have no reason to doubt the truth of that statement. The Deputy Director Education has preferred to rely on circumstances which were of a clinching character in determining the controversy. Those circumstances were established by facts which were not much in dispute. The mere omission, therefore, to refer to every single document placed on the record will not per se vitiate the impugned order. Moreover, we wanted to have a look at the documents alleged to have been ignored by the Deputy Director Education in order to ascertain whether there has been any failure of justice by the omission of the Deputy Director Education to refer to these documents. The Petitioners have, however, not filed copies of those documents. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order merely on the ground that the Deputy Director Education has not specifically referred to these documents. 11. Lastly learned Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that the election of Ram Sumer Singh and others was void ab initio as under the Scheme of Administration of the Institution, the office bearers had to be elected by the Committee of Management and not by the general body of the Society. We find no merit in this contention either. Firstly the Deputy Director Education is not required to make any elaborate or detailed inquiry into the validity of the elections set up by the rival groups. He has not to act as an Election Tribunal (See 1985 ALJ 471: Maharshi Sukhdeo Vidyalay Shukaratal v. Regional Deputy Director Education 1st Region, Meerut. The Deputy Director Education has only to satisfy himself prima facie about the validity of the elections. Section 16A(7) makes this absolutely clear. He has not to act as an Election Tribunal (See 1985 ALJ 471: Maharshi Sukhdeo Vidyalay Shukaratal v. Regional Deputy Director Education 1st Region, Meerut. The Deputy Director Education has only to satisfy himself prima facie about the validity of the elections. Section 16A(7) makes this absolutely clear. It provides that the Deputy Director Education may determine the question about the actual control of the affairs of the Institution by making such inquiry as it may deem fit and proper having regard to the factors mentioned in the Explanation to Section 16A(7). In view of the limited scope of Section 16A(7), the Deputy Director Education was not required to pronounce conclusively on the validity of the elections held by the Respondent on 28.10.1982. Secondly, from the mere fact that the office bearers of the Committee of Management were also elected in the same meeting of the general body held on 28.10.1982 at which the Committee of Management was elected by the general body, it does not follow that the office bearers were not elected by the Committee of Management but by the general body. No such conclusion can be derived from the record of proceedings of the meeting held on 28.10.1982, a true copy whereof is annexure RA-1. 12. To sum up, our conclusion is that the Deputy Director Education has rightly held that the Committee of Management of which Ram Sumer Singh is the Manager is in effective control of the affairs of the Institution and in reaching this conclusion the Deputy Director Education has not committed any error warranting interference of this Court Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed with costs.