JUDGMENT K.C. Agarwal and R.P. Singh, JJ. - The facts of these three writ petitions are inter-related and the parties are the same, hence they are being decided together. 2. In Writ Petition No. 16495 of 1985, the facts of the case are that there is an institution known as Jag Narain Intermediate College, Birpur, District Ghazipur, which is being managed by a registered society known as Ganesh Babu Shiksha Prashar Samiti, Birpur District Ghazipur (hereinafter referred to as the Society). The registration of the society done under the U.P. Societies Registration Registration Act, was renewed from time to time, Uma Shankar Rai, the petitioner who claims to be the Manager, applied for renewal of registration, but Ram Ratan Rai, Respondent No. 3, on the basis of a fraudulent compromise, got the renewal of registration vide the order passed by the Assistant Registrar dated 27-9-1985, showing Ram Ratan Rai as the Manager and Narbadeshwar Narain Sharma as a president of the society. 3. The petitioner's case is that he (Uma Shankar Rai) filed an objection supported by his affidavit before the Registrar that he had never signed any such compromise and that his signature on the said compromise was fraudulent and that he is the Manager of the society and the registrar has wrongly recognised Ram Ratan Rai, respondent No. 3 as the Manager of the society, on the basis of this fraudulent compromise. The petitioner's learned counsel further argued that since the dispute raised before the Registrar was whether Uma Shanker Rai was duly elected Manager of the Society or that Ram Ratan Rai was the Manager of the Society, which clearly relates to the election of the office-bearer, hence the Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain such a dispute and it was incumbent on him to refer the matter for decision before the prescribed authority under Section 25 (1) of the U.P. Societies Registration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Section 25 (1) of the Act reads as under : "25. Disputes Regarding Election of office-bearers. Section 25 (1) of the Act reads as under : "25. Disputes Regarding Election of office-bearers. - (i) The prescribed authority may, on a reference made to it by the Registrar or by at least 1 /4th of the members of the societies registered in U.P. hear and decide in a summary manner any doubt or dispute in respect of the election or continuance in office of office-bearer of such society and may pass such orders in respect thereof as it deems fit." Hence the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the provisions of Sections 25 (1) of the Act, the Registrar had no jurisdiction to entertain and decide the dispute regarding the election of the office-bearer of the society and it was incumbent on him to have referred the matter for decision to the prescribed authority vide Vijai Narain Singh v. Registrar Firms. Societies and Chits Registration, U.P. Lucknow and others, reported in 1981 UPLBEC 308. 4. Learned counsel for, the respondent contended that Uma Shanker Rai, the petitioner No. 2 himself having entered into a compromise and having signed the same which was dated 8-1-1984, is bound by the compromise and is estopped from challenging the decision of the Registrar on the basis of such compromise accepting Ram Ratan Rai, Respondent No. 3, as the Manager of the Society. 5. Since in the present case, the petitioner No. 2 Uma Shanker Rai had filed his own affidavit before the Registrar, challenging the compromise aforesaid dated 8-1-1984 as fraudulent compromise and having not been signed by him, hence the dispute in the present case clearly relates to election of office-bearer of the society, which cannot be decided by the Registrar and a plain reading of the impugned order, passed by the district Registrar, dated 27-9-1985 indicates that the Registrar by the impugned order had clearly held Ram Ratan Rai to be the duly elected manager of the society and Nat badeshwar Narain Sharma as the President and rejected the case of Uma Shankar Rai to be duly elected Manager of the society. The Assistant Registrar has clearly. travelled beyond the ambit of his jurisdiction by deciding a managerial dispute, which he was not competent to decide. 6. The Assistant Registrar has clearly. travelled beyond the ambit of his jurisdiction by deciding a managerial dispute, which he was not competent to decide. 6. In the result, the writ petition succeeds and the impugned order passed by the Assistant Registrar on 27-9-1985 is set aside and he is directed to refer the dispute about the election of Manager to the prescribed authority under Section 25 (1) of the Act, who alone is competent to decide the same. 7. Now coming to the Writ No. 949 of 1986, which has been filed by the Committee of Management of which Uma Shankar Rai claims to be the Manager the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 17-12-1985, by which the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur wrote to the Principal of the College that he should send the pay bill with the signature of the Manager immediately, so that the salary of the teachers may be paid without any delay. 8. In the present writ petition, the case of the petitioner No. 2 (Uma Shankar Rai) is that on the basis of aforesaid fraudulent compromise dated 8-1-1984, Ram Ratan Rai obtained an order from the Registrar, recognising him as the Manager of the Society and hence the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court, which was admitted on 18-10-1985 and a stay order was also passed, staying the operation of the impugned order dated 27-9-1985, by which the Assistant Registrar had recognised Ram Ratan Rai as the Manager of the Society. The District Inspector of Schools, however, passed the impugned order, directing the Principal to send the pay bill duly signed by the Manager at once, so that the payment of the salary may be made without any delay and thus impliedly recognised Ram Ratan Rai as the Manager for the purpose of signing the pay bill. 9. The District Inspector of Schools, however, passed the impugned order, directing the Principal to send the pay bill duly signed by the Manager at once, so that the payment of the salary may be made without any delay and thus impliedly recognised Ram Ratan Rai as the Manager for the purpose of signing the pay bill. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the impugned order is merely a letter written by the District Inspector of Schools to the Principal to send the pay bill, so that the payment of the salary may be made to the teachers, whose salary have not been paid for many months and there is no illegality or arbitrariness in this direction given by the District Inspector of Schools for sending the pay bill for payment of salary to the teachers, hence the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as devoid of any merits. 10. After hearing learned counsel for both the parties, we are satisfied that there are no merits in the present petition, as the impugned order dated 17-12-1985 in merely a direction to the Principal for sending the pay bill, so that the salary of the teacher may be paid immediately, which had not been paid for many months. There is no error, much less to saw a manifest error and the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, has been made in the interest of the payment of the salary to the teachers does not suffer from any error or arbitrariness so as to warrant an interference in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 22 of the Constitution. However, if any party is aggrieved in respect of any dispute regarding the management of the college, be may approach the Deputy Director to settle the dispute regarding the rival claims of the besides claiming to be duly constituted Committee of Management. 11. In the result the writ petition fails and is rejected summarily with the observations made above. 12. Now coming to the Writ No. 8731 of 1986, which has been filed by the Committee of Management, through its manager Ram Ratan Rai, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 4th March, 1986, Ordering single operation of the accounts. 13. 12. Now coming to the Writ No. 8731 of 1986, which has been filed by the Committee of Management, through its manager Ram Ratan Rai, the petitioner has challenged the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools dated 4th March, 1986, Ordering single operation of the accounts. 13. The petitioner's case is that a notice was issued to it by the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur vide his letter dated 26-2-1986, by which the District Inspector of Schools directed that since the salary of the teachers are not being paid regularly and they are being paid after great delay and hence the petitioner was required to show cause within a period of three days why the District Inspector of Schools should not order single operation under Section 5 of the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. 14. The petitioner alleged that the show cause notice, which was dated 26-2-1986, was received by him on 5-3-1986, while the impugned order of single operation was passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 4-3-1986 i.e. before the petitioner even receive the show cause notice sent by the District Inspector of Schools and consequently, the petitioner wrote to the District Inspector of Schools vide his letter dated 6-3-1986 that even the show cause notice was received by him on 5-3-1986 and hence he may be given an opportunity of hearing before the impugned order of single operation may be passed against him. 15. We have feared learned counsel for the parties and perused the papers and find that the petitioners contention that before the show cause notice was received by him, the impugned order had been passed on 4-3-1986, is correct and hence the petitioner could not have an opportunity of hearing and represent his case before the Inspector of Schools, who passed the order of single operation of accounts on the ground that due to default made by the petitioner, the salaries of the teachers should not be paid in time. 16. We accordingly allow this writ petition and direct the District Inspector of Schools to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before passing any fresh order of single operation under Section 5 of the Payment of Salaries Act. 16. We accordingly allow this writ petition and direct the District Inspector of Schools to give the petitioner an opportunity of hearing before passing any fresh order of single operation under Section 5 of the Payment of Salaries Act. We, further direct that the District Inspector of Schools pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within three weeks from today, during which time, the impugned order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, dated 4-3-1986 shall remain in operation so that the salary of the teachers may be regularly paid without any delay. 17. The petition is disposed of accordingly.