JUDGMENT 1. The petitioners in this writ petition have challenged the order of the District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, dated 25-10-1987 by which the signatures of Surya Prasad Singh have been attested and order of single operation, dated 6-2-1986 has been cancelled. 2. The brief facts for the purposes of deciding the present petition are that Gandhi Smarak Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidhyalaya, Mobarakpur district Azamgarh, admittedly was being run originally by a registered society known as Gandhi Viddya Sabha Mobarakpur, district Azamgarh. In the year, 19 /8 admittedly an authorised controller was appointed to manage the affairs of the institution. It is only after the appointment of the authorised controller that two societies have been registered, who claim to be entitled to manage the affairs of the institution. The District Inspector of Schools, Azamgarh, in respect of the institution and also passed an order under the Payment of Salaries Act for single operation of the account. Two writ petitions were filed by the two rival Managing Committees challenging the aforesaid order passed by the District Inspector of Schools. Writ petition which had been filed by the respondent No. 3 has been finally decided by this Court and it has been held that the term of the authorised controller has come to an end because the maximum period of five years, for which the authorised controller could be appointed, had also come to an end. In the writ petition, which had been filed by the petitioners, an interim order was granted in his favour restraining the respondents from interfering in the right of the petitioners to manage the institution. After final decision of the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 3 the interim order passed in the writ petition filed by the petitioner had been vacated. It is after these orders which had been passed by this Court that the impugned order has been passed by the District Inspector of schools withdrawing his earlier order of single operation of account under the Payment of Salaries Act and also attesting the signatures of respondent No. 3 as Manager of the institution. 3. It may be mentioned here that at the admission stage the contesting respondents were served with the notices and the parties have exchanged affidavits and the writ petition is thus finally disposed of in accordance with the rules of the court. 4. 3. It may be mentioned here that at the admission stage the contesting respondents were served with the notices and the parties have exchanged affidavits and the writ petition is thus finally disposed of in accordance with the rules of the court. 4. From the averments made to this writ petition by the parties it is absolutely clear that in respect of the management of the institution there am two rival managing committees. Under the provisions of U.P. Intermediate Education Act a forum has been provided for adjudicating such a dispute on the basis of effective control under Section 16-A(7)of the Act. Such a disputes can also be resolved by filing a civil suit. The petitioners are only aggrieved by the impugned order of the District Inspector of Schools in so far as it relates to attestation of signatures of respondent No. 3. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, when the petitioners have alternative statutory remedy open to them for getting effective relief. The petitioners can raise a dispute before the Deputy Director of Education concerned and in case such a dispute is raised the same shall be decided in accordance with the law alter hearing the parties under Section 16-A(7) of the Act and the Managing Committee who is in effective control of the institution will be entitled to manage the affairs of the institution. The petitioners should thus peruse their alternative remedy. 5. In the end the petitioners have raised apprehension that the dispute may remain pending before the Deputy Director of Education for a long time. We are not prepared to accept the same. In case the dispute is raised before the Deputy Director of Education, he shall adjudicate the same within period of two months from the date of raising dispute before him by the petitioners. 6. Subject to the aforesaid observations the present writ petition is finally disposed of. 7. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days.