JUDGMENT S. C. Mathur, J. - 1. The petitioners are aggrieved by appointment of Authorised Controller for Pragati Ashram, Balaganj, Hardoi Road, Lucknow by the State Government in purported exercise of the powers conferred under Section 16-D (4) of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Shortly stated petitioner's case is that the School is neither recognised under the Act mentioned herein nor it is receiving any grant in aid from the Education Department of the State Government although it was receiving grant from the Harijan and Welfare Department and therefore, the provisions of the Act are not applicable to it and accordingly the authorised Controller could not be appointed by the State Govt., under the provisions of the said Act. The Authorised Controller was appointed by order dated 9-8-85, Annexure 19, for a period of one year which has expired but he has been continued by subsequent orders, and he is still continuing as such. 2. Petitioner No. 1 is All India Crime Prevention Society and petitioner No. 2 is its President. Petitioner No. 1 has been stated to be a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act. The Society runs a school at Balaganj, Hardoi Road, Lucknow known as Pragati Ashram High School. It is claimed that in this School education is imparted from Classes I to X to ex-criminals and members of backward classes ; the school is a residential one and is continuing since 1958. In Paragraph 8 of the petition it has been stated that the land and building in which the school is being run, is owned by the petitioner-Society. In Paragraph 9 it is averred that the Education Department of U. P. Government never provided any fund for running the school although cent percent funds were provided by Harijan and Social Welfare Department of the State Government. These funds were utilised in providing food, clothing, books, stationery, medicines to the students and in payment of salary to the teachers and the staff. No education fee was charged from the students. Specific averment has been made in Paragraph 12 to the effect that no grant in aid was ever received for running the school from the Education Department of the U. P. Government. It is also stated in this very paragraph that teachers of the school were never appointed with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools or Regional Deputy Director of Education. It is also stated in this very paragraph that teachers of the school were never appointed with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools or Regional Deputy Director of Education. In the matter of appointment of staff, control was exercised by the department of Harijan and Social Welfare. Head Master of the School Sri R. P. Singh was appointed with the approval of the Director of the said Department ; a copy of his order dated 6-7-82 issued in this behalf has been filed as Annexure No. 5. In paragraph 2 of the supplementary affidavit dated 4-3-83 filed on behalf of the petitioners it has been specifically stated that the school has not been recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education or by any other authority of the Education Department. So long as the Society continued to receive grants from the Harijan and Social Welfare Department, no problem arose in running the school but in the year 1984-85 despite the order of the Director of Harijan and Social Welfare, Uttar Pradesh dated 29-3-85 the last instalment of the grant of Rs. 2,00,000/- was not released, with the result that it became impossible for the Society to run the school and on 20-5-85 it served notices upon the employees terminating their services with effect from 20-6-85. It appears that against the order terminating services of the employees Writ Petition No. 2539 of 1985 has been filed in this Court by the Madhyamik Shikshak Sangh in which State of U. P. has also been impleaded and a writ of mandamus has been claimed to command the State Govt, to appoint authorised controller for the School. Now a few developments culminating in the passing of the impugned order may be noticed. On 11-4-1983 the Additional Director of Education, Allahabad issued notice to the Manager of the School purporting to be under Section 16-D (2) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, for short ' the Act ', requiring him to remove the defects pointed out in the notice within 15 days; a copy of this notice is Annexure 7. The President of the Society submitted reply on 27-4-83, Annexure No. 8. The President of the Society submitted reply on 27-4-83, Annexure No. 8. On 17th August, 1983 the Additional Director of Education issued notice under Section 16-D (3) of the Act stating therein that the reply was not satisfactory and requiring to show cause against the proposed appointment of Authorised Controller under Section 16-D (4) ; copy of this notice is Annexure 10. Reply on behalf of the petitioners was submitted on 29th August, 1983, Annexure 11. Thereafter, after a gap of about two years the impugned order appointing Authorised Controller was passed by the State Government, copy of which is Annexure 19. According to the petitioners, although the impugned order appointing authorised Controller was passed on 9-8-85, the District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer who was appointed Authorised Controller, entered into the school premises and took possession thereof on 8-8-1985 with the assistance of a Magistrate and the Station Officer, Police Station Kakori and also took into his custody the records pertaining to the school as well as the Society. 3. On the above facts the petitioners have prayed for the quashing of notices, Annexures Nos. 7 and 10 and of the order, Annexure 19. They have further claimed mandamus to command the Authorised Controller to hand over possession of the building and the records to the petitioners. 4. In the writ petition the petitioners have impleaded State of U. P. through the Secretary, Education Department as well as through the Secretary, Harijan and Social Welfare Department, District Harijan and Social Welfare Officer, Lucknow, District Magistrate, Lucknow, Sri R. N. Trivedi, District Magistrate, Lucknow and the Authorised Controller, Pragati Ashram, Lucknow. None of the Opposite Parties had filed any counter affidavit except the Authorised Controller. The State Government has made no attempt to justify the impugned order. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Authorised Controller the petitioners' assertion that the School was being run in the building owned by the Society, was sought to be challenged with reference to Annexure E-1 which is copy of the agreement entered into between the Governor of State and the Society. From this document it appears that the land on which building, in which school was run, was acquired by the State Government at the instance of the petitioner-Society and thereafter it was transferred to the Society for consideration. This document itself shows that the land belongs to the Society. From this document it appears that the land on which building, in which school was run, was acquired by the State Government at the instance of the petitioner-Society and thereafter it was transferred to the Society for consideration. This document itself shows that the land belongs to the Society. Of course, this agreement enumerates certain conditions of transfer and reserves right of re-entry in favour of the Governor in the event of breach of the said terms. But that is beside the point as no action has been taken by the State to resume the land. 5. At the time of hearing a preliminary objection was raised by learned counsel for the Opposite Parties against the maintainability of the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner Society and its President. It was submitted that petitioner No. 1 had ceased to be registered Society and therefore, it was no longer competent to maintain the writ petition. In Paragraph 2 of the Authorised Controller's supplementary affidavit dated 23-4-1986 it was stated that the period of registration of the Society expired on 10-10-85 and thereafter, there had been no renewal. In the supplementary affidavit dated 5-1-87 filed by Khwaja Abdul Qadeer on behalf of the petitioners it was stated that the registration has been renewed for five years from 10th October, 1985, that is, upto 10-10-1990. In support of the plea photostate copy of the registration certificate dated 27-2-86 issued by the Registrar of Societies, Uttar Pradesh, Kanpur, was filed as Annexure A-1 to this affidavit. The Authorised Controller then filed supplementary affidavit dated 4-2-87 stating therein that the renewal relied upon by the petitioner has been cancelled. In support of the plea he filed a copy of the order of the Assistant Registrar, Societies, Kanpur. In reply to this affidavit counter affidavit dated 11-2-87 has been filed by Khawaja Abdul Qadeer on behalf of the petitioners. In this counter affidavit it has been stated that as soon as the cancellation of the registration was intimated to the petitioners they applied for registration to the Registrar, Chit Funds and Societies, U. P., Lucknow as directed by Deputy Registrar, Kanpur. To this counter-affidavit Annexure No. 22 has been filed which is claimed to be a copy of the application for renewal submitted on 4-2-87, to the Registrar, Chit Funds and Societies, U. P., Lucknow. To this counter-affidavit Annexure No. 22 has been filed which is claimed to be a copy of the application for renewal submitted on 4-2-87, to the Registrar, Chit Funds and Societies, U. P., Lucknow. From the facts hereinbefore stated it is clear that earlier the petitioners applied for renewal of the registration to the Registrar of Societies, Kanpur who renewed the registration. The Registrar, Kanpur actually granted renewal but latter it transpired that he did not possess requisite authority and therefore, he cancelled the registration and directed the petitioners to apply for registration at Lucknow which they have done. The application for renewal is now pending before the Registrar at Lucknow. The Authorised Controller, it appears, has filed objections against petitioners' application for renewal. The petition in this Court was filed on 17-8-85. Since the last renewal of the registration expired on 10-10-85 there was no lack of registration on the date the writ petition was filed in this Court. It was only during the pendency of the writ petition that the period of last renewal expired and thereafter the petitioners have been deligently pursuing their application for renewal of the registration. Once the application is allowed it will have retrospective effect. On these facts, therefore, we are not inclined to throw out the writ petition even if registration was necessary for filing or maintaining the writ petition in this Court. However, the authority relied upon by learned counsel in support of his proposition may be noticed. This is AIR 1979 Allahabad 68 Committee of Management Shahampal Smark Junior High School, Bijrol v. District Inspector of Schools, Meerut (DB). This authority does not lay down any proposition of the nature canvassed by the learned counsel. In the case of Akhil Bhartiya Soshit Karmchari Sangh (Railway) v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 298 their Lordships of the Supreme Court entertained the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution on behalf of unregistered Trade Union. On the same analogy this petition can also be entertained. AT any rate it is not a fit case in which the objections raised on behalf of the Authorised Controller should be sustained. 6. From the facts stated hereinabove, it would be seen that the impugned action has been taken by the State Government under Section 16-D of the Act. On the same analogy this petition can also be entertained. AT any rate it is not a fit case in which the objections raised on behalf of the Authorised Controller should be sustained. 6. From the facts stated hereinabove, it would be seen that the impugned action has been taken by the State Government under Section 16-D of the Act. The material question for determination is whether the School concerned is a recognised institution within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act. As noticed hereinabove, the petitioners have asserted in Paragraph 2 of their supplementary affidavit dated 4-3-86 that the School is not recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. This assertion has not been specifically denied by the Authorised Controller. However, he asserts the applicability of the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act by reference to Annexures No. E-2, E-3, E-4 and E-5. Before proceeding to examine these annexures the statutory provisions may be noticed. Relevant clauses of Section 16-D read as follows : - "16-D (1) The Director may cause a recognised institution to be inspected from time to time. (2) The Director may direct a management to remove any defect or deficiency found on inspection or otherwise. (3) If on the receipt of information or otherwise, the Director is satisfied that- (i) the Committee of Management of an institution has failed to comply with the judgment of any court or any direction made under this Act or any other law for the time being in force ; or............... he may refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition of such institution or issue notice to the Committee of Management to show cause within 30 days from the date of receipt of such notice why an order under sub-section (4) should not be made. he may refer the case to the Board for withdrawal of recognition of such institution or issue notice to the Committee of Management to show cause within 30 days from the date of receipt of such notice why an order under sub-section (4) should not be made. "(4) Where the Committee of Management of an institution fails to show cause within the time allowed under sub-section (3) or within such extended time as the Director may from time to time allow, or where the Director is, after considering the cause shown by the Committee of Management, satisfied that any of the grounds mentioned in sub-section (3) exists, he may recommend to the State Government to appoint an Authorised Controller for that institution, and thereupon, the State Government may, by order, for reasons to be recorded, authorise any person (hereinafter referred to as the Authorised Controller) to take over, for such period not exceeding two years, as may be specified, the Management of such institution and its properties : Under Clause (1) of Section 16-D the Director can cause inspection of a recognised institution only. He has no right to cause inspection of an institution which is not recognised. The term 'recognised' has been defined in Section 2 (d) of the Act as follows :- 2 (d) "Recognition" means recognition for the purpose of preparing candidates for admission to the Board's examination ; " The term 'Board' is defined in Clause (a) of Section 2, meaning the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. The constitution of this Board is provided for in Section 3 of the Act. It is, therefore, apparent that in order to attract Clause (1) of Section 16-D the institution concerned must be recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education constituted under Section 3 of the Act. There is no assertion in the counter affidavit that the school in question has been recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. All that has been stated in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit dated 10-10-85, is that the School has been recognised by the educational authorities. Then it is stated that copies of the recognition letter are filed as Annexures No. E-4 and E-5. All that has been stated in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit dated 10-10-85, is that the School has been recognised by the educational authorities. Then it is stated that copies of the recognition letter are filed as Annexures No. E-4 and E-5. In paragraph 10 it is stated that after a meeting of the higher authorities of Harijan and Social Welfare Department and the Education Board it was decided that the institution shall be governed under the Intermediate Education Act and other educational laws. In support of this assertion Annexures No. E-2 and E-3 have been relied upon. No order of the Board of High School and Intermediate Education recognising the School in question for the purposes of preparing candidates for admission to the Board's examination has been placed on record. We may now proceed to examine whether Annexures E-2 to E-5 can be said to contain recognition within the meaning of Section 2 (d) of the Act. 124-Rep.-1987 7. Annexure E-2 is the copy of letter dated 13-12-77 written by Sri K. B. Misra, Special Officer in the office of the Harijan and Social Welfare, U. P. Lucknow. The letter is addressed to Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey, District Inspector of Schools, Lucknow. This letter appears to be in reply to some query made by the District Inspector of Schools. Replying to the said queries it has been stated that the School in question is not a government school but is run by a voluntary organisation, namely, All India Crime Prevention Society, and that for running the School cent percent grant is given on conditions which can be said to be as follows :- (i) The school shall be run in accordance with Education Code and concerned Education Rules ; (ii) Departmental officers will be entitled to inspect and check the accounts of the school ; (iii) The account shall be subject to audit by the Local Fund Department and the Accountant General, U. P. Allahabad ; (iv) Appointment to the posts of Superintendent, Principal, Assistant Superintendent, Head Clerk and Account Clerk shall be made through the Managing Committee of the Society with the approval of the Director ; and (v) The amount of the grant shall be utilised only towards the Head against which it has been allowed. By mere requirement to run the school in accordance with the Education Code and concerned Government Rules the school cannot become a recognised school within the meaning of Clause (d) of Section 2. The recognition under this clause is granted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education and not by any officer of the Harijan and Social Welfare Department. ANNEXURE E-2 is, therefore, irrelevant. 8. Annexure E-3 is the copy of letter dated 17-7-82 addressed by Director of Harijan and Social Welfare to the school concerned. In this letter it has been stated that it has been decided at the level of the State Government that the Rules applicable to the recognised institutions shall be applicable to the school in question also and that financial grant will be released only on the District Inspector of School certifying compliance of the said Rules. This order does enjoin upon the institution to comply with the provisions of the Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder but even then this will not amount to making the concerned school a recognised school under the Act as the recognition under the Act has to be granted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education and not by the State Government. The only consequence of this letter is that if the petitioners do not run the school in question in accordance with the Act and the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, State Government may stop the grant that it has agreed to release for running the school. This letter is also, therefore, irrelevant. Annexure E-3 is copy of letter dated 10-12-75 addressed by Deputy Director of Education to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Lucknow. In this letter it is mentioned that from the date of issue of the letter the school in question is recognised as Junior High School on permanent basis subject to the condition that it shall follow the Rules and Regulations of the Education Department and the orders issued from time to time by the State Government. Again it is not an order by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education and is, therefore, irrelevant. 9. Annexure E-5 is copy of letter dated October, 1975 addressed by Deputy Secretary, Education- VIl Department, U. P. Government to the Director of Education-cum-Chairman, U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education. Again it is not an order by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education and is, therefore, irrelevant. 9. Annexure E-5 is copy of letter dated October, 1975 addressed by Deputy Secretary, Education- VIl Department, U. P. Government to the Director of Education-cum-Chairman, U. P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education. In this letter, the Deputy Secretary has stated that as a special case the Governor has accorded permanent recognition in respect of certain subjects for the purposes of High School Examination. The Deputy Secretary has further requested the Director of Education to accord permanent recognition to the school in question as Junior High School. Again this is not an order emanating from the Board of High School and Intermediate Education. 10. From the above it would be seen that none of the documents relied upon by Authorised Controller can be said to be amounting to recognition of the school in question under the provisions of the Act. The term 'recognised institution' has been used in sub-section (1) of Section 16-D and has not been used in sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) reproduced hereinabove but that does not mean that the requirement of recognised institution is not applicable to the said sub-sections. Sub-section (1) is the governing clause, and it applies to all the sub-sections of Section 16-D. Therefore, the terpt "recognised institution" will be deemed to be there in all the clauses of Section 16-D. Since as demonstrated above, the school in question is not recognised institution, neither notices under sub-sections (2) and (3) could be issued to the petitioners or the Manager of the school, nor an order could be passed under subsection (4) appointing Authorised Controller for the School. The order of State Government is, therefore, without jurisdiction. 11. It was vehemently pressed on behalf of the Authorised Controller that the school in question is not being properly run by the petitioners and petitioner No. 2 has embezzled the grant released by the State Government and therefore, it is desirable and imperative that the management of the institution should not remain with petitioner No. 2 or with the Society. From the correspondence hereinabove referred to, it is apparent that the utilisation of the grant could be checked through audit and it was also open to the State Government to stop the grant. From the correspondence hereinabove referred to, it is apparent that the utilisation of the grant could be checked through audit and it was also open to the State Government to stop the grant. That power of stopping the grant has already been exercised by the State Government and the validity of that action is not the subject matter of the present writ petition. The petitioners' only grievance is that when the grant has been stopped they cannot be compelled to run the institution nor an Authorised Controller can be imposed upon the school nor he can be directed or authorised to take possession of the property belonging to the Society. Since the Society is the owner of the building, obviously, it is entitled to possession thereof. The Authorised Controller could validly enter into possession of the said property if under any law power could be conferred upon him. Our attention has not been drawn to any lav except Section 16-D which is not applicable. In the circumstances, the possession of the Authorised Controller over the property and records of the Society and the school is entirely unauthorised. 12. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the notices and order contained in Annexures 7, 10 and 19 are hereby quashed. All orders extending the term of appointment of the Authorised Controller shall also stand quashed. The Authorised Controller shall within one month handover possession of the school to the petitioners and he shall also deliver to the petitioners all the records of the Society and the School which came in his possession. Costs of this petition shall be easy. 13. Immediately after the above judgment had been pronounced Sri R. N. Gupta learned counsel for Opposite Party No. 5 prayed for certificate of fitness for preferring appeal before their Lordships of the Supreme Court. Our judgment does not raise any substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by their Lordships. Accordingly, certificate prayed for is refused. Petition allowed.