JUDGMENT A.N. Varma J. 1. These petitions are being disposed by a common judgment as they raise issues which are interconnected. We will take up writ petition no. 13321 of 1984 first, as, upon its success or failure, depends the fate of the other two petitions. The petition is directed against the order dated 22-9-1984 passed the Additional Director of Education (Secondary), Uttar Pradesh whereby he ordered the release of the grant of the institution in question in favour of Chandra Prakash, the respondent no. 7 herein. 2. The dispute is about the management of a recognized institution called the Nehru Higher Secondary School, Peepeganj, Gorakhpur. Dr. Chandrama Singh who has filed this petition along with others, claims to be the Manager of the Committee of Management of that institution. The case set up by the petitioners is that the committee represented by them was duly elected on 22-8- 1982 with Dr. Chandrama Singh as its manager. By an order dated 9-9-1982 the District Inspector of Schools (DIOS for short) recognized the said committee as the lawfully constituted committee of management of the institution. This order was challenged by the group represented by Sri Chandra Prakash by means of a writ petition no. 8397 of 1983. He asserted that the institution was being run by a registered society called Jan Vikas Shiksha Prasarni Samiti, Pharenda, Gorakhpur and he was the Manager of the Committee of Management elected by the said society. The group represented by Dr. Chandrama Singh was not elected by that society but by some other society and consequently the DIOS committed a serious error in recognizing that committee, After hearing learned counsel for the parties this Court, by its order dated 22-7-1983, dismissed writ petition no. 8397 of 1983 with the observation that it will be open to Sri Chandra Prakash to have the dispute adjudicated by means of a civil suit. Sri Chandra Prakash, however, did not file any suit. The order dated 9-9-1982 thus remained unchallenged and in operation and in the face of that order the Additional Director of Education could not order the release of the grant of the institution in favour of Sri Chandra Prakash. Sri Chandra Prakash, however, did not file any suit. The order dated 9-9-1982 thus remained unchallenged and in operation and in the face of that order the Additional Director of Education could not order the release of the grant of the institution in favour of Sri Chandra Prakash. The order is also challenged on the ground that the same was passed without hearing the petitioners who constituted the lawfully elected Committee of Management recognized by the DIOS and was hence liable to be quashed as violative of the principles of natural justice. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find considerable merit in the above contention. It is not disputed that Sri Chandra Prakash's attempt to challenge the order dated 9-9-1982 had proved abortive by the dismissal of writ petition no. 8397 of 1983. It is equally undisputed that Sri Chandra Prakash though expressly granted leave to file a civil suit had chosen not to institute any suit and get its claim adjudicated. The Additional Director of Education completely disregarded these facts which had a material bearing on the question as to the person in whose favour grant should be ordered. He committed a serious error in directing the release of the grant of the institution in favour of Sri Chandra Prakash. As mentioned above, the latest order passed by the DIOS which was then in operation was the one passed on 9-9-1982 whereby the committee represented by Dr. Chandrama Singh was recognised as the lawfully constituted Committee of Management. The grant could hence be ordered to be released only in favour of that committee and not in favour of Sri Chandra Prakash. 3. Sri A. N. Tripathi representing SRI Chandra Prakash however, placed strong reliance on paragraph 315 of the Education Code in support of his contention that the Director of Education could while exercising powers under that provision order the release of the grant-in-aid of the institution in favour of Sri Chandra Prakash independently of the order passed by the DIOS on 9-9-1982. 4. We are unable to agree. Education Code is a compilation of statutory and non statutory orders and instructions issued by the Government for the guidance of the officers and authorities in the discharge of their duties falling within the ambit of the department of the education. 4. We are unable to agree. Education Code is a compilation of statutory and non statutory orders and instructions issued by the Government for the guidance of the officers and authorities in the discharge of their duties falling within the ambit of the department of the education. Paragraph 315 of this Code provides for the suspension, withdrawal or reduction in the grant-in-aid sanctioned by the Government for an aided institution where there are complaints of irregularities against the management of such an institution and for that purpose the Director has been authorised to investigate such complaints and even to suspend the grant of an institution pending enquiry. To our mind, this provision cannot be construed as over-riding the provisions of the Intermediate Education Act as well as allied enactment like the U.P. High Schools and Intermediate Colleges (Payment of Salaries of Teachers and other Employees) Act, 1971. Under these enactments, there are specific provisions for the adjudication of disputes with respect to the management of the institution. For example, under section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act the Regional Deputy Director of Education is authorised to determine such disputes and thereupon to recognise the persons found by him as constituting the Committee of Management of the institution until a court of competent jurisdiction directs otherwise. Likewise the DIOS has been authorised under the aforesaid Payment of Salaries Act to operate the accounts of the teachers and employees of the institution jointly with the Manager recognised by him. In appropriate cases he can also operate the said account singly. The two powers-one under paragraph 315 of the Education Code and the other under the aforesaid enactments-have, to be exercised in harmony with each other. Paragraph 315 deals only with the sanction of grant to an aided institution and its suspension but this power cannot be exercised in disregard of the powers conferred on the designated authorities for extending recognition to the Committee of Management. It will, therefore, be wrong to suppose that in the exercise of his powers under paragraph 315 the Director was free to disregard any order passed by a competent authority recognising a committee as a lawfully constituted Committee of Management. It was in the exercise of this power that the DIOS had passed the order dated 9-9-1982. It will, therefore, be wrong to suppose that in the exercise of his powers under paragraph 315 the Director was free to disregard any order passed by a competent authority recognising a committee as a lawfully constituted Committee of Management. It was in the exercise of this power that the DIOS had passed the order dated 9-9-1982. In any case, this order having received affirmation by the High Court by the dismissal of the writ petition filed by. Sri Chandra Prakash, the Director fell into a clear error in ordering the release of the grant in favour of Sri Chandra Prakash. 5. The order passed by the Addl. Director of Education dated 22-9-1984 has also been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that the same was passed without any notice or opportunity whatever to Dr. Chandrama Singh. In our opinion, in view of the fact that the latest order then in operation was in favour of Dr. Chandrama Singh, the Addl. Director of Education was bound to give notice to him before passing the impugned order. No such notice was, however, given. Thus in either view of the matter, the order dated 22-9-1984 is liable to be quashed. 6. This takes us to writ petition no. 15562 of 1987 filed by Sri Chandra Prakash. THIS petition is directed against the order dated 13-8-1987 passed by the DIOS directing that the salaries accounts of the teachers and other employees of the institution shall be operated singly by him as heretofore. The order has been passed purporting to give effect to an interim order passed by this court on 5-8-1987 in writ petition no. 13321 of 1984 and writ petition no. 7906 of 1983. By this order, the DIOS had been restrained from disbursing the unpaid balance grant for the year 1982-83. The principal contention raised by Sri A. N. Tripathi on behalf of Sri Chandra Prakash was that this court had merely restrained the DIOS from disbursing the unpaid balance of the grant. It had not, it was urged, stayed the operation of the order dated 22-9-1984. The DIOS was hence clearly wrong in reverting to the single operation of the salaries accounts. The submission is liable to be rejected on more than one ground. In the first place, we have already held that the order dated 22-9-1984 passed by the Addl. It had not, it was urged, stayed the operation of the order dated 22-9-1984. The DIOS was hence clearly wrong in reverting to the single operation of the salaries accounts. The submission is liable to be rejected on more than one ground. In the first place, we have already held that the order dated 22-9-1984 passed by the Addl. Director which constitutes the very foundation of this petition is liable to be quashed being entirely unsupportable in law. 7. Secondly, when this court by its order dated 3-8-1987 restrained the disbursement of the unpaid balance grant, it plainly implied that the effect of the order dated 22-9-1984 shall be put in abeyance till further orders. By the order dated 22-9-1984 the Addl. Director had ordered the release of the grant in favour of Sri Chandra Prakash. It was in pursuance of this order that the DIOS had passed the order dated 20-7-1987 attesting the signature of Chandra Prakash. Consequently when this Court by its order dated 5-8-1987 restrained the disbursement of the balance grant in favour of Chandra Prakash, it clearly intended to stay the operation of the order dated 22-9-1984. That is why when the order of this Court was brought to the notice of the DIOS, he immediately passed the order dated 13-8-1987 bringing it in line with the order dated 5-8-1987. 8. The DIOS was hence fully justified in restoring the position with regard to operation of the salaries account of the teachers and other employees unilaterally by him as had already been ordered by this Court by its order dt. 7-11-84 passed in writ petition no. 7906 of 1983. By this order, the Court had directed that payment of salaries of the approved teachers and other employees shall be made by the DIOS through crossed cheques under his own signatures. Thirdly, in our opinion, Sri Chandra Prakash no longer possesses the locus standi to press this petition. On his own shoeing the committee of which he claims to have been the manager was elected on 20-5-1981. Its term, therefore, expired in any case latest in J 984. And no material has been brought to our notice nor indeed is there any allegation showing that he was elected at any time subsequent to 1984 as the manager of any Committee of Management recognised by the competent authority. Its term, therefore, expired in any case latest in J 984. And no material has been brought to our notice nor indeed is there any allegation showing that he was elected at any time subsequent to 1984 as the manager of any Committee of Management recognised by the competent authority. He is, therefore, not competent to assail the validity of the order dated 13-8-1987 passed by the DIOS. 9. In any case, with the quashing of the order dated 22-9-1984 passed by the Additional Director the very substratum of writ petition no. 15562 of 1987 disappears founded as it is solely on that order. The petition is thus liable to be dismissed. 10. That brings us to writ petition no. 7906 of 1983 filed by Dr. Chandrama Singh. By this petition Dr. Chandrama Singh has prayed for the quashing of the order dated 24-3 -1983 passed by the Deputy Director of Education VII Region, Gorakhpur stating that the grant-in-aid of the institution sanctioned for the year 1982-83 be withdrawn in the name of the DIOS. The order was assailed on the ground that inasmuch as the petitioner had already been recognised on 9-9-82 by the DIOS there was no justification for allowing the DIOS to withdraw the grant in his own name. It was urged that the impugned order has resulted in the stoppage of the salaries of the teachers and other employees of the institution. In our opinion, the impugned order is entirely unexceptionable. It has come in evidence that the said order was passed in order to save the grant from lapsing which was a good enough ground, in any case, the grievance of the petitioner regarding the difficulty in the disbursement of the salaries to the teachers and other employees was fully taken care of by the order passed by this Court on 27-11-1984 whereby the DIOS was directed to go into the question of who are the approved teachers and other employees of the institution entitled to receive salaries and to make payment to them through crossed cheques under his own signatures. That order has already been given effect to by the order passed by the DIOS on 13-8-1987 referred to above. In our opinion, this petition has really become stale and infructuous with the lapse of time inasmuch as the order dated 9-9-1982 relied on by the petitioner is of no avail now. That order has already been given effect to by the order passed by the DIOS on 13-8-1987 referred to above. In our opinion, this petition has really become stale and infructuous with the lapse of time inasmuch as the order dated 9-9-1982 relied on by the petitioner is of no avail now. On the own showing of Dr. Chandrama Singh, fresh elections took place twice since then, once in 1985 and again in 1988. For all these reasons this petition is also liable to be dismissed. Before closing, we may deal with one point on which Sri A. N. Tripathi laid considerable stress. He contended that Dr. Chandrama Singh claims to have been elected as the Manager of a committee which was elected by the members of a Society called Nehru Uchchatar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Prasar Samiti, Pipiganj, Gorakhpur, which Society is not entitled to run the institution. The Jan Vikas Shiksha Prasarni Samiti, Pharenda Gorakhpur, which was registered for the first time in 1964 and whose registration has been renewed from time to time, alone is authorised to run the institution and inasmuch as Dr. Chandrama Singh's committee was never elected by the latter Society, he cannot claim to represent the institution. 11. These assertions have been denied by Dr. Chandrama Singh in counter affidavits in ail the petitions. In any case, the dispute sought to be raised by Sri Tripathi is one which this Court cannot go into in these proceedings. It is a controversy of a nature which may appropriately be raised either by way of a civil suit or before the authorities constituted either under the Societies Registration Act or under the Intermediate Education Act. We, therefore, refrain from expressing any concluded opinion on this controversy. 12. In the result, writ petition nos. 15562 of 1987 and 7906 of 1983 fail and are dismissed, while writ petition no. 13321 of 1984 succeeds and is allowed. The order dated 22-9-1984 passed by the Additional Director of Education (Secondary) U.P. Allahabad (marked as Annexure 14 to the petition) is quashed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs of these petitions.