JUDGMENT G.D. KAMAT, J.:—This petition is claimed to be in Shikshan Prasarak Sangh, Durbhat, Society registered under the Societies Registered Act, 1860, under Khumbo phadt, styling as its member on behalf of himself and 97 other members thereof. In addition to impleading the State of Goa and Director of Education as respondent Nos. 1 and 2, Shri Krishnanath Baburao Naik has been impleaded as respondent No. 3. 2. The petition seeks a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the respondents for quashing the order of the Government of Goa bearing No. DE/Accd. I/Case-file/P/42/88-89/1428 dated 11th June, 1990, Annexure P-16 and two consequential Orders Annexure P. 17 colly. 3. What led to the making of the impugned order dated 11th June, 1990, the controversy involved in this petition has important bearing in the background of Writ Petition No. 17 of 1989 disposed of by a Division Bench of this Court on 6th October, 1989, the rejection of the Special Leave Application by the Supreme Court and the take over of the management of a school known as Sharada English High School, Durbhat, by the Authorised Officer appointed by the Director of Education. 4. People of village Durbhat promoted a society in the name and style of Shikshan Prasarak Sangh, Durbhat, for short "the Sangh and got it registered in the year 1964 under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The promoters and members of the Sangh a majority of whom belonged to the fishermen community. As per the object of the Sangh it is clear that it was to promote physical, mental and moral standards of the people specially the youth and the students of Durbhat and for the realization of the said objective to open school, libraries etc. The Sangh started running a Secondary School at Drubhat known as Sharada English High School, for short "the School" since 1967, which was duly recognized by the Government for the purpose of receiving grants-in-aid. It is common ground that the said school caters to the needs of the students not only of Durbhat but also of the neighbouring villages. The Sangh started running a Secondary School at Drubhat known as Sharada English High School, for short "the School" since 1967, which was duly recognized by the Government for the purpose of receiving grants-in-aid. It is common ground that the said school caters to the needs of the students not only of Durbhat but also of the neighbouring villages. In the year 1967, the respondent No. 3 Krishnanath Baburao Naik who resides at Margao was got involved by the members of the Sangh and accordingly elected to be the President of the Sangh. It is the case of the petitioners that this Naik belongs to Kshatriya Bandari Samaj, i.e. agriculturists and toddy tappers community and not to the fishermen community. The reason as to why Mr. Naik was involved in the Sangh and elected its President, as the averment goes, is that he was a member of the Legislative Assembly of the then ruling Maharashtrawadi Gomantak Party. It appears that after 1972 there had been no elections to the executive body of the Sangh with the result said Krishnanath Baburao Naik continued to be its President and Vishwanath P. Phadte to be the Secretary for quite a length of time. The school had no building of its own but since its inception started functioning in two premises (1) "Mandup", and (2) "Math", which belongs to an association of fishermen known as Sociedade des Pescadores, for short "Society", literally translated means Society of Fishermen. Needless to mention that it is an association of fishermen of the village of Durbhat, the members of which otherwise are the promoters and members of Shikshan Prasarak Sangh which had let out the said two premises to the Sangh to run the said school. 5. It appears that after the year 1972, in the absence of active participation and involvement of the members, the Sangh almost became defunct as not much attention was paid to the affairs of the Society. The elected President K.B. Naik and Secretary Vishwanath Pandurang Phadte continued as de facto office bearers until one day they fell out from each other. Since no rent had been paid to the Society for a period of about 10 years from 1977-1987, the Society through its advocate served a notice upon the Sangh dated 28th January, 1988, demanding the arrears of rent. Mr. Since no rent had been paid to the Society for a period of about 10 years from 1977-1987, the Society through its advocate served a notice upon the Sangh dated 28th January, 1988, demanding the arrears of rent. Mr. Naik by his reply dated 18th February, 1988, joined issue with the Society regarding arrears of rent, but agreed to vacate the school premises within the next few months. The petitioners over this decision of Mr. Naik to vacate the building was without reference to general body or any other member of the executive body. The members of the Sangh therefore approached the Society and requested the withdrawal of the eviction notice in the larger interests of the student community of Durbhat and the School. It appears that the Society was agreeable to this request provided the rent is paid so that out of the rents collected the premises could be repaired. It is averred in the petition that the third respondent was informed that the Society is no longer interested in the eviction of the school and is even agreeable to give some land free of cost to enable the Sangh to take up a new construction of the school building. Despite all this from the beginning of the academic year 1988-89 the respondent No. 3 without reference to anybody, from 6th June, 1988, shifted one division of each of the classes V, VI, VII, VIII IX of the said school to a new premises at Adpoi, a neighbouring village about 1 km. away from the existing school. The petition states that out of 336 students 201 students constituted the classes shifted to Adpoi. With the shifting of five classes, it is averred that the Head Master Mr. Sagun Naik and one Peon moved to Adpoi, but the remaining 18 employees, majority of whom were teachers, refused to go to Adpoi and continued in the existing school at Durbhat. Having seen that some classes of the school were shifted to Adpoi, an adjoining village, on behalf of the Society, third respondent Naik was sounded that the Society has no objection for bringing back the classes to Durbhat so that the school functions at Durbhat, with a further representation that arrears of rents could be settled amicably at the same time offering a suitable plot free of cost for the construction of the school building. It appears that a great discontent followed the shifting of the classes among the people of Durbhat as also the members of the Sangh leading to a law and order situation. An attempt was made calling upon the respondent No. 3 Naik to convene an Extraordinary General Board Meeting of the Sangh to consider the explosive situation having failed as the third respondent Naik did not convene any meeting, some of the members who by now become active invited an Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 7th August, 1988, at which one Sadanand K. Shet was elected as President and Mr. Vishwanath Pandurang Phadte, as Secretary and some more office bearers like Vice-President, Joint Secretary, Treasurer, etc. It is not disputed that the shifting of the classes generated an unrest among the residents of Durbhat and apart from creating a law and order problem generated a chaotic situation in the school also. 6. The refusal of the teachers to shift to Adpoi, also added not only to the unrest generated but also in the academic field with the result that Government was perforced to act in the matter. A memorandum was issued to the Sangh calling upon to show cause why the management of the said school be not taken over by the Government for a period of three years in the first instance under section 20 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act. That memorandum reads thus: "Memorandum No. DE/Acad I/CEZ/Case file/P/42/88-89/3850 Whereas complaints have been received in this Department about the illegal shifting of the classes and improper functioning of the Sharada English High School Durbhat run by the Shikshan Prasarak Sangh, Ponda. And whereas on investigations made by this Department, it has been verified that commencing with the academic year 1988-89 the said Management of Shikshan Prasarak Sangh, Ponda, running Sharada English High School, Durbhat has shifted the classes namely classes : Std. And whereas on investigations made by this Department, it has been verified that commencing with the academic year 1988-89 the said Management of Shikshan Prasarak Sangh, Ponda, running Sharada English High School, Durbhat has shifted the classes namely classes : Std. V-B, VI-B, VII-B and IX-B from Durbhat, Ponda (i.e. original premises) to Adpoi, Ponda beyond a distance of about one km.; And whereas the Chairman of Sharada English High School, Durbhat in his deposition dated 17-6-1988 before the Officer of this Department has stated that five of the classes had to be shifted to an alternative place i.e. Adpoi, Ponda, because Sociedade de Pescadores of Durbhat, through their Advocate had served a legal notice to vacate the said premises and hand them over to Sociedade dos Pescadores and also because the main building in which 3 of the classes were functioning at Durbhat, Ponda were found unsafe for occupation because of the cracks in the walls; And whereas subsequently the Administrator of Sociedade dos Pescadores vide letter dated 25-5-1988 has shown willingness to repair the building and withdraw the notice; And whereas the new premises at Adpoi, Ponda has been inspected and the same is also not found suitable and adequate; And whereas the President of Shikshan Prasarak Sangh still insists that the action taken by him was necessitated by circumstances. And whereas the said shifting of the school from Durbhat, Ponda to Adpoi, Ponda has led to discontentment and dissatisfaction among the people of Durbhat, Ponda, leading in agitation. And whereas the said shifting of the school from Durbhat, Ponda to Adpoi, Ponda has led to discontentment and dissatisfaction among the people of Durbhat, Ponda, leading in agitation. And whereas the conflictions stand taken by the different groups namely President of Shikshan Prasarak Sangh and the President of Sociedade dos Peseodores and the people of the two villages namely Durbhat and Adpoi has resulted into unprecedent situation and malfunctioning of the school as presently majority of the regular teachers of the school are unable to attend their duties because some of the local people of Durbhat are obstructing them from reporting to duties at Adpoi, Ponda and the school is presently being run without 18 out of 20 approved employees and whereas, the regular employees who are unable to attend the school are not paid from June, 1988; And whereas all our efforts to settle this dillematic situation amicably have not succeeded due to non-co-operation from both the rival groups; And whereas the Management has acted ex-parte without consulting the Director of Education; And whereas the Management of the said school had contravened the provision of Rule 42 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986 by shifting the premises to a different locality i.e. from Durbhat, Ponda to Adpoi, Ponda which resulted the present chaotic situation leading to the improper functioning of the school, sufferings of the student community, discontent and dissatisfaction among the dual groups leading the situation to the point of no return and no amicable settlement; And whereas in view of facts and circumstances as brought out on the record the Government is satisfied that the managing committee and the manager of the said school have contravened the provision of sub-section 1(ii), (iii) (v) of section 20 of the said Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984; And whereas it is expedient in the public interest and in the interest of School Education the Government has no other alternative but to invoke the provision of section 20 of the said Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984, and to take over the Management of the School for a period of 3 years for the first instance. Now, the management of the Shikshan Prasarak Sangh, Ponda is hereby called upon to show cause within 10 days of the receipt of this memorandum as to why the Management of the school should not be taken over by Government for a period of 3 years in the first instance in terms of section 20 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act 1984 so as to secure the proper management of the said school. It may please be noted that if no reply is received by due date, it will be presumed that the management has no say in the matter and further action as proposed shall be taken. By order and in the name of the Governor of Goa. S.V. Kurade, Director of Education and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to Government of Goa. Panaji, 4th October, 1988." 7. A perusal of this Memorandum will suggest that the shifting of the classes from Durbhat to Adpoi was held to be illegal shifting qua regulatory provision in the first place. Secondly, as a consequence the classes were found to be illegally functioning. Thirdly, the shifting of the school had led to discontentment, dissatisfaction among the people of Durbhat leading to agitation. Fourthly, a cleavage had arisen between the people of two villages Durbhat and Adpoi as also between the respondent No. 3 claiming as President of the Sangh as against the claim by others as office-bearers with the result two managements and lastly the efforts of the department to amicably settle the matter having failed had resulted in chaotic situation leading to improper functioning of the school whereby the student community was suffering and therefore, the take over of the management of the school for a period of three years was proposed. 8. Respondent No. 3 replied to this memorandum literally making out a case that the school was forced to shift the classes from Durbhat to Adpoi on the ground that eviction notice had been served and further that one of the buildings had been unsafe for occupation. 9. By the order dated 3rd January, 1989, the Government in terms rejected the cause shown by the respondent No. 3 Naik and directed to take over of the management of the school for a period of three years in the first instance. 9. By the order dated 3rd January, 1989, the Government in terms rejected the cause shown by the respondent No. 3 Naik and directed to take over of the management of the school for a period of three years in the first instance. It was interated in the order that the Government is satisfied that it is expedient in public interest and in the interest of school education to secure proper management of the said school initially at least for a period of three years with immediate effect. 10. The respondent No. 3 Naik felt aggrieved by this order and as President of the Sangh instituted a writ petition in this Court being Writ Petition No. 17 of 1989. Interim order of stay of the operation of the Order dated 3rd January, 1989, was obtained alongwith rule on 12th January, 1989. During the pendency of this petition, intervention was sought by Shri Sadanand K. Shet who as mentioned earlier asserted that he was elected President in the Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 7th August, 1988. It may be of some interest to point out at this stage itself that as the matter related to education and the inconvenience that caused to the students and otherwise the unrest had its own telltale, the Division Bench to which one of us was a party (Kamat, J.) attempted to bring about a settlement of the dispute and when no settlement was in sight, the petition was heard on its merits and judgment pronounced on 6th October, 1989. The petition filed by the respondent No. 3 Naik was dismissed with the result the take over order dated 3rd January, 1989, sprang into action. The Division Court observed that by shifting the classes from Durbhat to Adpoi without prior approval from the Director of Education the school management has infracted Rule 42 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Rules, 1986". The Division Court repudiated the contentions that there was no violation of Rule 42 for the entire school had not been shifted but only some classes had been shifted or that the shifting was as a result of unsafety of one of the premises in which the school was functioning at Durbhat. The Division Court repudiated the contentions that there was no violation of Rule 42 for the entire school had not been shifted but only some classes had been shifted or that the shifting was as a result of unsafety of one of the premises in which the school was functioning at Durbhat. For that matter, the Division Court even observed that on account of shifting of the school from Durbhat to Adpoi there was a lot of agitation among the villagers almost creating a law and order problem even to the extent of disturbing public peace and tranquility and further that there was breach of public peace and therefore the public authorities were left with no alternative but to make the impugned Order of take over its management which was done not only in the public interest generally, but also in the interest of the school education particularly (para 10 of the judgment). 11. Once this judgment was pronounced the Director of Education directed Shri V.B. Naik, Deputy Education Officer to take over the management of the said school pursuant to the Order of 3rd January, 1989, and to function as the authorized officer. It appears that very strangely but unreasonably on 4th January, 1990, the Authorized Officer took charge of the management of whatever divisions and classes of Sharada English High School at Durbhat, but did not take over the management of Adpoi divisions and yet the Department did not want to accord recognition to the classes conducted at Adpoi. This situation further complicated the affairs relating to the classes at Adpoi and the respondent No. 3 Naik was put to a great predicament since the Directorate of Education was not according recognition to the classes conducted at Adpoi and the Government only took over the classes going on at Durbhat. One has only to imagine the financial burden of payment of the salaries of the teachers and running expenditure of the classes conducted at Adpoi. In fact, the situation was as if the Director of Education had cornered respondent No. 3 Naik. 12. In the meantime, respondent No. 3 Naik approached the Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition No. 1611 of 1990 against the judgment delivered by the Division Bench on 6th October 1989, in Writ Petition No. 17/89. In fact, the situation was as if the Director of Education had cornered respondent No. 3 Naik. 12. In the meantime, respondent No. 3 Naik approached the Supreme Court with a Special Leave Petition No. 1611 of 1990 against the judgment delivered by the Division Bench on 6th October 1989, in Writ Petition No. 17/89. The Supreme Court on 8th February, 1990, while rejecting Special Leave passed order as follows :--- "We are not inclined to interfere with the orders taking over the Management. Hence the Special Leave Petition is dismissed. Mr. Mehta states that the main grievance today is that only part of the school has been taken over as a result of which some of the students are suffering. If that is so the petitioner can approach the High Court." What is therefore pertinent to note is that once the Supreme Court refused to interfere with the order taking over the management a fervent plea was made on behalf of the respondent Shri Naik before the Supreme Court that only a part of the school at Durbhat has been taken over and since the classes conducted at Adpoi are not being taken over by the Authorized Officer the student community is suffering and in that context the Supreme Court observed that respondent No. 3 Naik can approach the High Court and obtain appropriate direction therefrom. 13. In the meantime another development took place and that was several students who were in the S.S.C. Class at Adpoi (batch of 1989-90) filled their forms for the S.S.C. Examination to be conducted in March, 1990, and in the absence of the recognition of the school, the Goa Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education refused to accept their forms. Another predicament by which whole of the academic year 1989-90 would have been lost by sufficiently large number of students. Result was on behalf of students Writ Petition No. 40 of 1990 was instituted by Miss. Navita Nani Naik in this Court seeking a mandamus directing the Board to accept the forms signed by the In-charge Head Master Gajanan V. Naik who was conducting classes at Durbhat. Result was on behalf of students Writ Petition No. 40 of 1990 was instituted by Miss. Navita Nani Naik in this Court seeking a mandamus directing the Board to accept the forms signed by the In-charge Head Master Gajanan V. Naik who was conducting classes at Durbhat. It was averred in the petition that as a result of a dispute over the affairs of the school the fact of 39 students and the petitioner was such that they would miss the S.S.C. Examination and loose one full year and in that view of the matter the Division Bench of this Court to which again one of us was a party (Kamat, J.) on 13th February, 1990 on making rule in that petition, interim relief was granted directing the S.S.C. Board to accept the forms countersigned by that Head Master. This Writ Petition No. 40 of 1990 is also being disposed of in terms of the interim order today finally as nothing more survives in that petition. 14. Despite all this there is a sudden volte case staged by the Department and we have the impugned order of 11th June, 1990. Regard being had to the arguments and the backdrop already highlighted, it is advantageous to transcribe that order (Annexure P-16) issued by the Director of Education, who is also the ex-officio Additional Secretary to the Government, which reads as under:- "Order Whereas some of the classes of Sharada English High School, Durbhat, run by Shikshan Prasarak Sangh Ponda, herein after called the Management of the School were shifted during the academic year 1988-89 from Durbhat to Adpoi Ponda; And whereas consequent upon the shifting of some of the classes to Adpoi, the school started functioning at 2 places. Following the intervention of the Government 18 employees out of total 20 admissible employees of the school were functioning at the original premises at Durbhat and the Headmaster and one peon continued to function at new premises; And whereas Government has reconsidered this peculiar situation and Government is now pleased to resolve the issue with the following arrangement :--- 1. Following the intervention of the Government 18 employees out of total 20 admissible employees of the school were functioning at the original premises at Durbhat and the Headmaster and one peon continued to function at new premises; And whereas Government has reconsidered this peculiar situation and Government is now pleased to resolve the issue with the following arrangement :--- 1. The school at Adpoi shall be named as Sharada English High School, Adpoi and it will be managed by the same Society headed by Shri K.B. Naik as per the provisions of Education Rules, 1986 and the same is being permitted by the Government from June, 1990 to run the classes from Std. Vth to Xth consequent to recognition of the said school by the Goa Board as per the Rules. 2. The school at Adpoi shall be eligible for grants from June, 1990 onwards. 3. Sharada English High School at Durbhat shall continue to be under the control of the Government. 4. The surplus staff of Durbhat shall be transferred and absorbed in Sharada English High School, Adpoi w.e.f. the date of such transfer and absorption. 5. After working out the due details of transfer and absorption of the staff, a post of regular Headmaster for a period of 2 years in the first instance shall be sanctioned to the school at Durbhat. 6. The Manager of the Adpoi school shall obtain the recongnition of the S.S.C. Board for Std. VIII, IX and X in 1990-91 as per rules. Government hereby orders the functioning of the Sharada English High School, Adpoi and Sharada English High School, Durbhat with immediate effect. This has the concurrence of S.S. dated 11-6-1990. By Order and in the name of Governor of Goa, Sd/- (V.N. Dessai) Director of Education and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to Government of Goa." Apart from infirmities viz. misconception of facts pointed out which ex-facie appear in the Order, this Order has in terms torn as under Sharada English High School, Durbhat, into two schools one at Adpoi and the second at Durbhat, though stated to be managed by the same Sangh, but none-the-less to be headed by Shri K.B. Naik. The new school brought into being at Adpoi is made eligible for grants from June, 1990 onwards but the Sharada English High School at Durbhat to continue under the control and management of the Government. The new school brought into being at Adpoi is made eligible for grants from June, 1990 onwards but the Sharada English High School at Durbhat to continue under the control and management of the Government. Certain consequential order/directions are made relating to the transfer/absorption of the staff/bifurcation and allotment of teaching staff appointment of regular Head Master for Durbhat, etc. which need not be bothered about at this time. These consequential orders, one dated 19th June, 1990 and the other dated 21st June, 1990 are Exh. P-17 colly. 15. What transpires is that the Order dated 3rd January, 1989, for take over of the management was made in public interest and also in the interest of the student community because some of the classes of the school functioning at Durbhat had been illegally shifted to Adpoi as a result of which breach of peace had occurred and notwithstanding that the order which was confirmed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No. 17 of 1989 on 6th October, 1989, is now given a go-by and the illegal situation created by respondent No. 3 Naik is not only legalized but what is still more is how does the Government and on what authority creates two schools out of one without any reference to the Sangh, the owner thereof. This is the crux of the controversy in this petition. 16. The first point taken by Mr. Kakodkar, learned Counsel for the petitioners, is that the impugned order dated 11th June, 1990 is based on incorrect and falacious facts and once it discloses ex-facie a misconception of facts that by itself is sufficient to strike down the order. The infirmities per se show non-application of mind by the Director of Education, urges Mr. Kakodkar. Coming to the impugned Order, it may be noticed that Shikshan Prasarak Sangh, Ponda, has been mentioned in the first recital. In the second recital the infirmity pointed out is that consequent upon the shifting of some of the classes to Adpoi the school started funtioning at two places. In fact, what happened was one division of each of five classes from Vth standard onwards had been shifted to Adpoi and therefore, the reference that the school started functioning at two places is pointed out to be erroneous just as 18 out of 20 of the staff members were functioning at original premises at Adpoi. In fact, what happened was one division of each of five classes from Vth standard onwards had been shifted to Adpoi and therefore, the reference that the school started functioning at two places is pointed out to be erroneous just as 18 out of 20 of the staff members were functioning at original premises at Adpoi. In the same recital a reference is made as if the original premises were at Adpoi, though the original school is at Durbhat. Insofar as the third recital is concerned, a reference is made that the Government has reconsidered this peculiar situation. Nowhere it is specified as to what is this peculiar situation and finally, the Government resolved that the school at Adpoi shall be named as Sharada English High School, Adpoi and it will be managed by the same Society headed by Mr. K.B. Naik and Sharada English High School at Durbhat shall continue to be under the control of the Government. It is now urged that shifting of some of the divisions at Adpoi had become the bone of contention in Writ Petition No. 17 of 1989 but by the impugned order the Government has dismembered the school and divided it into two schools without any authority. The question to ask he asserts (sic) is how can the Government divide the property belonging to a Sangh by saying that the classes or divisions illegally shifted to Adpoi are a separate school with a further declaration that the remaining classes conducted at Durbhat shall be another different school. Apart from the absence of authority and power of the Government he further questions as to who has asked for such bifurcation into two schools. In the absence of request and/or consent from Sangh how could the Director of Education exercise such a power and by a stroke of pen divide one school into two different schools and worst-come-to-worst he says that order smacks of mala fides in as much as the school established pursuant to this order at Adpoi is stated to be managed by the Sangh headed by K.B. Naik and Sharada English High School at Durbhat is continued under the control of the Government. The further question is what happens to the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 6th October, 1989, in Writ Petition No. 17/89 for the impugned order makes no reference and ominously silent. The further question is what happens to the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 6th October, 1989, in Writ Petition No. 17/89 for the impugned order makes no reference and ominously silent. He now says that the omission of the reference to the order of the High Court is deliberate as otherwise how would the Department justify the impugned order? 17. There is great merit and justification for Mr. Kakodkar to contend that the impugned order suffers from the vice of non-application of mind as the order has proceeded upon wrong assumptions based on incorrect facts. In the first place, there is nothing called Shikshan Prasarak Sangh, Ponda. In the second, the reference to the original premises of the said school at Adpoi is again incorrect as the reference must be to Durbhat. Thirdly, 18 employees out of 20 of the said school were functioning at Adpoi is equally incorrect as 18 employees out of 20 were functioning at Durbhat, despite shifting. Though it is contended that the assumption in the Order that the Society is headed by K.B. Naik is not only wrong but determined arbitrarily, the fact remains that it is a disputed fact. We will however come to this aspect of the matter a little later when we deal with some other points raised on behalf of the petitioner as also respondents as also while dealing with the point of locus standi. 18. Mr. Bhobe, the learned Government Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2, and Mr. Nadkarni the learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3, have however, contended that though the assumptions are wrong that by itself is no ground to strike down the impugned Order. Though we are convinced that the wrong assumptions disclose non-application of mind that by itself need not make us hold that the impugned order is vitiated and therefore liable to be struck down, for the simple reason that if on a short point this order is struck down, the Department may come out with another order correcting factual mistakes, which may only perpetuate injustice. The impugned Order has made a very strong impression in our minds that the same needs to be examined viz. other challenges in the petition, more particularly in the backdrop of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 6th October, 1989, in Writ Petition No. 17 of 1989. 19. The impugned Order has made a very strong impression in our minds that the same needs to be examined viz. other challenges in the petition, more particularly in the backdrop of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court dated 6th October, 1989, in Writ Petition No. 17 of 1989. 19. In the impugned Order it is adumbrated that the school at Adpoi shall be named as Sharada English High School, Adpoi and the school at Durbhat is to be named Sharada English High School, Durbhat. There is indeed a great justification for Mr. Kakodkar to point out that in reality there was no school whatsoever at Adpoi and Sharada English High School was functioning only at Durbhat. On 6th June, 1988, the respondent No. 3 on his own as President of the Sangh had shifted few divisions of the classes at Adpoi which event had brought about not only discontent and dissatisfaction among the people and members of the Sangh at Durbhat, but had created a law and order situation. As many as 18 members of the staff of the school out of 20 had refused to go to Adpoi and the Adpoi classes were under one teacher who had been earlier Head Master at Durbhat. The question that now required to be answered is how does the Government divide Sharada English High School at Durbhat into two different high schools and what is the authority and power of the Government ? In fact, we have not been shown any provision of law on which the Government can divide a private school, though aided and receiving grant-in-aid into two schools without any reference to the owner who manages and runs a school. 20. A feeble attempt is made by Mr. Nadkarni, counsel for the respondent No. 3, by placing reliance on section 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu School Education Act, 1984. Section 4 under the title "Power of Government to Regulate Education in Schools" says as follows :--- "4(1) The Government may regulate education in all the schools in the Union territory in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. Section 4 under the title "Power of Government to Regulate Education in Schools" says as follows :--- "4(1) The Government may regulate education in all the schools in the Union territory in accordance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (2) The Government may establish and maintain any school in the Union territory or may permit any person or local authority to establish and maintain any school in the Union territory, subject to compliance with the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder. (3) On and from the commencement of this Act and subject to the provisions of Clause (1) of Article 30 of the Constitution, the establishment of a new school or the opening of a class or section of a class or the closing down of an existing class or any section of an existing class in any existing school in the Union territory, shall be subject to the provisions of this Act and the rules made thereunder and any school or class or section established or opened otherwise than in accordance with the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder shall not be recognized by the appropriate authority." We are unable to accept that section 4 of the Act authorises Government to divide any existing school or dismember a school and make two schools out of one. The power given by virtue of section 4 is merely to regulate education in all schools in the Union Territory and that too in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules made thereunder. The State Government has under the Act of 1984 made Rules known as Goa, Daman And Diu School Education Rules, 1986, for short "the Rules". Now, sub-section (2) of section 4 of the Act empowers Government to establish and maintain schools in the Union Territory which clearly means that the Government can establish a school or schools of its own and maintain the same. It further empowers the Government to permit any person or local authority subject to compliance of the provisions of the Act and Rules to establish and maintain school/schools. It further empowers the Government to permit any person or local authority subject to compliance of the provisions of the Act and Rules to establish and maintain school/schools. What is however necessary to be noticed is that any person or local authority will have to apply to the Government for establishing a school and the Government will have to then either grant or refuse permission in compliance with or subject to the provisions of the Act and the Rules. Therefore, this action of the Government is wholly arbitrary. It is nowhere the contention of the Government that at any time the owners of the Sharada English High School, namely the Shikshan Prasarak Sangh, had ever applied to bifurcate their school into two. Besides, the Director of Education and the Government were fully aware that there was a live dispute with regard to the management and the respondent No. 3 was claiming management of the Sangh and the school on one side as against the claim of Naguesh Phadte, Vishwanath Phadte and some other members of the Sangh, all residents of Durbhat. 21. The matter however, does not stop here. Though section 4 undoubtedly confers no power on the Government to dismember a school or divide one school into two, there is a further violation of the regulatory provisions with regard to the starting of schools. The Rules of 1986 make provision for opening of new schools or classes or closure of existing schools or classes in Chapter III. Every individual, association of individuals, society or trust, desiring to establish a new school shall, before establishing such a school, give an intimation in writing to the Director of Education of his or their intention to establish a school at least six clear months before the commencement of the academic year. This is done with a view to enable the Director of Education to arrange for the planned development of school education in the State of Goa and this is clear in Rule 31(1). The new School is not permitted more then one class at each stage and not more than one higher class each year is permitted. This is done with a view to enable the Director of Education to arrange for the planned development of school education in the State of Goa and this is clear in Rule 31(1). The new School is not permitted more then one class at each stage and not more than one higher class each year is permitted. The same Rule further provides that the permission sought by any person, society or trust is liable to be rejected if, in the opinion of the Director of Education, the number of schools existing in the locality or its neighbourhood where the new school is proposed to be opened is sufficient to meet the needs of that locality and the further embargo is that while permitting new schools the Director of Education shall adopt the norms, viz :--- "3.(i) no primary school of that category shall be permitted within a radius of 1 km., (ii) no middle school of that category within a radius of 3 kms., and (iii) no secondary school of that category within a radius of 5 kms. from the existing schools, unless the Director of Education is satisfied that the existing school is overcrowded and there is no scope for further expansion, or there is no easy access to the existing school due to natural barriers like forest area, rivers with running water, or the proposed school is entirely for the benefit of backward class community, scheduled caste or Tribal pupils. Nothing contained in this provision shall applied to unaided minority schools." It is therefore clear that no secondary school of the same category within a radius of 5 kilometers from the existing school can be permitted unless the Director of Education is satisfied that the existing school is overcrowded and there is no scope for further expansion etc., etc. It is not necessary to overemphasize as to why such prohibition has been clearly provided for which, in our view, is a regulatory measure that no primary school of the same category shall be permitted within a radius of one kilometer no middle school of that category within a radius of three kilometers and no secondary school of that category within a radius of 5 kms. so that more and more schools are not permitted to mushroom so as to make the already existing schools deplete their strength or become impossible to run the classes and admittedly to avoid competition in education. The expression "unless there is over-crowding in the existing school" is a pointer in this direction. We are sure that dividing Sharada English High School into two, one at Durbhat and the other at Adpoi, it is not the case of the Government nor for that matter the case of respondent No. 3, that the Sharada English High School operating at Durbhat was overcrowded. On the contrary, what we find is that 201 out of 336 students were shifted when same divisions of the classes were taken to Adpoi as from 6th June, 1988. It is therefore not understood as to how this regulatory provisions made in public interest to impair existing school is given a go-by. 22. This aspect of the matter can be also looked from another angle. It has been averred in the petition and not disputed that the new school now established by the Government action by virtue of the impugned order is within a distance of 2 kms. from Mahalaxmi English High School, Talaulim, 3 kms. from Saraswati High School, Kavlem, Lokmanya Tilak High School, Kavlem and Rajmata Saundekar High School, Bandiwada. Needless to mention that Adpoi is within a distance of 1 km. from Durbhat. It is therefore impossible to accept that there was any need for establishing a new school at Adpoi in violation of the provision of Rule 31 of the Rules. 23. Mr. Kakodkar for the petitioners, is again justified and there is great merit in the submission that with the establishment of a new school at Adpoi an illegal situation is sought to be legalized and that too by by-passing the stand of the Government itself as also Rule 42 of the Rules. Rule 42 reads :--- "42. Lapse of recognition in other case. Rule 42 reads :--- "42. Lapse of recognition in other case. (1) If the recognised school ceases to function or is shifted to a different locality or is transferred to a different trust, society individual, or a group of individuals without the approval of the Director of Education, its recognition shall lapse on such ceaser, shifting on transfer, as the case may be, and it shall, for the purpose of future recognition, be treated as a new school." By now we have sufficiently seen that five divisions of Sharada English High School, Durbhat, were shifted to Adpoi by the third respondent as from 6th June, 1988, and now as a result of this action of the third respondent apart from discontent mal functioning of the school, a law and order situation arose in the village Durbhat. For that matter, even teaching staff members refused to go to Adpoi. The result was that in public interest Government took up the matter and found that the shifting of the divisions was illegal and in violation of Rule 42 of the Rules and that is how it gave, a memorandum dated 4th October, 1988, calling upon the President of the Society to show cause as to why management should not be superseded and taken over by the Government. Rule 42 of the Rule in terms says that if shifted to a different locality, etc., etc. its recognition shall lapse if done without approval of the Director of Education. What is pertinent to note, however, is that it was emphasized in the said Memorandum dated 4th October, 1988 not only that the shifting was without approval of the Directorate of Education, but the shifting had itself created such dissatisfaction and chaotic situation leading to improper functioning and of the school and unrest leading to law and order situation and therefore the Government thought it fit to take over the management for a period of three years in the first instance. Respondent No. 3 as the President of the Society in answer to this memorandum was pleading before the Director of Education that the shifting was necessitated because of the safety of the student population because one of the premises where the school was functioning was in bad condition and required repairs. Respondent No. 3 as the President of the Society in answer to this memorandum was pleading before the Director of Education that the shifting was necessitated because of the safety of the student population because one of the premises where the school was functioning was in bad condition and required repairs. Though shifting was sought to be justified on the ground of unsafety of the building, yet the department by its order dated 3rd January, 1989, superseded the management and made take over management order and appointed an Authorized Officer to run and manage the affairs of the school. The appropriate recital reads :--- "And whereas the explanation as given by the Management of the school is found to be unsatisfactory; And whereas the Government is satisfied that it is expedient in public interest and in the interest of school education and to secure the proper management of the said school to take over the management of the school for a period of three years with immediate effect." It is therefore clear and stands to reason that the Director of Education did not accept that the building at Durbhat where the school was being run was unsafe. On the contrary., the Director of Education also held out to respondent No. 3 that the owners of the building namely society are agreeable to carry out the necessary repairs. In other words, the Department found the shifting to be illegal. What is therefore surprising and beyond our comprehension is that within less then one and half years and there is evidence to suggest that the building in the meantime has been repaired, the department makes an order bifurcating the school into two schools, again in the name of public interest giving no reasons whatsoever. 24. We are in total agreement with Mr. Kakodkar when he says that the impugned order is otherwise vitiated and liable to be struck down because it does not spell out any reason as to why this action is justified except to say : "And whereas the Government has reconsidered this peculiar situation". May we ask the department and the Government what is this peculiar situation that prompted the Government to promote another school that too by dismembering Sharada English High School, Durbhat, into two? 25. Let us now view this action on another plane. May we ask the department and the Government what is this peculiar situation that prompted the Government to promote another school that too by dismembering Sharada English High School, Durbhat, into two? 25. Let us now view this action on another plane. No sooner the take over management order was made on 3rd January, 1989, the third respondent on behalf of the society preferred Writ Petition No. 17 of 1989 challenging that order. Director of Education and the State of Goa were impleaded as parties thereof. The petition was vehemently opposed by government. Though numerous challenges were made out in the petition by respondent No. 3, the Division Bench of this Court while disposing the petition on analysis of the sections and the rules and more particularly Rule 42, observed as follows in para 10, which we can advantageously extract : "10. Admittedly shifting of the school to a different locality was done by the petitioner without obtaining a prior approval of the Director of Education. That being so, there was complete violation of Rule 42 of the said rules and hence the impugned order cannot be defaulted. If there were compelling reasons for the petitioner, as he has pleaded here, for shifting the school to a different locality, he could have done it after getting a prior approval from the Director of Education. All his problems apart, Rule 42 of the said rules imposed a condition on him that he could shift the school to a different locality only on obtaining a prior approval in that behalf. Once he fails to comply with this provision of law, he has to face the consequences. There is no escape for him. We also find from the record that on account of the shifting of the school from Durbhat to Adpoi there was a lot of agitation amongst the villagers almost creating a law and order problem even to the extent of threatening the public peace and tranquility. There was danger of breach of public peace in the area. Therefore, the public authorities were left with no alternative but to pass the impugned order which was done in the public interest generally and in the interests of the school education particularly." While disposing that Writ Petition on 6th October, 1989 this Court approved the order of the Director of Education of take over management order of 3rd January, 1989. Therefore, the public authorities were left with no alternative but to pass the impugned order which was done in the public interest generally and in the interests of the school education particularly." While disposing that Writ Petition on 6th October, 1989 this Court approved the order of the Director of Education of take over management order of 3rd January, 1989. Apart from holding that there was a violation of Rule 42 because the shifting of the divisions was without prior approval of the Director of Education,the Division Court hold in terms that this shifting had created lot of agitation among the villagers creating law and order problem threatening the very public pease and tranquility and even on this score the action of the Government was held justified. How does the Government within a few months from the date of that order stages a volto face and for what purpose? What is the change in the circumstances? Neither the Director of Education nor the State Government has filed any affidavit opposing this petition. Once the rule was made, it is indeed true that for opposing interim relief a short affidavit was filed by the Director of the Education Mr. V.M. Dessai dated 20th August, 1990, with a statement in paragraph 1 thereof that the said affidavit is only for the limited purpose of opposing the admission and interim relief and reserved his right to file a detailed affidavit, no doubt with a rider "if found necessary". In paragraph 4 it has been mentioned that certain other developments thereafter took place. One of the school premises at Durbhat had developed a crack and therefore P.W.D. was asked to verify the fact and certify about its safety. What are these certain other developments we are at a loss to find and know and in any event, the learned Government Advocate did not point out any. That one of the school premises had developed crack or that the safety of the of the buildings was in doubt, can obviously be no new development as that was what was being put forth by the respondent No. 3 even before the take over of management order was made on 3rd January, 1989. The safety aspect of the matter which was put forth by respondent No. 3 was not accepted and tacitly rejected. The safety aspect of the matter which was put forth by respondent No. 3 was not accepted and tacitly rejected. How does the requirement of repairs to one of the two buildings now give jurisdiction to the department to justify the order? At any rate, this could not be any new development after the take over management order had been made. 25-A. It has been put across on behalf of the petitioners that the expressions "peculiar circumstances" in the impugned order "and certain other development" in the affidavit-in-reply of the Director can only be that sometime in April, 1990, Congress-I Government in Goa was toppled and a breakaway group of Congress-I in coalition with M.G. party had formed a new Government; that respondent No. 3 had been one of the leaders of the M.G. Party and at one time he had been a member of the legislative assembly of Goa and the impugned orders have come only after a coalition Government has came into existence and in that way the Director of Education has committed this illegality in the name of public interest to connive with the ultimate aim of the respondent No. 3 to take away the school from Durbhat and establish it at Adpoi. In this connection it is further mentioned though it is not denied, that respondent No. 3 is a resident and businessman of Margao though originally hailing from Adpoi; that at no stage he has got any interest of the people at Durbhat and he is solely interested to promote the interest of Adpoi and shifting of the divisions was a clear pointer in that direction. Though a clear foundation is not available for this allegation, the action of the Director of Education leaves a great doubt as to why the making of the impugned order was at all necessary and what public interest it is expected to subserve. An attempt is however now sought to be made to justify the impugned order on different grounds. 26. Before we address ourselves to those grounds we may mention that public interest cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality and that is what the Director of Education is trying to hold out in his affidavit. An attempt is however now sought to be made to justify the impugned order on different grounds. 26. Before we address ourselves to those grounds we may mention that public interest cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality and that is what the Director of Education is trying to hold out in his affidavit. In the name of public interest the earlier order of take over of management was made on 3rd January, 1989, after having found that shifting was illegal and despite rejection of the plea of unsafety of the building and what is more authorized officer appointed. On the grounds that two groups were claiming management and the shifting led to law and order problem education was held suffered. In the name of public interest the impugned order is made that the divisions illegally conducted at Adpoi are new legalised by forming a new school. It is not really understood as to where this public interest could lead to and the bona fide aspect of the matter is in great doubt. It is stated by the Director of Education that with the establishment of the school at Adpoi on legalising the shifted divisions the dispute between the two groups claiming management would stand resolved. This again is beyond our comprehension as to how the Director of Education says this. How does he bring peace and resolve the dispute between the two groups trying to claim control? He has divided the institution which was started at Durbhat which was for the vowed object of imparting education and physical training etc. to the younger generation and the student community of Durbhat. He has dismembered a school and how is it that the Director of Education brings about peace and resolve that dispute? In fact this is nothing but a hoax and we will presently point out that the impugned order of 11th June, 1990 does greater harm, further disturbs peace and tranquility and fosters yet more enmity between the warring groups. How does the Director of Education in that order say that the new school established at Adpoi be named as Sharada English High School, Adpoi and it will be managed by the same Society headed by K.B. Naik? How does the Director of Education in that order say that the new school established at Adpoi be named as Sharada English High School, Adpoi and it will be managed by the same Society headed by K.B. Naik? How does he decide that the Society is headed by K.B. Naik when in opposing the earlier Writ Petition No. 17 of 1989 this very Director in his affidavit dated 25th April, 1989, says as under : "I say that there are groups in the management and some villagers have also raised dispute with the Management resulting into a chaotic situation, as a result thereof the Management has not been able to run the school properly." In answer to third respondent's claim that he has been re-elected as the President in the meeting held in May, 1988, the Director says : "I am not aware that election was held in May, 1988 and petitioner (respondent No, 3 here) was elected as President in that election." Besides, it has been placed by the petitioners on record that on failure of the respondent No. 3 to convene Extra-ordinary General Body Meeting after publishing a due notice in local papers, the members of the Society convened the Extraordinary General Body Meeting and elected Naguesh Phadte as the President and Vishwanath Phadte as the Secretary on 7th August, 1988; that thereafter again elections were held and Vishwanath Phadte was elected as President. A question that is required to be asked to the Director of Education is how does he resolved that the Society is headed by K.B. Naik, the third respondent? 27. The next aspect of the matter insofar as the impugned order of 11th June, 1990, is concerned which again cannot be reconciled is that Sharada English High School at Durbhat is said to be still under the Management and control of the Government and the authorized officer. Whereas the new school established by the Director of Education at Adpoi is to be run by the Sangh headed by K.B. Naik, the School at Durbhat is still kept under the management of the authorized officer under section 20 of the Act. Whereas the new school established by the Director of Education at Adpoi is to be run by the Sangh headed by K.B. Naik, the School at Durbhat is still kept under the management of the authorized officer under section 20 of the Act. If he had already resolved the dispute and brought about peace by establishment of the new school at Adpoi what more interest survives for the Director to place the Durbhat school under the control of the Government and the authorized officer made to continue its management. This action therefore creates innumerable doubts in our minds that the allegation of the petitioners that the impugned order has been made with connivance of the respondent No. 3 cannot be ruled out and brushed aside. 28. We will now came to the justification sought to be addressed on behalf of the respondents. It is common ground between the respondents that respondent No. 3 made a representation to the Government on 9th April, 1990, asking the Minister of Education to review the earlier order which was confirmed not only by the High Court, but also by the Supreme Court in the sense that the Special Leave petition sought for by the respondent No. 3 was rejected. In a very elaborate representation dated 9th April, 1990, which is produced by respondent No. 3 on record alongwith his affidavit, listing grievances as to how badly the school and the Society was treated by the erstwhile Government and sought certain reliefs besides making an allegation against the Director of Education that despite the order of the High Court confirming the take over management order the Director of Education is not agreeable to take over the charge of the shifted classes at Durbhat. In fact, what is put at a grievance is that the Authorized Officer ought to have taken under his management and control the entire Sharada English High School alongwith classes which had been shifted illegally to Adpoi. This was obviously so because the Director of Education had not recognised those classes and an attempt was on the part of the Director to even deny the grant-in-aid with the result that the respondent No. 3 thought that he will have to share the entire burden of running expenditure of the school including the teachers' salaries. This was obviously so because the Director of Education had not recognised those classes and an attempt was on the part of the Director to even deny the grant-in-aid with the result that the respondent No. 3 thought that he will have to share the entire burden of running expenditure of the school including the teachers' salaries. In paragraph 44 he says, however, that in the changed political situation he has the hope that the matter can now be solved by the present Government in a just and fair manner with benefits to all the prejudice to none. In fact this representation by the third respondent gives a further lever in the hand of the petitioners to allege as to how the respondent No. 3 was out to exploit the change in Government in Goa. It is now being urged that section 20 of the Act which authorizes the take over of the management in certain conditions and situations also provides that it is open to the management to apply to the Government within three months from the date of taking over for the restoration of the management of the society or for the reduction of the period during which the management of Society is vested in the Government. It is therefore contended by the learned Government Advocate and also Mr. Nadkarni, for the respondent No. 3, that the representation dated 9th April, 1990 vide sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Act made the Government to reconsider the position to divide the school. This contention had to be rejected firstly for the simple reason that the settled law is that the order made by any public authority should itself disclose the grounds on which the order is based and it is not permissible for the public authorities to justify the action by giving reasons in an affidavit to be filed in Court when such an order is challenged. If any authorities are required on the subject suffice to mention the decisions of (Commissioner of Police, Bombay v. Gordhandas Bhanji)1, reported in A.I.R. 1952 S.C. 16, (Mohinder Singh Gill another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others)2, reported in A.I.R. 1978 S.C. 851 and (Shri Sachidanand Pandey and another v. The State of West Bengal and others)3, reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1109. But what is still worse is even that the Director of Education in his affidavit does not say that this is the reason which prompted him to do this. If this be the position it is impossible to hear respondent No. 3 in that behalf. The take over order was made on 3rd January, 1989. The order was confirmed by the High Court on 6th October, 1989. How can this application at all be considered as an application for re-considering the order for restoration of the management or for reduction of the period qua sub-section (4) of section 20? That sub-section itself lays down a limitation period of three months from the date of taking over. The date of actual take over is 4th January 1990, because in the meantime an interim order of stay had been passed in Writ Petition No. 17 of 1989. Therefore, this was a representation which was beyond the period of limitation. Even when one reads that representation it does not make out any case under sub-section (4) of section 20, and, on the contrary, as pointed out earlier, representation was made with the object that with a change in the Government things would run favourably. It worked indeed. Even assuming that we are wrong on this aspect of the matter, it may be further pointed out that a representation may be made by a Managing Committee or a Manager of a school within three months from the date of taking over for restoration of the management or for the reduction of the period of the management of the school. But what has the impugned order done? It has still placed the main school of Durbhat under the management of the Authorized Officer and what is more, established two schools out of one school. Therefore, it is inconceivable it accept in any eventuality that the representation dated 9th April, 1990 made by the third respondent can at all be justified under sub-section (4) of section 20 of the Act and much less can give a lever in the hands of the Director of Education to make the impugned order. This, in our view, therefore, is on afterthought to somehow justify the impugned order to legalize an illegal situation. 29. It is indeed canvassed by Mr. Nadkarni for the third respondent and supported by Mr. This, in our view, therefore, is on afterthought to somehow justify the impugned order to legalize an illegal situation. 29. It is indeed canvassed by Mr. Nadkarni for the third respondent and supported by Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the Government that the impugned order in substance regularizes the educational facilities at Durbhat and Adpoi, notwithstanding the strict compliance of the regulatory provisions of the Act and the Rules. It is urged that no secondary school can be established within the radius of 5 kms. from an existing similar school, but no prohibition, if there is overcrowding in the existing school. It is now pointed out that a large number of students from Adpoi have to walk down nearly for about l k.m. to approach the original school at Durbhat and with the establishment of the new school at Adpoi it serves the educational facilities of the village Adpoi. For that matter, Durbhat is on one side of Adpoi and another village Agapur is on the other. That way it is pointed out that the present school premises at Adpoi is equidistant from Durbhat and Agapur and hence beneficial to all. This is clearly unsustainable and disastrically opposite to the views of the Government sometime earlier. In early that year the Director of Education refused permission to Dnyanprasarak Mandal to establish a new school at Adpoi. This is obviously so because there was no need to establish a new school because of the existence of many schools in the area. It is also suggested that in view of the present cleavage between the villagers of Durbhat and Adpoi the establishment of two schools at two places can be held to be a reasonable conclusion to put to an end once and for all the educational needs of the two villages and if on these considerations the impugned order is made nothing can be heard against the same, it being a sort of reasonable solution. 30. Mr. Nadkarni now asks what is the injustice suffered by the petitioners and in what manner injustice has been caused to the students and staff of the school at Durbhat? 31. 30. Mr. Nadkarni now asks what is the injustice suffered by the petitioners and in what manner injustice has been caused to the students and staff of the school at Durbhat? 31. He says that merely because an order is challenged before the High Court it is not necessary for the High Court to accept such challenge nor the High Court can be permitted to sit as a Court of appeal and for this proposition he places reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in (Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah another)4, reported in A.I.R. 1955 S.C. 425. It is true that the Supreme Court held that merely because there is error of law the High Court will not exercise jurisdiction, nor the High Courts are expected to sit as courts of appeal under Article 226, for the powers of the High Courts are held to be discretionary though no limits can be placed upon that discretion, but however, it must be exercised along recognized lines and not arbitrarily and one of the limits imposed by the courts on themselves is that they will not exercise jurisdiction in certain cases unless substantial injustice has ensued, or is likely to ensue. The proposition is undoubtedly beyond any dispute but then however it must be seen that the Supreme Court was dealing with powers of the tribunal and the errors of law within or without jurisdiction of a tribunal. Though this is a general proposition available it must be however applied to the facts of each case. We are again dealing with a case in challenging the order not of the tribunal but of an authority who is to act under the provisions of the Act and Rules. Mr. Nadkarni has equally placed reliance on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in (Paygonda Survgonda, Patil others v. Jingonda Surgonda Patil and others)5, reported in A.I.R. 1968 Bom. 198. The decision clearly lays down that interference under Articles 226 and 227 is discretionary and the High Court will not interfere with orders of lower courts however wrong it may be in law unless it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice. 198. The decision clearly lays down that interference under Articles 226 and 227 is discretionary and the High Court will not interfere with orders of lower courts however wrong it may be in law unless it is necessary to do so in the interests of justice. Although there cannot be any quarrel with regard to the general proposition what is required to be seen is that finally the High Court refused to interfere in the case on facts and also on the conduct of the petitioner. 32. Mr. Nadkarni now mounted his attack that the impugned order clearly says that the school established at Adpoi is to be maintained by the same Sangh and therefore the Sangh cannot be held to be an aggrieved person, nor the Sangh can be permitted to challenge the impugned order when it is not an aggrieved party. He now says that in reality the Sangh is not impleaded at all in this petition. He says that the petition has been filed against the State Government, the Director of Education and respondent No. 3 K.B. Naik who is styled as a businessman, resident of Margao. Coming to the title of the petition he says that the first petitioner is styled to be Shikshan Prasarak Sangh, a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, having its office at Durbhat, Ponda, Goa and the second petitioner is Lumo Khumno Phadte, claiming to be a member of the Sangh. He now says relying upon section 6 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860, that a society registered under the Act may sue or be sued in the name of the President, Chairman, or the Member-Secretary or trustee as shall be determined by the rules and Regulations of the Society and in default of such a determination in the name of such a person as shall be appointed by the governing body for that occasion. According to him, therefore, who is Vishwanath Pandurang Phadte to sue on behalf of the Sangh? According to him, therefore, who is Vishwanath Pandurang Phadte to sue on behalf of the Sangh? He points out that on facts, it is not possible to hold that Vishwanath Phadte could have been elected President of the Sangh and even if averments are accepted for argument's sake, that he was elected President at the General Body Meeting held on 7th August 1988, on Vishwanath's own showing that he has recognized the third respondent K.B. Naik to be the President of the Sangh at all times. He therefore says that on this position itself, it is not possible to permit the said Vishwanath to represent the Sangh or to sue in the name of the Sangh in the present writ petition. 33. It is true that in paragraph 10 of the petition, it has been averred that on 2nd July, 1988, soon after the illegal shifting by the third respondent, members of the Sangh called upon the third respondent to convene a General Body Meeting of the Sangh to consider the explosive situation resulted from shifting of five divisions and that the respondent No. 3 not having complied with the requisition Extraordinary General Body Meeting of the Sangh was convened on 7th August, 1988. Clause 13 of the Memorandum of Association of Shikshan Prasarak Sangh, Durbhat, Goa, in terms states that general meeting of the members will be held in the month of December and any other general body meeting will be called on by the President if at least 1/3 members request it showing appropriate reasons. Mr. Nadkarni has placed reliance on this clause to show that merely because the third respondent failed to comply with the requisition the group headed by Vishwanath could not have held any Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 7th August, 1988, to elect Sadanand K. Shet as President and Vishwanath P. Phadte as Secretary. Even when no Annual General Body Meetings either in the year 1989 or in the year 1990 are held, yet K.B. Naik, the third respondent must be held to be the President and even if he is not de jure President, must be recognized as de facto President. This is not all, he now says that the meeting convened on 7th August, 1988 by Vishwanath Phadte was on behalf of the Sharada English High School, Durbhat, Ponda, Goa, and not in the name of the Sangh. This is not all, he now says that the meeting convened on 7th August, 1988 by Vishwanath Phadte was on behalf of the Sharada English High School, Durbhat, Ponda, Goa, and not in the name of the Sangh. He says that a meeting convened on behalf of the school is not on behalf of the Sangh. (By another notice this defect was rectified). Certain more material has been referred to canvass the same argument. It may be mentioned that before Writ Petition No. 17 of 1989 was instituted in this Court by K.B. Naik as President of the Sangh challenging the take over order of 3rd January, 1989, a caveat was filed in the name of Vishwanath Phadte seeking intervention before any interim orders were passed. In that application he had described respondent No. 3 K.B. Naik as the President of the Sangh. It is indeed pointed out by Mr. Kakodkar that this will not amount to any recognition of the third respondent as President and all that the caveat mentioned was because there was an apprehension in the mind of Vishwanath Phadte and likeminded members of the Sangh that K.B. Naik who had replied to the Show Cause Notice was likely to file the petition showing his status as such in the cause title and therefore, the caveat showed him to be the President. 34. However, the fact remains that whether the management of the Sangh is headed by K.B. Naik, the third respondent and his group or Vishwanath Phadte and his group, is very much under dispute and having regard to the facts already stated and the facts to be stated hereinafter, it is not possible for this Court to adjudicate in whose hands the management of the Sangh presently rests. We have equally mentioned that the Sangh was defunct and in the undisputed last elections K.B. Naik was elected as President and Vishwanath Phadte as Secretary in the year 1982. The dispute started only in the year 1988 when the people of Durbhat were aggrieved when classes were illegally shifted by the third respondent as if to serve another village. For better appreciation a further reference may be needed to the establishment of the Sangh itself and Mr. The dispute started only in the year 1988 when the people of Durbhat were aggrieved when classes were illegally shifted by the third respondent as if to serve another village. For better appreciation a further reference may be needed to the establishment of the Sangh itself and Mr. Kakodkar is right in pointing out that the object for which the Sangh was established in the year 1964 is to organize to make bright progress in physical, mental and moral standards of the people specially the youth and the students of Durbhat, Ponda (Underlining supplied). Admittedly, Agapur is a different village. The Sangh was primarily established to cater to the educational needs of Durbhat and undoubtedly its members are the villagers of Durbhat most of whom have been fisherfolk. Soon after the establishment of the Sangh, Sharada Balwadi was started and Sharada English High School came into being in Durbhat later in the year 1967. Admittedly, respondent No. 3 is not a resident of Durbhat though undoubtedly he is a member of the Sangh. Nothing has been placed on record as to how the third respondent K.B. Naik was elected President of the Sangh in the year 1989 and nothing shown that there has been any meeting held in December, 1989 or any time in the year 1990 to prima facie accept him as the President though undoubtedly he acted as such in the sense that he showed cause against the Memorandum dated 4th October, 1988, challenged the order of 3rd January, 1989 in Writ Petition No. 17 of 1989. It is equally true as Mr. Nadkarni mentioned that despite the status of Mr. K.B. Naik as President had been disputed since the year 1988, after the Extraordinary General Body Meeting on 7th August, 1988, when Sadanand K. Shet was elected as the President no effective step has been taken by the group headed now by Vishwanath Phadte to get a declaration of any kind from any competent Court. But what is said about Vishwanath Phadte and his group is also equally applicable to K.B. Naik who also did not obtain any declaration from any Court disputing the status of the other group. 35. Vishwanath Phadte is in arrears of payment of membership fees of the Sangh. But what is said about Vishwanath Phadte and his group is also equally applicable to K.B. Naik who also did not obtain any declaration from any Court disputing the status of the other group. 35. Vishwanath Phadte is in arrears of payment of membership fees of the Sangh. Similar is the case with regard to the petitioner No. 2 Lumo Khumno Phadte and therefore it is contended that both of them have no right to claim to represent the Sangh, in the petition, nor challenge the impugned order on behalf of others. Mr. Nadkarni presses section 15 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860 into service to say that defaulters are disqualified. Mr. Kakodkar has however contended that section 15 of the Societies Registration Act cannot be invoked for deciding maintainability of the petition as it has only a limited application insofar as voting rights of the members at the meetings of the Sangh are concerned. It must be seen that a member of society does not cease to be a member of the society merely because he is in arrears of payment of the membership fees and his membership gets revived no sooner he makes the payment of the arrears. The question as to whether a defaulting member can come to seek relief has nothing to do with the right of the member to participate and vote at the affairs of the society. What is however true in the present case is that the management under Vishwanath Phadte who now claims to have been elected at the meeting held on 23rd February, 1990 claims to be the President and the third respondent claims to be the President by virtue of the meeting held in January, 1988. According to both Vishwanath Phadte and Lumo Khumno Phadte, they have paid their subscription of the membership upto date, whereas according to what is maintained by the third respondent they are in arrears. It may however be relevant to note that the Division Bench while disposing of Writ Petition No. 17 of 1989 had made an attempt to settle the dispute amicably between the parties and at that stage the third respondent K.B. Naik produced some documents including certified copy of the Registration of the Sangh. It is found that Lumo Khumno Phadte and several other villagers of Durbhat are shown to be the members of the Sangh right from its inception. Mr. It is found that Lumo Khumno Phadte and several other villagers of Durbhat are shown to be the members of the Sangh right from its inception. Mr. Kakodkar has pointed out now that when application under Order 1, Rule 8 was taken for permitting petitioner No. 2 Lumo Phadte to institute this petition in a representative character representing 97 villagers, many persons figure as members of the Sangh. It therefore stands to reason that at least petitioner No. 2 Lumo Phadte represents a group of members of the Sangh. 36. It may be that in the decision of (A.S. Krishnan v. M. Sundaram and others)6, reported in A.I.R. 1941 Bom. 312, it has been held that a body registered under the Societies Registration Act is like a club or a joint stock company. The Division Bench held that in order to redress a wrong done to the company or to recover monies or damages alleged to be due to the company the action should prima facie be brought by the company itself, but where the persons against whom relief is sought themselves hold and control the majority of the shares in the company and will not permit an action to be brought in the name of the company, the share-holders complaining can bring on action in their own names. It further observed that the cases in which the minority can maintain such an action are, therefore, confined to those in which the acts complained of are of a fraudulent character or beyond the powers of the company. In addition, Mr. Kakodkar has placed reliance on as to how the matter is viewed by the courts in England and very succinctly enunicated by Gower in his commentary entitled "Gower's Principles of Modern Company Law". The so-called rule in Foss v. Harbottle, which had earlier greatly strengthened the position of the majority is no longer available and it is held well-established that in certain circumstances an individual shareholder or group of shareholders can institute proceedings as plaintiffs instead of these proceedings having to be instituted in the name of the company. As to when can a shareholder sue, the predicates have been laid down in five circumstances which are as under: "(i) When it is complained that the company is acting or proposing to act ultra vires. As to when can a shareholder sue, the predicates have been laid down in five circumstances which are as under: "(i) When it is complained that the company is acting or proposing to act ultra vires. (ii) When the act complained of, though not ultra vires the company, could be effective only if resolved upon by more than a simple majority vote; i.e. where a special or extraordinary resolution is required and (it is alleged) has not been validly passed. (iii) Where it is alleged that the personal rights of the plaintiff shareholder have been infringed or are about to be infringed, at any rate if the wrong to the plaintiff could not be rectified by an ordinary resolution of the company. (iv) Where those who control the company are perpetrating a fraud on the minority i.e. an act of the type defined in Chapter 25. As will be seen from the citations in the footnotes there is ample authority for each of these exceptions. There are also certain judicial dicta which would add a further exception. (v) Any other case where the interests of justice require that the general rule requiring suit by the company, should be disregarded." 37. We have therefore seen that it is permissible for the minority to institute proceedings when the majority control a company or a club or a society or minority of members can be permitted to institute proceedings when the interest of justice required. 38. Vishwanath Phadte claims to have been elected as the President of the Sangh at the General Body Meeting held on 23rd February, 1990. Earlier, on 7th August, 1988, Vishwanath Phadte was elected Secretary and Sadanand K. Shet as the President. As against this third respondent Naik claims to have been elected as President in the meeting convened on 15th May, 1988. Admittedly, there are no elections held either in the year 1989 or in the year 1990. Therefore, there is a clear dispute as to who is in management. We advice ourselves not to go into this dispute and such dispute can be got resolved by the warring factions in an appropriate Court. We are also convinced that it is not required to be so decided in this petition. In the view that we are taking one more factor cannot be overlooked. We advice ourselves not to go into this dispute and such dispute can be got resolved by the warring factions in an appropriate Court. We are also convinced that it is not required to be so decided in this petition. In the view that we are taking one more factor cannot be overlooked. A document has been produced dated 4th January, 1990 signed by the Authorized Officer who has taken over the management pursuant to the earlier take over order dated 3rd January, 1989, certifying that he has been handed over the management of Sharada English High School, Durbhat, by Sadanand K. Shet, Vishwanath Pandurang Phadte, and three others. 39. It is urged by Mr. Nadkarni, learned Counsel for the third respondent, that on above facts and even otherwise neither Vishwanath P. Phadte nor Lumo Khumno Phadte have any right to institute the present public interest litigation. It is urged that they have no locus standi because in the first place their legal rights are not violated and they cannot be otherwise held to be aggrieved persons and therefore this petition must be rejected on this sole ground. 40. Mr. Bhobe, learned Counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2, namely State Government and Director of Education, has very fairly not challenged the locus standi of the petitioners. In fact, what is impugned in the petition is the order of the Government. It therefore hardly lies in the mouth of the respondent No. 3 to challenge the locus standi of the petitioners. Reliance has been placed by Mr. Nadkarni on the following authorities : In the decision of (Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed others)7, reported in A.I.R. 1976 S.C. 578, it is laid down that in order to have locus standi the petitioner should be an aggrieved person but then nonetheless the same authority says that the expression "aggrieved person" denotes an elastic and to an extent, elusive concept. Its scope and meaning depend on diverse variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. In the decision of (Mani Subrat Jain, etc. Its scope and meaning depend on diverse variable factors such as the content and intent of the statute of which contravention is alleged, the specific circumstances of the case, the nature and extent of the petitioner's interest and the nature and extent of the prejudice or injury suffered by him. In the decision of (Mani Subrat Jain, etc. v. State of Haryana others)8, reported in A.I.R. 1977 S.C. 276, it is stated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right and that there must be a judicial enforceable right as well as legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by someone who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something. In the decision of Shri Sachidanand Pandey and others v. The State of West Bengal and others, reported in A.I.R. 1987 S.C. 1109, reliance has been placed on paragraph 58. In fact, what is laid down in paragraph 58 of the report is to highlight the need for restraint on the part of public interest litigants when they move courts. That public interest litigation should not be permitted without any rhyme or reason. 41. As against this, Mr. Kakodkar says that as rightly observed by the Supreme Court, public interest litigation has come to stay and all that is required for the petitioners who come before the Court is that they must have some sufficient interest in the matter and the relief sought in the petition must not be emanated by mala fides. In other words, it is pointed out that once petitioners establish some genuine interest that is enough to excite the jurisdiction of the Court and the Court then on an examination of the matter ought to grant the necessary relief. He has profusely referred to passages from "Administrative Law" by Professor H.W.R. Wade at pages 694 to 697. All that we will presently mention is that it is not possible to ignore that prerogative remedies being of public character must always have liberal rules viz. locus standi than remedies of private law. He has profusely referred to passages from "Administrative Law" by Professor H.W.R. Wade at pages 694 to 697. All that we will presently mention is that it is not possible to ignore that prerogative remedies being of public character must always have liberal rules viz. locus standi than remedies of private law. The Court can even act at the instance of a mere stranger though it retains discretion to refuse to grant relief if it considers that no good would be done to the public. To show as to how Lord Scarman has viewed the matter in relation to locus standi in public interest litigation and the rule in (R. v. Guardians of Lewisham Union)9, (1897)1 Q.B. 498 at 500, is held as no longer acceptable. Mr. Kakodkar has profusely relied upon (Inland Revenue Comrs. v. National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd.)10, 1981(2) All.E.L.R. pg. 93, the relevant portion being at page 113. He has again relied upon the discussion in the treatise "Constitutional Law of India" by H.K. Seervai (Third Edition) Vol. 2 at page 1221. Referring to (Fertilizer Corporation Kamagar Union (Regd.) Sindri and others v. Union of India and others)10, reported in A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 342, he has placed reliance on several paragraphs were particularly 39, 40, 41, 44 and 48. This was a case where on invoking Article 32 of the Constitution the action of the Union of India and others was challenged when a part of the machinery belonging to the corporation was sought to be sold. The Worker's Union had challenged that action. While answering the point raised about the locus standi, the Supreme Court made clear distinction between fundamental right to enforce fundamental rights and interest sufficient to claim relief under Article 226 of the Constitution and in the context laid down that if a citizen is not more than a way-farer or officious intervener without any interest or concern beyond what he belongs to any one of the 660 million people of this country the door of the Court will not be ajar for him. The dictum laid down is that when a person or organization has some concern deeper than that of a busy body a writ petition by a citizen would be permissible under Article 226. 42. There is no point in multiplying authorities. It is a matter of discretion on consideration of facts of each case. The dictum laid down is that when a person or organization has some concern deeper than that of a busy body a writ petition by a citizen would be permissible under Article 226. 42. There is no point in multiplying authorities. It is a matter of discretion on consideration of facts of each case. On the principles enunciated in the various authorities referred to, in our view, it is not possible to dismiss this petition on the ground that the petitioners do not have standing to institute the present proceedings. On one hand Vishwanath Phadte claims to be the elected President. This is no doubt disputed but that he had been a member of the Sangh cannot be disputed for even according to the third respondent Vishwanath had been elected along with him as Secretary sometime earlier. Petitioner No. 2 is Lumo Khumno Phadte. As mentioned earlier he filed this petition on his behalf and on behalf of 97 villagers. We have by now made profuse reference to the establishment of the Sangh and its objects. The object was to benefit the youth of Durbhat viz. the educational needs. The school was established at Durbhat and has been functioning for the last nearly 22 years, a part of which has now been shifted to another village at Adpoi, which is held to be illegal. It is therefore, not possible to deny that petitioner No. 2 and the villagers he seeks to represent are in the first place, not aggrieved persons and even if they are held not to be aggrieved persons they have sufficiently deep interest in the matter. We have otherwise adumbrated so many facts above and therefore, on these facts it is not possible to held that they have no locus standi in this petition. There is another way of looking at this, namely, that the Director of Education has made the impugned order under a statute. The order is purported to be made under a public law. We have sufficiently brought out by now as to how such order cannot be sustained. This being so, if some villagers of Durbhat challenge that order it is impossible to hold that they are way-farers or busy-bodies and dismiss the petition on that ground. The order is purported to be made under a public law. We have sufficiently brought out by now as to how such order cannot be sustained. This being so, if some villagers of Durbhat challenge that order it is impossible to hold that they are way-farers or busy-bodies and dismiss the petition on that ground. We may however mention that respondent No. 3 has raised this point because he is aware that on merits he has no case and therefore, his sole aim is to somehow get the petition dismissed on this technical point. To permit it will amount to perpethate an illegality. 43. Mr. Nadkarni on behalf of the third respondent now urges that the beneficiary is the Sangh and the Sangh is not a party and when the impugned order in favour of the Sangh is challenged and when the Sangh is not joined as a party the present petition is incompetent. The argument is if Vishwanath Phadte cannot represent the Sangh, then this Sangh is itself not a party in the petition and that in any case not even impleaded as a respondent. That in a petition for writ of certiorari who are necessary and proper parties to the petition has been laid down in the decision of (Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Additional Member Board of Revenue, Bihar and another)12, reported in A.I.R. 1963 S.C. 786. 44. Once the order was made on 3rd January, 1989, and the same having been challenged in the High Court and the challenge failed the respondents No. 1 and 2 went in action to take over the management of Sharada English High School, Durbhat. We have already commented as to how the action of the respondents No. 1 and 2 in not taking over the classes at Adpoi itself runs counter to the take over order. In fact, on 4th January, 1990, the Authorized Officer took over Sharada English High School, Durbhat. In law he is deemed to have even take over the classes of that High School conducted at Adpoi, though the physical possession was refused to be taken by the Authorized Officer. However, as already shown elsewhere in the judgment, the Government has now divided one school into two. In law he is deemed to have even take over the classes of that High School conducted at Adpoi, though the physical possession was refused to be taken by the Authorized Officer. However, as already shown elsewhere in the judgment, the Government has now divided one school into two. In fact, the reliefs in this petition must be issued ex debits justiciae and this will be a solid plank in favour of the petitioners to make this Court interfere with the impugned order dated 11th June, 1990. Standing of the petitioners therefore, need not be questioned at all. Mr. Kakodkar rightly places reliance on the rationale emerging in (Bhopal Sugar Industries Ltd. v. Income-Tax Officer, Bhopal)13, reported in A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 182. 45. Shifting of divisions without approval of the Director of Education was held to be violative of Rule 42 and therefore illegal. The third respondent's justification for shifting was not accepted and which was upheld by the Division Court on 6th October, 1989. The Authorized Officer appointed took over the functioning of the school at Durbhat and refused to take over the classes run at Adpoi. May we ask why? There is no answer from the department. Indeed Mr. Bhobe urged that the department thought that since classes functioning at Adpoi had been illegally shifted those classes were illegal and therefore the Authorized Officer did not take over. Mr. Bhobe with constraint says that this was the belief of the department and also that of the Authorized Officer. This is not at all acceptable being a poor alibi and most unsatisfactory story. The further question to ask the Authorised Officer and the Director of Education is what prevented them to approach this Court and seek directions in the matter? Similar is the story of the respondent No. 3 though he made a grievance before the Supreme Court when special leave petition was rejected complaining that Adpoi classes are not taken over. Despite the observations made by the Supreme Court that respondent No. 3 could take appropriate directions from the High Court he did not come to this Court. Again no answer on this aspect of the matter. We are constrained to mention that the authorities wanted to teach a lesson to the third respondent. Despite the observations made by the Supreme Court that respondent No. 3 could take appropriate directions from the High Court he did not come to this Court. Again no answer on this aspect of the matter. We are constrained to mention that the authorities wanted to teach a lesson to the third respondent. This was the complaint made by the third respondent not only before the Supreme Court when the special leave petition was disposed of, but the some is reflected in his representation dated 9th April, 1990. Perhaps the third respondent might have sought appropriate directions from the High Court but, however, in the meantime he believed that the change in the Government can be favourably exploited and be succeeded. This is also reflected in the same representation dated 9th April, 1990, in para 44. The department however now makes a complete volte face. Tables were turned and Durbhatkars become the victims. The school at Durbhat is still maintained under the management and control of the Government and the so-called newly established school at Adpoi is free and kept under the management of the third respondent. The person earlier sought to be castigated becomes suddenly the recepient of a reward. 46. An attempt is sought to be made by Mr. Bhobe, learned Government Advocate on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 that one of the school premises namely "Mand-up" had been unsafe and though it is said to have been repaired by the Society still the repairs are not satisfactory and from the point of view of safety of the students the school at Adpoi can now smoothly run in the newly acquired premises at Adpoi. In act, this by itself does not appear in the impugned order dated 11th June, 1990. This point is not available to the Government as even before the take over management order was made the respondent No. 3 had set up this defence that he was perforced to shift the classes at Adpoi because "Mandup" had become unsafe and it was rejected. Parties have relied upon some correspondence in that behalf. We may however mention that Director of Education is not at all justified in putting forward this plea of unsafety to support the impugned order for dividing the school. Parties have relied upon some correspondence in that behalf. We may however mention that Director of Education is not at all justified in putting forward this plea of unsafety to support the impugned order for dividing the school. The respondents No. 1 and 2 cannot be permitted to put forth this plea now because the respondents No. 1 and 2 had already examined this matter earlier and on rejecting the same made the take over of management order of 3rd January, 1989. Hence, this so-called safety aspect of the matter never emerged subsequently or after the order of 3rd January, 1989. The other aspect is in Writ Petition No. 17 of 1989 the Director filed an affidavit on the suitability/location of the new premises at Adpoi upon directions of the Court. Para 2 reads: "I say that the new premises proposed at Adpoi is at a distance of about one kilometre from the original locality of Durbhat and as such the shifting of the school from Durbhat to Adpoi is not found suitable." In paragraph 3 it is stated that : "Even though one kilometre may not be too far in terms of distance it will not serve the purpose of the original locality of Durbhat wherein the existing school was set up." In paragraph 4 it is stated : "It is my considered opinion that the purpose of the original locality wherein the school was set up will not be served if the school is shifted from the present premises at Durbhat to the new premises proposed at Adpoi, Ponda." We need not go into the correspondence although according to the petitioners the safety of the premises of "Mandup" are duly certified now by the Architect. The P.W.D. Engineer as late as October, 1989 has held out that some crack in the arch is seen and that repairs are required to be done. In our opinion we need not detain ourselves on this matter as appropriate direction can be made to the Authorized Officer. There is enough indication on record that the owner, the Society and Sangh are still ready and willing to carry out the necessary repairs. For the view that we are taking in this matter there is still time for classes to be shifted back to Durbhat. There is enough indication on record that the owner, the Society and Sangh are still ready and willing to carry out the necessary repairs. For the view that we are taking in this matter there is still time for classes to be shifted back to Durbhat. A direction therefore can be issued to the Authorized Officer that unless the safety is duly certified by competent P.W.D. Engineers no shifting be done. As from now at least a period of six months is available during which certainly the necessary repairs can be carried out, if necessary. 47. The petition therefore succeeds and the impugned order dated 11th June, 1990 (Exh. P-16) and the consequential orders dated 19th June, 1990 and 21st June 1990 (Exh. P-17 colly) are quashed and set aside. We however make it clear that the question as to who or which group Mr. K.B. Naik and his group or Vishwanath Phadte and his group is in management of Shikshan Prasarak Sangh, Durbhat, cannot be decided in this petition, nor we find it necessary to be decided for the disposal of this petition. Besides, the take over order of management is in operation and the Authorized Officer has taken over the management. The question as to who manages the Society is left open and it is upto the parties to approach the appropriate forum. 48. The effect of the order is that whatever classes are conducted at Adpoi in whatever building is a part of the Sharada English High School, Durbhat, and the same stands already taken over by the Authorized Officer when the Durbhat part of the school was taken over on 4th January, 1990. The physical take over by carried out by the Authorized Officer immediately. The classes at Adpoi shall not be disturbed and taken back to Durbhat until the academic year 1990-91 is over, i.e. until declaration of the annual final examination to be held in April, 1991. The Authorized Officer to consider the shifting of the classes to Durbhat after making sure of the safety of the building at Durbhat duly certified by responsible Engineer of P.W.D. Rule is accordingly made absolute in terms of prayer (a) of the petition. In the circumstances parties are left to bear their own costs. 49. At this stage, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 applies orally for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In the circumstances parties are left to bear their own costs. 49. At this stage, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 applies orally for a certificate for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. We did not see any reason for granting this request as there is no question of substantial law of general importance involved in this petition. Accordingly, leave is refused. Counsel then requested for stay of the operation of this order for a period of six months. Counsel for the petitioner opposes the grant of stay of the operation of the order passed today. Application for stay is refused. Petition succeeds. *****