JUDGMENT R. B. Mebrotra, J. 1. By means of the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the -petitioner has challenged mainly the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, dated 4-8-1990 whereby the District Inspector of Schools has directed that the Management of the institution may be handed over to the committee of Management of which Sri Sheo Shanker Singh Yadav is the manager for the purposes of managing the institution, for purposes of dealing with the Department. 2. When the writ petition was placed before me at the admission stage, the contesting respondents were present as caveator and the matter has been finally heard at the admission stage with the consent of the parties. Sri Sankatha Raj appearing for the petitioner vehemently contented that the impugned order passed by the District inspector of Schools is without jurisdiction and has been passed without affording any opportunity to the petitioner who is continued to manage the institution, as such the order is liable to be set aside. The counsel for the respondents Sri A. N. Singh on the other hand contended that the District Inspector of Schools has passed the order for efficient administration and running the institution as the institution was lying closed, the interest of the institution and the education required passing of the impugned order as such this Court should not interfere with the order in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It was also contended on behalf of the respondents that there is a specific finding of the civil court holding that the petitioner is not even an ordinary member of the society and as such is not competent to become the manager, besides that, several other authorities have also held that the petitioner is not the ordinary member of the society, as such at the instance of such a petition, this Court should not interfere with the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools which has been passed for safeguarding the interest of the institution and education. 3. In large number of institutions in this State a chronic disease has crept in where two rival committees of management are lighting each other for getting the control of the management committee. 3. In large number of institutions in this State a chronic disease has crept in where two rival committees of management are lighting each other for getting the control of the management committee. The fact remains that every pie of the expense of these recognised Intermediate Education Institutions is borne either by the State Government or the same is managed by the fee received by the students. The Management has hardly any contribution, in the financial aspect of the matter. This chronic litigation between the two rival committees of management mostly result in hamering the efficient working of the institution, and mostly the cause of the students, education and teachers suffer due to this fight amongst two rival committees of management which hardly contribute anything towards the advancement of the education or any financial assistance to these institutions. The situation requires some consideration at the level of the State Government as to how this chronic problem prevailing in the State of Uttar Pradesh should be solved. More unfortunate part is that due to this chronic litigation in large number of institutions, this Court is burdened with large number of writ petitions passed by the educational authorities deciding the disputes between the two committees of management as against these orders, no regular appeal is provided and the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education for deciding the effective control of the management in exercise of his power under section 16-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 is final for the purposes of the Act and all such orders connected with the disputes of the educational institutions are being challenged directly in this Court, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. It is suggested that the State Government should consider some legislative measure for providing the establishment of an independent tribunal so that the disputes in respect of the educational institutions can be effectively solved. 4. It is suggested that the State Government should consider some legislative measure for providing the establishment of an independent tribunal so that the disputes in respect of the educational institutions can be effectively solved. 4. The present case itself is an illustration to demonstrate that the vice of litigation in educational institution has eaten the vitals of the institution itself, the only contribution of the Management today in most of the institutions is that the institutions and the teachers are being used by rival factions of the management for serving their personal ends, and the biggest sufferer in the situation is the student belonging to ordinary class of citizens who cannot afford to teach their wards in English Convents. A dispute in respect of the present institution arose as far back as in the year 1972 and an Authorised Controller was appointed under section 16-D (4) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The said order of appointing the Authorised Controller was revoked as far back as on 8-7-1974 and Sri Sheo Shanker Singh Yadav, the respondent, was handed over the charge of the office of the manager of the institution. Immediately on handing over the charge, a protest was made, that Sri Sheo Shanker Singh Yadav has been illegally handed over the charge of the institution as Manager, on 2-9-1979, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, V Region, again appointed an Authorised Controller, under section 6 (3) of the U. P. High School and Intermediate College (Payment of Salaries to teacher and other employees) Act, 1971 (hereinafter payment of salaries Act). An appeal against the said order was filed under section 7 of the said Act which appeal has not been decided. In the meantime, Sri Sheo Shanker Singh Yadav also filed a writ petition in the High Court but the said writ petition has abated on the ground that an alternative remedy to file an appeal before the Director of Education is available. On 26-2-1978, the Regional Deputy Director, V Region, Varanasi passed an order in favour of Sri Sheo Shanker Singh Yadav behind the back of Sri Raja Ram Pandey, who was claiming himself to be the duly elected manager of the institution. On 26-2-1978, the Regional Deputy Director, V Region, Varanasi passed an order in favour of Sri Sheo Shanker Singh Yadav behind the back of Sri Raja Ram Pandey, who was claiming himself to be the duly elected manager of the institution. Lateron the said order appointing the Authorised Controller was revoked and it was directed that charge should be given to Sri Sheo Shanker Singh Yadav, respondent no 4. Sri Raja Ram Pandey filed a writ petition in this Court to challange the order of the Deputy Director of Education, V Region, dated 26-2-1978 and the order of the State Government, dated 8-7-1974. The said writ petition was dismissed on the ground that the committee of Management has an alternative remedy to file a regular suit. Consequent thereto, the then Committee of Management filed a regular Civil suit. The trial Court, vide its judgment, dated 12-9-1984 decreed the suit and directed Sri Sheo Shanker Singh Yadav to handover the management of the institution to the plaintiff, namely, the Committee of Management of which Sri Raja Ram Pandey claimed himself to be the manager. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned Munsif Ghazipur, dated 12-9-1984, Sri Sheo Shanker Singh Yadav filed an appeal. The II Addl. District Judge, Ghazipur, vide his judgment, dated 4-1-1988 allowed the appeal and held that defendant no. 1, namely, Sri Sheo Shanker Singh Yadav as Manager shall hold the election of the Managing Committee and the society, within three months strictly, and if needed, under the supervision of a supervisor appointed by the court. It was further directed that the election shall be held according to the scheme of Administration and bye-laws of the institution duly registered and approved by the Director after serving notice according to the rules to all members of the general body. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, a second appeal was filed in this Court which has been numbered as Second Appeal No. 800 of 1988- Nehru Vidyapeeth Reotipur, through Sri Shri Niwas Rai v. Sri Shiv Shanker Singh Yadav. The petitioner's contention is that the impugned judgment passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Ghazipur allowing the appeal of responds no. 4 has been stayed by this Court in the aforesaid second appeal. The petitioner's contention is that the impugned judgment passed by the II Addl. District Judge, Ghazipur allowing the appeal of responds no. 4 has been stayed by this Court in the aforesaid second appeal. The Counsel for the respondents has contested the said statement and has submitted that the stay order granted by this Court in the aforesaid second appeal was a limited stay order and has exhausted. Both the parties filed affidavits along with true copies of the documents by which they made rival claims for contending that the interim order passed by this Court in Second Appeal No. 800 of 1988 has exhausted itself and other version being that the stay order is continuing. However, for ascertaining the correct facts, I asked, both the parties to produce the certified copies of the documents which they have filed with the affidavits to ascertain as to which version is correct. Sri Sankatha Rai has placed before me Certified copy of an order of this Court, dated 22-4-1988 passed in the aforesaid second appeal by Hon'ble N. N. Mithal, J. in the following terms :- "Put up on 25th April, 1988. The stay order is extended." The earlier orders passed in the case are not in dispute whereby the operation of the judgment of the II Addl. District Judge, Ghazipur, dated 4th January, 1988 was stayed. 6. The counsel for the respondents has produced a query receipt from the Registry of the High Court which is as under : - "(1) Whether the stay order granted on 31-3-88 was extended beyond 25-4-88-No-" (2) Whether the stay order dated 31-3-88 has already lapsed ?" -Yes-" On the basis of the aforesaid query, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents is that the stay order granted by this Court has exhausted on 25-4-1988. The relevant portion of the first order passed by this Court in the aforesaid second appeal is being reproduced below : - "Meanwhile till 25-4-1988 subject to any order passed earlier, the direction contained in the judgment of the learned II Addl. District Judge, Ghazipur, dated January 4, 1988, which is under challenge in the present appeal about holding of fresh elections shall remain inoperative." 7. The order, dated 22-4-1988 extending the stay order cannot mean that the stay order was to exhaust on 25th July, 1988. District Judge, Ghazipur, dated January 4, 1988, which is under challenge in the present appeal about holding of fresh elections shall remain inoperative." 7. The order, dated 22-4-1988 extending the stay order cannot mean that the stay order was to exhaust on 25th July, 1988. The two orders read together make it clear that this Court extended the stay order by its order, dated 22-4-1988 indefinitely. If the Court wanted to extend the order only till 25-4-1988, there was no sense in writing that the stay order is extended as the Court itself directed the matter to be posted on 25-4-1988 till which date there was already an order of the Court staying the operation of the judgment, I do not agree with the contention of the counsel for the respondent that the stay order passed by this Court staying the operation of the judgment of the II Addl. District Judge, dated 24-1-1988 has exhausted. 8. To resolve the controversy between the parties that certified copy of the order dated 22-4-88 is genuine or not or the query received by the counsel for the respondents is incorrect, I summoned the original record of the second appeal and found that the ordersheet, dated 22-4-1988 is missing from the record of the second appeal. It is a shocking state of affair which show that either the Registry of this Court is capable of being manipulated to the extent that a page of the ordersheet of the High Court's record is taken out from the record of the Registry of the High Court can give a false certified copy to a party even though there may not be any order This matter requires serious consideration of the Registrar of the Court and I order that the Registrar will hold an enquiry in the matter and make suitable action against the concerned faulting officers or officials. The two certified copies, referred to in this judgment, along with the record of the second appeal may be forwarded to the Registrar of this Court for taking suitable action along with the copy of the judgment of this case. The Committee of Management of which Sri Raja Ram Pandey was claiming himself to be the Manager of the institution, alleges to have held fresh election on 22-10-1986. During the pendency of the First Appeal before the 2nd Addl. The Committee of Management of which Sri Raja Ram Pandey was claiming himself to be the Manager of the institution, alleges to have held fresh election on 22-10-1986. During the pendency of the First Appeal before the 2nd Addl. District Judge, an Authorised Controller was appointed on 25-9-1983 under section 6 (3) of the Payment of Salaries Act. On 27-10-1986 the then District Inspector of Schools intimated to the Deputy Director of Education that a valid election has been held of the Committee of Management of which earlier Sri Raja Ram Pandey was manager and as such the order of appointment of the Authorised Controller may be withdrawn. The Deputy Director of Education in its turn referred the matter to the Director of Education. The Director of Education thereafter requested the State Government, vide his letter, dated 10-7-1986 to remove the Authorised Controller. The State Government vide its order, dated 23-12-1986 removed the Authorised Controller. The District Inspector of Schools in pursuance of the aforesaid order of the State Government handed over the charge to the petitioner being the duly elected Manager of the Committee of Management, vide its order, dated 3-1-1987.. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present respondent Sri Shiv Shanker Singh Yadav filed a writ petition in this Court being Civil Misc. Writ No. 351 of 1987. The said writ petition is still pending. In the said writ petition, a Division Bench of this Court on 8-1-1987 directed maintaining of status quo. The petitioner claimed that no further orders were passed in the said writ petition and the petitioner's signatures were already attested and the petitioner was already working and the order passed by this Court, in effect permitted the petitioner to contiue as manager of the institution. However, Sri Raja Ram Pandey who was earlier Manager of the institution, filed another writ petition which was numbered as writ petition No. 823 of 1987 which also challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Education, dated 3-1-1987 handing over the charge of the institution to the petitioner. However, Sri Raja Ram Pandey who was earlier Manager of the institution, filed another writ petition which was numbered as writ petition No. 823 of 1987 which also challenged the order of the Deputy Director of Education, dated 3-1-1987 handing over the charge of the institution to the petitioner. In the said Writ Petition a Division Bench of this Court passed another order, dated 9-1-1989 whereby the District Inspector of Schools was directed to continue to manage the institution until further orders and the Court also directed the District Judge, Ghazipur to dispose of the Appeal No. 199 of 1984 within a period of three months from the date of the order. The stay vacating application in the said writ petition came up for hearing before the learned single Judge of this Court on 2-9-1987 who confirmed the interim order passed by this Court on 9-1-1987 and called for a report from the District Judge, Ghazipur as to whether Appeal No. 199 of 1984 has since been decided by him as per directions of this Court contained in the order, dated 9-1-1984. However, thereafter Sri Raja Ram Pandey died and an application was filed in Writ Petition No. 823 of 1987 that left out petitioner is not interested in pursuing the writ petition. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed by order, dated 30-1-1989. The petitioner immediately thereafter filed an application before the District Inspector of Schools for permitting the petitioner to work as Manager. as the interim order passed by this Court on 9-1-1987 stood automatically vacated by the dismissal of the said writ petition. Despite the said representation, the District Inspector of Schools did not pay any heed and on the other hand intimated to the Manager, Union Bank of India that he will continue to operate the accounts as the Authorised Controller of the institution by his order, dated 5-4-1989. The said order, dated 5-4-1989 passed by the District Inspector of Schools was challenged in writ Petition No. 10477 of 1989. In the said writ petition, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an order on 14-6-1989 staying the operation of the order, dated 5-4-1989. Consequent to the said order passed by this Court, the petitioner claimed that the charge was again handed over to the petitioner on 25-4-1989 and signatures of the petitioner was again attested. In the said writ petition, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to pass an order on 14-6-1989 staying the operation of the order, dated 5-4-1989. Consequent to the said order passed by this Court, the petitioner claimed that the charge was again handed over to the petitioner on 25-4-1989 and signatures of the petitioner was again attested. However, subsequent thereto, by an order, dated 31-12-1989, the Deputy Director of Education appointed the District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur as Pradhan Sanchalak on the ground that 3 years term of the Committee of Management of which Sri Shri Niwas Rai (Present Petitioner) as Manager has expired as the Committee was elected in October, 1984. It was further directed that the Prabandh Sanchalak shall start the process of the election of the new Committee of Management according to the amended scheme of Administratian after discharge of the stay order passed in the second appeal pending before this Court. The petitioner filed another writ petition challenging the order of the Deputy Director of Education, dated 31-12-1989 appointing the District Inspector of Schools as Prabandh Sanchalak and directing him to hold the election. This Court vide its order, dated 19-1-1990 allowed the writ petition of the petitioner and sent back the matter to the Deputy Director of Education to pass fresh orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The said matter is still pending before the Deputy Director of Education and the same has not been heard. The parties have already filed their replies before the Deputy Director of Education. It is admitted between the parties that the matter has not yet been decided by the Deputy Director of Education in pursuance of the direction given by this Court. However, during the pendency of the aforesaid matter, the District Inspector of Schools has passed the impugned order which is in challenge in the present writ petition. 9. The counsel for the petitioner has challenged the said order mainly on four grounds : Firstly, that the order of the District Inspector of the Schools directing the Committee of Management elected by respondent no. 4 be handed over the charge of the management and permitting to hold the election is without jurisdiction. The District Inspector of Schools has no such authority. 4 be handed over the charge of the management and permitting to hold the election is without jurisdiction. The District Inspector of Schools has no such authority. Secondly, that the said order has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner who was entitled to continue as Manager of the institution and was also entitled to hold elections. The third submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the counter-affidavit it has been disclosed that the District Inspector of Schools has passed the said order in pursuance of an order of the Deputy Director of Education as an interim arrangement since the dispute is pending before the Deputy Director of Education. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner is that there is no power with the Deputy Director of Education to pass any interim order, in a dispute pending before it for deciding the controversy under section 16-A (7) of the U. P. Intermediate Education Act and moreover, there is no order on the record whereby the Deputy Director of Education directed the District Inspector of Schools to pass the impugned order which the District Inspector of Schools claimed to have passed in pursuance of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Education. Lastly, it has been contended that the Deputy Director of Education has acted malafide in passing the aforesaid order which is clear from the fact that even before the order was communicated to all concerned i.e., on 4-8-1990, the District Inspector of Schools just attested the signature of respondent no. 4 as Manager of the institution one day earlier on 3-8-1990. This fact itself shows that the action of the District Inspector of Schools, who has also been arrayed as respondent no. 2 in person, is mala fide. 10. So far as the question of mala fide is concerned, no notice has been served in person on the District Inspector of Schools and in his absence, I decline to consider the question of mala-fide and I do not think it necessary, in the facts of the present case, to issue notice to Sri Jaipal Singh, who has been arrayed in person as respondent no. 2. The District Inspector of Schools and the Deputy Director of Education are represented through the Standing counsel. 2. The District Inspector of Schools and the Deputy Director of Education are represented through the Standing counsel. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and I am satisfied that the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools, dated 4-8-1990 impugned in the present writ petition is patently without jurisdiction and has been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent has been unable to cite any provision of law under which the District Inspector of Schools was authorised to pass the impugned order. He has mainly contended that as the said order is an administrative order, this Court should not interfere, I do not agree with this submission of the learned counsel for the respondent. An order which is wholly without jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be sustained merely on the ground that it is an administrative order. Even otherwise, an administrative order which is arbitrary can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if it affects the right of a party. In the present matter, the facts clearly demonstrate that the petitioner's rights were severely prejudiced and such an order could not have been passed administratively by a person who has no jurisdiction to pass such an order and the said order also could not have been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. I also agree with the submission of the petitioner's counsel that there is no power with the Deputy Director of Education to pass an interim order in a matter pending before it under section 16-A (7) of the Act. Moreover, neither the standing counsel nor the respondent has been able to place any interim order passed by the Deputy Director of Education authorising the District Inspector of Schools to pass the impugned order. 11. Moreover, neither the standing counsel nor the respondent has been able to place any interim order passed by the Deputy Director of Education authorising the District Inspector of Schools to pass the impugned order. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his contention relied on a decision of this Court in the Case of Committee of Management of Sri Panna Lal Digambar Jain Inter College, Firozabad Agra v. District Inspector of Schools, Agra, 1984 UP LB and EC 670 wherein this Court has laid down :- "Under section 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act, the Deputy Director of Education has to determine as to which of the two rival management committees is in actual control and it is but proper that the District Inspector of Schools should not act in a manner which may improve prospect of other rival group to the determined of other". In reply to the aforesaid contention, the counsel for the respondent has relied upon the case Committee of Management Sri Pyare Lal Shastri Junior High School v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, 1990 AWC 778 which says that no interference is called for in an administrative order even if the same has been passed without affording an opportunity of hearing. It was a case an peculiar facts of the case, so it is patently distinguishable, 12. After considering the aforesaid decisions, I am definitely of the view that the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools is wholly without jurisdiction and could not have been passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and the impugned order, dated 4-8-1990 and subsequent orders passed on 9-8-1990 (Annexures "4" and "25" to this writ petition) are quashed. The Deputy Director of Education is, however, directed to decide expeditiously the dispute pending before him in the present matter, within a period of three months from the date the certified copy of this order is produced before him by any of the party. Petition allowed.