JUDGMENT R.A.Sharma, J. 1. Madan Mohan Malviya Shiksha Samiti, Bhatpur- Rani, Deoria is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act (herein-after referred to as the society). The society runs several educational institutions including MADAN Mohan Malviyd Post Graduate College, which is affiliated to Gorakhpur University and Mahamana MADAN Mohan Malviya Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya affiliated to Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vish Vidyalaya, Varanasi. Apart from the above two institutions, there are Intermediate Colleges, High School, Ayurvedic Medical College and Primary School, which are run by the society. The society has its own bye laws, which provides for constitution of committee of management for the society and the various educational institutions run by it. 2. It is admitted to all the parties that election of the committee of management was held on 12-6-1983 in which Sri Keshav Chandra Misra was elected as manager/Secretary. After the death of Sri Keshav Chandra Misra there came into existence two factions in the society, one was led by Sri Bhartendu Misra and the other by Sri Raghuraj Singh. The third faction led by Dr. Jagjit Malviya also came into existence in the society later on According to Sri Bhartendu Misra on 9-1-1988 the committees of management of various educational institutions held their meeting in which Dr Jagjit Malviya was authorised to act as the manager of Madan Mohan Malviya Post Graduate College and Sri Bhartendu Misra as manager of the other remaining institutions, On the other hand the case of Raghuraj Singh is that in the meeting held on 5-1-1988 he was elected manager/secretary. IT appears that the aforesaid dispute was taken to the Vice-chancellor of Gorakhpur University, who directed a fresh election in order to resolve the disputes created by the conflicting claims set up by different factions, Thereafter all the three factions of the society set up three different dates of the election The claim of Raghuraj Singh was that 01 25-12-1988 Sri Sri Kant Singh and Sri Raghuraj Singh were elected as the President and the manager respectively, The case set up by Sri Bhartendu Misra was that on 15-12-1988 Sri Ram Lakhan Singh and Bhartendu Misra were elected as the President and the manager respectively. The third faction of Sri Jagjit Malviya set up the case that on 11-12-1988 Sri Pirthwiraj Singh and Sri Jagjit Malviya were elected as President and manager respectively; As the managing committee of the affiliated college has got to be recognised by the University, different factions approached the Vice-chancellor of the Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalava for recognition, who by his order dated 26-12-1989 recognised the committee of which Sri Bhartendu Misra was the manager. Against this order of the Vice-chancellor Writ Petition No. 7407 of 1990,' Committee of Management v. The Vice-Chancellor and others was filed by Sri Raghuraj Singh. Against the same order of the Vice- chancellor another Writ Petition No 3109 of 1990. Committee of Management v. Vice-chancellor was filed by Dr. Jagjit Malviya. All the three factions submitted their claims before the Vice- chancellor of the Gorakhpur University also for recognising their committee of management for Madan Mohan Malviya Post Graduate College. The Vice- chancellor by his order dated 12-4-1990 recognised the committee of management of which Sri Raghuraj Singh was the manager. Against this order of the Vice-chancellor Writ Petition No. 11053 "of 1990. committee of management v. the Vice-chancellor has been filed by Sri Bhartendu Misra. It appears that in the mean time the dispute was referred under section 25 of the Societies Registration Act to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, who by his order dated 26-11-1990 recognised the committee of management with Bhartendu Misra as its manager; Against this order Writ Petition No. 32340 of 1990, Madan Mohan Malviya Shiksha Samiti v. Assistant Registrar has been filed by Sri Raghuraj Singh. Against the same order of the S D M. another writ petition No. 4195 of 1991 Dr. Jagjit Malviya v. Assistant Registrar and others has been filed by Dr Jagjit Malviya. After the decision of the S.D.M., the Vice-chancellor relying on the order dated 26-11-1940, passed by the S.D M., has by his order dated 2-7-1991 reviewed his earlier, order dated 12-4-1990 and recognised the committee of management with Bhartendu Misra as manager. A Writ Petition No. 17599 of 1991, Committee of Management v. Vice-chancellor has been filed by Sri Raghuraj Singh against this order dated 2-7-1991 of the Vice-chancellor of Gorakhpur University. 3. A Writ Petition No. 17599 of 1991, Committee of Management v. Vice-chancellor has been filed by Sri Raghuraj Singh against this order dated 2-7-1991 of the Vice-chancellor of Gorakhpur University. 3. In all the cases Sri R. N. Singh has appeared for Sri Raghuraj Singh, Sri Sudhir Chandra ann Sri Ashok Khare represent Sri Bhartendu Misra and Sri D. Mandhyan has appeared for Dr. Jagjit Malviya 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties and these writ petitions are being disposed of in accordance with the Rules, of the Court. Writ Petition Nos. 7407 of 1990 and 3109 of 1990. 4. As mentioned above, both these writ petitions are directed against the order dated 26-12-1989, passed by the Vice-chancellor of Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi, recognising the committee of management with Bhartendu Misra as manager. Learned counsel for the petitioners have argued that after the amendment of Statute 12.28 of the Statutes of the University in 1985 the Vice-chancellor has no jurisdiction to decide the disputes between the rival committee of management as this power has been conferred by the aforesaid Statute on the Regional Deputy Director of Education. Learned counsel for the respondents has however, contested the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners. Section 2 (13) of the State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) defines the management as follows ; "2 (13) : 'management' in relation to an affiliated or associated college, means the managing committee or other body charged with managing the affairs of that college and recognised as such by the University." According to the aforesaid definition, management means the committee of management or any other body charged with managing the affairs of the college and is recognised as such by the University. Recognition of the committee of management by the University is a condition precedent for a valid committee of management. Recognition of the committee of management by the University is a condition precedent for a valid committee of management. Statute 12 28 of Statutes of University as it stands after the amendment in 1985, which is quoted below, authorises the Regional Deputy Director of Education to recognise the persons in actual possession and control of the properties of the college as the management of the college "12.28 Where there is a dispute regarding the management of an affiliated college, persons found by the Regional Deputy Director of Education to be in actual possession and control of the college properties, may for the purposes of the Act and these Statutes be recognised to constitute the management of such college until a court of competent jurisdiction orders otherwise." 5. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Brahma Deo Tripathi v. Vice-chancellor, 1988 UP LB EC 104, has laid down that after the amendment of Statute 12 23 in 1985 the Vice-chancellor has ceased to have any power to adjudicate on the question as to who is legally constituted committee of management as that question is now exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Education. Another Division Bench in the case of Committee of Management v. Up Kul Sachiv, Writ Petition No, 5977 of 1990, decided on 7-3-1990, has laid down that whenever there is a bonafide dispute between the rival committees of management the Vice- chancellor will stay his hands and refer the dispute to the Regional Deputy Director of Education for adjudication and after the receipt of the decision of the Regional Deputy Director of Education the recognition will be granted accordingly, The relevant extract from this judgment is reproduced below ; "Therefore, there should be no difficulty in taking the view that if and when a bonafide dispute between two rival claimants exists before the Vice- chancellor he will stay his hands before recognising the managing committee concerned and allow the Regional Deputy Director to adjudicate upon the dispute. It necessarily follows that the initial jurisdiction of the Vice- chancellor, who acts on behalf of the University, will continue to reside in him under sub-section (13) of section 2. It necessarily follows that the initial jurisdiction of the Vice- chancellor, who acts on behalf of the University, will continue to reside in him under sub-section (13) of section 2. The matter will, therefore, first be placed before him for consideration and if he is satisfied that no real or bonafide dispute exists between the two rival claimants he will exercise the power of recognising the managing committee. On the other hand, if he comes to the conclusion that a bonafide dispute exists he will, as already indicated, await the decisions of the Regional Deputy Director This process, therefore, will involve an application of mind by the Vice-chancellor." The position, which emerges from the decisions of the two Benches, mentioned herein-above, is that although the power to recognise the managing committee vests in the University (the Vice chancellor) but if there is bonafide dispute between the rival managing committees, the dispute has to be decided by the Regional Deputy Director of Education under the Statute 12.28 and thereafter the Vice-chancellor will grant recognition to the committee of management in accordance with the order of the Deputy Director of Education; 6. In the instant case the dispute between the rival committees of management arose after 1985 when the Statute 12.28 was amended and the Vice-chancellor has passed the impugned order on 26-12-1989 by which he has decided the dispute between the rival committees of management holding the committee of management with Bhartendu Misra as manager as validly elected managing committee. In view of the provisions of Statute 12.28 the Vice-chancellor has lost the power to decide such a dispute and such a power vests exclusively in the Regional Deputy Director of Education, The impugned order of the Vice-chancellor as such, is liable to be set aside, Learned counsel for the respondents has on the other hand argued that (i) as section 2 (13) of the State Universities Act vests power of recognising the management in the Vice-chancellor, Statute 1228 which provides different forum for adjudication of the dispute of management, is in conflict with section 2 (13) and as such, is liable to be ignored: and (ii) the petitioners having participated in the proceedings before the Vice-chancellor without any objection about the lack of jurisdiction, it is not open to them to raise such an objection before this Court for the first time. It is not possible to agree with the learned counsel. The function of the Vice- chancellor and the Deputy Director of Education are different and clearly demarcated; while the former has a power to grant the recognition to the committee of management but the latter has a jurisdiction to decide the bonafide dispute raised by the rival committees, In the event of bonafide dispute the Vice-chancellor has to grant recognition in accordance with the decision of the Regional Deputy Director of Education. There is thus no conflict between section 2 (13) of the Act and the Statute 12,28. This Court in the case of Committee of Management v. Vice-chancellor, 1991 UP LB EC 300, has after following the aforesaid two Division Benches taken the same view regarding the power and duties of the two functionaries. 7. Regarding the second submission, the learned counsel for the respondents has relied on the cases of Major Chandra Bhan Singh v. Latafatullah Khan, AIR 1978 SC 1814 and Sohan Singh v. The General Manager, AIR 1981 SC 1862 In the case of Major Chandra Bhan Singh (supra; it was held that as the writ petitioners had themselves unlawfully invoked the review jurisdiction of the competent officer, which did not exist to their advantage, and to the disadvantage of the other side, it was not open to them to challenge the orders passed by the competent officer on the ground that orders were void for want of jurisdiction. In the other case of Sohan Singh (supra). Supreme Court held that High Court should not have entertained a plea which was not raised before the Labour Court. 8. In the instant case the case of the petitioners is that they produced the relevant papers before the Vice-chancellor for recognition and they were expecting that the Vice-chancellor will refer the matter to the Regional Deputy Director of Education for adjudication. When request is made before the Vice-chancellor by the rival committees of management for recognition, there are three stages. In the first stage the Vice-chancellor has to decide on the basis of the material produced by the parties whether there is a bonafide dispute or not and if he is of the opinion that there is a bonafide dispute then comes the second stage when the dispute has to be referred to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. In the first stage the Vice-chancellor has to decide on the basis of the material produced by the parties whether there is a bonafide dispute or not and if he is of the opinion that there is a bonafide dispute then comes the second stage when the dispute has to be referred to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. In the last stage the Vice- chancellor grants recognition to the committee of management in accordance with the decision of the Regional Deputy Director of Education. All the applications for recognition of the management by the managing committees have to be filed before the Vice-chancellor. It is not open, as held by the Division Bench in the case of Committee of Management v. Up Kul Sachiv (supra), to make the application for recognition/adjudication of the dispute straight away before the Regional Deputy Director of Education. Making of the application for recognition and producing record in support thereof by the petitioners cannot disentitle them to challenge the order of the Vice- chancellor, because they were bound to do so under the law. It was the duty of the Vice-chancellor to decide first of all whether there is a bonafide dispute and if he comes to the conclusion that there is such a dispute, he should have stayed bis hands and referred the matter to the Regional Deputy Director of Education. If after holding that there is a bonafide dispute, the Vice-chancellor proceeds to decide the dispute himself, it is at that stage that an objection should be raised about his jurisdiction. As the Vice- chancellor has straight away decided the dispute, the petitioners could not get the opportunity to raise an objection about the lack of his jurisdiction. That apart, the principle that a person, who has participated in the proceedings without raising an objection should not be allowed to raise such a question before this Court is only one of the guiding principles for exercise of power under Art 226 of the Constitution and it does not take away the jurisdiction of this Court to interfere under Art. 226. In this connection reference may be made to the following passage contained in paragraph 11 of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education, 1984 UP LB EC 1150 : "The principle that a party cannot be permitted to approbate and reprobate or beat hot and cold in the same breath is not one which takes away the jurisdiction of this Court to grant relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is just a principle on the basis of which in a suitable case the court may refuse to exercise its discretion under Article 226. It is also a settled principle of law that jurisdiction cannot be conferred even with the consent of the parlies. Since in the instant case the impugned order passed by the Deputy Director of Education is without jurisdiction in view of the decision of Tej Bahadur Singh's case (supra) we do not feel inclined to refuse to grant relief to the petitioners on the basis of this submission '' In the aforesaid cases in which the Vice-chancellor of the Sanskrit University was a party, this Court laid down that he has no jurisdiction to decide the bonafide dispute of management after the amendment of Statute in 1985. Even then he has again decided the 'dispute of management, which is without jurisdiction and against the law declared by this Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I consider it to a fit case where this Court should interfere. Principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the cases of Major Chandra Bhan Singh and Sohan Singh (supra) cannot be applied to the present case. Writ Petition Nos. 32340 of 1990 and 4195 of 1991. 9. These two writ petitions have been filed against the order dated 26-11-1990, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (hereinafter referred to as the S.D.M.) under section 25 of the Societies Registration Act recognising the committee with Bhartendu Misra as the manager. Sri R. N. Singh and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioners have challenged the order of the S.D.M. on two grounds, namely, (i) the order does not give any reason and (ii) various contentions raised by the petitioners have not been decided. Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents has disputed the aforesaid contentions. 10. Sri R. N. Singh and Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for the petitioners have challenged the order of the S.D.M. on two grounds, namely, (i) the order does not give any reason and (ii) various contentions raised by the petitioners have not been decided. Sri Sudhir Chandra, learned counsel for the respondents has disputed the aforesaid contentions. 10. The order of the learned S.D.M. runs into about nine pages. In first about four and a half pages the cases set up by the three factions have been given. Thereafter the argument of the learned counsel for the three factions have been noted. The findings have been recorded, in the last but one paragraph of page 8 of the certified copy and in the last paragraph he has recognised the committee of management with Bhartendu Misra as manager. In the last but one paragraph on page 8 the learned S.D.M. has held that on 9-1-1988 the society elected Sri Bhartendu Misra unanimously as secretary/manager. The reason given in support of this finding is that first faction, namely, Dr. Jagjit Malviya has accepted that on 9-1-1988 Sri Bhartendu Misra was accepted as the manager in five educational institutions. It has further been mentioned in the last two lines of the aforesaid paragraph that only third faction, namely, Sri Bhartendu Misra has at the time of argument placed various papers for consideration. The learned S.D.M. rejected the case of Sri Raghuraj Singh on the ground that he has failed to prove the members of the society. Although, a reason has been given by the learned S.D.M. in support of this finding in favour of Sri Bhartendu Misra, reason being the admission of Dr. Jagjit Malviya regarding the acceptance of Sri Bhartendu Misra as manager of five educational institutions. Sri B. D, Mandhyan, learned counsel for Dr. Jagjit Malviya has invited my attention to page 2 of the certified copy of the impugned order, wherein it has been mentioned that on 9-1-1988 Sri Bhartendu Misra was asked to act as manager on temporary basis of Rajarshi Tandon Balika Vidyalaya, Sanskrit Maha Vidyalaya, Ayurvedic Maha Vidyalaya and Nehru Laghu Vidyalaya. There is no statement or argument on behalf of Dr. Jagjit Malviya that Sri Bhartendu Misra was elected as a manager of Madan Mohan Malviya Post Graduate College. There is no statement or argument on behalf of Dr. Jagjit Malviya that Sri Bhartendu Misra was elected as a manager of Madan Mohan Malviya Post Graduate College. Even regarding the other institutions the statement was that Sri Bhartendu Misra was asked to act on temporary basis as manager. On the basis of these allegations, the learned S.D.M. was not justified to hold that first faction, namely, Sri Jagjit Malviya has admitted that Sri Bhartendu Misra was accepted as manager on 9-1-1988. 11. The second submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is also liable to be accepted. Various documents, which have been raised by the parties have been noted in the order itself, but have not been decided by the learned S.D.M. Sri B. D. Mandhyan, learned counsel for Dr. Jagjit Malviya has invited my attention regarding one of the important argument relating to the membership of Sri Bhartendu Misra and Raghuraj Singh. The submission was that they were not the members of the society and as such could not have been elected as manager. This question has not been decided although it goes to the root of the matter. The order passed by the learned S.D.M. though runs in nine pages but when it comes to the relevant findings, they are lacking. His order, as such cannot be sustained and the writ petitions are liable to be allowed, Writ Petition No 11053 of 1990 12. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 12-4-1990 of the Vice-chancellor, Gorakhpur University, recognising the committee of management with Sri Raghuraj Singh as. the manager. This writ petition was initially dismissed by this Court on the ground of alternative remedy of representation under section 68 of the Act before the Chancellor. The aforesaid order of this Court was however, set aside by the Supreme Court on 25-7-1990 on the ground that there are two other writ petitions, invoking the same question, which are pending in this Court for admission. The order passed by the Supreme Court is reproduced below : "Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted, By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the writ application filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the appellants at the admission stage on the ground that an alternative remedy is available to them. The order passed by the Supreme Court is reproduced below : "Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Special leave is granted, By the impugned judgment, the High Court has dismissed the writ application filed under Art. 226 of the Constitution by the appellants at the admission stage on the ground that an alternative remedy is available to them. It is stated that two other writ petitions being W. P. No. 3109/90 and 7407/90 involving the same question which arises in the present case are pending in the High Court for admission. In that view without going into the merits of the contention raised by the parties, we are setting aside the judgment under appeal and remitting the present writ case to the High Court to be taken up for admission with the other two cases We make it clear that it will be open to the High Court to reconsider the question as to whether the appellants should be directed to avail the alternative remedy before approaching the High Court. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. As suggested let all the three cases be taken up for admission expeditiously." By the aforesaid order the liberty was given to this Court to reconsider the question as to whether the appellants should be directed to avail the alternative remedy before approaching the High Court. The learned counsel for the respondents has argued that the petitioner has already filed a representation before the Chancellor under section 68 of the Act, which is still pending. In support of this submission a supplementary affidavit has been filed before me. The petitioner has filed a counter affidavit denying the aforesaid allegations. It is however, admitted to all the parties that against the impugned order dated 12-4 1990 of the Vice-chancellor a representation has already been filed by Dr. Jagjit Malvjya, the leader of the third faction and in that representation notices have been issued to the petitioner and Sri Raghuraj Singh. It is also admitted to all the parties that this representation is still pending. Even if it is taken that the petitioner has not filed any representation against the impugned order, the fact remains that against the same impugned order representation has been filed before the Chancellor by Dr. It is also admitted to all the parties that this representation is still pending. Even if it is taken that the petitioner has not filed any representation against the impugned order, the fact remains that against the same impugned order representation has been filed before the Chancellor by Dr. Jagjit Malviya and from the perusal of the affidavit and the counter affidavit filed before me, it is clear that notices have been issued to the petitioner and Sri Raghuraj Singh by the Chancellor. The Chancellor, as such is seized of the matter It is but proper that the dispute should be decided by the Chancellor at the first instance specially as conflicting claims have been set up by all the three factions involving disputed questions of facts for which this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution is not a proper forum. 13. This writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of alternative remedy before the Chancellor under section 68 of the State Universities Act. It will be open to the petitioner to either file a fresh representation or join the issue in the representation already filed by Dr. Jagjit Malviya. Writ Petition No 17599 of 1991. 14. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 2-7-1991 passed by the Vice-chancellor, Gorakhpur University, reviewing his earlier order dated 12-4-1990. By his earlier order dated 12-4-1990 the Vice- chancellor has recognised the committee of management of which Sri Raghuraj Singh is the manager. This order has been reviewed by the impugned order and the committee of management of which Sri Bhartendu Misra is the manager has now been recognised, Sri Raghuraj Singh, as mentioned above, has filed this writ petition challenging the order of review dated 2-7-1991. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made two submissions in support of the writ petition, namely (i) the Vice-chancellor has no power to review and (ii) the order of review is based on the order dated 26-11-1990 passed by the S D M. under section 25 of the Societies Registration Act, which has also been challenged by two writ petitions Nos. 32340 of 1990 and 4195 of 1991 and the order of the S.D.M. being illegal, the order of the Vice-chancellor is liable to be set aside. Regarding the first submission learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. 32340 of 1990 and 4195 of 1991 and the order of the S.D.M. being illegal, the order of the Vice-chancellor is liable to be set aside. Regarding the first submission learned counsel has relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Smt. Kuntesh Gupta v. Management, AIR 1987 SC 2186 . This submission is liable to be accepted. A quasi judicial authority unless expressly authorised by the Statute cannot review its order- In the case of Dr. Smt. Kuntesh (supra) the order of the Vice-chancellor reviewing his earlier order disapproving the dismissal of the Principal was declared illegal by the Supreme Court on the ground that while exercising the power of approval of the order of dismissal, the Vice-chancellor exercises quasi judicial power and quasi judicial authority cannot review its order unless authorised by law. Similarly, an administrative authority exercising statutory powers can exercise only such powers as are conferred upon it by the law. The authority which has the power under the law to recognise a committee of management cannot review such an order unless the power of review is expressly conferred by the law. In this connection reference may be made to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Gaurt Shanker Rai v Dr Ram Lakhan Pandey, 1984 UP LB EC 166, wherein it was held that the District Inspector of Schools does not have power to review this order recognising the committee of management of an Intermediate college. In that case the Division Bench relied on two earlier decisions of the Division Benches, Jaswant Singh v. District Inspector of Schools, 1980 UP LB EC 43 and Mohan Lal Sharma v. District Inspector of Schools, 1982 UP LB EC 213. In the instant case the Vice-chancellor has statutory power to recognise the committee of management The Statute however, does not confer any power on him to review his order. In the absence of any statutory provisions authorising the Vice-chancellor to review his order recognising the committer of management he has no jurisdiction to review except on the ground of fraud or mis-representation The Vice- chancellor in the instant case has not reviewed the order on account of any fraud or misrepresentation. In the absence of any statutory provisions authorising the Vice-chancellor to review his order recognising the committer of management he has no jurisdiction to review except on the ground of fraud or mis-representation The Vice- chancellor in the instant case has not reviewed the order on account of any fraud or misrepresentation. From the facts as narrated in the impugned order, it appears that the Vice-chancellor was of the view that while granting recognition of the committee of management with Raghuraj Singh as the manager certain facts were not placed before him; but there is no finding about any fraud or misrepresentation by the petitioner. That apart, from the perusal of the last paragraph of the impugned order of the Vice-chancellor, it is clear that he has reviewed the order solely on the ground of order dated 26-11-1990 of the learned S D M, which order has already been quashed by me in the Writ Petition Nos. 32340 of 1990 and 4191 of 1991. The basis of the order of review having been set aside, it cannot stand now. 15. For the reasons given above, this Writ Petition is liable to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 16. Writ Petition No. 7407 of 1990, Committee of Management v. Vice-chancellor and others and Writ Petition No 3109 of 1990, Committee of Management v. Vice Chancellor are allowed and the impugned order dated 26-12-1989, passed by the Vice-chancellor, Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya is quashed. The Vice-chancellor of Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya is directed to send the matter to the Regional Deputy Director of Education for deciding the dispute raised by the three rival factions. The Regional Deputy Director of Education will decide the dispute within three months from the date he receives the order of the Vice-chancellor for adjudication of the dispute Writ Petition No. 32340 of 1990, Madan Mohan Malviya Shiksha Samiti v. Assistant Registrar and Writ Petition No. 4195 of 1991, Dr. Jagjit Malviya v. Assistant Registrar are allowed and the impugned order dated 26-11-1990, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is quashed. The matter is remanded to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the dispute afresh in accordance with law within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Jagjit Malviya v. Assistant Registrar are allowed and the impugned order dated 26-11-1990, passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate is quashed. The matter is remanded to the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate to decide the dispute afresh in accordance with law within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. Writ Petition No 11053 of 1990, Committee of Management v. Vice-chancellor is dismissed on account of alternative remedy and Writ Petition No 17599 of 1991, Committee of Management v. Vice-chancellor is allowed and the impugned order dated 2-7-1991 is quashed. All the parties are directed to cooperate in the proceedings with the Regional Deputy Director of Education and the Sub-Divisional Magistrate so as to enable them to decide the dispute within the time specified above. 17. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are directed to bear their owa costs.