ORDER M.L. Bhat, J. - These two writ petitions can be decided together by a common judgment. 2. The District Inspector of Schools has by his order dated 15-10-1990 recognised the election of the committee of management headed by the respondent No. 2 and also held that Sri Alakh Narain Shukla, petitioner, is not elected as Manager of the institution. This order is impugned in writ petition No. 28734 of 1990. In writ petition No. 6347 of 1991 the impugned order of single operation dated 26-2-1991 and the office Memo dated 11-3-1991 are challenged. Prayer is made for issuance of directions against the respondent No. 1 to co-operate and counter-sign the bills and vouchers presented by the petitioner to the Bank. 3. In the first writ petition No. 28734 of 1990 the petitioner's case is that in an election held on 4-12-1983 he was elected as manager and one Mathura Prasad as President. It is also stated that there is a society known as Sarvodaya Shiksha Niketan, Prayag. This society consists of Sarvodaya Samiti. The society is to be controlled by the Board of Directors consisting of eleven members. Out of them one becomes the President and another becomes the Secretary. The term of the Board of Directors is three years. Thereafter fresh election is held. The procedure for holding fresh election is that after expiry of the term of the Board of Directors the Secretary calls a meeting of the Board of Directors for approval of the President. The Board of Directors thereafter approves the list of members of the society. The membership of the society is also for three years. The membership can, however, be renewed after expiry of the period of three years on payment of Rs. 5/-. After the list of members of the society is approved fresh election is held of the Board of Directors as also of the committee of management of the College. The two bodies are separate - one manages the society and the other manages the affairs of the college. After the expiry of the term, election could not be held in time, therefore, the Secretary of the society sent a letter of request to the President of the society to grant permission to hold meeting of the Board of Directors for approval of the list of members of the society to enable it to hold fresh election. After the expiry of the term, election could not be held in time, therefore, the Secretary of the society sent a letter of request to the President of the society to grant permission to hold meeting of the Board of Directors for approval of the list of members of the society to enable it to hold fresh election. The President granted his approval on 17-11-1987 and requested the Secretary of the society to call a meeting of the Board of Directors. It is stated that on 20-12-1987 was fixed for holding election. However, no election was held on that date because no member attended the meeting. The petitioner was informed about this fact on 28-12-1987. The members requested the respondent No. 4 to immediately call a meeting of the Board of Directors as directed by the President. Fresh meeting was : consequently to be held on 17-1-1988. 4. It is contended that the respondent No. 4 fraudulently fabricated the election on 20-12-1987 when actually no meeting had taken place. The members were informed by the respondent No. 4 through his letter dated 24-12-1987 about this fact. The respondent No. 4 is said to have become the manager of the college. The petitioner was also informed on 24-12-1987 about this fact. He is said to have informed the District Inspector of Schools by his letter dated 8-1-1988 that no election had taken place in pursuance of any meeting, as no meeting was held on 20-12-1987. The respondent No. 1, District Inspector of Schools, did not recognise the committee of management in pursuance of the petitioner's letter dated 8-1-1988. The respondent No. 4 is said to have informed the Assistant Registrar, Societies, Firms and Chit about the election dated 20-12-1987. This information was contained in a letter dated 2-1-1988. The Assistant Registrar raised some objections about the election and its validity. The petitioner is said to have continued as Manager and his signatures were attested. He is said to have effective control over the affairs of the college and its funds. The Assistant Registrar also was informed about the correct facts that no election had taken place on 20-12-1987. The Assistant Registrar is said to have issued notice to the respondents No. 3 and 4 on 24-11-1988 because in his opinion a dispute had arisen about the office bearers of the society and the committee of management. The Assistant Registrar also was informed about the correct facts that no election had taken place on 20-12-1987. The Assistant Registrar is said to have issued notice to the respondents No. 3 and 4 on 24-11-1988 because in his opinion a dispute had arisen about the office bearers of the society and the committee of management. The respondent No. 3 replied to the notice on 7-9-1989. The matter thereafter remained pending for consideration. The respondent No. 1 is said to be have filed a civil suit also praying for a declaration that the committee of management elected on 20-12-1987 was a validly elected committee which suit is also pending. No interim order was obtained in the civil suit. In view of this, the respondent No. 4 is said to have approached the Assistant Registrar to revive the matter, which has remained pending before him. The matter was referred by the Assistant Registrar to the prescribed authority for decision in accordance with the provisions of Section 25(1) of the Societies Registration Act. 5. It is contended that the election to the committee of management including the Board of Directors of the society could not be held unless the list of members of the society was approved by the Board, which list was not approved by the Board. In the scheme of administration it is provided that the earlier committee of management will continue to remain in office till fresh election takes place according to the scheme of administration and bye laws. Para 7 of the scheme of administration is relied on this regard. As no valid election was held after 1983, therefore, the petitioner claims that the committee, of which he is the manager, continues to function as a valid committee of management according to the scheme of administration. The respondent No. 4 is said to have issued notices without informing the District Inspector of Schools and the President inviting applications for the membership of the society on 11-7-1990. This notice was published in a local daily newspaper (Dainik Jagran). The respondent No. 4 was treating the election of 20-12-1987 as valid election and on the basis of that contention, fresh election was planned. The respondent No. 3 issued a rebttal to the notice dated 11-7-1990 by a statement which was also published in the daily newspaper (Dainik Jagaran) on 22-7- 1990. The respondent No. 4 was treating the election of 20-12-1987 as valid election and on the basis of that contention, fresh election was planned. The respondent No. 3 issued a rebttal to the notice dated 11-7-1990 by a statement which was also published in the daily newspaper (Dainik Jagaran) on 22-7- 1990. The President wrote a letter to the District Inspector of Schools that the respondent No. 4 was faradulently trying to hold fresh election during the pendency of the dispute under Section 22(5) of the Societies Registration Act. The respondent No. 4 is said to have proceeded to hold election of committee of management on 2-9-1990. Validity of this election is also challenged. No proper notice was issued to the members of the society including the petitioner about the date of election. Validity of election alleged to have been held on 20-12-1987 was pending adjudication and on the basis of that election fresh election could not be held on 2-9-1990 mainly on the ground that the tenure of the committee of management had expired. The petitioner had filed short objection before the District Inspector of Schools on 5-9-1990 against the said election and other members of the society had filed objections on 8-9- 1990. The District Inspector of Schools is said to have asked the petitioner to forward the relevant documents specified in his letter dated 15-9-1990 despatched on 22-9-1990 and received by the petitioner on 24-9-1990. The petitioner forward the relevant documents and showed that effective control over the college and its funds was that of the petitioner. The petitioner has enclosed the documents with his representation dated 2-10-1990. The petitioner states that till date he is functioning as manager by means of the impugned order dated 15-10-1990. The respondent No. 1 accepted the signatures of the 2 and 4 and held that the election held on 2-9-1990 was valid and the new committee of management was validly constituted. The election dated 2- 9-1990 is said to be fraudulent and invalid. No such election could have been held nor was the-same held in accordance with the scheme of administration. It is contended that the petitioner was continuing to function as manager of a validity constituted committee of management. The election dated 2- 9-1990 is said to be fraudulent and invalid. No such election could have been held nor was the-same held in accordance with the scheme of administration. It is contended that the petitioner was continuing to function as manager of a validity constituted committee of management. There was a dispute between two rival committee of management, therefore, it was necessary for the respondent No. 1 to have referred the matter for adjudication to the Regional Deputy Director of Education in accordance with the provisions of Section 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act, who could decide the dispute. 6. In their counter affidavit the respondents have stated that election had taken place on 2-9-1990. The respondent No. 3 was elected as president and the respondent No. 2 as manager. Institution of civil suit is admitted before the Munsif for issuing direction to the Assistant Registrar to decide the matter and for appointment of a Receiver. The election held on 20-12-1987 is said to be a valid election and after the expiry of its term fresh election was held on 2-9-1990. The District Inspector of Schools is said to have recognised the said election and attested the signatures of the manager. The Civil Suit is said to have been compromised and is not pending as stated. The procedure laid down in the bye-laws was followed in conducting the election dated 2-9-1990. The list of members was approved in the meeting on 16- 8-1990. Notice is alleged to have been issued to all the members under certificate of posting and to the petitioner also. The petitioner was disqualified for not getting his membership renewed even then he was given notice. Among 11 members of the society, three members had expired. Out of eight remaining seven members had participated in the meeting held on 2-9-1990 including Sri Mathura Prasad Sinha, who presided over the said meeting. Election held in the year 1987 is also said to be valid. Sri Rajmani Dubey is, now said to be in effective control of the property and funds of the college. He is said to be operating the Bank account. The impugned order is said to be valid. 7. Election held in the year 1987 is also said to be valid. Sri Rajmani Dubey is, now said to be in effective control of the property and funds of the college. He is said to be operating the Bank account. The impugned order is said to be valid. 7. Sri Rajmani Dubey has also filed counter affidavit to the petition, which is more or less on the same lines on which the affidavit of respondent No. 4 is based, It is stated by him that it is not a case where there was a dispute of two rival committees claiming themselves to be duly elected committees. The petitioner has not stated that he was elected as manager in any election held in 1990. The District Inspector of Schools is said to be competent to examine the evidence on record and pass order about the recognition of committee of management. The petitioner can file a regular civil suit if he is aggrieved against the order of the District Inspector of Schools. He has also, stated that he was in effective control of the institution and its funds. 8. Another counter affidavit is filed by Mr. H. S. Dubey on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools. It is stated in the affidavit that there was no dispute with regard to the committee of management and the manager continued to work in pursuance of the election held in December, 1987. The petitioner's status as manager is denied. It is also stated that there is no dispute which could be referred under section 16A(7) to the competent authority. The assertions of the petitioner are denied. 9. In his rejoinder affidavit the petitioner has generally reiterated all the facts which he has already mentioned in the writ petition. He has refuted the contentions raised in the counter affidavits. He has stated that no reliance can be placed on the contention of the respondent that notices were sent for the election which was held on 2-9-1990 nor is it known as to who participated in the said election. Most of the members, who are said to have participated in the election, do not belong to the society. They have been enrolled as members by the committee of management after 20-12-1987. 10. Most of the members, who are said to have participated in the election, do not belong to the society. They have been enrolled as members by the committee of management after 20-12-1987. 10. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length as also the Standing Counsel on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools. The learned counsel for the parties made a joint request that the writ petitions be decided finally so that the controversy is concluded. Request was also made by the Standing counsel for the final disposal of the writ petitions. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of the Committee of Management v. The District Inspector of Schools, Ghazipur, reported in, 1984 UPLBEC 610 wherein it is laid down that if there is a dispute between two rival managing committees and the question of recognition of validly constituted committee of management had arisen, the dispute is to be referred to the Deputy Director of Education and the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to decide such a dispute. Reliance is place on the case of the Committee of Management of Subhash Uchachtar Madhyamik Vidyalava v. Deputy Director of Education, Meerut reported in, 1985 UPLBEC 241 : 1985 All LJ 1005. It is held that when a dispute is referred to the Deputy Director of Education about the validity of election of committee of management under Section 16A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, the Deputy Director of Education while dealing with the matter under clause (7) of the Scheme of Administration or while considering it under Section 16A(7) cannot go into the disputed question except incidently in the latter case with a view to decide the question of effective control. In the case of the Committee of Gandhji Vidyapith Inter College, Kanpur v. The District Inspector of Schools, Kanpur reported in, (1989) 15 All LR 185 : 1989 All LJ 273 it is held that the dispute as to the management of an institution, which has arisen before the District Inspector of Schools, he has no option but to refer the dispute to the Deputy Director of Education. In Sudhir Kumar Pathak v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, reported in, 1984 UPLBEC 910 : 1985 All LJ 555 the same principle is laid down that the dispute between two rival committees relating to the actual control is to be decided by the Deputy Director of Education. Validity of election cannot be decided in exercise of such jurisdiction. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of the Committee of Management of Sarvodaya Inter College, Adhawar, District Marzapur v. Deputy Director of Education, Vth Region, Varanasi, reported in, 1982 UPLBEC 31 : 1981 All LJ 1325 has considered the effect of amendment of 1981 by which Section 16A(7) was inserted in the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. It was held that in that case the District Inspector of schools had on two occasions found that the petitioner of that case was the manager, who was entitled to function and had directed the respondent No. 3 to file a civil suit for vindication of his rights. The District Inspector of Schools had jurisdiction to decide the questions as to who was entitled to function as the manager and he had the jurisdiction to decide the same rightly or wrongly. Therefore such a question could not he reopened by the Deputy Director of Education. The earlier application having been decided. the subsequent application for the same question would be barred by principle of res judicata. 12. The short question, which falls for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether there are two rival committees which claim effective control on the institution. It is stated that the petitioner was elected as manager in the election which was held in 1983. He wants to continue as manager on the ground that until fresh election is held, he is to hold the charge of management of the institution. He has denied the election of 1987 and the election held in September, 1990. The other side has submitted that the election held in 1987 was also valid and the election held in September, 1990 was also held validly. There will be no effect of the civil suit which was filed by one of the respondents in respect of the matter before the Munsif, Allahabad. Now that civil suit has also been withdrawn because the parties seem to have filed a compromise application in that suit. There will be no effect of the civil suit which was filed by one of the respondents in respect of the matter before the Munsif, Allahabad. Now that civil suit has also been withdrawn because the parties seem to have filed a compromise application in that suit. Therefore, there is no civil suit pending at this time, as is contended by the petitioner. 13. Section 16-A(7) would come into play only if the election is held and both the committees prefer the claim for the management of the institution, then the matter is to be referred to the Deputy Director of Education, who has to decide as to who was in effective control of the institution. He cannot pronounce on the validity of the election because that question is not to be decided by him under S. 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. The validity of election of committees of management, if there are more than one, can be gone into incidentaly. This cannot be the main dispute for the decision of the Deputy Director of Education, Since qua non for the application under S. 16-A(7) is that there must be two rival managing committees and the election of both the committees must have been held. If any body sets a rival managing committee he is to show by positive evidence that the election of the rival committee of management was held in which he was elected either as manager or any other office bearer of the managing committee. The rival managing committees who lay their claim about the management of the institution must prove that the managing committees were set up through the medium of election. Which of the managing committees would be in effective control of the institution in case of dispute between the two rival committees is to be decided by the Deputy Director of Education. 14. The petitioner has stated that some bogus members were included in the list of members by the Board of Directors of the society. This fact is denied by the respondents. It is stated that out of eleven members three had died and seven had participated in election held on 2-9-1990. The lone member, who did not participate seems to be the petitioner though it is contended that he has lost the membership. This fact is denied by the respondents. It is stated that out of eleven members three had died and seven had participated in election held on 2-9-1990. The lone member, who did not participate seems to be the petitioner though it is contended that he has lost the membership. If it is held that the petitioner continues to be the member, then also it cannot be held that he was elected in any election which was held on 2-9-1990 or around that date because as a lone member he must have voters to elect him. The seven surviving members had participated in the meeting convened by the respondents. Therefore, the petitioner was left alone and he cannot claim to be elected as manager of the managing committee, which is set up by him. The petitioner has not stated that any election was held on 2-9-1990 in which he was elected. He has challenged the election of the respondent's committee without saying anything about his own election. Such an election could be recognised by the Director Inspector of Schools because there was no rival committee in the eye of law to challenge the status of the elected body, which was constituted on 2-9-1990. Even if that election was bad the petitioner could always seek remedy by way of filing a civil suit but he cannot challenge the decision of the District Inspector of Schools to grant recognition to the said committee in as much as no rival committee was in existence which would enjoin the District Inspector of Schools to refer the matter to the Deputy Director of Education for deciding as to who was in effective control of the institution. 15. The term of the managing committee is only three years under the scheme of administration. The petitioner cannot claim to remain in control of the managing committee from 1983 after the expiry of three years also. The term of the managing committee would expire in December, 1986 and in January, 1987 a new committee of management was necessarily to be constituted. If that was not possible, law would take its own course, but on the basis of the election held in December, 1983 it is difficult to recognise the petitioner as being in effective control of the institution perpetually up to date. If that was not possible, law would take its own course, but on the basis of the election held in December, 1983 it is difficult to recognise the petitioner as being in effective control of the institution perpetually up to date. Moreover, the election held on 2-9- 1990 could be challenged by him at appropriate forum but he could not compel the District Inspector of Schools to refer the matter for decision of the Deputy Director of Education because he has not set up that he was elected in any election held in 1990 as manager of the institution nor could he set up such a claim because he was a lone member, who did not attend the meeting dated 2-9-1990. 16. The authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner lay down the law which would not apply to the facts of the present case because the present case does not fall within the purview of S. 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. There is no rival committee of management so far as the election of 2-9-1990 is concerned. The petitioner has not adopted the remedy available to him under law. He could have filed a civil suit but law would not permit him to bring the matter within the purview of S. 16-A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act without contending that he was elected as Manager of a rival committee of management in election in September, 1990 or thereabout. 17. Only one election was held in September, 1990 in which the respondent No. 2 was elected as Manager. The District Inspector of Schools was, therefore, right in attesting his signatures and allowing him to function as the manager of the committee of management. This could be disputed in a civil suit, the matter was not to be referred to the Deputy Director of Education for the reasons detailed out hereinabove. 18. The result of the aforesaid discussion is that the controversy in writ petition No. 6347 of 1990 is also clinched. In view of the interim stay granted in writ petition No. 28734 of 1990 the District Inspector of Schools seems to have ordered single operation. The order of single operation is apparently based on the interpretation placed by the District Inspector of Schools on the interim order dated 11-1-1991. In view of the interim stay granted in writ petition No. 28734 of 1990 the District Inspector of Schools seems to have ordered single operation. The order of single operation is apparently based on the interpretation placed by the District Inspector of Schools on the interim order dated 11-1-1991. The order of 26-2-1991 as also the order dated 11-3-1991 passed by the respondent No. 1 are both liable to be quashed in view of the dismissal of the writ petition No. 28734 of 1990 the writ petition 6347 of 1991 is liable to be allowed. 19. Accordingly writ petition No. 28734 of 1990 is dismissed as being devoid of merit. The interim order dated 11-1-1991 shall stand vacated. As a consequence of this the writ petition No. 6347 of 1991 is allowed. The orders dated 26-2-1991 and 11-3-1991 passed by the respondent No. 1 are hereby quashed. 20. In view of the peculiar circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.