Judgment The petitioner has made two fold prayers for quashing the letter dated 11th August, 1990 written by Miss Shukla Bhattacharjee, Headmistress and Secretary to Subhas Chandra Mallick, Member of the School's Governing Body and a Memo dated 29th August, 1990 written to Subhas Chandra Mallick by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bongaon, North 24-Parganas. The Mother Teresa School (K.G. System) is the petitioner represented by Sri Subhas Chandra Mallick, Secretary of the School. It is admitted position that the School is a private, non-Government and unaided School which was established in 1979. It has a Governing Body formed according to its own Rules and Regulations and procedures of the School. It is also admitted that there was some internal dispute and this led to the resignation of Miss. Shukla Bhattacharjee, the Headmistress, and Respondent No.4, who was also the Secretary on 10th July, 1989. It is also admitted that the Headmistress was requested to withdraw her resignation in the interest of the School to settle the dispute but she refused to do so and the Chairman of the Governing Body had to accept her resignation on 20th August, 1989 (but the learned Advocate of the petitioner submitted that the date should be 3rd January, 1990) and on 3rd January, 1990 Sri Subhas Chandra Mallick was selected as Secretary of the School by majority votes. There is allegation that the Headmistress was backed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bongaon, in her illegal activities. Thereafter a show cause notice was served upon the Headmistress but she did not care to submit any show cause. It is the further cases of the petitioner that by a letter dated 11th August, 1990 the Headmistress claimed herself to be the Secretary of the School and directed the newly selected Secretary to return back the School property and money. It is further stated that by the Memo of 29th August, 1990 by the Sub-Divisional Officer has encouraged the Headmistress and brought the administration of the School to standstill to the serious prejudice of the students. 2. From the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the Headmistress it appears that pursuant to the request of the Chairman by letter dated 19th July, 1989 the Headmistress on 3rd August, 1989 withdrew her resignation and extended all co-operation to the Chairman. 2. From the Affidavit-in-Opposition filed by the Headmistress it appears that pursuant to the request of the Chairman by letter dated 19th July, 1989 the Headmistress on 3rd August, 1989 withdrew her resignation and extended all co-operation to the Chairman. But from the Minutes of the Governing Body of the School dated 3rd January, 1990 as enclosed in the writ petition it appears that as no response was available from the Headmistress for withdrawing the resignation consequently the Chairman accepted the resignation. From the same Minutes it is also clear that the letter of withdrawal of resignation by the Headmistress was duly received by the School authorities and after perusal of the same is was unanimously resolved that the question of withdrawal did not arise when the Chairman had already accepted her resignation and that was approved by the Governing Body and then and there In the same sitting of the Governing Body Subhas Chandra Mallick was made the Secretary. Immediately thereafter on 5th November, 1990 the Chairman wrote to the Clerk-cum-Teacher of the School that as Miss Shukla Bhattacharjee was no more the Headmistress so he should collect the money and keep a clear account of the same and not to deposit any sum in the bank until further orders. Even thereafter it appears, according to the petitioner, that the sum of Rs.5,630/- was received by the Headmistress on 21st September, 1990. 3. Mr. Ghosh, the learned Advocate appearing with Mr. Bari for the Headmistress strongly denied the allegations made by the petitioner and raised a preliminary point that the writ application is not maintainable. He submitted that the Mother Teresa School is a private institution and is non Government as well as unaided. It is already accepted by Mr. Islam, the learned Advocate of the petitioner, that the School is private, non-Government and unaided and has a Special Constitution of its own and everything is being done according to the Rules and Regulations as framed by the School authority. Inspite of my repeated requests Mr. Islam failed to produce the "Special Constitution" or the Rules and Regulations governing the School. 4. Mr. D. Bhattacharyya, the learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 8, supported Mr. Islam's client and the State was represented by Mr. S. Dasgupta. Inspite of my repeated requests Mr. Islam failed to produce the "Special Constitution" or the Rules and Regulations governing the School. 4. Mr. D. Bhattacharyya, the learned Advocate appearing for Respondent Nos. 5, 6 and 8, supported Mr. Islam's client and the State was represented by Mr. S. Dasgupta. The State's affidavit-in opposition was affirmed by the S.D.O. concerned himself and be has very specifically stated that on receiving letter from "the Headmistress and Secretary" on 13th August, 1990 and apprehending danger to her personal safety, be called a meeting at his chamber on 11th September, 1990 to avoid any breach of peace but the meeting could not take place. The deponent stated in terms categorical that save and except maintaining peace he had no intention to interfere in the administration of the School as alleged. 5. After hearing the parties I have came to the conclusion that the writ application revolves round the points: (a) whether the writ lies against a private school which is unaided and unrecognised; (b) whether the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bougaon, can be adjudicated in the writ application and whether the action taken by him was justified; and (c) whether the Secretary-Headmistress dispute of a private school not governed by the School Code of West Bengal can be resolved and adjudicated in writ jurisdiction. So far the writ petition is concerned Mr. Islam has very convincingly cited the famous case of (1) Mahindar Singh Gill and Anr. v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and Ors. reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 . Though not strictly on the point of maintainability of the writ petition but it has been expressly observed by the Supreme Court that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned. In view of this judgment the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has not been ousted so far as the action of the Sub-Divisional Officer is concerned. Here I find that by Memo dated 29th August, 1990 the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned requested Sub has Mallick to meet him on 11th September, 1990 at 3 P.M. at his chamber for urgent discussion regarding the dispute of Mother Teresa School (K.G. System) and the letter is described by him as "urgent". Here I find that by Memo dated 29th August, 1990 the Sub-Divisional Officer concerned requested Sub has Mallick to meet him on 11th September, 1990 at 3 P.M. at his chamber for urgent discussion regarding the dispute of Mother Teresa School (K.G. System) and the letter is described by him as "urgent". In his explanation dated 11th November, 1990 the S.D.O. Bongaon, submitted to the Court expressly stared that he never imposed any restriction on the School authorities or he did not instruct any of them to follow his order but to keep the situation peaceful. He further staled that he never interfered in the School affairs. He humbly stated that if he did any mistake be wanted to be pardoned by the Court. In my order of 12th November, 1990 while appreciating the conduct of the S.D.O., I gave him liberty to take any action only if there is any law and order problem but not to interfere into the administration of the School. In the Affidavit-in-Opposition affirmed by the S.D.O. himself he has so very categorically stated that by calling the meeting on 11th September, 1990 pursuant to the letter of Sm. Bhattacharjee, who claimed to be both the Headmistress and Secretary, his sole intention was to avoid any branch of peace, but the meeting could not take place as be was otherwise busy. The S.D.O is very vocal in stating that except for maintaining peace and order he had not in any way interfered in the School administration. I have no reason to disbelieve him. If the Headmistress has over acted on the basis of the S.D.O.'s letter of 29th August, 1990 then the S.D.O. is not answerable. Of course, the S.D.O. ought not to have written "urgent discussion............ regarding the dispute............." The dispute is not to be decided by him but by another forum. This mistake he has committed for which he has also expressed pardon from the Court and the Court accepts it. 6. Of course, the S.D.O. ought not to have written "urgent discussion............ regarding the dispute............." The dispute is not to be decided by him but by another forum. This mistake he has committed for which he has also expressed pardon from the Court and the Court accepts it. 6. One thing muse be borne in mind that if the School is private in nature and is non-Government and unaided with its own Rules and Regulations bereft of the School Code of West Bengal, then, of course, the law-enforcing-officials have a right to interfere in the law and order problem, of any, which may result in the disruption of peaceful atmosphere of the institution in accordance with the general law of the land. Of course the School is governed by a Governing Body which is a private creation of a few people who have established the School for a good purpose. But until and unless the School comes within the purview of the comprehensive School Code of West Bengal the authorities of the School or any of its office-bearers cannot obstruct the general administration to interfere in maintaining peace and order but certainly within the bounds of law. 7. No useful purpose will be served by quashing shat letter dated 29th August, 1990 addressed to Shri Subhas Mallick by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bongaon, North 24-Parganas, as the same has exhausted its force and has become infructuous. The S.D.O. is hereby directed not to issue in future such a letter to the School authority. So far the letter dated 11th August, 1990 of Sm. Sukla Bhattacharya addressed to Sri Subhas Chandra Mallick is concerned, it is a communication between two private individuals making rival claims and dragging in the S.D.O. for nothing. 8. The dispute between the management, the Secretary and the Headmistress is purely of civil nature and the Writ Court cannot interfere and decide a civil dispute between she parties by entering into evidence. There are allegations and counter-allegations by the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 and those allegations have to be adjudicated after proper trial and the only forum to decide the dispute is the Civil Court and not the Writ Court. 9. There are allegations and counter-allegations by the petitioner and Respondent No. 4 and those allegations have to be adjudicated after proper trial and the only forum to decide the dispute is the Civil Court and not the Writ Court. 9. I hold that the writ is maintainable so far as the action of the Government Official i.e. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Bongaon, North 24-Parganas, is concerned and not maintainable so far as the dispute between the Secretary and the Headmistress is concerned which is of civil nature. In the former case I have already granted relief as per direction stated hereinbefore. 10. In the circumstances the writ petition is disposed of accordingly without costs. Let xerox copy of the order be made available to the parties on usual undertaking and upon compliance of necessary formalities.