JUDGMENT R.A. Sharma 1. Shri Krishna Inter College, Niwari district Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as College) is a recognised and aided Intermediate College having its own Scheme of Administration, framed under the Intermediate Education Act The controversy involved in these five writ petitions centres round the questions about validity of rival committees of management and their managers as well as the orders of District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad (hereinafter referred to as D. I. O. S) passed in connection therewith. 2. According to the Scheme of Administration of the college the term of committee of Management is three years and one month. at appears that the last election of committee of management was held on 17-6-1988 in which Sri Onkar Singh Tyagi was elected as President and Sri Rajpal Singh was elected as manager. This committee was recognised by District Inspector of Schools by order dated 24-12-1988, copy of which has been filed as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Manager Sri Rajpal Singh, died on 30-9- 1989 and in his place, according to the petitioner, Sri Vivek Tyagi was elected by the committee of management on 22-10-1989. The District Inspector of Schools, however, by order dated 18-12-1989, refused to recognise Sri Vivek Tyagi as manager of the college, on the ground that Sri Vivek Tyagi was not enrolled as member of the general body of the college in accordance with law Against this order, Committee of Management, of which Sri Vivek Tyagi is the manager, has filed writ petition no 3017 of 1990 in which on 5- 2-1990 a stay order has been passed by this court whereby operation of the aforesaid order dated 18-12-1989 has been stayed. It appears that thereafter Sri Dharm Prakash Tyagi raisrd a claim that he has been elected as manager of the college by the Committee of Management on 31-12-1989 and requested to District Inspector of Schools to grant him recognition. District Inspector of Schools however, by order dated 24 1-1990, declined to recognise Dharm Prakash Tyagi as manager. Against this order of district Inspector of Schools dated 24-1-1990 Sri Dharm Prakash Tyagi filed writ petition no 7984 of 1990. There is no stay order in this writ petition. 3. District Inspector of Schools however, by order dated 24 1-1990, declined to recognise Dharm Prakash Tyagi as manager. Against this order of district Inspector of Schools dated 24-1-1990 Sri Dharm Prakash Tyagi filed writ petition no 7984 of 1990. There is no stay order in this writ petition. 3. On 24-7-1990 the District Inspector of Schools passed two orders by one of these orders the committee of management of which Sri Vivek Tyagi is the manager, was dissolved and against this order the committee of management, of which Sri Vivek Tyagi is manager, has filed writ petition no. 18519 of 1990. In this writ petition this court has granted stay order. By second order, passed on the same date (24-7-l990) the committee of management alleged to have been elected on 15-7-1990, of which Sri Dharm Prakash Tyagi, Ciaims to be the manager, was recognised- Against this order the committee of management of which Sri Vivek Tyagi is the manager filed writ petition no. 20667 of 1990. 4. Both the orders passed on 24-7-1990 by the District Inspector of Schools, have, however, been recalled by order dated 31-7-1990, against which committee of management of which Sri Dharm Prakasn Tyagi is the manager, filed writ petition no 20272 of 1990. In all these writ petitions, except writ petition no. 3017 of 1990. the contesting respondents have filed counter- affidavit and in reply thereto rejoinder affidavits have also been filed. In writ petition no 3017 of 1990 Sri Daarm Prakash Tyagi has filed an application alongwith an affidavit for his irnpleadment and vacation of stay order. I have already allowed this application by my order dated 13-12- 990. As in all the writ petitions the case set up by the parties is the same and in other petitions counter and rejoinder- affidavits have been exchanged, no request for filing counter-affidavit in writ petition no 3017 of 1990 has been made. I have heard learned counsel for both the parties as well as learned standing counsel with the consent of learned counsel for both the parties, the writ petition no 20667 of 1990 has been made the leading case. All these writ petitions are being disposed of with the consent of learned counsel of parties in accordance with Rules of the Court. Writ Petition no. 3017 of 1990. 5. All these writ petitions are being disposed of with the consent of learned counsel of parties in accordance with Rules of the Court. Writ Petition no. 3017 of 1990. 5. It is admitted to both the parties that Sri Onkar Singh Tyagi and Sri Rajpal Singh were duly elected Chairman and manager respectively of the committee of management of the college, although there is dispute between the two factions about the date of election IT is also admitted that Sri Rajpal Singh died on 30-9-1989. According to the petitioners in this writ petition Sri Vivek Tyagi was enrolled as life-member of General body of the college after depositing Rs. 1000/- as prescribed tee in accordance with clause (7) of the scheme of Administration, copy of which has been filed by both the parties. IT is further claimed by petitioners that the committee of management elected Sri Vivek Tyagi as manager in place of his father Rajpal Singh- However, by the impugned order dated 18-12-1989 District Inspector of Schools has declined to recognise Sri Vivek Tyagi as manager on the ground that he was not admitted as life member in accordance with law. 6. Clause (7) of Scheme of Administration deals with enrolment of members of General body on payment of requisite fee and under this clause of committee of management has been empowered to enroll members and if the committee declines the matter is placed before the General body. In case General body also decline to enroll a member provisions for appeal to District Inspector of Schools has been made against such decision of the General body. In the instant case, according to the petitioners the enrolment of Sri Vivek Tyagi as member of General body has been made by the committee of management strictly in accordance with Clause (7) of the Scheme of Administration and that has become final. As there was no dispute before the District Inspector of Schools regarding enrolment of Sri Vivek Tyagi as a member of the General body the District Inspector of Schools did not have jurisdiction to go into this question. That apart, the dispute pertaining to office bearers of the committee of management Is to be decided, in accordance with Clause 21 of the Scheme of Administration, by the President of the Committee of management. That apart, the dispute pertaining to office bearers of the committee of management Is to be decided, in accordance with Clause 21 of the Scheme of Administration, by the President of the Committee of management. By letter dated 23-10-89 President himself informed the District Inspector of Schools about election of Sri Vivek Tyagi as manager of the college. In view of this petition District Inspector of Schools had hardly any option. In this connection reference may be made to a decision dated 4-5-1990 of a Division Bench of this court in writ petition no. 13876 of 1988, Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education, in which it was held that if Scheme of Administration provides for settlement of dispute regarding office bearers of the committee of management by its President, then validity of the election of the office-bearers of the committee of management has to be decided by the President. At the time when District Inspector of Schools passed the impugned order there was no aispute about membership of the General body of Sri Vivek Tyagi and his election as manager. As mentioned before, even if such a dispute either relating to the membership or managership has arisen the same was liable to be decided by the committee of management and the President respectively in view of the specific provisions contained in Clauses 7 and 21 of the scheme of Administration of the college. The impugned order dated 18-12-1990 as such is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. Writ Petition no. 7984 of 1990. According to the petitioner after the death of manager Sri Rajpal Singh on 30-9-1989 no meeting of the committee of management was called by the President for enrolling new members and electing new manager The petitioner claims that he convened the meeting on 22-12-1989 in which some new members were enrolled. It is further claimed by the petitioner that he convened another meeting of the committee of management on 31-12-1989 which was presided over by him and in this meeting he was elected manager of the college, but the petition says that District Inspector of Schools has wrongly, by order dated 24-1-1990, refused to recognise him, on the ground that meeting in which he was elected as manager, was not called with his permission and was not held according to the provisions of Scheme of Administration. 7. 7. According to the Clause 11 of the Scheme of Administration, the manager, with the approval of the President, can convene a meeting of the committee In case the meeting is not called by President or manager, six members/office bearers of the committee of management, with the permission of the District Inspector of Schools can convene the meeting Even specified number of members, with the permission of District Inspector of Schools, have also been given right to call the meeting of the committee of management. In the instant case, in para 8 of the writ petition, it has been averred that when the President did not call the meeting, the petitioner himself circulated the notice dated 20-t2-1989 for holding meeting on 31-12-1989 and in this meeting of 31-12-1989, which was presided over by the petitioner himself he was elected as manager. It is not disputed that the meeting was not called by President or the manager of office-bearers of members, with the approval of the District Inspector of Schools The petitioner had no Jurisdiction under the Scheme of Administration to call the meeting of the committee of management. Meeting not having been called and held in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme of Administration, the so called election of the petitioner as manager on 31-12-1989 was void ab initio and District Inspector of Schools was fully justified to reject the claim of the petitioner by the impugned order. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Writ Petition no. 18519 of 1990. 8. By the Impugned order dated 24-7-1990 in this writ petition the District Inspector of Schools has dissolved the committee of management of which Sri Vivek Tyagi is the manager, on the ground that the membership fee has not been deposited in the bank-account regularly and proceedings of the committee have not been communicated and further (he proceeding- registers of the committee have not been followed. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to dissolve the committee of management and in any case such order could not have been passed without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, which was not done in the instant case. This order has been challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to dissolve the committee of management and in any case such order could not have been passed without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, which was not done in the instant case. It is not disputed that there is no provisions in the Scheme of Administration and the Intermediate Education Act and Regulations framed thereunder empowering the District Inspector of Schools to dissolve the committee of management. No provisions of law have been placed before me by the learned counsel for the respondents and learned standing counsel, so as to justify the impugned order. It is also apparent that the impugned order has been passed without giving an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The proper person to say as to whether an opportunity of being heard was given was the District Inspector of Schools who has not cared to file any counter-affidavit. From sequence of the facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the impugned order was passed without giving opportunity of being heard to the petitioner. The order passed by District Inspector of Schools, being without jurisdiction, is liable to be set aside. Writ Petition no. 20667 of 1990. 9. In this writ petition another order of District Inspector of Schools passed on 24-7-1990 recognising the committee of management, alleged to have been elected on 15-7-1990 of which Sri Dharm Prakash Tyagi is the manager, has been challenged According to the counter-affidavit of Sri Dharm Prakash Tyaei the last election of the committee of management was held in December, 1986 and it is also admitted that the terms of committee of management, according to the Scheme of Administration, is three years and one month and this period of three years and one month came to an end in January, 1990. It has been further averred in paras 18, 19 and 20 of the counter-affidavit that Sri Dharm Prakish Tyagi himself circulated a notice for holding the meeting on 15-7-1990 for electing new committee and meeting was accordingly held on 15-7-1990 in which new committee of which Sri Dharm Prakash Tvagi was the manager was elected and it was this committee of management which has been recognised by the impugned order dated 24-7-1990 passed by the District Inspector of Schools. 10. 10. A Division Bench of this court in Committee of Management v. Deputy Director of Education, 1986 ALJ 88, has laid down that after the term of the committee of management had expired its office-bearers cannot legally convene and bold a meeting for electing new committee of management According to the case, set-up by the respondents themselves the term of the committee of management, as mentioned before, came to an end in January, 1990 and after January, 1990 Sri Dharm Prakash Tyagi or any other person was not legally entitled to convene a meeting for holding the election. Election held on 15-7-1990 was absolutely void ab nitio and District Inspector of Schools had no jurisdiction to approve such a committee of management. That apart, the District Inspector of Schools should not have passed impugned order without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the petitioners who claims to be rival committee of management and were also having stay order granted by this Court on 30-7-1990. The impugned order is absolutely without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside. Writ Petition No. 20272 of 1990. By this writ petition the order dated 31-7-90 of the District Inspector of Schools recalling his earlier orders, referred to above passed 24-7-1990 has been challenged. The grievance of the petitioner is that District Inspector of Schools has no jurisdiction to review his order and in any case he could not have passed the impugned order without giving him reasonable opportunity of being heard. 11. It is true that District Inspector of Schools cannot review his order except in cases of fraud, mis-representation and mistake. Even in cases of fraud, mis-representation etc. the order can be recalled only after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the affected person. As mentioned here in-before by the two orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools on 24-7-1990 he dissolved the committee of management of which Sri Vivek Tyagi was the manager and approved the committee of management of which Sri Dharm Prakash Tyagi was manager. I have already held that these orders passed on 24-7-1990 are void ab nitio and without jurisdiction. In case this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31-7-1990 is quashed the result would be that the orders dated 24-7-1990 should stand revived. I have already held that these orders passed on 24-7-1990 are void ab nitio and without jurisdiction. In case this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 31-7-1990 is quashed the result would be that the orders dated 24-7-1990 should stand revived. As both the orders dated 24-7-1990 have been set aside by me, this writ petition for all practical purpose has become infructuous because even if this writ petition is allowed the orders dated 24-7-1990 cannot come into existence. 12. Every authority or court has iurisdiction to recall order if passed without giving reasonable opportunity of being heard, to the affected person. Orders dated 24-7-1990 were admittedly passed without such an opportunity and the D.I.O.S. was fully justified to recall them. However, such a power of recall should have been exercised after giving opportunity of being heard to the persons in whose favour the aforesaid orders of 24-7-1990 were passed. Such an opportunity was not given but on that ground the impugned order cannot be set aside inasmuch as on the admitted facts only one conclusion pertaining to the aforesaid orders is possible. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of S. L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan, AIR 1981 SC 136 : "Where on admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the court may not issue the writ to compel the observance of natural justice." It is not a fit case where this Court should interfere under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. That apart, this court in exercise of jurisdiction under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India cannot, by allowing writ petition, permit restoration of the illegal orders In this connection reference may be made to a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Gadde Venkateshwara Rao v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1966 SC 828 . Relevant extract from para 17 of this judgment is quoted below : "Both the orders of the Government, namely, the order dated March 7, 1962. Relevant extract from para 17 of this judgment is quoted below : "Both the orders of the Government, namely, the order dated March 7, 1962. and that dated April 18, 1963, were not legally passed; the former, because it was made without giving notice to the Panchayat Sami hi, and the latter, because the Government had no power under section 72 of the Act to review an order made under section 62 of the Act and also because it did not give notice to the representatives of Dharmajigudem village In those circumstances, was it a case for the High Court to interfere in its discretion and quash the order of the Government dated April 18, 1963 ? If the High Court had quashed the said order, it woud have restored an illegal order, it would have given the Health Centre to a village contrary to the valid resolutions passed by the Panchayat Samithi. The High Court, therefore, in our view, rightly refused to exercise its extra ordinar, discretionary power in the circumstances of the case." This writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 13. Before parting with the case, it may be observed that on 13-12- 1990 I have directed the summoning of the original record from District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad, but the record has not been produced. That apart, no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Inspector of Schools, Ghaziabad In cases where serious dispute has arisen between the parties on account of orders passed by the District Inspector of Schools it is proper that District Inspector of Schools should either place the records before the Court or to file a counter affidavit. Nothing of the kind was done in the said cases. 14. Writ Petition No. 3017 of 1990 is allowed with costs and impugned order dated 18-12-1990 is quashed. Writ Petition No 7984 of 1990 is dismissed with costs. Writ Petition No 18519 of 1990 is allowed with costs and impugned order dated 24-7-1990 is quashed WRIT Petition No. 20667 of 1990 is allowed with costs and the impugned order dated 24-7-1990 is quashed. Writ Petition No. 20272 of 1990 is dismissed with costs.