JUDGMENT : M. Katju, J. This is an application filed in special appeal No. 159 of 1992 which had been decided by the Division Bench of Hon'ble A.N. Varma and M. Katju, JJ. on 17-12-1991. A perusal of the judgment dated 17-12-1991 shows that the Division Bench had directed the Deputy Director of Education to appoint some one as Prabandh Sanchalak who had to hold the election of the committee of management within two months of production of certified copy of the said judgment. 2. It has been alleged in paragraph 7 of the affidavit in support of this application that the certified copy of the aforesaid judgment was given to the Deputy Director of Education and Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools on 23-12-1991. The Deputy Director of Education in pursuance of this Courts' order appointed the District Inspector of Schools as the Prabandh Sanchalak vide Annexure-1 to the affidavit. The Prabanadh Sanchalak took the charge on 3-1-1992 and it is alleged that he intimated the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools, District Magistrate, Superintendent of Police etc. and the election programmed was issued in the local daily newspaper on 10-1-1992. Notices were sent to the members of the general body of the society through postal certificates on 8-1-1992. Apart from the newspaper publication the notices were also sent by registered post on 13-1-1992. The election was held on 21-1-1992, but it is alleged in this application that the Regional Inspectrees of Girls Schools has disapproved of the election result. 3. Counter affidavit has been filed and we have heard Sri A.K. Yog and Sri Ashok Bhushan. 4. In paragraph 11 of the affidavit in support of the application reference has been made to a letter of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 20-1-1992 addressed to the Prabanadh Sanchalak for staying the election on the ground that there was some dispute about the membership of the society. In our opinion, it was highly improper and unjustified on the part of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools to stay the election fixed for 21-1-1992. It may be mentioned that this election was not being held in the ordinary course, but it was being held pursuant to the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 17-12-1991. In our opinion, it was highly improper and unjustified on the part of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools to stay the election fixed for 21-1-1992. It may be mentioned that this election was not being held in the ordinary course, but it was being held pursuant to the directions contained in the judgment of this Court dated 17-12-1991. If any one had any grievance regarding the membership of the general body of the society, he could have raised his objection before the Prabanadh Sanchalak prior to the election on 21-1-1992, or if he thought that the Prabanadh Sanchalak was biased or unfair he could have approached the Deputy Director of Education with a request to appoint another Prabanadh Sanchalak for holding the election or for looking into the question about membership of the society. The third option for an aggrieved party was that he could have approached this Court for modification of the directions contained in the judgment dated 17-12-1991. It was, however, not open to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools to have meddled in this matter of her own. 5. It is alleged in paragraph 13 of the affidavit of the applicant that the result of the election of the committee of management held on 21-1-1992 was declared by the Prabanadh Sanchalak vide letter dated 3-2-1992 true copy of which is Annexure 5 to the affidavit. The Prabandh Sanchalak sent another letter dated 13-2-92 to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools vide Annexure-6. Subsequently the Deputy Director of Education vide letter dated 26-2-92 ignoring the election held on 21-1-1992 appointed one Baldeo Krishna Singh Kapoor as the Prabandh Sanchalak, vide Annexure-7. In our opinion, it was not open to the Depnty Director of Education to appoint another Prabandh Sanchalak after the election had already been held on 21-1-1902. The applicant has prayed that the regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and the Deputy Director of Education be restrained from interfering with the working of the committee of management elected on 21-1-92. 6. In the counter affidavit a preliminary objection has been taken in paragraph 3 that the application is not maintainable as the special appeal has already been finally decided on 17-12-1991 We do not accept this objection as in our opinion even after delivering its judgment this Court has got adequate power to issue directions to see to it that its judgment is complied with. The powers under Article 226 of the constitution are very wide, and the High Court can not only issue writs, but it can also issue orders or directions vide Dwarka Nath Vs. Income Tax Officer, Special Circle D-ward, Kanpur and Another, AIR 1966 SC 81 . In this case the Supreme Court also held that the High Court can mould the relief to meet the peculiar and complicated requirements. 7. In M.V. Elizabeth v. Harwan Investment & Trading Pvt. Ltd. JT1992 (2) 65 the Supreme Court observed: The High Courts in India are superior courts of record. They have original and appellate jurisdiction. They have inherent and plenary powers. Unless expressly or impliedly barred, and subject to the appellate or discretionary jurisdiction of this Court, the High Courts have unlimited jurisdiction, including the jurisdiction to determine their own powers. (See Naresh Shridhar Mirajkar and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 1967 SC 1 . As stated in Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition Vol. 10 para 713. Prima facie, no matter is deemed to be beyond the jurisdiction of a superior court unless it is expressly shown to be so, while nothing is within the jurisdiction of an inferior court unless it is expressly shown on the face of the proceedings that the particular matter is within the cognizance of the particular court. 8. It is evident from the above observation that the High Court has all power to do justice unless there is some express curtailment of the power in the constitution 9. In S. Barrow Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, AIR 1958 All 154 a Division Bench of this Court held that the High Court can even issue a writ suo motu. This decision also shows that this Court has very wide powers under Article 226 of the constitution. 10. We, therefore, hold that the present application is maintainable and this Court, in appropriate cases, can issue orders or directions even after it has delivered its judgment. We, therefore, over rule the preliminary objection of Sri Ashok Bhushan. 11. Sri Ashok Bhushan has also urged that a fresh cause of action has arisen and hence the applicant's remedy was to file a fresh writ petition. We cannot accept this objection also because the prayer in this application is intrinsically connected with the directions given in the judgment dated 17-12-1991 by this Court. 12. 11. Sri Ashok Bhushan has also urged that a fresh cause of action has arisen and hence the applicant's remedy was to file a fresh writ petition. We cannot accept this objection also because the prayer in this application is intrinsically connected with the directions given in the judgment dated 17-12-1991 by this Court. 12. In paragraphs 12 to 15 of the counter affidavit it is alleged that the prabandh sanchalak committed various irregularities in holding the election. It must be remembered that the election was not being held in the ordinary course but in pursuance to the order of this Court. Hence, if the Appellant had any objection he should have either approached the Deputy Director of Education or this Court and pointed out the irregularities, but this was not done. It was not open to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools to interfere in the manner in which she has done with the elections. As already stated above, the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools on 20-1-1992 had written to the Prabandh Sanchalak to stay the election fixed for 21-1-1992. In our opinion, the Regional inspectress of Girls Schools acted illegally in sending this letter and her action was to contravention of the directions given by this Court in the judgment dated 17-12-1991. We are also of the opinion that the order of the Deputy Director of Education dated 3-2-1992, removing the Prabandh Sanchalak was also illegal as the election had already been held on 21-1-1992. If the Appellant was aggrieved against the elections held on 21-1-92 it was open to him to have filed a suit or taken recourse to such other legal remedies as may have been available to him, but it was not open to the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools to have refused to accord approval of the election held on 21-1-1992. A perusal of the order of the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools dated 25-3-1992 (annexure-2 to the counter affidavit) shows that this order has been passed on the basis that she had stayed the election by her letter dated 20-1-92. We have already observed that the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools letter dated 20-1-92 was illegal, and consequently the order dated 25-3-92 is also illegal and void. 13. We have already observed that the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools letter dated 20-1-92 was illegal, and consequently the order dated 25-3-92 is also illegal and void. 13. We accordingly allow this application and direct the Regional Inspectress of Girls to approve the committee of management elected on 21-1-1992 and restrain the Regional Inspectress of Girls Schools and the Deputy Director of Education from interfering with the working of the said committee of management. It will, however, be open to the Appellant to challenge the said election held on 21-1-1992 in suitable legal proceedings.