JUDGMENT R.A. Sharma, J. - Petitioners, being aggrieved by the order dated 16-4-1992, passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Farrukhabad (herein-after referred to as the D.I.O.S.) attesting the signature of Respondent No. 1, have filed this writ petition challenging the above order and for necessary reliefs in connection therewith. 2. learned Counsel for the Petitioners has raised two submissions, namely, (i) as there was dispute between the two rival committees of management, the D.I.O.S. has no jurisdiction to attest the signature of the manager of any of the rival committees; and (ii) the signature of Respondent No. 4 could not have been attested by the D.I.O.S. without passing a speaking order. learned Counsel for the Respondents has disputed the aforesaid submissions. It is further submitted by him that the Petitioners were called upon by the D.I.O.S. to submit papers pertaining to the election of their committee of management but as they having failed to produce the papers, the D.I.O.S. was fully justified to attest the signature of Respondent No. 4. 3. It is true that when there is dispute between rival committees of management regarding the right to manage educational institution, it is not possible for the D.I.O.S. to attest the signature of the manager of any one of the committees, because he does not have the power to decide the dispute between the rival managing committees. He can only refer the dispute for adjudication to the Deputy Director of Education u/s 16-A (7) of the Intermediate Education Act (here-in-after referred to as the Act). After the matter is referred under the above provision, it is for the Deputy Director of Education to make interim arrangement for running and managing the educational institution. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management v. D.I.O.S. 1985 ALJ 27, has upheld the right of the Deputy Director of Education to pase appropriate interim orders providing for interim arrangement for the management of the institution. 4. But the D.I.O.S. before making a reference u/s 16-A (7) of the Act to the Deputy Director of Education, he has to decide, at least prima facie, whether there is any dispute between the rival committees of management and for that purpose he is entitled to call upon the rival faction to produce before him the relevant papers to show that any election has been held. If there is prima facie evidence in support of elections of the rival committees of Management, he can do no more in the matter except to refer the dispute to the Deputy Director of Education. But if there is no evidence to show even prima facie that the election has been held by a rival committee, he cannot refer the dispute to the Deputy Director of Education and has to decide himself the question of attesting the signature of the manager of the committee the election of which has been proved before him. 5. In the instant case the D.I.O.S. has not passed any order in the question as to whether there is or there is not any dispute between the two rival committees of management. 6. As the D.I.O.S. has not passed any speaking order, it is difficult to Judge as to what weighed him while attesting the signature of Respondent No. 4. In paragraphs 6&7 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, it has been averred that the Petitioners and Respondent No. 4 have informed the D.I.O.S. about the election of committee of management. If he has been informed by both the committees about the election, the D.I.O.S. should not have attested the signature of Respondent No. 4 without finding out as to whether there is or there is not any dispute between the rival committees of management. I all fairness he should have passed a speaking order giving reasons as to why he is attesting the signature of Respondent No. 4, inasmuch as he could have attested the signature of Respondent No. 4 only if there was no dispute between the two rival managing committees, it necessarily follows from what has been mentioned above that the D.I.O.S. should have recorded a finding that there is no dispute about the management so as to enable him to attest the signature of the manager of the only committee, which was left in the field. There being no such order, the signature of Respondent No. 4 could not have been attested by the D.I.O.S. The impugned order dated 16-4-1992 is as such, liable to be set aside. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 16-4-1992 is quashed. There being no such order, the signature of Respondent No. 4 could not have been attested by the D.I.O.S. The impugned order dated 16-4-1992 is as such, liable to be set aside. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 16-4-1992 is quashed. The Petitioners and Respondent No. 4 will make representations within a period of one month from today before the D.I.O.S. along with documentary evidence in support thereof in order to prove the election of their respective committee of management. The D.I.O.S. will thereafter decide those representations within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this judgment along with the representations. In case the D.I.O.S. is satisfied that there is no evidence even to prove prima facie the election of one of the rival committees, he will by speaking order attest the signature of the other rival committee provided it has produced evidence in support of the holding of its election. However, if there is some evidence showing atleast prima facie that there is dispute about two committees of management, he will refer the matter u/s 16-A (7) of the Act to the Deputy Director of Education for adjudication, the Deputy Director of Education will thereafter decide the dispute within a period of three months from the date of receipt of reference from the D.I.O.S. after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. Till the D.I.O.S. attests the signature, as mentioned above, or if the matter is referred to the Deputy Director of Education, till the Deputy Director of Education decides the dispute, the D.I.O.S. will operate the account of the college singly and will make the payment of salary to the teacher and other employees of the college regularly from month to month as and when it falls due.