Judgment S. B. Sinha and J JJ. 1. This application is directed against a proceeding of the meeting dated 9-9-1990 allegedly held in the campus of the School by villagers as contained in Annexure-12 to the writ application and the order dated 5-11-1990 passed by the Respondent No.3 approving the reconstituted managing Committee with Respondent No.6 as its Secretary as contained in annexure-13 thereto. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a narrow compass. 3. According to the petitioner, a School was established by the villagers in a meeting dated 26-1-1982 which was attended by 13 persons. Another meeting was held by the founders of the School on 10-2-1982 wherein it was resolved to name the School as Lalo Kuer High School, sabnima, since one Asarfi Devi, a close relation of Lalo Kuer became prepared to donate her building for the use of the School. 4. A Managing Committee was constituted for running the said school and Yuga! Kishore Singh was appointed as Secretary thereof. Thereafter, various persons made donations for the aforementioned School and teaching and non-teaching staff as detailed in Paragraph-11 of the writ application were appointed. 5. Thereafter, a Managing Committee of 11 persons was constituted in the meeting dated 13-2-1983 and the petitioner was appointed as Secretary of the said School. 6. According to the petitioner, various steps have been taken by him for getting the School recognised. The petitioner, however, has contended that the School in question is a proprietory School and it has been granted permanent recognition. The petitioner has further contended that the respondent No.5 Dinesh Sharma who was not even a founder of the said school became elected as Secretary of the Managing Committee of the school and on 9-9-1990 a meeting of the villagers had been held wherein owing to alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner he had been removed from the post of Secretary The proceeding of the said meeting dated 9-9-1990 is contained in Annexure-12 to the writ application. The said proceeding was forwarded to the Respondent No, 2 on the ground that the Managing Committee of the School had been re-constituted with respondent No.5 as its Secretary. 7. The Respondent No 4, District Education Officer, Patna, forwarded the said resolution to the Respondent No.3. 8. The said proceeding was forwarded to the Respondent No, 2 on the ground that the Managing Committee of the School had been re-constituted with respondent No.5 as its Secretary. 7. The Respondent No 4, District Education Officer, Patna, forwarded the said resolution to the Respondent No.3. 8. According to the petitioner, he had not been given an opportunity to explain the charge levelled against him, but despite the same Respondent no.3 upon receipt of the letter dated 11-10-1990 of the District Education officer, Patna, granted approval to the constitution of the Managing Committee in terms of the aforementioned resolution dated 9-9-1990 wherein respondent No.5 had been appointed as Secretary. The said letter of respondent No.3 dated 5-11-1990 is contained in Annexure-13 to the writ application. 9. In this case, a caveat petition had been filed on behalf of Respondent no.5. In the said caveat petition, the statements made in the writ application had been controverted and it has been contended therein that the petitioner intended to become owner of the said School and started misappropriating the School fund He allegedly also manufactured certain documents showing donation of School building, and lands through his henchmen, though, the executants thereof had neither any title nor possession over the same. 10. According to Respondent No.5, in this view of the matter, villagers resolved to convene a general meeting and therein the villagers considered the affairs of the School and adopted the aforementioned resolution. It has further been stated that the petitioner tried to take forcible possession of the School in question. 11. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not have been removed as Secretary of the managing Committee without giving him an opportunity of hearing. 12. Mr. Ram Chandra Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, on the other hand, submitted that both the impugned orders of the writ application, namely, Annexures 12 and 13 are legal. 13. So far as the resolution of the villagers dated 9-9-1990 as contained in annexure -12 is concerned, this Court cannot interfere therewith in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. 14. The School admittedly is a proprietory School. 13. So far as the resolution of the villagers dated 9-9-1990 as contained in annexure -12 is concerned, this Court cannot interfere therewith in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of india. 14. The School admittedly is a proprietory School. The management of the said School has not yet been taken over by the State of Bihar either in terms of Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (taken Over of Control)Act, 1981 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) nor the said School has been taken as a Project School of Bihar in terms of the policy decision of the State. 15. This Court in its exercise of powers in the writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot quash any resolution which is adopted in a meeting by the villagers. 16. This Court in exercise of its powers of writ jurisdiction is also not in a position to determine various disputed questions of fact which have been noticed herein before. 17. The question which, therefore, falls for consideration is as to whether the action of the Respondent No.3 in passing the impugned order as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ application is legal. 18. Section 2 (d) of the said Act reads as follows : "proprietory Secondary School" means a Secondary School the entire financial burden of which is borne by a Trust, Association or a Corporate body and which is recognised and declared as Proprietory School on such terms and conditions as laid down by the State Government from time to time. " 19. Section 19 of the said Act provides that if any registered Trust, association of person, etc. files an application in writing stating that it intends to establish a Secondary School and also is ready to bear total financial burden in relation thereto, the State may grant recognition to such school if it fulfils the conditions laid down therein. 20. From a bare perusal of Sec.19 of the aforementioned provision it would be evident that none of the conditions for grant of recognition referred to lays down the manner in which the Managing Committee shall be constituted nor does it lay down any condition for approval or dis-approval of the constitution of the Managing Committee by any authorities of the State of Bihar. 21. Mr. 21. Mr. D. N. Singh, the learned Standing Counsel 2 could not satisfy that the Respondent No.3 has any, power to issue the impugned order as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ application. 22. Mr. Ram Chandra Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5, however, has drawn our attention to Sec.6 of the said Act and submitted that Sec.12 of the Act should be read with along-with Sec.6 thereof. 23. According to the learned counsel, Sec.6 of the Act brings within its purview all types of Schools including the proprietory schools, 24. The contention of Sri Jha cannot be accepted. Sec.6 of the said Act occurs in part 3 of the said Act which provides for the management of the Schools which in turn means management of taken over School. 25. Section 5 provides that the management and control of all nationalised High Schools shall be under the Director and its subordinate staff appointed by the State of Bihar. 26. Section 6 provides constitution of Managing Committee, the members whereof would be Headmaster of a School, a teacher nominated by the Headmaster, according to his seniority on rotational basis and a person nominated by the State Government or a person authorised by the state and other holders of offices named therein. 27. It is, therefore, evident that in relation to management of the schools, Managing Committee whereof is to be constituted in terms of section 6 thereof, there does not exist any provision for the representation of a village in the Managing Committee and even the proprietor of the said school or of any donor cannot be included therein. 28. Annexure-13 to the writ application also suggests that the Managing committee approved by Respondent No.3 does not conform to the provisions of Sec.6 of the said Act. 29. It is, therefore, clear that the members of the Managing Committee of a proprietory School is not required to be constituted in terms of Sec.6 of the said Act as has been submitted by Mr. Jha. 30. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ application cannot be sustained. 31. 29. It is, therefore, clear that the members of the Managing Committee of a proprietory School is not required to be constituted in terms of Sec.6 of the said Act as has been submitted by Mr. Jha. 30. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned order as contained in Annexure-13 to the writ application cannot be sustained. 31. We make it clear that we have not applied our mind in relation to the allegations and the counter-allegations made in the writ application as also in the caveat petition as, in our opinion, such questions do not fall for our consideration in exercise of our powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India. 32. The petitioner should, therefore, seek his remedy in relation to other matters before any appropriate forum, if any. 33. The application is, therefore, allowed to the aforementioned extent but there will be no order as to costs. Application allowed.