JUDGMENT : R.A. Sharma, J. Dayanand Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya Thana, Dariyaoganj, district Etah is an Intermediate college (hereinafter referred to as the college), which is recognised by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U.P., Allahabad. In 1980 an Authorised Controller was appointed for the college, who, after the expiry of his term, handed over the charge of the college to Sri Satyadeo Gupta, Respondent No. 3 On 15-7-1984 another Committee of Management of which Sri Mahraj Singh was the Manager, staked claim as validity elected Committee of Management. The District Inspector of Schools (hereinafter referred to as the D.I.O.S) recognised this Committee of Management and attested the signatures of Sri Mahraj Singh as Manager. The Respondent No. 3 filed a writ petition No. 13395 of 1984 before this Court against the above order in which this Court granted slay order with the result that the Respondent no 3 continues to work as the Manager of the college. 2. In 1987 both the factions, led by the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 3, raised rival claims about the election of the Committee of Management of the college According to the Respondent No. 3, the election of the Commit tee of Management of which he is the manager was held on 16-4-1987 and information to that effect was given by him on 24-4 19-1987 to the D.I.O.S. for recognition of this Committee Before the D.I.O.S. could take any decision of the aforesaid letter dated 24-4-1987 sent by Respondent No. 3, the Petitioner submitted papers alongwith letter dated 23-5-1987 before the D.I.O.S for recognition of his Committee of Management alleged to have been elected on 15-7-7937. The D.I.O.S. after notice to the parties by his order dated 28-7-1987 rejected the claim of the Respondent No. 3 and by his subsequent order dated 26-8-1987 recognised the Committee of Management of which thy Petitioner was the manager and attested the signatures of the Petitioners as Manager. Against this order dated 26-8-1987 the Respondent No. 3 filed writ petition No. 17369 of 1987 which was disposed of by this Court on 6-10-88, directing the D.I.O.S. to refer the dispute u/s 16A(7) of the Act to the Deputy Director of Education. The D.I.O.S. accordingly referred the dispute raised by rival Committees of Management to the Deputy Director of Education, who by his order dated 13-12-1989 held that neither faction of the management. The D.I.O.S. accordingly referred the dispute raised by rival Committees of Management to the Deputy Director of Education, who by his order dated 13-12-1989 held that neither faction of the management. has held the election and accordingly directed the D.I.O.S for holding fresh election of the Committee of management of the college Against this order writ petition No. 1901 of 1990 was filed by the Petitioner aid another writ petition was tiled by the Respondent No. 3 against the same order Both there writ petitions were allowed by this Court on 9-1-1990 and the matter was remanded to the Deputy Director of Education to decide the dispute afresh in accordance with the observation contained in that judgment. The Deputy Director thereafter by his order dated 6-7-l990 decided in favour of the Respondent No. 3 against: which the Petitioner has tiled this writ petition. 3. The parties have exchanged affidavits and I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties 4. It appears that when the writ petition No. 1901 of 1990 came up for consideration before this Court learned Counsel for both the parties agreed that the primary question for decision before the Deputy Director was as to which party was in actual control on the relevant date and he had to decide that question in accordance with the Explanation to Sub-section (7) to Section 16-A of the Act The learned Counsel had also agreed that as the Deputy Director failed to decide that question the matter should be sent back to him for deciding as to who was in actual control on the relevant date. This Court agreed with the learned Counsel for the parties and required the Deputy Director to decide the question of actual control without going into the merits of the election, leaving the question of validity of the election to be decided by the Civil Court. In pursuance of this judgment the Deputy Director has by the impugned order decided the question of actual control by holding that on the relevant date (25-8-1987) the Committee of Management of which the Respondent no 3 is the Manager, was in effective control and accordingly attested the signatures of the said Respondent. 5. In pursuance of this judgment the Deputy Director has by the impugned order decided the question of actual control by holding that on the relevant date (25-8-1987) the Committee of Management of which the Respondent no 3 is the Manager, was in effective control and accordingly attested the signatures of the said Respondent. 5. It is true that u/s 16-A (7) of the Act the Deputy Director has to decide the dispute on the basis of actual control on the relevant date This question is inter-linked with the validity of the election, set-up by the rival managements. The Deputy Director cannot uphold the claim of a rank-trespasser. He has to decide not only as to who is in actual control but also who is, at least prima facie, entitled to be in actual control. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management, Janta Inter College v. Deputy Director 1982 UPLBEC 38, while considering the scope and power of the Deputy Director u/s 16-A (7) of the Act, has laid down as follows; Before the Deputy Director of Education, the question required to be decided was as to who was in control of the management. This question was linked with the decision about the validity of the election pleaded by the Petitioner as well as by the Respondent No. 3. For this purpose the Deputy Director of Education should have examined the evidence of the parties and give a finding on the same. In the case of Chandrasen Rai v. Deputy Director 1985 UPLBEC 1124, a Division Bench reiterated the same principle by holding that while deciding the question of actual control u/s 16-A (7) of the Act the Deputy Director may have to decide incidentally the validity of rival elections Another Division Bench in Sankatha Prasad v. Deputy Director 1985 UPLBEC 751 after reviewing all the case law upto date has laid down that while examining the question of effective control the question as to who was elected as odd office bearer certainly has relevance. Relevant extract from this judgment is reproduced below: Quite apart from the aforesaid background, we find that there is really no conflict between what has been said in the case of Subhash Uchchtar Madhyamik Vidyalaya and the observations made in Janta Inter College case, while examining the question of effective control, the question as to who was elected as office-bearers certainly has relevance but its examination is only in the sense that the Deputy Director of Education cannot act as a substitute for the civil court for determining the validity or otherwise of the election but can find out as to who was prima facie entitled to be in effective control. The rationale of this inquiry is obvious because the law does not contemplate a rank outsider to meddle with the management of the institution Whether one party or the other was the validly elected Committee of Management in accordance with law is a question for ultimate decision by the appropriate civil court. The Deputy Director of Education is to examine this aspect only in a summary manner. He has, however, to determine the question of effective control in accordance with the statutory guide lines provided in Section 16-A (7) of the Act itself and cannot, only on the basis of his opinion about the validity of the election, without anything more, take the view as to who was entitled to manage the institution. Again a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management v. Regional Deputy Director 1988 UPLBEC 402, has ruled that the issue of actual control is inter-linked with the question about the validity of election and while deciding this question of actual control the Deputy Director has to investigate the validity of election in summary manner. Same principle has been reiterated by this Court in the case of Committee of Management v. District Inspector of Schools 1991 (2) UPLBEC 1019. 6. From the aforesaid decisions it is apparent that the Deputy Director has to decide the dispute u/s 16-A (7) on the basis of the actual control and while deciding the question of actual control he has also to decide, atleast prima facie in effective control. 6. From the aforesaid decisions it is apparent that the Deputy Director has to decide the dispute u/s 16-A (7) on the basis of the actual control and while deciding the question of actual control he has also to decide, atleast prima facie in effective control. This may involve decision about validity of election in a summary manner, but it has to be done because it is not the legislative intent to permit a rank-trespasser to take control of an institution without having any legal right to it. 7. In the instant case, however, this Court by its judgment dated 9-1-1990 (Annexurc-7) directed the Deputy Director of Education to decide the question as to who is in actual control without going into validity of the election, leaving the question of validity of the election to the Civil Court Following this decision the Deputy Director has decided only the question of actual control on the relevant date. As such, the only question before this Court to be decided in this writ petition is whether the finding of the Deputy Director in the impugned order, is liable to be set aside. The Deputy Director of Education by the impugned order has held that 25-8-1987, which being the date preceding the date on which signatures of the Petitioner were attested by the D.I.O.S., is the relevant date with reference to which the question as to who was in actual control has to be decided. He thereafter recorded a finding that on 25-8-1987 the Committee of Management with Respondent No. 3 as the Manager was in actual control. On that basis he recognised the Committee of Management of the Respondent No. 3 and attested his signatures. 8. The finding of the Deputy Director, treating 25-8-1987 as the relevant date for determination of the question of actual control, cannot be sustained. The relevant date is the date on which the dispute arises between the rival factions of the Management by raising a claim and counter-claim Supreme Court in the case of Major (Retd.) Inder Singh Rekhi Vs. Delhi Development Authority, (1988) 2 SCC 338 , has laid down that "a dispute arises where there is a claim and denial and repudiation of the claim". Delhi Development Authority, (1988) 2 SCC 338 , has laid down that "a dispute arises where there is a claim and denial and repudiation of the claim". Although these observations were made while considering the provisions of the Arbitration Act, but they are equally applicable to the case in which the question arises as to when the dispute arose Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the relevant date with reference to which the question about the actual control is to be decided is the date when the matter was referred to the Deputy Director of Education for decision. For this proposition he has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Pathak v. Regional Director 1984 UPLBEC 910. In the aforesaid case of Sudhir Kumar, after the death of the Manager dispute was raised before the D. I.O.S. who, by his order dated 17th October, 1983, attested the signatures of the Petitioner therein. When the Petitioner therein has taken the matter before the Registrar of Societies for change in the office bearers, it was opposed by the rival faction. But the Registrar, after going into the record, upheld the claim of the Petitioner. The matter was, as such, settled. But some persons again raised the dispute by getting it referred to the Deputy Director u/s 16-A (7) of the Act, who, upheld the claim of the other faction, by holding the election of the Petitioner therein as invalid. Under these circumstances this Court held that instead of going into validity of the election the Deputy Director should have decided the question of actual control over the affairs of the institution at the time when the matter was referred to him. Form this judgment it cannot be inferred that the date on which the matter is referred to the Deputy Director is the date with reference to which the question of actual control is to be decided. In that case the court made those observations because of the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of Committee of Management v. Regional Deputy Director 1988 UPLBEC 402 (supra) this Court rejected the argument that the date of election is the relevant date for deciding the question of actual control u/s 16-A (7). In that case the court made those observations because of the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case of Committee of Management v. Regional Deputy Director 1988 UPLBEC 402 (supra) this Court rejected the argument that the date of election is the relevant date for deciding the question of actual control u/s 16-A (7). On the facts of that case it was further held that the dispute arose immediately following the attestation of the signatures of one Dev Singh which was treated to be the relevant date. The relevant date with reference to which the question of actual control is to be decided is the date on which the dispute arises. The dispute arise on the date on which claim of one party is denied by the other party. What is that date on which claim of one side is disputed by the other side is a question of fact which has to be decided by the Deputy Director on the basis of material produced by the parties. In the instant case, as mentioned above, the election of the Respondent's Committee of Management was held on 16-4-1987, whereas the election of the Petitioner's Committee of Management was held on 17-5-1987. The Respondent No. 3 had submitted the papers to the D.I.O.S. on 24-4-1987 for recognition of his committee on the basis of election alleged to have been held on 16-4-1987. The Petitioner submitted the papers alongwith letter dated 23-5-1987 before the D.I.O S laying claim to be the Manager of the Committee of Management elected on 17-5-1987. The relevant date for deciding the question of actual control is 23-5-1987 because it is on this date that the dispute about the management was raised by the Petitioner disputing the claim of the Respondent No. 3 and asserting their own right to manage the affairs of the college, It may also be stated that the D.I.O.S. rejected the claim of the Respondent No. 3 by letter dated 28-7-1987. The dispute having arisen on the date, mentioned above, the finding of the Deputy Director that dispute shall be deemed to have arisen on the date preceding the date of attesting the signatures of the Petitioner on 26-8-1987, cannot be sustained. But that would not affect the result of the case. The dispute having arisen on the date, mentioned above, the finding of the Deputy Director that dispute shall be deemed to have arisen on the date preceding the date of attesting the signatures of the Petitioner on 26-8-1987, cannot be sustained. But that would not affect the result of the case. The Deputy Director has already recorded a finding that upto 25-8-1987 the Respondent No. 3 was in actual control of the institution. The Respondent No. 3 was in actual control on the date when the dispute was raised for the first time by the Petitioner in May, 1987. As directed by this Court the Deputy Director was required to decide the question of actual control only. That question has been decided by him in favour of the Respondent No. 3 This is pure question of facts. No ground for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been made out. 9. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The Petitioner will have the liberty to challenge the validity of the election of the Committee of Management of which the Respondent No. 3 is the Manager, before the Civil Court. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.