JUDGMENT J.K. Mathur, J. - This is one of the endemic dispute relating to the Management of educational institutions. The petitioner claiming to be duly elected committee of the management, has sought quashing of an order passed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, the opposite party no. 1 on 7121991. 2. According to the petitioner, elections were held on 6th April, 1987, electing the committee & 3 years later on 6th January, 1991 elections were held again. A list of the members elected was sent to the Registrar, Firms Societies, & Chits, U.P., Lucknow and also to the opposite party no. 1. The petitioner also requested the District Inspector of Schools, Barabanki to be allowed the operation of the Account. This request was repeated without any response. The opposite party no. 2 called for certain documents which were submitted by the petitioners. The opposite party no. 2 thereupon passed an order on 7th March, 199I find ing that one Sri Vijay Pal Singh was legally elected Manager of the college. This order was challenged by the petitioner by Writ Petition No. 719 of 1991 and Interim Order was granted and still continue. The opposite party no. 2 again passed an order on 30th August, 1991 showing that the petitioner Rani Inder Kumari was not the recognised Manager. This order was again challenged by Writ Petition No. 1853 of 1991. Subsequently, the District Inspector of Schools referred this matter to the Regional Deputy Director of Education on 1281991. A reply was sent by the petitioner that the petitionercommittee was in actual control of the administration of the college. The opposite party no. 1, however, passed an order on 7th December, 1991, a copy of which is contained in Annexure no. 7 showing that the petitionercommittee has not been validly elected. 3. This order has been challenged on a number of contentions. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in this case was that the order passed by the opposite party no. 1 could not be passed under the provisions of Section 16A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 6. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner in this case was that the order passed by the opposite party no. 1 could not be passed under the provisions of Section 16A(7) of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act. 6. A perusal of the aforesaid provision would show that whenever there is dispute in respect of the management of the institution, the Regional Deputy Director of Education can inquire into the dispute after affording reasonable opportunity to rival claimants to make representation in writing and decide as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the institution to be recognised as the Committee of Management till the decision of the Competent Court. 7. The only decision permissible by the Regional Deputy Director of Education is the decision about the committee persons who are in actual control of the institution. It is so because the said decision is only an interim decision to continue the state of control as is existing till the matter is finally determined by an Authority competent to do so. 8. In this context, if order passed by opposite party no. 1, as contained in Annexure No. 7, is seen, it will show that the Deputy Director of Education considered only the validity of the election of each of the committees in this order, ultimately to conclude that the committee of the management elected on 241989 was the validly elected committee. While the Committee allegedly elected on 25989 and 6589 and 611991 were not validly elected as the process of election was vitiated and illegal and also violated the U.P. Intermediate Education Act and the scheme of the Administration. 9. No finding at all was recorded about any of these committees being in actual control of the institution. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties, firstly urged that the dispute being imaginary, it need not have been decided. It was also urged that there was an alternative remedy available. 11. Reliance was placed upon a case of the Committee of the Management, Inter College, Karanda, Ghazipur and another v. Deputy Director of Education & others 1991 All LJ 964. In this case it was held that if the dispute is illusory, it aeed not be decided. 12. It was also urged that there was an alternative remedy available. 11. Reliance was placed upon a case of the Committee of the Management, Inter College, Karanda, Ghazipur and another v. Deputy Director of Education & others 1991 All LJ 964. In this case it was held that if the dispute is illusory, it aeed not be decided. 12. In the present case, it is not the refusal to decide the dispute by the opposite party no. 1 which is contested but the manner in which the decision is recorded, has been challenged. It was not that the opposite party no. 1 found the dispute to be illusory or imaginary and refused to decide it, he entered into dispute and decided it. In view of this, case can be of no help to the petitioner. 13. It was also urged on behalf of the opposite party that the validity of the election can be looked into by the Regional Deputy Director making an inquiry under Section 16A(7) of the Intermediate Education Act. For this, the reliance was placed upon a case Committee of the Management Baba Raghuvar Das Uchchter Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Jamilapur, Azamgarh, v. Deputy Director of Education, 1982 UPLBEC 547. In this case the Court merely refused to consider on merits cancellation of the order of appointment on the ground that the dispute about the election of the committee of the Management was pending disposal before the Deputy Director of Education. It was also held that the District Inspector of Schools having held Ajit Kumar Singh to be a validly elected Manager, this communication may not be interfered with because an alternative remedy lay by filing of the suit. 14. In this case, very jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Education to go into the question, has been challenged. The remedy by way of suit would not be an adequate remedy in challenging the quasi judicial order passed under Section 16A(7). A writ is maintainable for judicial review in this Court if it exceeds its statutory jurisdiction. 15. The case of Maharshi Sukhdeo Vidyalaya, Shukartal & another v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, 1985 All LJ 471 was also relied upon. A writ is maintainable for judicial review in this Court if it exceeds its statutory jurisdiction. 15. The case of Maharshi Sukhdeo Vidyalaya, Shukartal & another v. Regional Deputy Director of Education, 1985 All LJ 471 was also relied upon. In this case it was held as follows: We find that there is a lot of confusion in the minds of the Deputy Directors of Education regarding the scope of the enquiry to be made under the said provision. The Deputy Director has to decide as to which of the two rival management committees is in actual control over the affairs of an institution. The Deputy Director has to satisfy himself that the management committee recognised by him to be in actual control has been duly elected The scope of enquiry regarding the validity of the election of a management committee is, however, limited. The Deputy Director is not expected to make a detailed enquiry and function like an election tribunal. He has only to prima facie satisfy himself about the validity of election. If a management committee has been elected after due notice to the members entitled to vote in accordance with the register maintained by the former management committee according to the rules and the election has been held in accordance with the approved scheme of administration, the management committee shall be deemed to have been duly elected. It is not necessary to go into further details. If any party wants to contest the validity of election of management committee on other grounds, a regular suit is the proper remedy. For determining as to whether a management committee is in actual control of the affairs of an institution, the Deputy Director has to consider control over the funds, control over day to day administration, disbursement of salaries, receipt of income from property of the institution, receipt of government and other matters which throw light on actual control. We reject the contention that the Deputy Director has no jurisdiction to go into the validity of the election of the rival management committees. We hold that he can go into the matter incidentally as explained above. 16. This decision merely states that the question of validity of election can be incidentally gone into only with a view to determine as to which of the committee is in actual control. We hold that he can go into the matter incidentally as explained above. 16. This decision merely states that the question of validity of election can be incidentally gone into only with a view to determine as to which of the committee is in actual control. In this case, it is not an incidental examination of the validity of the election with a view to determine the actual control, but a detailed examination undertaken only to determine the validity of the election. No attempt has at all been made to find the person who is in actual control. This case, therefore, cannot justify the impugned order which has merely decided the validity of the elections. 17. Another case referred to by the learned counsel for the opposite parties, Committee of Management af Sarvoday Inter College, Adhawar, District Mirzapur & another v. Deputy Director of Education 1982 UPLBEC 31 deals with the effect of the order passed by the District Inspector of Schools on the proceedings before the Deputy Director of Education and has no relevance in the present case. 18. Another case relied upon by the learned counsel for the opposite parties was Jaswant Singh & another v. District Inspector of Schools and others, 1980 All LJ 174. In this case, it was held that an order recognising one of the committee of the Management by the DIGS could not be challenged in this Court as there was an alternative remedy by way of civil suit. 19. It is not the correctness of the order which is being disputed in this case as was involved in the aforesaid case but the very jurisdiction to pass an order of the nature passed in this case. As discussed above, this Court nor can refuse to examine the jurisdiction if an authority purports to act under statutory power and acts in total contravention of the statutory provisions. The authority of the Deputy Director of Education to decide the dispute, is not challenged. It is the decision of the validity of the elections alone while the statute provides only deciding about the persons in actual control of the institute, that is challenged in this case. 20. Considering the contentions of the parties, I find that the impugned order is patently against the provisions of law and could not have validly been passed by the opposite party no. 1. 20. Considering the contentions of the parties, I find that the impugned order is patently against the provisions of law and could not have validly been passed by the opposite party no. 1. The petition is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order passed on 7121991, is hereby quashed. 21. Parties shall bear their own costs.