Judgment R.A. Sharma, J. 1. Authorised Controller of Arya Kenya Pathshala Intermediate College, Mirzapur (herein after referred to as the college), who was appointed in 1976 by the Government of Uttar Pradesh under sub-section (4) of Section 16 D of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 (herein after referred to as the Act), issued a notice dated 17-3-1992, for holding the election of the Committee of Management of the college on 31-3-1992. Appellants challenged the above notice before this Court by means of writ petition No. 10211 of 1992 in which this Court passed an interim order on 31-3-1992 whereby the election of the Committee of Management was permitted to take place, but declaration of its result was stayed till further orders. Election of the Committee of Management is alleged to have been held on 31-3-1990 electing the office-bearers unanimously and the same day its result is said to have been declared. On 10-4-1992 the Government of Uttar Pradesh passed an order under Second proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 16-D of the Act. directing the authorised Controller to hand over the control of the college to Sri Mohan Singh, newly elected Manager. Appellants filed second writ petition no. 11952 of 1992 against the above order dated 10-4-1992, in which this Court on 15-4-1992 passed the following interim order: "Respondents are restrained from giving effect to the election of the Committee of Management held on 31-3-1992. In case District Inspector of Schools has granted recognition to the Manager on the basis of the election held on 31-3-1992, he is restrained from functioning as Manager of the institution. It is further directed that in the meantime the respondent no. 5 would manage the affairs of the institution. Respondent no. 5 who was required to manage the affairs of the institution, is the Regional Inspectors of Girls Schools, Varanasi Region. 2. Learned Judge although dismissed both the writ petitions on 13-11-1992 on the ground that they involve disputed questions of facts, which cannot be decided under Article 226 oft the Constitution, but permitted the appellants to make detailed representation containing all her pleas to the Deputy Director of Education, who will decide the same, after giving opportunity of hearing to the appellants and newly elected Committee of Management, bypassing a speaking order. It was further observed that the Deputy Director will also decide the question as to whether the election has been held in accordance with the Scheme of Administration. Against the above judgment the appellants have filed two Special Appeals. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Basant Prasad Srivastava vs. State of U.P., 1993 (2) UP LB EC 1333, held that this Court should not interfere, under Article 226 of the Constitution, with the electoral process initiated for constituting a Committee of Management at the intermediate stage and the person who may be interested in challenging the election should wait till election is over. In view of this decision it is not possible to entertain the first writ petition (No. 10211 of 1992) which was filed against the notice dated 17-3-1992, passed by the Authorised Controller for holding the election of the Managing Committer. That apart, election has already been held. Its validity has to be challenged now before the appropriate forum. In view of the disputed questions of fact, it is not possible for this Court to go into the validity of the election under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This writ petition and the Special Appeal (No. 526 of 1992) which has been filed against the judgment in the said writ petition, have to be dismissed. 3. As regards the second writ petition (No. 11952 of 1992) and Special Appeal (No. 525 of 1992) filed against the judgment in this writ petition, are concerned, the only question involved therein is as to whether the Government order dated 10-4-1992 passed under Second proviso to sub-section (4) of Section 16-D of the Act, is liable to be interfered with by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. Under Sub-section (4) of Section 16-D of the Act the State Government has been empowered to appoint an authorised Controller for an educational Institution for such period not exceeding two years. Under the first proviso to the above sub-section this period of two years can be extended from time to time for such period not exceeding one year at a time, so however, that total period of operation of the order does not exceed five years. Under the first proviso to the above sub-section this period of two years can be extended from time to time for such period not exceeding one year at a time, so however, that total period of operation of the order does not exceed five years. Under Second proviso, the Government has the authority to permit the Authorised Controller to continue even after expiry of five years until it is satisfied that the Committee of Management has been lawfully constituted. This proviso, which is relevant, is reproduced below:- "Provided further that if at the expiration of the said period of five years, there is no lawfully constituted Committee of Management of the institution, the Authorised Controller shall continue to function as such, until the State Government is satisfied that a Committee of Management has been lawfully constituted." The impugned order dated 10-4-1992 has been passed by the Government under the above proviso, whereby Authorised Controller has been directed to hand over the charge of the college to the newly elected Manager. Normally this Court does not interfere with the satisfaction of the Government, unless its satisfaction is arbitrary, perverse or without any evidence or has been arrived at without considering the relevant material. 5. Appellants filed first writ petition challenging the notice dated 17-3-1992, primarily on the ground that list of members who are to take part in the election has not been notified two months before the date of election and without notifying such a list it is not open to hold the election. Non-Publication of the list of members has not been disputed by the Authorised Controller in his counter-affidavit, although the necessity of such publication has been doubted. This is relevant question which has to be considered by the Government while exercising the power under Second-proviso. 6. The election of the Committee of Management was fixed for 31-3-1992 and this Court by interim order permitted the election to be held, but stayed the declaration of its result. The cast of the appellants is that the interim order passed by the Court on 31-3-1992 was telephonically communicated to the appellants who have informed the Authorised Controller about it, on account of which he postponed the election. The cast of the appellants is that the interim order passed by the Court on 31-3-1992 was telephonically communicated to the appellants who have informed the Authorised Controller about it, on account of which he postponed the election. These facts have been disputed by the authorised Controller in his counter-affidavit, in which it has been mentioned that the election was held on 31-3-1992 and its result was declared on the same day it is not possible for this Court to decide the controversy of to whether the interim order passed by this Court, was communicated to the Authorised controller before declaration of the result. It is however, admitted that certified copy of the slay order was served on the Authorised Controller on 2-4-1992. The Authorised Controller, in paragraphs 19 and 20 of his counter-affidavit, filed in the second writ petition, has stated that he wrote a letter on 31-3-1992 to the Deputy Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh and other officers of the Education Department Informing them that the election has come to an end on 31-3-1992 and Sri Mohan Singh has been elected as Manager. It has further been stated the rein that on he basis of his letter the Government has passed the impugned order on 10-4-1992. On what date the letter mentioned above, was sent, is not clear from the affidavit of the Authorised Controller. It has, however, been mentioned in paragraph 21 of the counter-affidavit of Sri Mohan Singh, filed in the second writ petition that these letters were sent on 3-4-1992. According to his own averment the Authorised Controller has acquired knowledge of the stay order on 2-4-1992. It was his duty to inform the Government immediately thereafter about filling of the writ petition against the election and the interim order passed by this Court. According to his own averment the Authorised Controller has acquired knowledge of the stay order on 2-4-1992. It was his duty to inform the Government immediately thereafter about filling of the writ petition against the election and the interim order passed by this Court. Supreme Court in the case of Mulraj vs. Murti Reghunathji Manaraj, 1967 ALJ 593, has laid down as under:- "An order of stay does not undo anything which has been done its utmost effect if to stop further action in the direction of execution, but it would only have that effect when it reached the court or person whose duty it was to obey it." "Tough the court which is carrying on execution is not deprived of the jurisdiction the moment a stay order is passed, even though it has no knowledge of it, this does not mean that when the court gets knowledge of it, it is powerless to undo any possible injustice that might have been caused to the party in whose favour the stay order was passed during the period till the court has knowledge of the stay order." Although the above observations were made by the Supreme Court while considering the effect of passing of the stay order in the matter of execution of a decree, but the principles laid down therein would be fully applicable to other case also where interim orders are passed in connection with other proceedings. The action taken by the Authorised Controller in the absence of the knowledge of the interim order would thus not be bad, but after he has acquired its knowledge, further action in the matter has to be stopped. As there remained nothing more to be done by the Authorised Controller after declaration of the result of the election and it was the State Government alone which has to take action under the Second proviso on the basis of that election it was Ibis duty to in from the Government about the writ petition and the interim order passed therein. But he failed to do so even though in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition and the interim order passed therein were also relevant considerations liable to be taken into account by the Government while passing the order under the Second proviso. But he failed to do so even though in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition and the interim order passed therein were also relevant considerations liable to be taken into account by the Government while passing the order under the Second proviso. Whether a Committee of Management has been lawfully constituted is a question which cannot be determined without relevant records, such as the Scheme of Administration according to which the election is to be held, list of members who are to participate in it and proof of its publication if such publication is required by the Scheme of Administration, minutes of the election etc. Although the State Government has not filed counter-affidavit but from the perusal of the counter-affidavit filed by the Authorised Controller it is apparent that the only material which was before the Government on the basis of which the impugned order was passed by it, was the letter of the Authorised Controller informing thereby that the election was held on 31-3-1992 and Sri Mohan Singh has been elected as Manager. This is clear from paragraph 20 of the counter-affidavit of the Authorised Controller, in the second writ petition, relevant extract from which is reproduced below:- "That in reply to the contents of paragraph No. 23 of the writ petition it is stated that the deponent wrote a letter on 31-3-1992 to the concerned various officers, informing that the election process has come to an end and only Sri Mohan Singh has been elected as manager. Therefore there was no justification of the Authorised Controller to continue. The State Government taking the notice of the letter of the deponent passed the order on 10-4-1992 by which he was directed to hand over charge to Sri Mohan Singh and he was also directed that after giving charge to Sri Mohan Singh the information may be sent to the Government." 7. It is thus apparent that in the instant case relevant records were not before the Government. It was having only the letter of the Authorised Controller, referred to above, on tie basis of which it has passed the impugned order. Government has recorded its satisfaction without there being relevant material before it. It is thus apparent that in the instant case relevant records were not before the Government. It was having only the letter of the Authorised Controller, referred to above, on tie basis of which it has passed the impugned order. Government has recorded its satisfaction without there being relevant material before it. That apart, the Government was also not having the information and material regarding the writ petition and the interim order, which, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, was also relevant liable to be considered by it before passing the impugned order. Satisfaction of the Government is, thus, arbitrary sand has been reached without considering the relevant material. The impugned order, as such, cannot be sustained. 8. Before parting with the case, it may be mentioned that the learned Single Judge was not justified to direct the Deputy Director of Education to decide the dispute about the election for two reasons firstly, Section 16-A (1) of the Act, which is reproduced below, only empowers the Deputy Director of Education to recognise the Committee of Management of an institution whenever there is dispute with regard to the management:- "(7). Whenever there is dispute with respect to the Management of an institution person found by the Regional Deputy Director of Education upon such enquiry as is deemed fit to be in actual control of its affair may, for purposes of this Act, be recognised to constitute the Committee of Management of such institution until a Court of competent jurisdiction direct otherwise Provided that the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall, before making an order under this sub-section, afford reasonable opportunity to the rivet claimants to make representations in writing. Explanation – In determining the question as to who is in actual control of the affairs of the institution, the Regional Deputy Director of Education shall have regard to the control oven the funds of the institution and over the administration, the receipt of income from its properties, the Scheme of Administration approved under subjection (5) and other relevant circumstances." A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Committee of Management vs. District Inspector of School, 1992 ACJ 505, has held that jurisdiction of the Deputy Director of Education under the above provision cannot be invoked unless there exist two rival Committees of Management. In the present case the dispute was sot between two rival Committees. In the present case the dispute was sot between two rival Committees. Deputy Director, as such, could not have decided validity of the election under the above provision secondly in the instant case what was challenged was the order dated 10-4-1992 passed by the Government the validity of such could not have been decided by the Deputy Director of Education under the said provision. That apart, the Deputy Director of Education, who is subordinate to the Government, cannot decide about the validity of the impugned order passed by the Government. Normally an officer, subordinate to the Government, cannot go into the question of the validity/correctness of the order passed by the Government, unless he has been specifically authorised by the stature. There is no such provision in the Act and Regulations framed thereunder. In view of the above, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge, to the Deputy Director cannot be sustained. Writ petition no. 10211 of 1992 and Special Appeal no. 526 of 1992 are dismissed. Writ Petition No. 11952 of 1992 and Special Appeal No. 525 of 1992 are allowed, the order of the Government dated 10-4-1992 is quashed. The State Government is directed to take decision afresh after summoning the records, under Second proviso to Sub-section (4) of Section 16-D of the Act, within three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before it. Till the Government takes a decision the District Inspector of Schools, Mirzapur, will manage the affairs of the college. Appeal allowed.